Obama Admin Slaps Down Walmart Dress Code

[Ben]

Dang it. When I first read the headline I was hoping it was gonna be Walmart instituting a dress code for their shoppers, not for their employees.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-administration-slaps-down-walmart-dress-code/article/2565727

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

[brimic]

Wow. That sounds like a huge overreach, par for the course for the petty tyrant obama is.
Glad he has the illegal immigration problem figured out....

[K Frame]

Actually, can't say that I disagree with it.

[Ben]

Well, if we're gonna talk politics instead of  "People of Walmart", moved to politics. But just to get even:



 

[KD5NRH]

What ever happened to simple, unambiguous uniform policies?  Screen printing t-shirts or even embroidering polos isn't terribly expensive, and at the bulk level WalMart would be doing, is likely cheaper than the lawyers' time that was spent on this single incident.  Unless virtually every company I've ever worked for that had company shirts had a completely unenforceable uniform policy, the problem here seems to be that they allowed anything other than a narrowly defined list of specifically approved items to be worn, then tried to narrow that by prohibiting certain things.

[Ben]

What ever happened to simple, unambiguous uniform policies?  Screen printing t-shirts or even embroidering polos isn't terribly expensive, and at the bulk level WalMart would be doing, is likely cheaper than the lawyers' time that was spent on this single incident.  Unless virtually every company I've ever worked for that had company shirts had a completely unenforceable uniform policy, the problem here seems to be that they allowed anything other than a narrowly defined list of specifically approved items to be worn, then tried to narrow that by prohibiting certain things.

On a serious note, yeah, the above. For a company like Walmart, it shouldn't be that difficult to say, "khakis and a logo shirt, either tshirt, polo, or button down, depending on you job. Or in lieu of a logo shirt, a plain shirt of the "company color".

I just don't know that wearing union insignia on your clothes while on the clock is acceptable. Outside the front of the store to protest in your off hours? Sure, fine. Shopping in the store in your off hours? Sure, fine. I guess it all depends on your stance re: union/employer/employee interactions.

[K Frame]

"I just don't know that wearing union insignia on your clothes while on the clock is acceptable."

HERE'S YOUR FLAIR, STAN!

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Wait, there's a law on the books that forces employers to allow employees to wear union logos on work uniforms?  How on earth is that OK?

[Firethorn]

I think the small logo idea was so that employees could wear those shirts with a tiny logo advertising the maker.  Like the small gator on one company's shirts.  Googling, Locoste uses the gator while Ralph Lauren sticks a small logo of a polo player on theirs.  

NOT advertising a company other than Walmart while working is perfectly acceptable, and it's easier to just ban all the logos and prints than worry about 'appropriate'.  Even if it'd be 'okay' to wear something Walmart sells, it's easier to just ban everything.

That being said, the union logo thing just gets me.  I know that Walmart will shut a store down rather than let it unionize, and thus I wonder how "Organization United for Respect at Walmart" won standing.  Probably a very pro-union judge, I'm guessing.

BTW, If I was Walmart, I know it wouldn't be 'productive' but I'd probably have a bunch of people in inappropriate clothing that is now 'allowable' now that the dress code has been revoked show up in his court room.

Or put in a 'unless you're union' or something exception in there.

Or, as stated, go 'fine, here's your walmart polo shirt that you MUST wear while working, no modifications allowed, and you're allowed to wear khaki pants, etc...  for the bottom half.

edit:  'The judge said that didn't matter because any policy that would prohibit any union insignia had to be "narrowly tailored" to avoid violating employee rights and the burden was on the employer to prove the rule was necessary. ' - I'd think it'd be the opposite of 'narrowly tailored'.  IE a wide-reaching policy such as a uniform or something close to it, would show that the employer isn't targeting union insignia as opposed to all the other messes that employees of Walmart caliber will get into without direction.

[KD5NRH]

NOT advertising a company other than Walmart while working is perfectly acceptable, and it's easier to just ban all the logos and prints than worry about 'appropriate'.  Even if it'd be 'okay' to wear something Walmart sells, it's easier to just ban everything.

Not necessarily; I've worked for a few companies that specifically permitted a small, (<2 sq in) unobtrusive logo of the clothing's maker.  The polo player or the Lacoste gator were given as specific examples.  Virtually all non-t-shirt maker logos I've seen meet the requirements, and the dress code already prohibited t-shirts as outerwear for anyone in the normal public access parts of the facility. 

[vaskidmark]

It seems that letting POTUS have a brew before lunch is a really, really bad idea.

stay safe.

[Firethorn]

Not necessarily; I've worked for a few companies that specifically permitted a small, (<2 sq in) unobtrusive logo of the clothing's maker.  The polo player or the Lacoste gator were given as specific examples.  Virtually all non-t-shirt maker logos I've seen meet the requirements, and the dress code already prohibited t-shirts as outerwear for anyone in the normal public access parts of the facility. 

That's my first paragraph.  I should have probably put an 'ostentatiously' in my second to cover things like Nike shirts where 'Nike' is emblazoned across the entire shirt in 4" letters. 

A small gator or polo player doesn't detract from the employee being an employee, but by my reading of the Judge's decision, does this mean that employees can wear the equivalent of a MC outlaw patch on the back of his shirt?  Complete with rockers?   

Note:  From the behavior of some union representatives, I think it might actually be 'proper warning' of their potential behavior.
'409th Teamsters, Idaho' or something like that.

[KD5NRH]

That's my first paragraph.  I should have probably put an 'ostentatiously' in my second to cover things like Nike shirts where 'Nike' is emblazoned across the entire shirt in 4" letters.

Yes, but specifying it to be only the logo of the clothing manufacturer, and setting an exact size limit makes it narrow enough that no one can claim it discriminates against any reasonable variation within the normal constraints of a company dress and grooming code.  It simply allows for normal clothing like the polo shirts or my old Pierre Cardin dress shirts with the "swirly p" logo embroidered on the pocket hem in the same color as the shirt.

[Firethorn]

Yes, but specifying it to be only the logo of the clothing manufacturer, and setting an exact size limit makes it narrow enough that no one can claim it discriminates against any reasonable variation within the normal constraints of a company dress and grooming code.  It simply allows for normal clothing like the polo shirts or my old Pierre Cardin dress shirts with the "swirly p" logo embroidered on the pocket hem in the same color as the shirt.

That was pretty much what I was going for.  Specifying that it has to be the log of the manufacturer of the clothing was what I was picturing, so you are correct, adding that might work.

The idea being that it can actually be fairly hard to find a nice shirt without some sort of logo on it, though 'understated' is pretty easy.

[Boomhauer]

For a company like Walmart, it shouldn't be that difficult to say, "khakis and a logo shirt, either tshirt, polo, or button down, depending on you job. Or in lieu of a logo shirt, a plain shirt of the "company color".

That's what it was when I was a produce stocker for WM, and it worked pretty well. Uniforms were cheap and easy to purchase, I grabbed a couple  $10 Navy blue polos and a couple $15 kahki pants from the rack and for $50 I had a set of uniforms that lasted me my entire time there.

We had a very strict uniform policy when I was a park ranger, both at the National and State level and there sure as hell would have been no tolerance of wearing union or other non-park logos.

[Firethorn]

We had a very strict uniform policy when I was a park ranger, both at the National and State level and there sure as hell would have been no tolerance of wearing union or other non-park logos.

Might of been because nobody knew about the union marking law. 

But that's the thing:  The stricter the uniform the less likely somebody can say it's 'targeted' at union markings.

[wmenorr67]

As others may have stated, what may have got WM in trouble was the size issue.  If they had just said no logos unless it is a WM logo they would have been safe.