Las Vegas Setting the cornerstone for "on the job"

genebujold · February 7, 2004

...Las Vegas Setting the cornerstone for "on the job" high heel wear!

Ok, folks - here it is in its glory:

http://www.gamblingmagazine.com/articles/40/40-229.htm

azraelle · February 7, 2004

I wonder how the high rollers would feel about being served by male waiters in high heels, forced upon the casinos by a "good for the goose, good for the gander" law. The fact that such a possibility wasn't even mentioned as a way to fairly enforce the discriminatory hiring practice of requiring women to wear high heels to make them look sexy, as opposed to the male waiters, speaks volumes about which gender is still in charge of things that matter, from a livelihood or economic perspective.

hoverfly · February 7, 2004

"For all the medical evidence of the dangers of wearing high heels for extended periods, the issue has not won government attention as a workplace safety issue." Well I think all of us can see one problem, and it is WEARING HIGH HEELS FOR EXTENDED PERIODS. When wearing high heels most of us on this board know that we are asking our foot to be in an unnatural position. But the worst problem is arrogance in the lack of knowledge, the treating of women as a marketing item and not as a humanbeaing of the employer. I am quite sure that there are many women who would continue to wear high heels in the casinos. But having the option to wear them as a policy would reduce injuries that accrue from over use. Some kind of government regulation is needed on this kind of foot wear like all other foot wear used in the work place (steel toe boots, nonslipery soles, ect) to prevent physical damage that can be caused by them. On a lighter side, I had a good chuckle that they conceder 2" heels as "high".

PJ · February 7, 2004

Speaking as a high heel admirer, I was disappointed reading that article. But speaking as a person with an open mind, I can understand the plight of a female who spends nearly all of her work time on her feet. I agree that wearing high heels for long periods is not for everyone. And unless there are accomodations made, such as rest periods with shoes off, wearing high heels should not be required as a work requirement. I know there are "clients" who would not care if their "hostesses" were barefoot.

JeffM · February 7, 2004

Hoverfly said

Some kind of government regulation is needed on this kind of foot wear like all other foot wear used in the work place (steel toe boots, nonslipery soles, ect) to prevent physical damage that can be caused by them.

While I agree with this why should it just be up to the employee to maintain footwear in a nonslip condition. Why shouldnt the employer have to provide nonslip surfaces to walk on instead of the polished marble floors.

PJ said

I know there are "clients" who would not care if their "hostesses" were barefoot.

And on the other end of the scale there are "clients" who would only get their drinks from "hostesses" in high heels.

Jeff

Bubba136 · February 7, 2004

Sorry for the double post.

Bubba136 · February 7, 2004

Nanny government. Perpetual care given by your government -- from the womb to the tomb. Let those that "know better" because they work for a strong central government, dictate the height of the heels waitresses should be required to wear. What happened to the old "it's my business and I want my waitresses to wear shoes with heels not lower than 4" high. " Now, if you don't want to wear high heels when you work here, find another job! "Nuff" said and no amount of political correctness on the part of the "nanny group" that posts here can change that.

JeffM · February 8, 2004

Bubba What did you mean by Nuff said. Then say it all over again. Jeff

azraelle · February 8, 2004

Bubba, you crass cad! There is NO DIFFERENCE between: Being required to wear steel-toed shoes/boots because the government (OSHA) requires the employer to require them on-the-job; and OSHA mandating safer (read non-hi-heels) footwear for female cocktail waitresses. Is it "Nanny Government" to require safety gear for potentially hazardous work (be it hard hats, respirators, safety shoes, welding gloves, Biological Level 4 Suits, or whatever)? I don't think so! Nuff Said!!

Bubba136 · February 8, 2004

Ok, that's your opinion. I stated mine. And, why do you call me a "cad" because I don't believe in government interference in all aspects of my life. After all, it's still the owners prerogative (at least in this country) to set the standards and requirements of the job. Any man, woman, dog or alien that doesn't accept them as a condition of their employment, doesn't have to work there. Thats "Pure, "T" Simple," as they say around here. (Are you one of the many individuals that are classified as a "mindless bureaucrat" employed to "enforce government edicts," by any chance?)

genebujold · February 8, 2004

I am quite sure that there are many women who would continue to wear high heels in the casinos. But having the option to wear them as a policy would reduce injuries that accrue from over use.

On a lighter side, I had a good chuckle that they conceder 2" heels as "high".

I spend a lot of time in the casinos (I'm a networking consultant). I don't believe I've ever been in any casino where all the waitresses wear high heels. Although many do, some wear either lower heels, kitten heels, or flats.

But I agree there shouldn't even be the expectation of having to wear high heels, as that in itself is coercive enough to cause some women to wear heels when they really shouldn't.

