Should Employers Be Able to Force Employees to Wear High Heels?

[Carjosse]

As far as I know knee pads are part of carpet installer gear - but I'm basing on that on remembering seeing workmen install carpet in my parent's home 40-45 years ago. No amount of support is going to do away with the damage of decades of kneeling.

There is evidence that wearing a belt increases diastolic blood pressure, yet many employers, my own included, demand we wear pants that require belts - instead of say sweats - when going to work. Should employers be mandated to let employees, especially overweight ones, wear sweats? How about employees that sit all day. Sitting is bad for your back. Should employers be forced to buy everyone a standing desk? And so on and so on and so on.

High heels are not unusual. Millions of women wear them daily. Given that you have a very uphill battle claiming that their use should be regulated in the workplace.

High heels have been proven to cause negative health effects for the wearer. Sitting is not inherently bad, high heels are. There is no reason to force women to wear things that only serve to harm them. Like I said they already have been in BC and studies and studies show they cause pain and damage to women, there is a very legitimate case of it.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

If a business wants to reduce the pool of qualified candidates by requiring such a stupid thing then I think they should have the right to do so. But then freedom to run one's business the way they want to run it is a large part of where the "libertarian" part of my lean comes from.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

And the ministry would probably recommend that he wear knee pads. You can't justify health and safety violations by just explaining them up front. I can start a company called Harness-less Roofers, doesn't mean I can force them not to wear them because it is part of the brand.

And if a boss or owner or foreman saw the guy rubbing his knees without 80 dollar ergonomic kneepads on then it becomes the boss's, owners, foremans fault.

 

[Gaius46]

High heels have been proven to cause negative health effects for the wearer. Sitting is not inherently bad, high heels are. There is no reason to force women to wear things that only serve to harm them. Like I said they already have been in BC and studies and studies show they cause pain and damage to women, there is a very legitimate case of it.

There's a lot of evidence that points to sitting for extended periods being very bad for you. A couple of examples:

Sitting too long can kill you, even if you exercise, study says - CNN

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/expert-answers/sitting/faq-20058005

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2016/08/17/more-evidence-that-sitting-is-bad-for-us-and-exercise-alone-wont-save-us/

And you didn't address the belt issue

All human activity has consequences to the human body. That's the nature of the beast. This really seems a complete non issue. Don't want to wear heels? There are plenty of places that don't require them. Work for one of those.

 

[Carjosse]

There's a lot of evidence that points to sitting for extended periods being very bad for you. A couple of examples:

Sitting too long can kill you, even if you exercise, study says - CNN

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/expert-answers/sitting/faq-20058005

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2016/08/17/more-evidence-that-sitting-is-bad-for-us-and-exercise-alone-wont-save-us/

And you didn't address the belt issue

All human activity has consequences to the human body. That's the nature of the beast. This really seems a complete non issue. Don't want to wear heels? There are plenty of places that don't require them. Work for one of those.

The belt issue is not proven. And that is why breaks exist, however you are pretty much stuck wearing high heels all the time, breaks are not going to help.

 

[Gaius46]

The belt issue is not proven. And that is why breaks exist, however you are pretty much stuck wearing high heels all the time, breaks are not going to help.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[holbritter]

But this a health and safety issue, high heels are very much a health risk. If just telling the employee about the requirement is sufficient why do we need health and safety regulations at all? Why can't a construction company just say you are expected to do work on a roof without a safety harness?

i don't know. I've never heard of a company forcing employees to wear high heels.

 

[holbritter]

Both cases can potentially end in injury so why not? The point I am making is telling someone about the risk does not negate the risk or the liability. High heels are not required to perform any job, all they do is cause pain for the wearer.

Some wearers. There are many who have no problem wearing them.

 

[holbritter]

That just ignores the health issues of high heels. But I am all for banning gender specific dress codes requiring skirts and low-cut tops, if Hooters want to impose that dress code male staff must wear the same thing.

They are called Hooters for a reason. I don't think they have male waitstaff

 

[holbritter]

I guess you don't dine at Hooters much, they wear comfy shoes

I know that. It was to be an example of a uniform that anyone going for a job would know they will be wearing a low cut shirt and shorts.

 

[nota bene]

i don't know. I've never heard of a company forcing employees to wear high heels.

I used to. I even was present once when somebody was chastised for not wearing pantyhose (physics Ph.D. wearing your standard navy suit--jacket and straight skirt--with low-heeled navy pumps).

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I don't know about this one. I can see it for like offices, or whatever where footwear would not impact duties. But there are whole industries centered around and dependent on presenting an image, and they hire to fit that image accordingly with the expectation that they have direct input in said image, as long as they employ on a voluntary basis that's between them and the employee. Does anyone know if workman's comp covers injury for people that get hurt from wearing heels required by the employer? If it does, then this is a pointless law.

 

[jamesrage]

I was reading The Globe the other day and I came across this article, an Ontario MPP has put forward a bill that would ban:


Mainly targeting employers who force women to wear high heels. Similar legislation was passed in BC earlier this year. The reasoning is that high heels are unsafe and often lead to foot pain and damage in employees forced to wear them for hours on end. There is also the case of discrimination, men are not forced to wear high heels so why should women?

I have to agree as someone with very flat feet wearing the wrong kind of shoe can cause great pain, especially after standing for hours, I could not imagine doing so in something even worse for your feet like high heels which cause problems even without existing foot problems.

