What are your thoughts on a bank requiring the females to wear uniforms (business type attire - purchased by the bank) but not providing the men with any clothes, uniforms, et? The men are required to wear slacks, long sleeve button up shirt with tie.

The women complain about being forced to wear uniforms and the men complain about not getting any $$ to subsidize their wardrobe.

Thanks.

I think the whole thing is sexist, I agree with the men and the women! Why are only the women required to wear uniforms anyway? And why are the men exempt but get penalized financially?
That isn't right in my eyes.

I'm with you Maria, it doesn't make any sense to me. Why make the women wear uniforms and not the men. That's like making female McDonald's employees wear a smock and hat and polyester uniform(company paid) but telling the male employees to wear what they want at their own expense.

Anon,

You should check your state's labor laws to find out if your bank's dress policy is violative of any law (either way - making only one sex wear an uniform & reimbursing only one sex for their non-uniform expenses).

I would also check with the EEOC to see if it has any applicable regulation on the subject.

The adverse PR your bank will get on such a policy should convince senior management to put the dress code idea on the shelf.

Quote:

---

The women complain about being forced to wear uniforms and the men complain about not getting any $$ to subsidize their wardrobe.

---

I agree with both of them.

I am just curious...what kind of uniforms are they providing to the women? Are they similar to the shirt/tie rule for men?

If the uniform policy went through, I'm sure that your board would be aware of the issue by reading it in the litigation section of the newspaper. There will always be one unhappy camper who talks to the press, because they feel wronged, and enough attorneys who will take a case to get additional exposure.

The women choose 5 blouses & 3 bottoms (skirts or slacks) of different cuts/styles. The patterns & colors are all coordinated to be worn on the same day of the month. For example on the 1st of each month, you wear purple top with black bottom. If you show up in green top with black bottom because you looked at what was on schedule for the 2nd, you are sent home to change - using personal time to do so.

Oh, using Jersey City lingo, I would have a real "junie" over that one! And who gets to pick the colors of the month? The CEO? The Chairman? No reflection on you anon, but your management team is nuts.
I can't imagine how you can stand it!

I hope you print this thread and show it to them.

My dentist's office coordinates the color of the smocks the hygienists wear by the day of the week. That seems reasonable since they have to wear a uniform. But at a bank? Good grief! And to send them home to change (using their own time) if they get it wrong?!? What if they took a bus to work that only runs AM/PM? What if they carpooled? This whole thing is ridiculous!

Anon, I'd be the person who would first contact senior management, then the press. Your staff are not 16 year olds who can't dress themselfs, they're professionals. You're policy would be treating them (oh and by the way, treating the women specificially!) like five year olds.

Whoever thought of this is nuts. Dress codes are one thing, McDonalds uniforms for women on your staff is another, and god forbid the color be wrong.

I'm trying not to vent Can you tell? Take my response to be that of most educated people in the world. The idea is both sexist and VERY insulting. I'm offended on your staffs behalf already.

Must hair ribbons match? Or are buns on Tuesday, Pony Tales on Monday...etc...esshhhhh

Is this situation for real, or are you just pulling our collective leg? I'm having a hard time believing that the management of any bank could be this clueless, and have so little to do that they come up with something so ridiculous.

This sounds like an idea for an episode of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

Actually Lestie, my biggest bone of contention with this whole thing is that it is not fair to the men or the women.

Quote:

---

In years past, it was not uncommon for banks to do such. I had thought it had gone the way of the dinosaur, however. It's an extremely costly undertaking

---

I agree. When I first got into banking almost 20 years ago, the women all wore uniforms that were coordinated on a weekly basis. But--get this--they had to buy the uniforms themselves. They picked out the colors as a team and (I suppose) voted on them, so it was not upper management making the entire decision.

Quote:

---

Your staff are not 16 year olds who can't dress themselfs, they're professionals. You're policy would be treating them (oh and by the way, treating the women specificially!) like five year olds.

---

I'd be the first to yell if my employer tried to implement uniforns, but, to tell the truth, it might actually be a good idea, seeing what some folk wear to work .........

Think I'll quit complaning about our dress policy. We actually have 2 casual days a week...

Quote:

---

If an entry level employee can dress the same as an EVP - it makes that entry level person feel pretty good!

---

That's great and everything, but I'll tell ya now...the EVP isn't going to appreciate being mistaken from the tellers. Suits lend an air of authority that is necessary at times.

And this VP...doesnt' want to be mistaken for yet another McDonalds worker when she's on a client call. I'd leave the bank over this type of demoralizing treatment.

Umm I'm ranting again...I'll go

Dawnie - I'll second your rant.

I'm with Terah2. Considering what some people wear to work these days, some clothing (uniforms) is better than little or no clothing.

The S&L I once worked for had a policy identical to the one your management wishes to implement. When we were purchased by a commercial bank, the policy changed and everyone who was an officer was allowed to wear their own clothes (per the dress code - suits only) and EVERYONE below officer level (men and women) were provided with the uniforms. It is a great benefit to those who are on the teller line or other lower paid positions. They are able to dress professionally and not have to spend their own money to do it. It also created a very professional image when you walked into the lobby.

In my management career the fewest dress problem occurred when the bank had a uniform policy. It solved problems of economics some people had, provided attire some even matched with other personal clothing and wore socially for their own use. It gave bank employees a distinctive and well liked apperance in the community, as opposed to the image our competitors portrayed. Definately a moral booster among the staff. It gave many very young staff members their first opportunity to understand and dress in a professional manner.

The most important part of going to uniforms is to find a style the suites the varied age and shape ranges. the style desired by a 50 year old may not be real acceptable to a 19 year old. Everyone was provided a professional consultation so those that might be difficult to fit, or even anxious about how they will look received personal attention. The idea was to have everyone feel comfortable and enjoy wearing a "Uniform"

A problem arose after a few years when the bank decided it was to expensive and wanted to drop the program. Employees loved the program and found they saved a lot of money by not having to buy expensive professional wardrobes.

Employess paid 25% of the cost and the bank paid a set laundry and dry cleaning fee for maintenance.

The guys were easy it was light Blue, Grey, and Black Blazers grey, and black slacks, several ties (everyone did not have the same tie)

The original posting doesn't mention the underlying reason for enacting this "uniformed" dress practice. Is the intended uniformity being directed primarily at the female employees because this is where dress-code policy violations occurred more often? Things such as skirt/dress length, appropriate fit (i.e., not too tight), and other issues related to conformity to policy are often a problem with newer and younger employees who do not have a great deal of experience in the workforce. An employee who began at your bank before the institution of the uniformed procedure -- and who continues to dress neatly and professionally -- would have equal protection grounds given that the male employees presumably continue to follow the uniformity espoused only through bank policy. However, the bank's paying for ALL uniform costs would likely be a legal offset. I do remember this practice in community banking some 20-25 years ago, with wine-colored and navy blue skirts, slacks and vests; but this process is most definately outdated.

To those of you that have to wear uniforms, what are your uniforms? We are in the process of starting a uniform policy, and am curious what other banks have? Is it uniforms everyday, or just certain days? Is it all employees, or just front line (tellers and bankers)? Can anyone suggest a place to purchase these uniforms? We are looking for polo and dress shirts for the men, and polo and dress shirts for the women.

You can purchase from national retailers like LL Bean and Lands End, or find a local shop that will be able to order just about anything you want.