I think 2" heels are medium. My foot is about 33% longer than my wife's. Thus, a 2" on her is a 2-2/3" on me - I wouldn't consider it "high" either. But a 3" on her is a 4" on me, and I would consider that high, as I literally cannot comfortably walk in anything higher than 4".

Bubba, you crass cad!
There is NO DIFFERENCE between: Being required to wear steel-toed shoes/boots because the government (OSHA) requires the employer to require them on-the-job; and OSHA mandating safer (read non-hi-heels) footwear for female cocktail waitresses.

I'm not so sure...

I, for one, am sick and tired of the U.S. Government poking their noses into everything. Then again, it's because of OSHA that on-the-job accidents, loss of life, limb, eyesight, hearing, etc. is at an all-time low - and that's not just 20 or 30 percent down from it's peak. More like several hundred to a thousand or so, depending upon the nature of the job. Take eyesight for example. By mandating safety goggles, OSHA forced the companies to pay for them whereas most workers would not have done so, even though they're quite cheap. And thousands of eye injuries have been avoided because of it.

But the heel issue is something altogether different.

Hot sparks flying into a person's eye almost always causes injury. Wearing heels, on the other hand, may or may not, depending upon the individual. Take carpel tunnel syndrom. Some individuals are very prone to repetitive stress injuries. Others (like me, who spends 12 hours a day at a keyboard) never seem to suffer.

I believe the bottom line is that no employer should be allowed to require any employee to perform any act which has been proven to cause permanent damage in some people. However, I also believe that aside from foribidding it to be a requirement, it's none of OSHA's business.

I think if there's no requirement or even expectations, and the woman wants to wear heels anyway, by all means, let her!

Any ruling by OSHA would probably prohibit any wear of heels higher than, say, 2".

This way, Azrealle and Bubba - everyone wins. There's no compulsion to do something which may cause damage, and yet the waitresses are still free to wear heels if they want to.

The only problem we face now involves the skimpy costumes. It appears that tight-fitting outfits at the juncture of the thigh and the hip can actually cause clots which lead to strokes, pulmonary edemas, and other nasty problems!

But that's for another board....

azraelle · February 8, 2004

No, I'm not a "mindless bureaucrat". I am a sometimes blue collar, sometimes white collar worker that has seen employers from many different walks of life, many religions, codes of conduct, whatever. The ONE THING that they ALL have had in common is their belief, just like you Bubba, that they can require anything of, or do anything to, any employee, or group of employees that they desire--rip them off, reduce or eliminate health insurance, force unsafe behavioir, whatever, that the employee will let them get away with--even when it is blatently illegal--quite often for the simple reason that THEY CAN--all in the name of "business is business". I was required to take a class in "business ethics" for the CIT degree I'm working on; before that, I had to take a 2-day seminar put on by a (now former) employer on "employee ethics in the workplace". My opinion was and still is that business ethics IS as THE BUSINESS DOES to the employee--and until employers learn that fact, employees will continue to treat their employers exactly the same as they are being treated. I also believe that this is just, and right, in the same light that "turnabout is fair play". That said, when I was young and naive, I believed that intrusive government, and unions, were the bane of all humanity. I now believe that unethical employers are that bane, and I say "more power to" any organization, be it government, union, or private, that has the ability, and willingness, to keep the average employer from taking advantage of its' employees.

Firefox · February 8, 2004

Can we not chuck around personal insults please? It's in the posting guildines. I'd be grateful if those involved could rephrase their opinions accordingly.

Bubba136 · February 9, 2004

I am self employed. I have my own firm and employ from one to as many as five people depending upon the project. I am the boss. If an employee fails to perform in the manner that I expect, they are colored "gone"! As far as courses in business ethics goes, some people can attend these types of courses and actually learn something. And, then again, no matter how many courses some people attend, they don't ever learn-- they just turn into barracks lawyers, thinking they have all the answers. I don't care what anyone else does in their business but leave me to mind my own business. I don't appreciate, want or will I accept anyone telling me how to run it.

new_look · February 9, 2004

off the arguing subect, while we complain that men havent got equal rights to be entitled to mens heels and freely wear them, we have women complaining they dont want to wear them. that on its own is quite strange. now not over assuming but when a girl goes for a job as a waitress, hoping to impress for tips or whatever, she would naturally want to look attractive, rather in a similar way to when a giorl prepares herself to look attractive for the club night out etc, and ive never seen a girl out clubbing without heels yet. id say any girl wanting to be a presentable sexy waitress would choose to wear heels anyway. we have people at our work that wear what id class as high heels all day long without complaint. and i do agree that a boss sets the rules. if the employee doesnht like it, then theres other jobs they can enjoy elsewhere i think its a poor story personally daz

