Geez folks I have not had to do this in a long long time............... I declare this dead horse beaten enough~~!!!!! Let this thread die and drop from the front page quickly folks...........no more posts. I did not have the joy of chiming in, as last week I was dealing with the termination of a long tenured employee for drug use........... My $0.02 worth! DJ The Balloonman
I have to agree with "Dasher" on this, tho it seems we are going against the general current of opinion.
It sounds like your CEO is asking that a new/much tighter policy be enforced-- i.e., prohibiting dreadlocks altogether. And YES, I think you are opening a BIG can of worms here.
What other styles, if any, does your workplace prohibit, or want to prohibit? Prohibiting dreadlocks is very likely to have a disparate impact on your black employees-- and so presents a ready-made, prima facie case of discrimination, in my opinion. Why is this one style being singled out for prohibition? Why, for that matter, is this one style being single out as inappropriate or undesirable for the workplace? I can't restrain myself from saying that your CEO's intention, as I read it from your post, sounds suspiciously like he's afraid that dreadlocks will (as Whoopie Goldberg put it) "scare the white people".
Several of our staff wear their hair in dreadlocks-- and personally, I find the style very becoming and tasteful (and, BTW, I'm white).
That said, yes, you have a right to establish reasonable policies around work appearance and attire. And you have the right to change these policies as you see the need. But it's important to establish policies that are not going to have the de facto impact of discriminating against one or a few selected classes or identity groups of emplyees.
You could set a policy reasonably limiting hair length, for example. As long as the standard/policy is administered uniformly across the board for ALL employees, you should be OK. For example, if you establish a hair length policy that all staff must wear their hair above the shoulder, then the same length standard should apply to all: to straight blonde hair same as dreadlocked black hair.
Would this be a bad time to re-visit the whole State/Confederate flag thing? KIDDING! KIDDING! I agree with DJ. This one's run on too long. The question was answered long ago.
Crout and Balloonman: It's odd that neither of you would weigh in during the discussion, yet you both feel it appropriate to jump up on stage and declare the discussion should die. Another alternative would be for neither of you to click on it in the first place. Peace, as was said. x:-)
It might be useful to the discussion, to consider the possibility that the CEO who made this rule is an African American Woman, just for the sake of discussion, or perhaps a Jamaican man. Would we then think the policy less racially motivated. And I am serious when I ask you to consider the possibility that the employer might also prohibit an employee from serving the public while he had a shaved head and wore overalls because he might 'scare the black folks'. I see that as a real possibility. If I owned the business, I would not want to run the risk of alienating either potential clientele group.
I still feel that the policy had no racial motivation, although I can't be sure. I know that in my personal mind, it would not have. If I were running a business totally dependant on the public to make me profitable, I would probably prohibit: Mini-skirts, visible tatoos, facial jewelry other than one pair of earrings, hair beyond the collar for men unless it was in a ponytail, employees would have their shirts buttoned and tucked into their skirt or pants, clean shoes, no dreadlocks (which I still haven't seen defined to my satisfaction), no unkempt beards, no mohawks, no multicolored hair, no shades worn while on duty, and no pocket protectors or glasses taped together with tape above the nose. And I would not care one whit what race the employees were.
Don, a policy of banning natural hair (styled in braids or locks) is stepping beyond the purview of the company no matter the race of the originator. In my mind, it has to do with accepting a racial characteristic. None of us are immune from having "issues" on various subjects.
The emphasis can be on grooming standards rather than a feature which is only altered to conform to (an unwelcoming) society's mores.
Your first two sentences seem contrary, or I'm 'cornfused.' Locks and braids don't have anything to do with race or racial characteristics. My hair is blonde and I wore braids from kindergarten to french braids as an adult. 'Dorothy' had braids. 'Little House on the Prairie' people wore braids. I've always seen braids on all colors of people.
