Dress Codes and Bullshit

How often have you heard that a male with long hair, anyone with tattoos, someone who wears non-conservative clothing, etc. are "non-conformist", "anti-establishment", or "attention seekers" (these are only the semi-polite words)? Interestingly, that judgement seems to be slipping except among the conservative populace. Hopefully people are beginning to realize that appearance is only a fraction of the person, and none of those things listed above actually say anything more about the person than that specific thing (e.g. he has long hair, (s)he has a tattoo). It's interesting that a common saying is "never judge a book by its cover", but everyone expects the person to look a certain way.

The thing that got me to thinking about this was when Princess brought home her workplace's regional dress code, the other day. Basically it covered everything from head to toe, but not just "dress". It also included limitations in artificial hair colors and haircuts, fingernail polish colors, piercings, and tattoos. I started looking through it and making margin notes, and found some things that pissed me off.

First off, and this wasn't in the regional dress code, is the uniform restriction. Princess is required to wear scrubs. You know those blue pajamas that doctors and nurses wear on TV? That's what Princess wears to work. Guess what management decided about those uniforms? Cartoon characters and the like aren't allowed. They can wear something like a floral pattern, but if they have any with Mickey Mouse or Taz on them they have to stay in the closet, now. So the ones who actually have to deal with the patients that come in with projectile vomiting, explosive diarrhea, alcohol addiction, drug addiction, overly enthusiastic (and I'm being nice here) families, combative (physical and verbal) personalities, and/or every other nightmare that keeps nursing a career for a select few very stoic personalities can't wear a uniform that lets them have a moment to feel some sense of pleasure. Why? Because the executives thinks the cartoons are unprofessional.

Just to warn you, I'm a bit pedantic when it comes to the writing of company policies. When the writer uses phrases such as "neat and clean" and "alter or change", it drives me nuts and causes me to wonder at the intelligence of the writer. Perhaps with "neat" the reasoning they used is it's association with "interesting" or "cool". Unfortunately, that use seems to be in decline, and no one expects it to be used that way in a professional document. So "neat and clean" are redundant. As far as "alter or change"... To alter means to change! Okay, now I've got that off my chest. Let's move on.

Next on the list is Jewelry. An employee is allowed up to four piercings per ear, but no "facial or tongue" piercings. I'm guessing this goes for males too, and they don't say anything about bellybutton, clit or other less traditional piercing locations. Since the only jewelry they allow is the conservative standard of the ear, I'm guessing this has to do with perception. Although, to be fair, I'm sure many conservatives would raise an unpierced eyebrow at seeing four earrings in one ear... especially on a man. The last time I checked though, the number of non-natural holes in a persons body didn't correlate with their competency.

Then we get to fingernails. No fingernails are allowed to "extend any longer than 1/4" inch from the tip of the finger", and artificial nails aren't allowed at all. That I can understand because of safety issues. However the part about fingernail polish has to be a "natural color, and not chipped". I can understand making sure the polish is in good repair, because of patients with open wounds, etc. What I'm trying to figure out is what fingernail polish color is "natural"? All fingernail polish colors are unnatural, even clear. That's the point of nail polish, for crying out loud. I want to know what their basis is for telling their employees that they can't paint their nails.

The next section talks about odors. Body odor, bad breath, strong perfumes or colognes are "unnacceptable". They state those can cause problems with the "well-being and recovery", but the wording is a bit off considering the earlier part of the sentence talks about the "patient or resident". What is the resident recovering from, working there?

The restriction on hair involve "neat and clean" (don't get me started), hair coloring, hair styles, and how the employee can wear their hair. The "neat, clean and trimmed" part is subjective. Whether a particular hairstyle is viewed as such is more about perception than anything else. Hell, the Doctor's haircut can be viewed as unruly (at best) by someone with conservative taste. With hair coloring (not hair color) they expect natural hues. Technically those highlights that are so popular right now could be used as a reason if they are looking to send a particular employee home. Then, they say "spiked hair or semi-shaved heads" are unacceptable. What do they mean by spiked? Hair cut short enough (for me it's about 1" long) that it stands up when you run a comb through it backward, or the longer spikes that were at one time popular in the punk circuit? For the semi-shaved heads I'm assuming that they mean you can't have any 5 o'clock shadow on your pate. So if you shave your head you'll have to take an extended vacation before you come back to work if you don't like it. The next, employees wearing their hair up, only applies to those in patient care areas, and is a safety and patient health issue, so I can understand it.

Next is facial hair, and the only limitation is "neat, clean and trimmed" (again, dammit). On the plus side, since they separated out facial hair from "hair", I'm assuming this means you can color it however you like.

The one that really piqued my interest was the section concerning tattoos. The document said

"Existing tattoos must be covered while at work in a manner consistent with infection control standards and requirements."

