Kilt concerns

[Tobus]

This topic comes up from time to time. Despite what you may think, here in the U.S. the kilt is not a 'protected' class of clothing. You are not being 'discriminated' against if you are told by your employer that you may not wear it. Simply put, your employer (even if it's the federal government) has every right to set the dress code, and if that means no kilt at work, then that's their prerogative. There is no legally recognised basis for you to challenge it. This is not an EEO issue.

[OC Richard]

I'm one of many who has his work dress prescribed in detail, so no kilts! Slacks, longsleeved shirt, tie. No getting around it, no 'Hawai'ian shirt Fridays' or 'casual Fridays' like so many companies around here do.

[Father Bill]

I get up in the morning and put on a black shirt & collar, black pants, black socks and shoes and a black jacket.

Wearing "other stuff" is reserved for evenings and special Scottish events because the black is my "company uniform" - something a lot of us have.

[Riverkilt]

I was around when women were told they couldn't wear pants to work. They won that long battle. I see a parallel with men and kilts. I'm hopeful we will prevail in the long run. For sure no fun to anger the boss or risk the paycheck over wearing the kilt to work. Your employer's reaction will give you good information about the company culture. In turn you may choose to move on.

Always fun to do a job interview kilted. Then, if you're hired, you know its okay.

[artificer]

This topic comes up from time to time. Despite what you may think, here in the U.S. the kilt is not a 'protected' class of clothing. You are not being 'discriminated' against if you are told by your employer that you may not wear it. Simply put, your employer (even if it's the federal government) has every right to set the dress code, and if that means no kilt at work, then that's their prerogative. There is no legally recognised basis for you to challenge it. This is not an EEO issue.

↑↑This↑↑

The one exception might be if women were allowed to wear skirts and you REALLY REALLY wanted to be a PITA. You might, possibly, be able to force them to either:

A) allow you to wear the kilt,
or
B) make it so they restrict women to trousers/shorts only as well.

The real question is "Do you actually want to be that big a pain for your boss"? (aka- is it really worth the trouble and inevitable bad feelings you'll generate just to be able to wear the kilt at work?)

ith:

[S Mitchell]

↑↑This↑↑

The one exception might be if women were allowed to wear skirts and you REALLY REALLY wanted to be a PITA. You might, possibly, be able to force them to either:

A) allow you to wear the kilt,
or
B) make it so they restrict women to trousers/shorts only as well.

The real question is "Do you actually want to be that big a pain for your boss"? (aka- is it really worth the trouble and inevitable bad feelings you'll generate just to be able to wear the kilt at work?)

ith:

Yeah, you might want to speak with a union steward. Then, at least, the decision would move up a rung on the supervision ladder.

If women are allowed to wear skirts in your occupational group, you have a fair shot. But, I could easily see management going with option B, above, just to be spiteful.

Or they could argue a kilt, having more fabric than a woman's skirt, is more of a safety hazard around the machines. It is an industrial environment.

In maintenance, here in the Phoenix area, we had permission at one point to wear shorts because of the heat (nationwide maintenance employees must wear long pants) but our manager changed the policy out of spite, due to unrelated control issues with the union, and there's not much we can do about it.

[Tobus]

The one exception might be if women were allowed to wear skirts and you REALLY REALLY wanted to be a PITA. You might, possibly, be able to force them to either:

A) allow you to wear the kilt,
or
B) make it so they restrict women to trousers/shorts only as well.

I was around when women were told they couldn't wear pants to work. They won that long battle. I see a parallel with men and kilts.

If women are allowed to wear skirts in your occupational group, you have a fair shot.

Guys, I don't mean to sound argumentative here, but why do people keep comparing this to womens' skirts, or making it a gender battle? Historically speaking, the battle of women wearing trousers like men instead of dresses was a political battle of equal rights in society (and was tied to suffrage, etc.). That is a whole 'nother ball of wax than what we're talking about here. The kilt is, and has always been, the ethnic clothing of Highland Scots (and to a far lesser degree their descendants, the diaspora). It's not the symbol of a political movement for equality unless you're somehow trying to tie it to some sort of transgender issue, which would be flat out inappropriate for the Highland kilt and for this forum.

Appealing to an employer on the basis of "fairness" when females are allowed to wear skirts but not men, is going to do nothing but create acrimony and problems between you and management. Even if they begrudgingly allow it out of fear that you'll make a stink, you still won't come out a winner. And every time you wear your kilt to work, you'll be reminding them that you forced their hand. They'll be watching and waiting for your kilt to cause problems. Why would you want that negative attention in your workplace, upon which you rely for your livelihood?

I dislike being the lone negative voice when this topic comes up, but I really think it's a mistake to push too hard for kilt acceptance in the workplace. If they have deemed it inappropriate (for whatever reason), it may be worth politely asking about it. But if they state firmly "no", then let it go. Wear the kilt in your off-hours and have fun, but don't make it a problem in your workplace. And for goodness sake, don't turn it into some sort of political rights issue when it's really not.

[artificer]

Guys, I don't mean to sound argumentative here, but why do people keep comparing this to womens' skirts, or making it a gender battle? Historically speaking, the battle of women wearing trousers like men instead of dresses was a political battle of equal rights in society (and was tied to suffrage, etc.). That is a whole 'nother ball of wax than what we're talking about here. The kilt is, and has always been, the ethnic clothing of Highland Scots (and to a far lesser degree their descendants, the diaspora). It's not the symbol of a political movement for equality unless you're somehow trying to tie it to some sort of transgender issue, which would be flat out inappropriate for the Highland kilt and for this forum.

