- Lancaster, Calif. Mayor R. Rex Parris proposes that city ban employers from requiring male employees to wear neckties [Laura Newberry, L.A. Times]
- Reasons to settle employment-law claims: “It’s Not the Damages, It’s the Attorneys’ Fees” [Daniel Schwartz]
- “Court Ruling Casts Constitutional Doubt on State and City Salary-Inquiry Bans” [Marc Dib, WLF; related here, here]
- I’m quoted hailing Supreme Court ruling on workplace arbitration [Jeff John Roberts, Fortune]
- Federal labor regulators versus local food truck operators [Ira Stoll]
- “What is happening to French labor law?” [Tristan Bird, On Labor]
Filed under: arbitration, attorneys' fees, France, wage and hour suits, workplace
9 Comments
I think the real evil is pants. I think Calif. Mayor R. Rex Parris should propose that city ban employers from wearing pants. And I think he should lead the way by not wearing pants himself. Because wearing pants is pants.
Bob
Clip-on ties won’t restrict blood flow.
Isn’t requirements for men to wear ties gender discrimination? What if they prefer an off the shoulders dress?
Okay, all joking aside, given the current environment, isn’t traditional gender based dress codes kinda out the window? Or is therre some easy way around it? After all, if the entire concept of marriage gets revised what chance does dress codes have?
This is not an advocacy post, merely an inquiry.
Just change the requirement to “if you identify as male, wear a tie, if female a scarf, if non-binary, then conservative business attire of your choosing”
There are three items here that concern gov going way too far in meddling in people’s lives: neckties, food trucks, asking about salary. We can also mention banning plastic bags and straws, making soft drinks more expensive, min wage, and banning vaping. Meddlers have the delusion that they can perfect the world better than the people involved. But there are an infinite number of things that someone can imagine are “not perfect” and many of them represent culture, choices, preferences, convenience. They have no business getting involved. Often, as in the plastic bag case, they actually force the wrong choice –illness is up in places with a bag ban due to grocery contamination. Some time ago they were obsessed with disposable diapers. It is like phobic people are trying to run the world according to their own phobias.
Diaper bans went nowhere not because they aren’t an environmental nuisance (they may be) but because the people pushing for it met a greater counterargument than environmentalism: they claim that hurts women disproportionately. Women’s rights not to deal with cloth diapers trumps our environment.
Of course advocates for women also want to eliminate the imaginary “tampon tax”. Now tampons and pads are similar technology to diapers, shouldn’t they also be a concern? (And if you make tampons cheaper, wouldn’t women just menstruate more? That’s how markets work, if I remember my theory correctly.)
I hope homeless people in SF start standing outside bubble tea places selling straws for a quarter apiece. They’d probably get away with it and the business owner can supply them under-the-table. Win-Win!
“ban employers from requiring male employees to wear neckties”
This explains the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. It explains Bunker Hill, Lexington, and Concord. It explains Valley Forge. At last I understand why Nathan Hale regretted he had only one live to lose for his country.
What explains why they didn’t hold that “all persons are created equal”? Why didn’t they abolish slavery? Why weren’t women given the right to vote until nearly 150 years later? Answer: their concept of freedom, liberty, etc is different than ours.
Just because you’re ahead of your time doesn’t mean you’re always going to be ahead of the curve. And no, i’m not saying that the power of the government is validly used. I believe in the constitution and that the only power the federal government is supposed to have is supposed to be explicitly listed there because all government power infringes on rights we were endowed with by our creator. A similar circumstance should adhere to state constitutions.
Ultimately, if you don’t like your employers dress code, become self-employed or work for an employer more to your taste. Get with it folks, unemployment is down and some industries are hurting for lack of folks to apply… 😀
I think you miss my point. I also think you need to read up on the debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Still, I appreciate the point you raise, thank you.