UK News
Insights from the UK and beyond
Should stiletto heels be banned in the workplace?
A call by the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists asking employers to work with unions to conduct risk assessments and if necessary allow workers to replace high heels with comfortable shoes in the workplace created a controversy this week.******Unions passed a motion at the Trades Union Congress conference demanding that women have the right to comfortable footwear in the workplace.******Defenders of the stiletto claimed that unions were attempting to ban the shoes in the workplace, but the podiatrists defended their position, stating that high heels can cause such foot problems as blisters, corns, calluses, damaged joints, knee and back pain.******Some women argue that stiletto heels give them a power advantage in male-dominated workplaces because the shoes make them appear taller and enhance their sex appeal.******Others consider the shoes demeaning and symbolic of the sexist subjugation of women and their health to satisfy male whims and fantasies.******What do you think? Should stilettos be banned in the workplace?
Maternity leave – has it reached the tipping point?
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission says the extension of maternity leave to 12 months for each child age could be working against women, rather than for them, because employers are thinking twice before hiring or promoting them.
Concerns were reinforced earlier this year, when businessman Alan Sugar was reported as saying many employers discarded CVs of women of child-bearing age.
The commission wants men to be given more parental rights in an attempt to break stereotypes.
The Federation of Small Businesses has called for a “reality check” on parental leave and wants a stop on legislation that is moving “too fast and too furious”.
Do you think legislation has gone too far in favour of leave? Or do you think more needs to be done to enable both parents equal responsiblity for caring for their family?
Ironically, this new right of maternity leave will only benefit childless lesbians, or women too old to bear children.
It will, unwittingly, do more damage to the ‘women in the boardroom’ ethos than anyone could imagine simply because women have wombs and employers have a choice.
Some firms genuinely do not have the resources to cope with this legislation and so will start, if they haven’t already, to practice a form of negative discrimination by excluding women below 45.
This is wholly unjust, of course, but impending and inexorable in a world where cashflow is a fixated problem.
Certainly, parents should be given the choice that either parent could take up the new maternity leave right.
I do think that small businesses do have a genuine problem with resourcing and coping with maternity leave.
What happens if the pregnant employee is a key member of staff?
What happens if they have to make redundant or ask to leave someone who is doing an equally good job, when the mother returns?
Employing one person these days takes a large chunk of cash added to training costs and other expenses. It’s a real issue.
It’s a tough call and I think employers have been pushed into a corner where they will be using discretionary judgements based on their fiscal and staff situation and not on their feelings of responsibility towards motherhood.
They are only human, after all.
-
The Wall
It never ceases to amaze me how many people there are who are so spoiling for a row or for the opportunity to be offended that they can scarcely bother to listen before they jump in with both feet to give battle. Here are the relevant phrases from the first two paragraphs of Julie’s article (emphasis mine with ALL CAPS) that make clear the intent of the parties (the Society and the trade unions) involved:”…and if necessary ALLOW workers to replace high heels with comfortable shoes…”"Unions passed a motion at the Trades Union Congress conference demanding that women HAVE THE RIGHT to comfortable footwear…”As an aid to the logically impaired: What these phrases imply is that the current dress codes at some workplaces do not ALLOW women THE RIGHT to “replace high heels with comfortable shoes,” and the Society and the unions want women to “HAVE THE RIGHT to comfortable footwear.”Julie then goes on to tell us that “Defenders of the stiletto [the preceding paragraphs indicate that "the stiletto" was not under attack in the first place] CLAIMED that unions were attempting to ban the shoes in the workplace,” so that they could then blame men for the necessity of wearing them to gain competitive advantage. She then contrasts these “defenders” against “others” with the worn-down-at-the-heels argument that they “consider the shoes demeaning and symbolic of the sexist subjugation of women and their health to satisfy male whims and fantasies.” Men are, of course, at fault in either case (always handy to have one about, isn’t it?).(To this last argument: 1) Fashion historians have mostly settled on Queen Catherine de’ Medici as the first person to wear heels as a fashion statement [she commissioned them from a cobbler, who adapted them from the chopine, which was also worn by women]. 2) When women decided they wanted to wear trousers, the fashion industry [and the rest of society] were forced to adapt; the same would obtain if women didn’t want to wear heels.]All of this Julie placed under the provocative banner headline, “Should stiletto heels be banned in the workplace?” and blog-spaces are filled with comments about interfering busybodies who want to regulate everything. It seems that the headline was so effective that most people just couldn’t get past it. Tsk, tsk, tsk…