Believe me I do understand! Locks and Braids (when banned by an organization's policy) does have to do with the styles worn primarily by Afro-Americans. To refuse to accept that premise and to address the few whites who wear locks, and everyone who wear braids on straight and/or straightened hair is missing the point (IMHO) and not helpful. That is why I usually mention "natural hair" rather than braids and locks, because it gets to the root (pardon the pun)of the matter -- nappy hair. And yes, it does have to do with grooming -- but does locks (not combed) and nappy hair mean ungroomed? And why?
" but does locks >(not combed) and nappy hair mean ungroomed? And >why? "
I respect your insight and your articulation on the subject. Yes, it does mean ungroomed - to the CEO. The courts will usually back that up.
Dreadlocks can go either way, groomed or ungroomed. The CEO can decide to change his/her policy to allow 'groomed dreadlocks' but that may splitting hairs (intended pun). Just for grins and giggles, watch one of the M. Lee. Smith videos in the 'Ten Danger Zones.'
Am I opening up a can of worms here? Should I try to convince my CEO that he should allow more flexibility with hairstyles? I feel like I'm in a no win situation.
If part of your job is to act as employee advocate, maybe you should look at the CEO's restrictions and make an assessment. Ask yourself if the dress code could potentially violate anyone's right. I don't see it in your post, but who knows better what the CEO's motives are than you or the CEO? If candidates know the code when they're in the hiring process and they don't agree, they can always work somewhere else. It's not you job to get the CEO to relax his/her standard.
I'm sorry, but that's just nuts. There is no "right" to a particular hairstyle. Go look it up if you don't believe me. However, if a company establishes standards for hair and then only selectively enforces the policy that's a whole different ballgame. But the notion that grooming standards are somehow indicative of a corporate-wide conspiracy against a certain race of people is nonsense today. Yes, right now I could go out into the street here in Philadelphia and hear racial comments...in my experience ignorant people are a dime a dozen...but that is a far, far cry from a corporation engaging in systemic racism. Just a few months ago, some of the largest corporations in the United States stood up in the US Supreme Court in support of affirmative action. That gesture would have been highly unlikely just a generation ago. You're always going to see ignorant individuals, but we have come a long way. Okay, I'm off the soapbox. Sorry.
I don't disagree with your major points, but I'm not sure I understand what your position is at all, on the question that was posed 67 responses ago. What's nuts?
Well Crout, let's think about it. What if I had a dress code that requires employees to wear dress slacks as part of a uniform and prohibits the wearing of any sort of headwear and also requires that all employees wear a $400 company issued gold bracelet with company logo and employee name?
Can we agree that such a dress code, if rigorously enforced, would immediately violate the rights of a Pentecostal female, an american indian male, perhaps a fundamentalist Muslim and a member of the Jehova's Witness faith?
To play devil's advocate, Don, are those rights or preferences? The employer has the right to impose certain standards. The ee has the right to hold certain beliefs. Which right takes priority?
Sure it could. Let's say you wanted to hire only blonde females. Now would anyone's rights be violated? Yes, it would clearly have a disparate impact on a few other groups. Unless, of course, there was a bona fide business reason for wanting all blonde females, say for example a "Genius Hotline Service." But then again, most others would fall out during the interview process.
Today, because of this thread, I now know a lot about dreadlocks (and rastafarianism) than I did a couple of days ago when this thread started. I did a lot of reasearch - found out that dreadlocks are common to Celtics, (Ceasar describes the Celts and having "hair like snakes")Asians, Egyptions, King Tut, and Indians as well as Jamaicans and African Americans. So, I have concluded (based on research!) that dreadlocks are not a unique to blacks or AA. I don't understand why AA claim dreadlocks as their own and therefore if an employer wants to ban dreadlocks they must be prejudiced? And no I don't believe dreadlocks are a natural state of hair! (after my research) Yes you can do it naturally and is often called the neglect method - BUT in today's world most people go to great lengths to achieve the dreadlocks look just as a person would,who colors their hair or has it permed and so on. So, again, why can't an employer not allow dreadlocks?
ps. I stopped reading the thread for a while while I did my research and now I will go back and read it entirely. Maybe someone has addressed this already.
Our P&P disallows "trendy" hairstyles. So how do I would I define the "trendy" difference between a George Clinton locks style - so endearingly referred to above as mop head - and that of say, Whoopi Goldberg? How do I tell the George-like employee that his hairstyle is unacceptable, whereas the Whoopi-like style is acceptable?
BTW, a Native American department manager hired a young AA male with locks - the neat WG kind. She read the policy and decided his locks were trendy, and told him to cut them. Without a word to anyone, he did so - went from locks to shaved overnight. Our T&D manager who trained him at orientation about had a fit when he found out the locks were gone and why. The manager now knows to check before jumping on the trendy bandwagon, and the employee knows his locks may return.
The problem with that policy is a trend is not recognized until it is over. Trendy means short lived, tendency, drift, movement, swing. What about mullets? Flat tops (my God they've been around a hundred years - is a flat top a trend?), GI shave, a Pentecostal Bun, The Dyke Spike? I would sure hate to be the 'trend police'. I think the current trend of completely shaved heads is, well, a trend. Would you consider a shaved head a trendy hairstyle, since there is no hair? Think Leslie. Hurry.
Nope we have shaved male heads everywhere! But several years ago one of our waitresses went the way of Sinead O'Connor. We said no, and she had to wear a wig for a couple months while she got enough growth to resemble a hair style. Thank goodness her hair grew quickly. Could she have gone screaming to someone that we were discriminating because of her gender? I suppose, but that's a case I think we would have won. Trendy...hmmmm...lets just say that in a customer service entertainment based industry that caters to seniors, we know it when we see it, and so far it hasn't caused any problems.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-19-04 AT 07:43AM (CST)[/font][br][br]So, in summation, if I dare summate, the general consensus seems to be that it is indeed appropriate and entirely legal for an employer to demand that it's employees not have extreme hairdos like those we have now defined as dreadlocks or locks. This is indeed not a racial issue. And nobody should struggle to make it one. Period. x:-)
While I always strive for consensus because that is my dominant style -- in this matter, Don, I would see you in court. That is how strongly I view this issue.
Hey Dash: Just because one feels strongly about a particular situation does not mean that they are 100% right. To pursue a cause because there is a fire burning in your heart is the wrong way to go about it.
My approach would be to lead by example not by threats.
Don, you singled yourself out with the summation, and I used your name; but my post was intended as a general statement to indicate that business owners/companies and HR professionals must be prepared to rethink this subject. I have found this thread to be overly long, but absolutely healthy. Dissent is certainly alright -- we have explored and exchanged.
To pursue a cause because there is a fire burning in your heart is actually the grandest reason to pursue one. I do believe in modeling the behaviors I expect, although that is not the reason I wear my hair in its natural texture. I do so because it is the way God made me and it is most becoming to me. However, I have spent a lot of time researching and rethinking this subject, and to be perfectly honest, I also do so because it flys in the face of anyone who feels that kinky or nappy hair (pseudo locks/braids) is unacceptable -- and you do not have to be of a specific race to feel that way.
Comments
I declare this dead horse beaten enough~~!!!!!
Let this thread die and drop from the front page quickly folks...........no more posts.
I did not have the joy of chiming in, as last week I was dealing with the termination of a long tenured employee for drug use...........
My $0.02 worth!
DJ The Balloonman
It sounds like your CEO is asking that a new/much tighter policy be enforced-- i.e., prohibiting dreadlocks altogether. And YES, I think you are opening a BIG can of worms here.
What other styles, if any, does your workplace prohibit, or want to prohibit? Prohibiting dreadlocks is very likely to have a disparate impact on your black employees-- and so presents a ready-made, prima facie case of discrimination, in my opinion. Why is this one style being singled out for prohibition? Why, for that matter, is this one style being single out as inappropriate or undesirable for the workplace?
