D7666  wrote:

>On Jun 27, 11:09 am, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
>wrote:
>
>> As an example, Electronics Data Systems (UK) Ltd (that's EDS) who I
>> used to work for had a history that started life as "UNILEVER COMPUTER
>> SERVICES
>
>I thought EDS was a GM company ?
>
>Or was that another phase of its history.
>
>I applied to EDS once for a job in Milton Keynes. I had a beard then
>(as I do now). They told me if I accepted any job offer I must always
>be clean shaven. They did not offer me a job; and I'd have rejected
>them had they done so.


I was once advised by an employer to shave off my beard.  I grew it
longer in protest.  I also grew my hair to shoulder length.

I still have pictures, and I am only just about recognisable.  ;-)

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:03:53 +0100, D7666 wrote
> 
>> I was once advised by an employer to shave off my beard.  I grew it
>> longer in protest.  I also grew my hair to shoulder length.
> 
> I'd be tempted to do the same and/or take them to court as infringing
> my individual rights, just like any other predjudice against a
> minority group.

There's nothing wrong with an employer suggesting that personal 
appearance/demeanour is holding back your career for a valid reason. 

I'm not sure that having a beard counts as valid but in some businesses, 
certain roles call for certain standards of presentation.  At the simplest 
level this might involve suggesting that an employee who habitually wears 
ripped jeans and dirty trainers to the office might need to wear a clean 
shirt and a suit before being assigned a customer-facing role.

When I was an employer I'd have had no problems with gently advising someone 
that I was unable to assign them a customer facing position due to their 
standard of dress or personal presentation.

Stimpy  wrote:
>
>When I was an employer I'd have had no problems with gently advising someone 
>that I was unable to assign them a customer facing position due to their 
>standard of dress or personal presentation.


But we aren't talking about staff having a slovenly appearance.  We
are talking about a personal decision to have facial hair.  There is
nothing remotely unacceptable about a neatly trimmed beard, whether in
a customer facing position or not.  

One can only speculate about such employers' attitudes towards race,
religion and/or skin colour.

Stimpy wrote:

> When I was an employer I'd have had no problems with gently advising
> someone that I was unable to assign them a customer facing position
> due to their standard of dress or personal presentation.

Whether you would have had problems could be up to the person you were
gently advising. If there was no stated expectation in the contract of
employment with regard to personal presentation, then you could easily
find yourself in a tribunal. OTOH, if the contract did state the
required standard objectively and it was not being met, then you would
of course be entirely correct to draw this to the employee's attention,
and to take appropriate action if nothing was done about it.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633069.html
(50 018 under the imposing cliffs at Dawlish, Sep 1984)

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:43:30 -0700 (PDT), D7666 
wrote:

>If one allows turbans, which often go with beards, one must allow
>beards full stop. Else the comnpany is infringing individual rights. I
>accept there are certain safety areas where a turban is inapproproate
>headware where safety helmets are needed, and a beard could get in the
>way of machinery or  perhaps food preparation, but in all other cases
>where there is no H&S impact it is a wholly shit company that thinks
>they could carry on such archaic policies.

They don't any more; they now have (like other similar companies) a
largely business-casual approach on their own sites.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:43:30 -0700 (PDT), D7666 
> wrote:
> 
>> If one allows turbans, which often go with beards, one must allow
>> beards full stop. Else the comnpany is infringing individual rights. I
>> accept there are certain safety areas where a turban is inapproproate
>> headware where safety helmets are needed, and a beard could get in the
>> way of machinery or  perhaps food preparation, but in all other cases
>> where there is no H&S impact it is a wholly shit company that thinks
>> they could carry on such archaic policies.
 >
> They don't any more; they now have (like other similar companies) a
> largely business-casual approach on their own sites.

In the technology and related industries, could it simply be that it 
would be difficult to recruit good staff with that sort of policy these 
days?

A few people I've known have looked at the "all our staff wear suits" 
sort of companies, and then told them where to stick it. If a company 
wants people like maths graduates, they probably aren't going to get 
them with rules like that. And the people who do enjoy that sort of rule 
probably aren't going to be at the most successful or interesting 
businesses anyway.

Having a beard or not wearing a tie doesn't seem to be an impediment at 
the top of the rail industry :)
-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK