Dress Code Nonsense.
We don't usually trumpet each and every grievance we file in the on-going effort to ensure that your contract is being honored and enforced, but we believe the company's action is this instance is so "beyond the pale" it cries out for a public airing of the issue.
IAPE is filing a grievance over a "professional business attire" dress code imposed by Dow Jones on the folks in Classified Ad Sales in Irving, Texas.
Coats and ties. Dresses and heels.
And who are we talking about? These folks sell ads over the telephone — and some of those effected have even less contact with the public, spending their day laying-out ads on the computer.
There are no face-to-face sales calls, no client traffic through the office and no contact with the general public. No "public face" at all, but they are still required to work in "professional business attire," which management defined in a memo as, "For men it means a suit or slacks, shirt & tie. For women, it means a dress, skirt or slacks with a nice blouse or sweater."
A suit? A tie? A dress? To talk on the phone?
Look around the room. Anyone wearing a suit? Anyone wearing a tie?
This is a picture CEO of Rich Zannino at a recent investor conference.
He looks good. Dynamic. Confident. Professional. Sharp. But he's not wearing a tie. Sorry, Rich. No tie, no job job answering the phones in Irving.
No one in this company has that stringent of a dress code (not even managers) and it's nonsense that those folks in Irving, Texas are forced to endure one.
The company tells me this dress code was imposed 13 years ago— and the Department Director is adamant: shirts and ties, dresses and heels. To talk on the phone?
I guess we should all be happy that the boss wasn't enamored with the blue vests they wear at Wal-Mart, or thought we'd all look good wearing a kilt.
Dress codes are a subject of mandatory negotiation.. and this is exactly why.