YOU thought the fashion police haunted only those with a penchant for flamboyant Italian design? Think again — a growing number of employers are laying down the law over what is, and what isn’t acceptable work attire.
Overall there may be a trend towards more relaxed dress standards in the workplace, but, paradoxically, companies are now doing more to formalise the guidelines they issue to employees.
Dress policies are included as part of the employment contract — rather than informal guidelines — in more than two thirds of companies surveyed by IRS Employment Review (Jan 28). This is an increase of 15 per cent compared with the results of the 2003 IRS survey.
Increasing obsession with image appears to lie at the heart of this sea change. When asked why dress codes have been implemented, 33 per cent of companies said that they wanted to enhance the external image of the company, while 29 per cent said it was to reinforce company culture within the organisation.
Despite the march of that ubiquitous yet oddly nebulous term “smart casual”, a diverse range of employers continue to stipulate that formal business attire should be worn. Business smart might be the obvious choice for a law firm, but it is, perhaps, a fairly recent development for college staff, such as those at South East Essex College. Curiously, this is the same institution that allows facial jewellery to be worn, albeit “discreetly”.
Advertisement
Retailers are particularly hot on dress codes — presumably due to the customer interface — and uniforms are often seen as the solution. Although most of the companies surveyed say that employees stick to dress codes, 27 per cent still find it necessary to police appearance, a task that generally falls within the remit of human resources. But even within companies with a smart-casual policy, clarification is sometimes needed. At Borders, for instance, staff had to be reminded that faded, ripped or ill-fitting jeans were not acceptable.
Some organisations, however, believe that dress codes are unnecessary because employees can be trusted to wear appropriate clothing.
So what are the implications of making appearance a contractual obligation? IRS says that the trend may increase the risk of discrimination claims. Despite legislation that permits claims on the grounds of religion or belief, only 31 per cent of organisations with formal policies make allowances on religious grounds. Several large employers, however, say that attire consistent with religious beliefs or ethnic origins is permissable.
But one has to question the credentials of those who set dress codes. Why, for instance, are chinos regarded as the epitome of appropriate workplace dress, despite the fact that no one really looks good in them? Similarly, why the obsession with forcing women into “neutral” colours and shoes with a “modest”’ heel? If image is really crucial to company identity, why do so many opt for one that negates any spark of imagination or individuality in employees? Anyone who has experienced the purgatory of a navy blazer and company neckerchief knows just how dehumanising a dress code can be.
Advertisement
Anna König is a lecturer in cultural studies at London College of Fashion