I say it depends on the job. Like if its a business that caters to a crowd that is into women wearing high heals then yes the employer should be able to tell their employees they have to wear high heals. Much like if a woman wants to work at Hooters she has to wear the Hooters t-shirt and orange shorts of if someone works for Fed Ex or UPS delivering packages then they got to wear those uniforms. Now of the business isn't catering to a niche crowd then no the employer should not be allowed to require their employees to wear high heels.

 

[Mason66]

I'd say it matters on the job and the reason.

For the pretty much any normal office job I'd say no. There's not reason you could prove someone needs to wear high heels to do the job.

I seriously doubt there has ever been a case where the female employees of an office were required to wear high heels.

 

[radcen]

But this a health and safety issue, high heels are very much a health risk. If just telling the employee about the requirement is sufficient why do we need health and safety regulations at all? Why can't a construction company just say you are expected to do work on a roof without a safety harness?

Then so are shoelaces.

 

[Bodi]

I was reading The Globe the other day and I came across this article, an Ontario MPP has put forward a bill that would ban:


Mainly targeting employers who force women to wear high heels. Similar legislation was passed in BC earlier this year. The reasoning is that high heels are unsafe and often lead to foot pain and damage in employees forced to wear them for hours on end. There is also the case of discrimination, men are not forced to wear high heels so why should women?

I have to agree as someone with very flat feet wearing the wrong kind of shoe can cause great pain, especially after standing for hours, I could not imagine doing so in something even worse for your feet like high heels which cause problems even without existing foot problems.

If it part of a uniform that the employee knows they have to wear at hiring... yes.

 

[Bodi]

But this a health and safety issue, high heels are very much a health risk. If just telling the employee about the requirement is sufficient why do we need health and safety regulations at all? Why can't a construction company just say you are expected to do work on a roof without a safety harness?

Not related at all...

Both cases can potentially end in injury so why not? The point I am making is telling someone about the risk does not negate the risk or the liability. High heels are not required to perform any job, all they do is cause pain for the wearer.[/i]

Shorts or pants can catch a corner of a desk tripping a person. A shirt can get caught in an elevator leading to strangulation. Cmon... get real. High heals are not related to a safety harness.

 

[Fishking]

I was reading The Globe the other day and I came across this article, an Ontario MPP has put forward a bill that would ban:


Mainly targeting employers who force women to wear high heels. Similar legislation was passed in BC earlier this year. The reasoning is that high heels are unsafe and often lead to foot pain and damage in employees forced to wear them for hours on end. There is also the case of discrimination, men are not forced to wear high heels so why should women?

I have to agree as someone with very flat feet wearing the wrong kind of shoe can cause great pain, especially after standing for hours, I could not imagine doing so in something even worse for your feet like high heels which cause problems even without existing foot problems.

Employers should be able to enforce whatever kind of dress code they want. No one is forced to work there.

 

[Fishking]

Seems like an open and shut case.... Empoloyer makes you wear high heels... Employee sprains ankle.... Employer now owes lady money. Especially if it becomes a chronic injury whether she is faking or not.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. By agreeing to work at a place you agree to their dress code standards. In other words, your rights to sue would be waved.

 

[TurtleDude]

Depends on the job, and if it was told to you before you took the job. For instance, you apply and accept a job at Hooters, be prepared to wear the 'uniform'

yep... the employee injured would get workers' comp. I doubt someone could say apply for the playboy club and demand not to wear the bunny-bustier etc.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ok, for the most part I agree, but I don't think places like Hooters hire flat chested wallflowers wearing Dr. Scholls. If the standard is existent, then the hiree would be aware and could refuse the job. Plenty of jobs like that.
From the article

Middle ground?

I used to date a girl who served at a TGIF back when female servers mainly wore black miniskirts paired with red, white or black tights. One lady server asked to wear trousers which was granted. of course she then started complaining she didn't get the same tips as my GF who, being a serious tennis player, had the sort of legs that looked really good in tights. at another place I used to attend, the male bartenders complained about female bartenders wearing minis since the female bartenders got better tips. this problem was solved when the bartenders on duty for a given shift would split the tips down the middle-after that the male bartenders encouraged their female coworkers to wear as short a skirt as they could get away with

 

[Fearandloathing]

I was reading The Globe the other day and I came across this article, an Ontario MPP has put forward a bill that would ban:


Mainly targeting employers who force women to wear high heels. Similar legislation was passed in BC earlier this year. The reasoning is that high heels are unsafe and often lead to foot pain and damage in employees forced to wear them for hours on end. There is also the case of discrimination, men are not forced to wear high heels so why should women?

I have to agree as someone with very flat feet wearing the wrong kind of shoe can cause great pain, especially after standing for hours, I could not imagine doing so in something even worse for your feet like high heels which cause problems even without existing foot problems.

Gee, I wonder how fashion models will appeal wearing flip flops on the runway.

Now there is a fad that makes me want to heave.

 

[Moderate Right]

I’m not real sure on this one. Seems like it’s part of a uniform. Men’s and women’s dress codes are often different. Women may be required to wear skirts or dresses. And nylon stockings. Men probably not. What if steel toed boots hurt your feet? Should you not have to wear them on a construction site as part of a crew? What if a hard hat gives you a headache? Scratch the hard hat? I’m twixt and tween on this...

Finally, someone with some sense.

 

[Former GOP]

Employers have the right to enforce a dress code and most of them do. If heels are part of the dress requirement for women, then women who are bothered by this should find another place to work.

 

[antiquity]

Its called an employer dress code....an employer has ever right to set a dress code. Like wearing protective gear or an uniform like in the fire department, police department or the military. I see no difference in either dress code.