It was reported last year that the employees of a company are suing over the company's dress code. I look back over a long working life (I started about 50 years ago), and I have had multiple jobs that required uniforms. I was never given or gifted more than one item (usually a shirt or hat) at any of those jobs, and I worked in several that had dress codes I had to meet out of my own pocket.
This story is likely newsworthy because the employer is well-known: Starbucks. The company has reportedly retreated from a laissez-faire requirement of green aprons with essentially anything else to a more uniform, well, uniform. Employees are upset by the change, and they want the courts to arbitrate their differing perspectives.
The employees are now required to wear a "solid black shirt," collar optional, with "midriff and armpits" covered. Not a huge imposition (one hopes). Each employee was given "two shirts at no cost” but was responsible for their own trousers or an alternative.
A six-pack of reasonable quality black t-shirts runs less than $25.00 (small to double X). If two shirts are a laundry-cycle burden, additional shirts are a reasonably cheap solution.
The trouser requirement is "khaki, black, or blue denim bottoms without patterns or frayed hems or solid black dresses that are not more than 4 inches above the knee." Note that the dress option takes care of the shirt and trousers.
Trousers for women are available for less than $20.00 per pair, and men's for less than $10.00. Some will see this as a reasonably inexpensive requirement. There is likely someone, somewhere, who has no jeans already, but perhaps not many of them? At work or not, people tend to wear pants.
The footwear requirement is no more arduous. The employee can wear "black, gray, dark blue, brown, tan, or white shoes made from a waterproof material."
The article notes an employee who was told she could not wear "Crocs" and "had to go to three stores to find a compliant pair (of shoes) that cost her $60.09." A quick Amazon search found 48 options under $40.00. A Walmart search returned multiple similar options, some as low as $26.00. The Crocs website suggests those comfy slip-ons are similarly priced between $25.00 and $60.00. They are easily cleaned but not waterproof (they have holes in the tops).
The company also will not allow "face tattoos or more than one facial piercing. Tongue piercings and 'theatrical makeup' are also prohibited." Believe it or not, there is a portion of the population (about 66%) that does not find face tattoos appealing. Some people do not care for facial piercings either. I recall a time when any publicly visible tattoos would likely sink an interview in any event.
I ran into a law firm hiring partner several years ago. She expressed shock at the accoutrements one of her attorneys had presented with at work. She noted bluntly that "lawyers don't wear bull rings in their noses" and was otherwise not very complimentary. She wondered aloud why the attorney had not presented that way for the interview.
I similarly once heard a lawyer comment about a restaurant in which many employees are very tattooed. The impression shared was not favorable, to the point of not eating there. Some will see such piercings and decoration as a personal expression; others will view them as representing the business. Whether either is right or wrong, the reality is that perspectives will differ.
Undoubtedly, there will be those who are attracted to or repulsed by a variety of things. Cracker Barrel recently learned that consumers can react to the decor of a building or even a logo. Why should the decor of the team be immune to such a reaction? I am not a big fan of ties and jackets, but I wear them for proceedings. No employer ever bought me either, but all expected I wear them.
The Starbucks litigation is interesting. There are broad allegations that the dress code used to be more casual. One case asserts that the old dress code "was also loosely enforced." That is an intriguing proposition in itself. That some prior loose enforcement would matter in a rebranding effort suggests some belief that employees have a property right of some kind in not only the job but the job as they have become accustomed to it; in the rules, but also in the degree of enforcement?
The litigants find the company's dress code "extremely tone deaf," and a requirement that employees "completely redesign their wardrobe." They lament not being allowed "to express (themselves) with colorful shirts and (multiple) facial piercings." One lamented that the workplace "looks sad now that everyone is wearing black." Sad is a matter of perspective; likely, it is much akin to beauty and is in the eye of the beholder?
The lawsuits are proceeding on the basis of "state laws that require companies to reimburse workers for expenses that primarily benefit the employer." One also includes claims under a state law that "prohibits employers from imposing expenses on workers without their written consent." Several have sought reimbursement, including one who "requested $10 for the cost of removing a nose piercing." Ouch. Who knew they could not just be taken off like an earring?
The outcome of the lawsuits will be interesting. There are issues here of corporate identity, uniformity, and customer perceptions. There are arguably issues of safety; footwear in many environments is critical to preventing slips, remaining dry, and stability. But it is, overall, a simple question of whether and when an employer has any modicum of premises or image control, and at what cost (any cost will become an element of your cup of coffee).
Like workers' compensation, the answers to such questions may depend on state law requirements. California is reputed to be among the most protective, requiring that the employer reimburse "all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee" that are directly related to the work. That is broad enough to perhaps include bus fare, laundering clothes, and more.
And the outcome of such claims may be influenced by the reasonableness of the cost, the wage level of the jobs, and more. There may be a real distinction between requirements for $4.00 t-shirts and $80 designer jeans. There may be a distinction between those who work for $17.00 to $20.00 minimum wage, and those who earn more.
And, before it is over, the employer may be responsible for paying employees for the time it takes them to change into these clothes, and the expense of cleaning these clothes.
The expense is an issue that more readily harkens to workers' compensation. The original intention of those laws was that the cost of injury caused by a business should be borne by that business. That pronouncement ignores that, in the end, that expense is borne by the customers of that business. In all, that is not such a bad policy, as it encourages safety and promotes the success of the employer and employee alike. Perhaps that is different from appearance, perhaps not.
As the socialistic draw of workers' compensation expands, however, and the employer becomes responsible for injury "at work" that is not necessarily caused by or related to work, that expense is likewise borne by the consumer. Similarly, as the expense of uniforms, cleaning, or bus fare becomes the employer's, the logic may be as readily questioned.
