Should workplace rules be applied equally across the board?

[Chazmatazz269]

I’ve had many jobs. A few stood out for their discriminatory rules and/or selective application of the same. McDonald’s, for example, had rules against males with facial hair, long hair and earrings. Women were permitted to wear their hair as long as they like, stud earrings but not dangling, and at least one woman i worked with had a clear mustache. Is that fair in your opinion?
Why are men not allowed to wear shorts in some work environments where women can wear skirts? Legs are legs. Either it’s okay to bare them or it’s not. Am i right?
Do you approve of blatantly discriminatory workplace rules, or do you think all rules should be applied equally across the board?

Updates

4 mo

Education and career; which brings up another valid example. Sometimes skools have similarly discriminatory rules.

[AviatorTom]

Males and females are not equals, never have been and never will. Different rules for different people are perfectly reasonable, so long as they do not discriminate against a legally protected group.

[Chazmatazz269]

The abiding interpretation of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that all citizens shall be treated equally under the law. Business owners on US soil are not above the law and therefore do not get to create workplace rules outside of the law. I’m not objecting to separate restrooms because “men and women are different”. In as much as equal pay for equal work is an issue in this country, forcing your male employees to do difficult and dangerous work while giving females easy and safe jobs is intrinsically discriminatory. Dress codes that permit long hair on women but require short hair on men are in fact discriminatory. Men and women are indeed different. However, both men and women can and do grow hair, and some men and women prefer their hair long. Therefore there is no legal or function of the job justification for women allowed to wear long hair and requiring men to wear theirs short. No place in the country would be allowed to require that their female employees cut their hair short like men as a matter of dress code.
Suggesting that “men and women are different” as a justification for plainly unfair policies and practices is nothing short of a copout.
The 14th amendment and “equal pay for equal work” demand uniformity of application of workplace rules.

[blackeagle007]

Imagine a guy with a skirt. Really?

[AviatorTom]

@chazmatazz269 The 14th amendment does not guarantee that all citizens shall be treated equally. It requires "equal treatment of the laws." Whatever the law is, everyone must be treated the same, based on each specific law. It doesn't say that laws cannot be made to treat people differently based on sex, for example,

by the way, the main purpose of the 14th Amendment was to end slavery, and ensure that slaves are treated no differently from free men. When it was passed, women did not have the right to vote, and the 14th amendment did nothing to change that.

[exitseven]

I worked in state government. There were people there that were connected to politicians and othr bigshots. Thry got hired for good jobs with big salaries and were complete morons. A True Story: I installed a computer system on the desk of a new deputy director of diversity and I asked her if she had any questions. She asked me where that solitaire game was.

[Jersey2]

I saw diversity bring in morons. The tide has turned though. Trump just fired over a hundred thousand of these useless people and big businesses have stopped hiring so they won’t knock on their door.

[exitseven]

@Jersey2 Joe Biden hired 1.1 million people in 4 years , mostly to bolster his jobs numbers. Trump has fired 260.000 of them. So far. He is draining the swamp

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[Noredcarpet]

I agree. I think the reason they made the rules was because they back in the day when they came up with them symbolized something different as to when we look at the rules today we look at them from a hygientic perspective then yes of course it should be the same. And I have seen guy use clothes for the females at the work place as he was forbidden to wear what he should have in my opinion if he was a guy, it was too hot, summertime. Perhaps those who make the rules after they retire they just hand over the same dusty rules to the next ones who will never know what it is like to work like that, no reality check, and who doesn't care or look through it only through old conservative ways. Proberbly screams out of fear and run the other direction if they see a guy with long hair or tattoos and don't get how mainstream it is, lol.

[Twalli]

Gendered rules can't be equal. You can say no skirts and say it's fair, but the number of women who have skirts versus men is probably over 99-1.

[msc545]

Yes and no. Some rules should be applied equally, while others are unique to certain work situations or certain aspects of a person's gender or job. Allowances for these things should be made.

[Chazmatazz269]

Please suggest some examples of discriminatory rules or selective enforcement of rules that you find acceptable. I can’t think of any that i find acceptable off the top of my head.

[Jersey2]

Don’t work for those that you don’t like their rules. This was decided many years ago in court. Companies can do this, even Hooters. Don’t like it? Don’t work there. They also know what their customers want, so its not just the employer.

[Chazmatazz269]

You’re only half correct. Since the question is about workplace rules and not hiring practices, you’re actually way off. You can’t force a company to change their rules to hire you. But a great deal of precedent exists to demonstrate that once employed, your employer has an obligation to apply the rules equally and fairly. You are not required by law to find a new job when your employer discriminates.
Look at Phillips v Martin Marietta, Griggs v Duke Power, Alexander v Gardner-Denver and McDonald v Santa Fe Transportation. There are also cases that fly in the face of your “just don’t work there” nonsense. McDonnell Gouglas v Green, Espinoza v Farah Manufacturing, and Franks v Bowman Transportation all affect unfair hiring practices.

If you’re going to spout crap about what “was decided many years ago in court”, you should really be more knowledgeable on the applicable laws and precedents. Otherwise stick to your opinion on the matter.

[Jersey2]

Who TF would hire you. I mean really. Anyway here is what Grok AI says which affirms what I just said:

“ Yes, in the US under federal law (Title VII), employers can generally enforce different dress/grooming rules for men and women even after hiring, provided the standards are roughly equivalent in burden, applied consistently, and don't impose unequal hardship on one sex.

Federal courts have historically upheld gender-differentiated policies (e. g., men required to wear ties/short hair, women allowed longer hair or skirts) if they align with community standards and avoid reinforcing unlawful stereotypes or disparate impact.”

[Daytoday79]

Applied equally.