PC Principal thread

[Byrthnoth]

"Presentable" is obviously defined by a historically racist society, but social standards aren't the company's fault.

The company wouldn't be serving their employees'/(owners'/shareholders') interests if they failed to meet social standards.

Social standards exist because no one has broken them, but capitalism deters companies from setting policies that break with them. Thus we either need intrusive legislation that affects change, well-planned social campaigns a la gay marriage, or we can just wait. The good thing is that we can all do the last one while waiting for the first two.

[NynJa]

Thats bullshit as over the past decade tattoos have gone from things that only human garbage have to being socially acceptable, to an extent.

People with tats on face and neck or "fuck you" across their knuckles for example are still regarded as human garbage.

[tyven]

Thats bullshit as over the past decade tattoos have gone from things that only human garbage have to being socially acceptable, to an extent.

People with tats on face and neck or "fuck you" across their knuckles for example are still regarded as human garbage.

but what about people like me who have "face" and "neck" tattoo'd across our knuckles?

[Fiye]

No ragrets.

[NynJa]

but what about people like me who have "face" and "neck" tattoo'd across our knuckles?

I expected you to have "SNKR LIFE" tattoo'd across your knuckles.

[Byrthnoth]

Tbf I still find tats are an excellent way to tell that someone is trash

[Gredival]

"we think it looks icky" is the reason I can't show up to my office in jeans and a t-shirt and have been reprimanded for doing so on Casual Fridays. Failing to sort out your hair situation is the same basic principle: look presentable or go find a job where that isn't a consideration.

"We think X looks icky, and our Y guidelines are the standard of professional presentability" has been shot down in numerous cases including ones where employers proffered grooming standards that were different for both sexes but required things such as women wearing make-up and ones where workplace dress codes require women to wear "feminine" clothing vs. gender neutral alternatives (skirts and high heels vs. slacks and flats).

It's up to the jury (and on appeal, the courts) to determine if "icky" is a standard that originates from "black people should stop looking crazy and look more normal/white" because such standards would be illegal, just like how "women should look like women and not like men" is also a prejudicial standard.

[thetruepandagod]

At least welfare doesn't discriminate against dreads.

[Ksandra]

Social standards exist because no one has broken them, but capitalism deters companies from setting policies that break with them. Thus we either need intrusive legislation that affects change, well-planned social campaigns a la gay marriage, or we can just wait. The good thing is that we can all do the last one while waiting for the first two.

I agree with you about 99%. The 1% being that if we are able to recognize it for what it is, then it helps to make the first two go a little smoother. BG is old enough now that some have jobs, and some may be a part of their company's hiring process. If they started to see that, yes, this is a big deal to many black people and a lot of work is put into it, then maybe they won't judge them so harshly.

Pipe dream, I know.

[Zealot]

Did the hair cases that have gone to trial and resulted in company losses not ping on BG's radar?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Ghost_Wheel22]

Probably not since courts keep finding cases not in violation of Title VII.

Maybe you could help in straightening it out?

[tyven]

I expected you to have "SNKR LIFE" tattoo'd across your knuckles.

That's what I have tatted on my face and neck

[Fondue]

[Zealot]

Probably not since courts keep finding cases not in violation of Title VII.

Maybe you could help in straightening it out?

Puns!

The most recent decision about dreadlocks is completely representative of the 3 white judges in Alabama who handed it down because why can't black people just make their hair work like white hair does? It's not skin color so it's not racist!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Day]

My knuckles say FAKE NEWS

[NynJa]

That's what I have tatted on my face and neck

I figured you'd have Kanye's face tatted on your face

[BerenTebogo]

Tbf I still find tats are an excellent way to tell that someone is trash

Someone just lost their NASA visitor pass

[Byrthnoth]

It's ok. I know two aeronautical engineers there without tattoos

[tyven]

I figured you'd have Kanye's face tatted on your face

His dick is tatted on my cheek

[Gredival]

Puns!

The most recent decision about dreadlocks is completely representative of the 3 white judges in Alabama who handed it down because why can't black people just make their hair work like white hair does? It's not skin color so it's not racist!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

In general I would say this is symptomatic of how employment discrimination as a field gets tilted to employers over time due to stare decisis. When one backwards judge rules "Eh X isn't in violation of Title VII" the rest of the employers in that jurisdiction start saying "Look what we did was bad but it wasn't as bad as X so if they got away with X we should get away with what we're doing." And the line slowly starts pushing back until another judge looks at another case and figures "Well if X is allowed I think X+1 should be too."