hoverfly · February 10, 2004

To me this is one of the worst sides of true capitalism, when an employer(s) is negligent, and ignores the fact that their process of a product needlessly injure or kill the employee. However, an employer who has to fallow regulations can work it out in where profit is not effected, in some cases it can increase it. But for the injured or dead employee what options do they have if they are unable to work at all? Far less then when they were working or were alive. Machines break down; they can be fixed, replaced or discarded with no feelings involved. Do you believe that other human beings as only a machine for personal profit? The truth is you are out for your self. Out side your family and friends not every one else these days could give a S#$T about your well being. You are a machine......… For a cocktail waitress, is wearing HH the only influence in getting a good tip or making a profit for the employer in a casino? I don't think so. She may have other features to use or has an excellent customer skill that earns that tip. I believe if she does not want to wear HH than how much she makes in tips will determine weather she will keep working that job or go find another one that pays better. Expected to wear something that may induce serious injury with out her having a choice or control in where it may not affect her total personal income or the employers profit is not right. Now do I think this is a discrimination issue? Yes, I believe the majority of people running casinos right now believe that the identity of gender is black and white. But it’s not, now is it? It seems to me that if women had a true choice in the matter then it would not be an issue and work related injury would not be an issue for them.

Bubba136 · February 10, 2004

Hey, Hoverfly -- run for congress -- make a law.

Scuffy · February 10, 2004

Why don't the employer just let the employee know that there is a dress code and that high heels is part of the dress code. And if the person does not feel they can wear high heel, that they shouldn't take the job. Simple as that. You can always quit. You can always find another job. So I don't see the problem here. No one forces you to have to work as a waitress. Go work at a restaurant if you want to wear something else. Although the pay is good, you have to consider the risk involved. And if you don't like it, go work elsewhere. Employer should listen to their employee. But at the same time, it is the owner's business. Just like would you want someone else telling you how to cook your food?

hoverfly · February 10, 2004

Hey, Hoverfly -- run for congress -- make a law.

Now, now Bubba, you would not halved said that if I was not right...

Bubba136 · February 11, 2004

Not really. I think that is about the only way you'll ever see your ideas put into practice. By coercing someone into doing it your way by threatening them with the law.

dheel · February 11, 2004

I agree with Bubba. Private business owners should be allowed to make whatever rules they want for their employees, and hire or fire anyone they want to. Employees are free to quit at anytime if they don't like their employer's rules. The government has no place telling business owners how to run their business. If the employer's rules truly are unreasonable, then free-market forces will not allow him to stay in business very long, because nobody will want to work for him! I say to the cocktail waitresses, if you don't want to wear high heels, then don't be a @#*damn cocktail waitress! The only proper role of government is to protect individual property rights, and to protect individuals from the use of physical force by others. If the casino owners were forcing their waitresses to wear high heels at gunpoint, then yes the government should get involved. Otherwise, the goverment should stay out of business and economics altogether. But this is a discussion for a philosophy or government forum, not a high-heel place!

JeffM · February 11, 2004

In todays paper in Perth there is an article about a woman who sued and wom AUD52000 for not being warned by the hotel management that when she gets out of the spa her feet will be wet and therefore create the possibility of her slipping on the now wet floor. Apparantly she was not responsible for wetting the floor when she got out of the spa. A lawyer inteviewed said that even if there had been a warning posted on a board near the spa there is no garantee that she had read it so the hotel was still liable. What had to be done was for her to be handed a piece of paper with the warning printed on it and some one from the hotel to stand there and watch her read it then sign it before any responsiblity becomes hers. Jeff

hoverfly · February 11, 2004

I agree in most cases if I did not like somthing about the job or was very unhappy working there I would simply leave. I worked for a small business long enough to understand it. From what I see there is more than enough flexibility for the employer and their rights protected for both the employer and employee. However why do you think that a large number of people getting injured should be ignored? Especially when only one gender is affected and not the other? Are you saying that men should be only allowed to wait in casinos because women who work there are prone to injury more easily because of the footwear they wear? Why should men be able to work a long term career and women can't because they had to wear HH? So what are we saying that men are better than women so that they should be treated differently? Why must women be forced to wear something that has the potential of hurting them and not men?

Bubba136 · February 11, 2004

hoverfly, give it up! Your arguement is not germane. America isn't the complete Nanny government, yet. It would be if you were incharge.

texasbumpkin · February 11, 2004

All I have to say is that if you do not want the government interferring in your life, do you have a ss#, ein# or even a credit card???? Do you feel that we should not have to pay taxes in the US?? The government has already interferred in your life. For those that feel that companies should have the right to treat the employees how they want, that is when the employees unionize and then the company has to give into their employees anyway. Why do you think we have all of the unions, anyone remember the work laws of the 20's/30's? For the women at the casino, if they knew going into the job that heels were required, then shame on them, if they were hired and then it was forced on them then, shame on the company. If these outfits are supplied by the company then they are equipment of the corporation. Any bodily injury incurred by that equipment is the responcability of the company to pay for. If the corporation is requiring the shoes to go with the outfit, then they are again a part of the uniform and any injury is the responcability of the company to pay for. It is the same as someone who does data entry and gets carpal tunnel syndrome, the company has to take care of medical bills. That is my opinion

stilettos · February 12, 2004

For the women at the casino, if they knew going into the job that heels were required, then shame on them, if they were hired and then it was forced on them then, shame on the company.