Appealing to an employer on the basis of "fairness" when females are allowed to wear skirts but not men, is going to do nothing but create acrimony and problems between you and management. Even if they begrudgingly allow it out of fear that you'll make a stink, you still won't come out a winner. And every time you wear your kilt to work, you'll be reminding them that you forced their hand. They'll be watching and waiting for your kilt to cause problems. Why would you want that negative attention in your workplace, upon which you rely for your livelihood?

I dislike being the lone negative voice when this topic comes up, but I really think it's a mistake to push too hard for kilt acceptance in the workplace. If they have deemed it inappropriate (for whatever reason), it may be worth politely asking about it. But if they state firmly "no", then let it go. Wear the kilt in your off-hours and have fun, but don't make it a problem in your workplace. And for goodness sake, don't turn it into some sort of political rights issue when it's really not.

It's not about "equal rights" (at least for me, since I can wear whatever the heck I like to work so long as I don't mind it being ruined by dye/glue/etc) so much as it is "Are rules being applied uniformly"? If they are not then there was a possibility of pleading his case. The rational for allowing a skirt but not a kilt would be questionable at best (historical issues aside).

As for whether or not it's ACTUALLY worthwhile pushing for the kilt to be accepted- that's why I ended my last post with the bit you cut out.

The real question is "Do you actually want to be that big a pain for your boss"? (aka- is it really worth the trouble and inevitable bad feelings you'll generate just to be able to wear the kilt at work?)

ith:

ith:

[Tobus]

It's not about "equal rights" (at least for me, since I can wear whatever the heck I like to work so long as I don't mind it being ruined by dye/glue/etc) so much as it is "Are rules being applied uniformly"? If they are not then there was a possibility of pleading his case. The rational for allowing a skirt but not a kilt would be questionable at best (historical issues aside).

Pleading the case to who, though? If management has already made the decision that kilts are not allowed, and there's no law in place that requires them to allow it, then any pleading of the case is going to be nothing more than a losing argument that endangers a person's reputation as an employee.

And again, it's impossible to argue the "uniformity" of rules without going into gender/sex issues. As a manager myself, who is in the process of having to address some dress code concerns amongst my staff (not kilt-related), I could quite easily say that yes, the rules are being applied uniformly. The rules specifically state what's appropriate for men and for women, and those rules are applied uniformly. They are based on cultural and traditional appropriateness in the workplace, and this isn't the correct venue for pushing some sort of new cultural values. To be perfectly clear, there is not now, nor has there ever been, nor is there likely to be in the near future, any expectation that men and women look and dress the same.

If you work for me and you're asking for special consideration just because you like to wear something out of the ordinary, I as an employer reserve the right to say no, it's not how I want this workplace to operate. I pay you to perform work for me, not to treat this as your venue for self-expression of individuality. I may be old-fashioned in this regard, but I'm not alone in thinking that the workplace is where we intentionally hold ourselves to a professional standard, which may be different than how we act or dress in our private lives, for the sake of doing our jobs. If you, as my employee, can't live with that, then there's the door, should you wish to leave, and I wish you luck in your next job. But don't ask me to modify the standard of my workplace, which I'm responsible for maintaining to a certain standard. If I've given it thought and said no, then the answer is no. Trying to plead your case above my head is not going to end well.

I fully admit that my workplace is going to have different rules on appropriateness than others, but the concept remains the same. The dress code for men and women has always been different, and there's no reason they should be the same. Whether it's wearing an earring to work, or wearing a skirt (of any type), or having long hair, or wearing open-toed shoes, or any other issue, there are certain differences between traditional male and female dress codes that some employers will want to hold to. Employees may not agree with it, but managers have their reasons. Managers have plenty of real problems to deal with that affect business, and don't need to have employees creating a fuss over trivial issues like this.

Now don't get me wrong. I'd love it if the kilt were considered normal appropriate men's wear at work (and in society at large). I'd be wearing a kilt all the time. Because to me, it has nothing to do with comparing it to female dress code, and my argument would have nothing to do with that. I'd simply state that it's traditional men's attire, and as long as it's worn tastefully and modestly, it's perfectly fine. But unfortunately, it still does cause quite a stir, and could possibly be disruptive due to the immaturity of others. So I accept that it's not really appropriate in the workplace.

[S Mitchell]

I don't disagree with you Tobus, but . . . (every one has a big but)

The USPS can be a special sort of bureaucratic nightmare of a workplace. It's huge and sprawling.

There may be gender differences in the dress codes for public contact employees, but, to the best of my knowledge, the dress code for plant employees is very non-gender specific. The primary concern is safety, followed by professional appropriateness (sufficiently modest, non-obscene, non-political, etc..)

If it were me, and I were inclined to fight that fight, I'd talk to a steward and feel out the possibilities. It sounds like his supervisor made the decision. Management may or may not agree with it.

The union may or may not even want to fight it. And if he grieved it and it were shot down at step two, the union may or may not be inclined to push it to step three (national level).

In my experience, management doesn't usually hold a grudge against an employee who files and loses a grievance. They often don't even hold much of a grudge against employees who win their grievances. It's par for the course. EEOs, however, are taken more seriously and, perhaps, more personally.

But, every plant is different, and it's better to pick one's battles.

This isn't a battle I'd choose.