WORKPLACE ETHIC #1

Make Up or Break Up? PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND COMPANY POLICY

You had been working as a travel agent for more than a year. You couldn’t believe it when you first got the pink slip in your paycheck envelope. You had been fired! What amazed you even more was that the cause was your refusal to wear makeup on the job. Now you are trying to decide whether to sue your former employer.

You have been talking recently to representatives of the Americans for a Free Workplace (AFFW), a group similar to the American Civil Liberties Union. The AFFW had contacted you to encourage you to pursue a lawsuit for wrongful discharge.

To think, this had happened when all you had wanted was a nice job at a travel agency, to earn a little money, meet people, and work part time so you’d have time to spend at home with Christine, your 3- year-old daughter. At first the whole thing seemed silly, but as you thought about it, you realized there were a number of important rights and principles at stake.

You took the part-time (twenty-five hours a week) job as a travel agent with Cheapo Travel Agency over a year before, partly because it seemed to be a moderate-sized corporation (250 employees at ten national locations) with a sense of humor. “Just look at their name,” you had thought when noting the employment ad in the paper. During your interview, it seemed like just the place you were looking for. The managers you had talked to did have a sense of humor, bad no disagreement at all with your working part time, nor with juggling your schedule to fit the needs of your daughter. They especially liked your previous experience as a real estate salesperson and your manner of dealing with people. They hired you right on the spot.

An employee group, not a union, asked you to join despite the fact that you were only part time and not really eligible for membership. This group did not negotiate contracts or require dues but did consult with management in making policies for the agency and its workers. It was the action of this employee group, however, that led to your firing.

The group had agreed with management that the company’s image needed to be improved, to have a more glamorous and “European” feel. Most of the improvements were matters of changing the names of vacation packages to sound more European, the decor of the offices, and other rather superficial measures. However, at the suggestion of the employee group’s female officers, the company had adopted an appearance standard that included the rule that women employees who deal directly with the public must wear “at least a minimum amount of makeup.” Male employees were required to wear suits and ties that reflected current European fashion standards.

You had refused to wear makeup, saying that you had never worn it in your life, and were not about to start at 36 years of age. On stating ‘our refusal, you had been asked to meet with a committee composed of management and representatives of the employee group. During the meeting, you explained that you had nothing against makeup or people who wore it but didn’t use it yourself and didn’t wish to start using it. One of the managers, Mike Redstone, explained that the policy was meant simply to present a “continental European look” to the customers, giving them a flavor of the style and elegance of France, where most women were known to wear makeup. He added that this was the reason the male employees would wear “French-style” suits and ties. Marge Doctrowe, the employee

group’s president, told you that the idea for the makeup rule came from the group’s executive council, which had suggested the idea to management.

“It was our choice, you see, and you are a member of the group, so you shouldn’t look at this as something the company forced on you,” Marge concluded.

“Do you think I don’t look good enough to sell European vacation plans? Don’t I have a right to dress and look the way I want to look, so long as it isn’t outrageous or harmful to business?” you asked.

Everyone in the group had responded that you are a highly professional worker and an attractive representative of the company. They all agreed, however, that the rule must apply to everyone. When you again declined to adopt the policy, Mike offered you a job confirming reservations and flights, a phone job behind the scenes, but at your normal salary and work schedule. Following your second refusal, the meeting was terminated.

A week later, the pink slip appeared in your pay envelope. You then filed a formal grievance. But the grievance review committee, composed primarily of the same people you had met with earlier, denied the appeal. One member, Bart Lincoln, had been adamant in his defense of your personal autonomy. He argued that requiring makeup seemed to be left over from the old days when “women were expected to be glamorous even on the job.”

You suspected that Bart had contacted the AFFW’s lawyers, who then contacted you to encourage you to file suit for wrongful discharge. The AFFW lawyer, Michelle Permenter, argued that you should file suit because this is an issue of women’s choice and privacy, a matter not just of personal autonomy, but of the rights and freedoms of all women workers. You are not sure you want to go this far, but you do recognize the larger issues beyond your own case.

Should you file the suit? Is this really a serious rights issue, or are you just being stubborn? Are you bound by the rules freely adopted by the employee group and presented by it to management?

Job Insulation 

HEALTH AND SAFETY ON THE JOB

You are a filing clerk at Mainline Construction Company. Mainline’s office is located in an old, converted bank building. The files, with which you work every day, are located in two former bank vaults in the basement of the building. You recently discovered that the vault was lined with asbestos-impregnated wallboard and that the overhead pipes are insulated with asbestos.

As part of the yearly inspection of all businesses, a county inspector cited Mainline for various minor building violations last week. The most serious was the asbestos contamination in the vault. The county gave Mainline nineteen days to clean up the fallen asbestos fibers in the vaults. It also fined Mainline $1,200 for the violations. However, it did not require the company to remove or seal off the asbestos in the wallboard or on the pipes, although it strongly recommended doing so.

The company said that it had complied with the citation by cleaning up the fallen fibers. Beyond that, nothing was planned. A memo from the president’s office stated that “Employees would be required to perform their normal job duties, including entering the vaults when necessary.” The memo went on to note that no employees would be required to move any boxes or perform any activities that could damage the asbestos or release fibers into the air. It also stated that the county citation did not require the areas to be restricted.

You and the other clerks have been talking about the citation and the hazards of asbestos. The group is on the verge of demanding the removal of all the asbestos and backing up the demand by a walkout.

One employee, 68-year-old Rich Potowski, vehemently opposed the walkout. In fact, he said that you were all nuts to be worried about this asbestos scare at all.

“You youngsters are all worrying about nothing. If you don’t bother the asbestos, it won’t bother you. Most of us old guys were educated in schools that used asbestos insulation. Every hot water pipe was covered with the stuff. I don’t see any evidence of an epidemic of lung cancer in my old schoolmates,” Rich argued, rather angrily.

“But what about all those lawsuits against companies like JohnsManville? All those people with cancer who worked there?” you ask.

“Hey, listen, those people worked in very confined areas where the air was filled with asbestos so thick you could cut it with a knife. It’s no wonder they got problems. We’ve wasted millions in this country on asbestos cleanup when the safest thing is just to leave it alone or cover it with a good-quality paint. You know, like in the vaults,” was Rich’s response.

You have heard, on the TV program “This Old House,” that it is sometimes better and cheaper just to let the stuff sit. The real problems occur when it is moved and particles are released into the air.

“Look, the report said it was dangerous to let us into the vaults. That’s the bottom line. Why are they forcing us to go in? I say we refuse,” Lara Mayfield exclaims. “And Rich reminds me of those people who say that if it was OK for their fathers to beat them, it’s OK for everyone. I just don’t buy it.”

“You know how much asbestos removal costs? I would guess about $12,000 for those two vaults downstairs. The company isn’t going to do it unless the county makes it do so,” is Rich’s last remark as he walks out of the lunch room.

As it turns out, Rich is right. The company refuses to do more than the citation demands. This does not include removing the asbestos in the vaults. The president circulates another memo, restating his earlier one. It seems clear that you either have to continue to work in the vault or risk losing your job.

What should you do? Whose advice should you take? How can you best go about deciding the issue? Is the risk too great, or is Rich right?