I was reading in the newspaper the other day about some serious staffing relationship issues.
Discrimination and those Hooters
This article was around discrimination where Hooters have fired women who were overweight.
Now obviously these women are suggesting their civil rights were violated and we have here in the United States a law that bans “weight discrimination”.
So I got to wondering, businesses that view their staff as one of their main features, if the staff then fail to live up to expectations, then certainly how could that be called discrimination?
I’ve got a friend that works as an assistant manager at Hooters and I’ve been told overweight ladies work in the back office.
I mean, how many people really want to go to Hooters to see overweight women in short orange shorts and a tightfitting white top?
I’d even go so far as to say that I’d find it hard to believe that these girls didn’t know that they have to remain attractive to remain employed.
Now, I believe for the majority of jobs is irrelevant whether you be a man or woman, providing you have the skills and capacity to do the job.
And I am totally against discrimination however a company’s image holds a very high value and obviously, that affects revenue.
If I was 99, I doubt whether I’d be able to work at Hooters.
So that would be age discrimination, as an example. I’m sure these girls weren’t naïve enough to honestly believes that they would remain employed by Hooters just for their personalities.
Goodness me, Hooters makes money blatantly off their front-line girl’s appearance.
What do you think?
Is it discrimination, in these circumstances?
If the employee signed an agreement when they commenced working there that stipulated weight (or whatever measure) had to be within agreed bounds – then it becomes a matter of contractual law. If no such agreement was signed – it certainly MIGHT be discriminatory.
And that's another point – just because it MIGHT be doesn't mean it IS discrimination. Even if the values of the accuser is the measure.
Thanks for the comment and welcome to the site, Iain.
I know when I was managing for a multi-national call centre several years ago, contractual law and perception were often intertwined as well as challenging in relation to the proper direction to take. And by proper I mean, what was going to look the best for the company as opposed to what was the better moral outcome for the person involved. The law and perception regularly sit on opposite sides of the fence.
You know, that’s just utter rubbish in the real world, Iainstein.
You talk about so-called contractual law. Businesses don’t give a hoot about employees and especially us Hooters girls. We’re just treated like slabs of meat and there’s always another one ready to take our place if we even think about causing any trouble.
Where does that fall under contractual law?
Thanks for the blog post, Gary – great to see your thoughts on this.
In todays' age, just about every business in the first world needs to be acutely aware of discrimination. Mind you, that doesn't necessarily mean it's right, in every situation either. And your example highlights what certainly might be an exemption.
Here in Australia, I'll give you another example. Virgin Airlines only seems to employee highly attractive hostesses – well, that's all I've ever seen on their aircraft. The rumour I've heard is Virgin actually engages hostesses through personal invitation only i.e. Virgin staff visit places like Clubs and Bars, spot the gorgeous and great looking people and hand them an invitation card to call Virgin HR. From there they're hired on other skills etc. Point is, Virgin would certainly be outside discrimination, for the most part.
I'm not sure what happens if they put on weight and/or grow old though – perhaps transitioned elsewhere so a new attractive recruit can take their place.
Interesting dilemma businesses have these days, in the equal opportunity area.