Legally kilted

[Alan H]

I come at this from a slightly different angle. Keep in mind that while I have a mortgage, I don't have kids and the Missus is working right now. We're not going to lose the house if I happen to be out of work for a couple of months.

OK, here's my philosophy.....MY philosophy, not necessarily your philosophy. I choose where I work. I'm not going to go work for a financial/investment/venture capital firm. The values system in those places don't align with mine, so I'm just not interested. I'm not going to work in a law firm for the same reason. I'm not knocking people who DO work in those sorts of places, it's just that they're not for me, that's all.

OK, so when I look for work, the process is a mutual interview process. They choose me because they think I'll be able to do what they need to get done. I choose them because I like the people, like the work, the pay is acceptable and the goals of the organization are palatable/desireable to me. They choose me, and I choose them.

And so, nowadays, I don't wear a kilt to interviews, but if the first interview goes well, at the en dof it I tell them that A.) I will be taking off 6 weeks of time without pay in the summer of 1998 (to sail to Hawaii) AND 2.) I will wear a kilt to work 1-2 days a week. That puts those cards on the table, where they are part of the negotiating process. So far, none of the places I've interviewed with the exception of one possibility, have seemed to care about either of them. Certainly everyone expresses mild interest about the kilt and sailing, but doesn't really seem to care very much.

If a place I interviewed did NOT want to allow a kilt, then I wouldn't want to work there. What does it say about the organization if something as inocuous as a kilt is verboten? Why would I want to work there, if I could look for another job for a few weeks, even a couple of months and land myself in a place where I'd be a LOT more likely to be happy?

So what I'd say is if your job is just great in every other way, just that they don't allow kilts, then fine, stick with it. I mean, it's JUST A PIECE OF CLOTHING, not a freakin' religion, right? On the other hand, if the "no kilts" edict is indicative of a mindset/policy stance which affects you in other ways that you don't much like, then maybe it's time for a change in scenery. Your call.

[arrogcow]

And so, nowadays, I don't wear a kilt to interviews, but if the first interview goes well, at the en dof it I tell them that A.) I will be taking off 6 weeks of time without pay in the summer of 1998 (to sail to Hawaii) AND

How do you go back in time 8 years and take a vacation? Inquiring minds want to know.

Adam

[Frank McGrath]

I was in the building the other day and bumped into a Vice-President of the company and when greeting me, he asked where's your kilt and when are you going to wear it to work? I said it's sitting (hanging) in the closet waiting for the summer picnic. As a Field Technician, I get greasy and have to lay on the ground alot. Not conducive to kilt wearing. So, I guess that different jobs have different rules. If there is an opportunity to wear it to work, I probably will. but until then, PANTS.

Frank

[Archangel]

I'd like to address a couple of points in the above post but before I do here's a quick disclaimer:

Disclaimer: Mods don't want politics as part of discussion. However, the question asked in the thread is going to need responses that deal with politial issues. Most of you know my views on some areas: I'll stay academic. When I address Gov't/State conflict, I only mean it as part of the minus in a plus/minus statement. The definition of politics I am using is: society's response to power and change, the struggle between those who have power and those who are trying to change that power. I am not trying to stir things up in this thread, except to help somebody trying to wear a kilt.

Here goes:
Some of the responses here are assuming that there is an overall Gov't policy concerning Human Rights in the US. There is not, unless you are a Federal employee. This is one of the powers that States have kept for themselves. It is the nature of US political change that these powers are changed from the bottom up. That is, a place like Boulder develops a political position and lobbies to have the State match it, once that happens then the State lobbies for a Federal law.

That is a good thing for a number of issues, like State and Gov't cash flow. However, Human Rights needs a top down approach to really work. Boulder's powers are limited by their municipal boundaries. If a Boulder business has any business outside Boulder, the laws do not apply. Boulder's laws on Sexual Orientation are in direct conflict with Colorado's and cannot win outside of Boulder, if that.

In contrast, Canada, and most other countries, have instituted a top down approach. The Feds have set the law for the whole country and told the provinces to comply by matching, or improving, the legislation. This strengthens the weaker party.

All this to, again, say that SB has a real challenge and very limited legal recourse at this point.

Riverkilt, my friend, l'm going to sound like I'm disagreeing with you. I'm not really, I just want to draw out your comparison to women switching to pants in the last century. It's that power and change thing again. Rich women, film stars, could initiate it because they had the power to: ordinary women suffered further abuse for. During the war years, the demand for production changed some of the standards because workers were in demand and employers had to bend. Very Important Point: our economy is the reverse of that today. Workers have to bend. You see the same change earlier with women, bloomers and bicycles following the post Civil war worker demands.

SB is not about to leave a job to go... where...?

So, how to change in a weak worker society? One way is referred to on another thread, kilts are becoming more fashionable. More stars and such are wearing them and that makes it more socially acceptable. Some time after becoming socially acceptable, things become business acceptable. Patience again.

Another way is for those who have the power to use it. People in Riverkilt's position can ask their administration to entrench the okay to wear kilts in the dress code. It's a fun game, to get them to write down something they are already doing, but you use the argument that it protects you in case of a management change. The more this happens, the more legitimate it becomes.

Those of you who are able to have a say in job contracts, have your lawyer write it in someplace deep inside the contract. Hide it in the holiday section. The more in demand you are, the less they will read that part.


Raphael: You've brought up a very important distinction that everybody should learn. I'm not really aguing with you but employment is a right, it doesn't always happen. Removing privilige from that right is the Human Right struggle (e.g., your right to work takes away my privilige of a smaller labour pool).


Chris Webb: here's what you can do, sort of put your money where your mouth is.
You have your own company? Have a press meeting to say that you're putting kilt wearing down as a condition of employment. It will be "weird news" and all, but you will have used your power to set a precedent.
Write down authority to wear a kilt while working into your sales contract, again, they're already giving it to you but now you've set a precedent for the rest of your countrymen.
If you really have started a religion, then take the steps to formalize. The laws aren't stupid, they have a definition of religion that they use for Human Rights situations. You'll need to explore the legal requirements, and build up a membership that is big enough to meet their standards. (btw, the Force reached those numbers in Australia last year, it now has a bit of legal status).


Chris, you're in Texas, the rest are spread out across the US. Take the time to compare your State's Human Rights Laws with Boulders (or Canada's) and see how you are protected. (See how you're protected on other issues, like disability, as well.)

Remember, US legislation is designed to move from a grassroots movement so you all need to take a part.


(Mods: did I do good?)

[Chris Webb]

[QUOTE=Archangel]I'd like to address a couple of points in the above post but before I do here's a quick disclaimer:



Chris Webb: here's what you can do, sort of put your money where your mouth is.
You have your own company? Have a press meeting to say that you're putting kilt wearing down as a condition of employment. It will be "weird news" and all, but you will have used your power to set a precedent.
Write down authority to wear a kilt while working into your sales contract, again, they're already giving it to you but now you've set a precedent for the rest of your countrymen.
If you really have started a religion, then take the steps to formalize. The laws aren't stupid, they have a definition of religion that they use for Human Rights situations. You'll need to explore the legal requirements, and build up a membership that is big enough to meet their standards. (btw, the Force reached those numbers in Australia last year, it now has a bit of legal status).



Archangel,

I don't feel right about 'requiring' my helpers to wear kilts, just sorta goes against my whole 'freedom' thing. However, I do wear kilts every day and consider them a very important part of my company persona. I have absolutely no doubt that I get business by being kilted and have already written about it on this forum.

The Fellowship of the Gitite it is for real. I'd be happy to post a new thread regarding just what a Gitite is. Given that one can be practically of any faith and be welcome in the Fellowship of the Gitite it's very possible that many folks here at xmarksthescot may already be Gitites and not know it.

Given that the founder of the Fellowship of the Gitite, me, wears kilts full time I am willing, with the mods permission, to explain this fellowship in further detail. I'll tell you this, a Gitite above all else will stand by his friends, good times and bad, and will refuse to believe that his personal notions of God and Salvation are infallable.

Tomorrow is Sunday, I'd be happy to apply my very best effort to presenting the Fellowship of the Gitite here on the forum if it could truly be put to good use for any kiltman with a sincere heart to gain more Freedom to wear his kilt in peace. You can't fake being a Gitite, you are or you are not one already ... you just have to know what one is.

Not all Gitites wear kilts, but all Gitites will wear what they want as an expression of the sacredness of personal freedom for both themselves and all others. There is no doubt in my mind that a man who considers himself part of the Fellowship of the Gitite can state, emphatically, a religious right to wear a kilt if wearing a kilt is truly part of who he is.

As for the Fellowship of the Gitite being a legitimate, recognized religion ... well, let's just say that a sudden influx of kilted men staking a claim to being Gitite puts it one big step closer to just that. I'll tell the Gitite tale in the morning ... at the very least it is a very inspiring story found in the Old Testament. Gitites have been around for a very long time.

All the Best,

Chris Webb

[Archangel]

As for the Fellowship of the Gitite being a legitimate, recognized religion ... well, let's just say that a sudden influx of kilted men staking a claim to being Gitite puts it one big step closer to just that. I'll tell the Gitite tale in the morning ... at the very least it is a very inspiring story found in the Old Testament. Gitites have been around for a very long time.

All the Best,

Chris Webb

Okay, you got me. I don't know if you're having us on or not. You made me check my Wycliffe and we have Gittites, Goliath's clan. Some of the clan were responsible for the ark later. I'll look for the new thread tomorrow.