I can't restrain myself from saying that your CEO's intention, as I read it from your post, sounds suspiciously like he's afraid that dreadlocks will (as Whoopie Goldberg put it) "scare the white people".
Several of our staff wear their hair in dreadlocks-- and personally, I find the style very becoming and tasteful (and, BTW, I'm white).
That said, yes, you have a right to establish reasonable policies around work appearance and attire. And you have the right to change these policies as you see the need. But it's important to establish policies that are not going to have the de facto impact of discriminating against one or a few selected classes or identity groups of emplyees.
You could set a policy reasonably limiting hair length, for example. As long as the standard/policy is administered uniformly across the board for ALL employees, you should be OK. For example, if you establish a hair length policy that all staff must wear their hair above the shoulder, then the same length standard should apply to all: to straight blonde hair same as dreadlocked black hair.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Good luck.
I still feel that the policy had no racial motivation, although I can't be sure. I know that in my personal mind, it would not have. If I were running a business totally dependant on the public to make me profitable, I would probably prohibit: Mini-skirts, visible tatoos, facial jewelry other than one pair of earrings, hair beyond the collar for men unless it was in a ponytail, employees would have their shirts buttoned and tucked into their skirt or pants, clean shoes, no dreadlocks (which I still haven't seen defined to my satisfaction), no unkempt beards, no mohawks, no multicolored hair, no shades worn while on duty, and no pocket protectors or glasses taped together with tape above the nose. And I would not care one whit what race the employees were.
The emphasis can be on grooming standards rather than a feature which is only altered to conform to (an unwelcoming) society's mores.
This has to do with grooming. Just Grooming!
>(not combed) and nappy hair mean ungroomed? And
>why? "
I respect your insight and your articulation on the subject. Yes, it does mean ungroomed - to the CEO. The courts will usually back that up.
Dreadlocks can go either way, groomed or ungroomed. The CEO can decide to change his/her policy to allow 'groomed dreadlocks' but that may splitting hairs (intended pun). Just for grins and giggles, watch one of the M. Lee. Smith videos in the 'Ten Danger Zones.'
If part of your job is to act as employee advocate, maybe you should look at the CEO's restrictions and make an assessment. Ask yourself if the dress code could potentially violate anyone's right. I don't see it in your post, but who knows better what the CEO's motives are than you or the CEO? If candidates know the code when they're in the hiring process and they don't agree, they can always work somewhere else. It's not you job to get the CEO to relax his/her standard.
Can we agree that such a dress code, if rigorously enforced, would immediately violate the rights of a Pentecostal female, an american indian male, perhaps a fundamentalist Muslim and a member of the Jehova's Witness faith?
So, again, why can't an employer not allow dreadlocks?
ps. I stopped reading the thread for a while while I did my research and now I will go back and read it entirely. Maybe someone has addressed this already.
BTW, a Native American department manager hired a young AA male with locks - the neat WG kind. She read the policy and decided his locks were trendy, and told him to cut them. Without a word to anyone, he did so - went from locks to shaved overnight. Our T&D manager who trained him at orientation about had a fit when he found out the locks were gone and why. The manager now knows to check before jumping on the trendy bandwagon, and the employee knows his locks may return.
My approach would be to lead by example not by threats.
this thread to be overly long, but absolutely healthy. Dissent is certainly alright -- we have explored and exchanged.
To pursue a cause because there is a fire burning in your heart is actually the grandest reason to pursue one. I do believe in modeling the behaviors I expect, although that is not the reason I wear my hair in its natural texture. I do so because it is the way God made me and it is most becoming to me. However, I have spent a lot of time researching and rethinking this subject, and to be perfectly honest, I also do so because it flys in the face of anyone who feels that kinky or nappy hair (pseudo locks/braids) is unacceptable -- and you do not have to be of a specific race to feel that way.