But if my brain ain't totally shot out I thought we fought all these battles over dress codes and such back in high school. And we won. Didn't we? Remember guys couldn't wear jeans, girls skirts had to be some arbitrary amount of fingers either above or below the knee and they couldn't wear jeans either. Hair and sideburns were regulated and you could, in fact I did, get kicked out of school for violating these rules intended to safeguard our morality. Or at least I am assuming that is what they were for. You know like skirt two fingers above the knee your pure, three fingers and your a tainted women/girl.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there some sort of social revolution back then? A rebellion against forced conformity and suppression of individuality?
Well it seems the control freaks are back with a Vengeance. Evidenced not only by the following fight in Virginia:
Revving their engines for a fight, local motorcycle clubs say they are being unfairly targeted by Virginia's ABC Board for what they wear.
Motorcyclists, who are expected to rally at a Richmond Public Safety meeting Monday night, are trying to appeal to Richmond City Council members to repeal a new State law.
In 2008, the General Assembly passed a bill saying that bars & restaurants could be stripped of their liquor license by allowing groups into their establishments who wear certain gang affiliations or colors.
Motorcyclists say they are victims of this new law ; attorney Michael Weise says that it all boils down to the first amendment; a right he claims is being violated.
Monday night's meeting is being held at the Richmond Police Training Academy. That's located at 1202 W Graham St.
Click Here - to read the bill
But by the ninth circuit court of appeals decision that your employer has the right to tell you to wear make-up :
Dress and Discrimination
By Karen E. Saul
First published in the April 2005 Issue of Credit Union Magazine
Dress codes are common in office and retail environments, but they can be controversial enough to prompt litigation. On December 28, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed a decision upholding a dress code that established different grooming standards for male and female employees. The case, Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Company, provides a good discussion of how federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination apply in the context of dress codes.
Jespersen was a female bartender who worked for nearly 20 years in a Harrah’s Casino sports bar. She was an outstanding employee according to customer feedback forms and supervisor evaluations. Jespersen did not wear makeup because she felt it “took away her credibility” and interfered with her ability to be an effective bartender (which sometimes required her to deal with unruly intoxicated guests). For over a decade, Harrah’s did not object to Jespersen’s choice not to wear makeup and she continued to receive positive performance reviews.
Things changed in February 2000, when Harrah’s implemented a Beverage Department Image Transformation program in an effort to create a “brand standard of excellence.” Referred to as the “Personal Best” program, it imposed specific appearance standards for employees in certain services. All beverage service employees were required to attend Personal Best Image Training, where image facilitators instructed them on how to adhere to the program standards and tested their proficiency. At the conclusion of training, two photographs were taken of the employee (one portrait and one full body) looking his or her “personal best.” The photographs were placed in the employee’s file and given to the supervisor to be used as an “appearance measurement tool.”...................................
Now I understand that when working for an employer in the private sector, for the most part, the 8 hours a day your on the job your is is there's. Please note I said for the most part. My personal opinion is that the gig is a crock of shit. But then if you do not like it, do not work for them or form an effective union.
But when the government starts chiming in on dictating how adults shall dress and where they can or can not go dressed in a particular manner based on no other criteria than your "dress" may raise suspicion and make others uncomfortable then how far can it go...............
All of the above validating a point I have tried repeatedly to make with Motorcycle rights advocates for awhile now. We must cognizant of and willing to fight against oppression of individual rights and freedoms whenever and wherever they raise their ugly heads (usually attached to an ugly politician).
Had we thrown our meager forces behind Jesperson when she was engaged in her fight we may not be in the position where we have to dick around with Virginia today.
Being "ever vigilant" is meaningless if all one does is sit on ones ass while being "vigilant"!
The question does come to mind though, could it be that the passive, peace loving hippies had more stones than the majority of leather clad bikers?Add to Technorati Favorites