Well, I did an online search (since they didn't provide anything saying what those requirements are) and could only find information concerning the practices of tattoo parlors. The only information I could find from the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) was a blog that linked to a topic page concerning the risk of disease and contamination during the tattoo process. All of the information I could find about caring for tattoos after leaving the parlor only talked about keeping a bandage on it for a couple of hours, and then using lotions or ointments. If an infection occurs they advise seeing your doctor, but they don't say much of anything else. Doing a search of NIOSH for tattoo and hospital didn't reveal anything either. I get the feeling that the employer is expecting that they can just tell the employees what they should do and no one will question it. At least, that's the impression I get from the obtuse wording.

The next is a jump to hats. Why they didn't include that with the other outerwear sections I'm uncertain, but it's also vague. The employees can only wear "surgical hats or those with an approved logo". Perhaps an employee can wear one of the approved hats while they're letting their shaved pate grow out.

The final section covers Religious Practices. Basically, it says head coverings are allowed due to the "religious conviction" of the individual, but "any other exception" needs to be submitted to HR. So one group automatically gets an out, but others have to go through the bureaucracy. Granted, considering their tendency to clarify that neat is associated with clean I wonder if religious could mean a strongly held belief? Perhaps if the employee believes that appearance has nothing to do with competancy they could petition for the employer to have aeronautical intercourse with a revolving pastry, and let them do whatever they want with their body.

After the religion section they go through the disclaimer that they "reserve the right to amend, alter or change (stop the redundancy, dammit)" the policy at any time. These clauses irritate the hell outta me. In this case, I suspect that they would change it so they could stop employees from using a loophole or to change it to better meet public opinion. Especially since public opinion seems to drive a great deal of the policy to start with.

So, to all hospitals (and other facilities) who enforce such dress codes for the employees, please stop. If I'm in need of medical care I could care less if the one caring for me is dressed in a grass skirt with coconut bra and sandals, have every possible piercing on their face, wear "fuck-me" red nail polish, bathe in their favorite perfume or cologne every morning, have rainbow hair with 10" spikes (or are showing an 1/8" of hair), have sleeve tattoos on both arms and their face, and/or wear an unapproved hat. I'm looking for someone who is competent at their job.

I'm concerned about going to a hospital that I'm trusting my life with when they seem more concerned with appearance than competency. Forcing someone to follow some arbitray dress code that seems to be based on public bias, stereotypes, and bigotry is as assanine as trying to find the best people for a job by having everyone sign a statement of faith. According to your "dress code" you don't want the best person for the job unless they are willing to conform to some arbitrary list of appearances that seem to meet the majority concensus of public approval. If something is a health and safety issue then it's understandable, but things that have to do with appearance only further the negative stereotypes that society has needlessly ingrained in a populace so they can keep oppressing them.

Hell, if public perception of appearance is what you're striving for, I have a great idea. Instead of having all of the nurses wear pajamas, have them all buy their "uniforms" at Victoria Secret. Granted, most might not find it professional, but you'll end up with a high number of hypochondriac cases. The benefit is that you'll have a high number of repeat visitors, and your staff won't have to be competent.

Want to read more?

Summary only...

Can You Handle the Truth?

In my 10 Questions post question number 5 asked a question about truth.

Am I able to hold what I believe is truth lightly in the interest of dialog?

My answer was "Absolutely not", but the reason for such a vehement answer was the phrasing. The wording came off as asking if the one being questioned is closed-minded, or asking them to be open-minded. However, the more I examined my reaction, the more I understood why. The the words "believe", "truth", and "lightly" along with "in the interest of dialog" were what caught my attention.

Believe
A belief is someone's opinion of what the truth is. Belief can actually be on a scale, much like the Dawkin's scale of god belief. It can go from complete belief to complete non-belief, with varying levels in between. Basically, it's based on the individuals opinion.

Truth
Truth is reality. Where belief is a scale, truth is binary. Something is either true or false.

Lightly
The adverb means to treat with "little weight or force", or "indifference or carelessness".

In the interest of dailog
Adding this to the end seems to imply that the person questioned is being asked to make sacrifices in order to keep communication going.

When you break it down like that it translates as:
"Am I willing to treat my opinion of reality carelessly in order to keep talking to someone?"
Basically, the question seems to be asking if I'm willing to lower my standards in order to keep the conversation going. Guess what? Given that phrasing my answer is still negative, but I change it to "Oh hell no".

As I noted, beliefs (opinions) go on a sliding scale. The more evidence that supports something the more likely that belief seems to be truth (reality). Since my opinion of reality is based on the evidence for my belief someone will need to provide an amount of evidence at least equal to the evidence that supports my conclusion.

The entire reason that I debate a subject is my effort to arrive closer to the truth. Asking me to treat my beliefs carelessly in order to keep the conversation going demeans that effort. If I do have a belief that I'm willing to treat lightly, then that belief isn't important enough to debate to begin with.

If it is necessary for me to lighten up in order to keep dialogue with someone, then that person isn't interested in finding out what the truth is. All they want is for all possibilities to be given equal weight. This negates the reason for the debate to begin with, and also seems to imply that they can't handle the truth.

Want to read more?

Summary only...