I think that generally that is probably how most of us feel, although I think the article in question started on one train of thought and moved elsewhere - typical american journalism.

Bubba136 · February 12, 2004

and, now the French, where you can't be fired for any cause, are heard from. Thanks

hoverfly · February 12, 2004

and, now the French, where you can't be fired for any cause, are heard from. Thanks

At least they had the balls to speak up for themselves as a nation.

hoverfly, give it up! Your arguement is not germane. America isn't the complete Nanny government, yet. It would be if you were incharge.

I just see it as, if you piss off enough people change will happen. With or with out the help of Nany Fine. Since we are not going to agree or convince each each other I think we are at a stand still here. :sleeping:

dheel · February 12, 2004

I agree that we are at a standstill, and I don't want to turn this into a huge argument... but this is a subject I am passionate about, so I am compelled to respond again.

In todays paper in Perth there is an article about a woman who sued and wom AUD52000 for not being warned by the hotel management that when she gets out of the spa her feet will be wet and therefore create the possibility of her slipping on the now wet floor. Apparantly she was not responsible for wetting the floor when she got out of the spa.

That story shows the ultimate in human depravity, in my opinion. That's where the "nanny state" mentality leads - nobody is responsible for their own actions anymore, and stupidity is rewarded. In that kind of world, what incentive does anyone have to be responsible, or to use their brain for anything?

All I have to say is that if you do not want the government interferring in your life, do you have a ss#, ein# or even a credit card???? Do you feel that we should not have to pay taxes in the US?? The government has already interferred in your life.

The only reason I have a ss# and pay taxes is that I will be sent to jail if I don't. The government has a monopoly on the use of force - that's exactly why government must be limited. I agree, the government has already interfered too much in all of our lives. I am in favor of complete laizzes-faire capitalism. The freest nations on earth are also the most prosperous, and history has repeatedly shown that socialism and communism do not work. So why not go all the way to true capitalism? Any amount of socialism in this "mixed" economy of ours hurts us, in the same way that any amount of poison in your drink is unhealthy. I say, eliminate the poison altogether. The government should not be involved in the economy.

However why do you think that a large number of people getting injured should be ignored?

Because they are being injured by their own choice. Nobody is forcing them to work there. If my boss poked me with a sharp stick every day, I would quit - I wouldn't ask the government to pass a law that says bosses may not poke their employees with sharp sticks. (That's a silly example, but you get my point.)

Sorry this is so non-high-heel related, but I enjoy a debate like this.

JeffM · February 12, 2004

To Dheel First it was not a government passed law that said the hotel was liable and the lady was not responsible. It was the lawyers who took it to court and the stupid judge who didn’t throw it out of court. Second I think you have gone too far in your argument over the government staying out of it. If I own a mine that should be propped for safety reason but there is no law saying I have to then all my employees have to go down the mine shaft knowing that it is dangerous and if they want a job they will do as I tell them. I could tell them that it might fall in because it is not propped and if some one gets hit on the head by a falling rock all I have to say is “I told you didn’t I” I have no responsibility for their safety. While I think the lady was responsible for her fall I also think the hotel should have put in some non-slip surface just in case. Then if she falls she is responsible. Like wise for the mine workers they cannot be held responsible for a rock fall and I can see if they want to put in some propping the employer can say “hey I didn’t employ you to do that get back to work.” Don’t agree with that. To further illustrate my point some years ago in Queensland a guy who had been thrown out of one pub went next door and started drinking there. When the pub closed he staggered outside and walked between two cars. He got hit by another car passing by. Now we all know that you don’t walk out onto the road between cars. But in this case the guy was drunk and not responsible for his actions so the motorist was hung out to dry and so was the pub for supplying him with too many drinks. In this case there should be a law that says if you drink you are responsible for your actions no matter what. I could also go on about laws for compulsory wearing of seats belts that save lives. It really comes down to how much control the goverment has and no two people are going to agree on that every time. Jeff

Sign In

Las Vegas Setting the cornerstone for "on the job"

Recommended Posts

genebujold

azraelle

hoverfly

PJ

JeffM

Bubba136

Bubba136

JeffM

azraelle

Bubba136

genebujold

azraelle

Firefox

Bubba136

new_look

hoverfly

Bubba136

Scuffy

hoverfly

Bubba136

dheel

JeffM

hoverfly

Bubba136

texasbumpkin

stilettos

Bubba136

hoverfly

dheel

JeffM

Browse

Activity

Important Information