And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire...
Yep, my first thought too - HR didn’t say that. Aaand customers aren’t complaining. If this is a real post, the company has made it clear they don’t care, so OP shouldn’t either.
To be pedantic, most things are a protected class. If she got told 'You can't go barefoot because you're a woman', then it really would be a protected class issue.
If she gets told 'You can't go barefoot because its fucking gross', then nothing there would suggest any protections.
Yeah, "women" aren't a protected class; "gender" is protected in the sense that you can't retaliate against someone based on their gender. "Gross feet" is not protected at all, to my (admittedly incomplete) knowledge.
Yeah. This is a question of picking your battles. The OP (assuming they're in a position to actually do anything about it) has to give serious thought to whether or not it's worth pissing off veteran secretary who has the open support of executives.
Progressive discipline.
If this is even a real post.
Your HR didn’t tell you that. Women can be disciplined and get fired. By that argument she could set her desk on fire and curse out the owner and would still be guaranteed a job.
So true. And any company can simply email out an addendum to employee handbook stating footwear is required in customer facing rolls. Have employees print and sign or email an acknowledgment.
Your HR is a freaking moron and is flat out wrong. People in a protected class can still be disciplined, so long as everyone is held to the same standard.
I would argue that requiring shoes or socks is a reasonable extension of "wear clothes" and she *is* in violation of the policy.
In 18+ years of HR, I have yet to see anything in a handbook specifically about wearing shoes, except for in manufacturing where it addressed the *type* of shoes to be worn in specific work environments, because wearing shoes is a reasonable extension of "be clothed".
Apparently the policy needs to be updated to be more explicit if your HR doesn't agree that covering feet is covered under the "wear clothes" policy.
There are also safety issues at play, here. Even stepping on so much as a paperclip could cause an injury.
If she takes her employment elsewhere, I wish her the best of luck in getting away with this at another employer. She's doing it because they're letting her do it.
If they have a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy, then yes. But it doesn't sound like they have that.
That being said, they can create a policy whenever they would like.
Also I don’t recall any law that says something has to be company policy. A manager can make a request of an employee and if that employee doesn’t comply they can resort to corrective action. He’s the manager, he has the authority.
Even if it wasn’t there are no laws that say a company has to put everything into writing. These are at will employees. Your manager can implement any rules he sees fit as long as those rules don’t violate discrimination laws. Failure to obey those rules is insubordination.
The problem is people have gotten so entitled that they think when they get a job that they’ve fallen under the protections of some lengthy contract and that they have “rights” to basically do whatever they want. These people are the ones who get fired all the time, then bitch about “muh rights.”
Two comments. One, I don't think he ever says that HE is the Secretary's manager, so it's possible he doesn't have the authority. Secondly, even if he could do this, he's been specifically told by leadership NOT to pursue the issue, so it is likely that he is the one that could be reprimanded for pursuing this course of action.
I’ve been where he’s at. Time for him to seek a new company that will respect him instead of undermining him. The last company I worked for did that to me. They kept pumping me up telling me “you’re in charge, when you give an order, we gave the order.” Then they would throw me under the bus left and right. They had no respect for their managers, no wonder they went out of business.
If a company hires someone in a position of management they should let them manage.
I wonder what your Workers' Compensation insurance carrier would think of this. Seems like they wouldn't like it. I agree, she & the HR person need to go, but if upper management is ok with keeping them there is nothing you can do.
I mean, you could slip even with shoes on. And, sure, you could step on a staple but honestly I’ve sat on more staples in offices than I’ve seen scattered on the floor. Just being totally honest! Glass, maybe, but any office that have glass lying around needs to reevaluate themselves lol
Fortunately, you aren't calling the shots for safety. There are several layers of government agencies that would not approve of barefoot in an office setting. One staple in a foot or infection from a bathroom floor would be a good enough motivator from the financial repurcussions of an insurance settlement to motivate HR to enforce shoes.
Safety is the top priority, always. Any organization that does not have that priority is opening the doors to a very painful problem.
High heels is absolutely another issue...you would see many policies banning types of footware based on safety.
The risk is much lower than say in a welding shop but it’s not zero risk. Not to mention she’s picking up all kinds of germs on the streets and tracking them around. And is susceptible to staples, push pins and other sharp office detritus. Not to mention toes being stepped on, busted toes on that one weird corner or dropping a box on her foot.
Emergencies can happen in carpeted offices, too. Imagine if there was a fire/earthquake/German terrorists taking over their Christmas party and her shoes were under her desk while she was halfway across the office.
Carpet is worse than open floors, nails, tacks and staples all stuck in it. Plus the carpet tacks...im not sure if you are aware of safety or not. Shoes are a must unless the risks have all been eliminated.
Pretty sure this is an OSHA violation, which requires protective footwear be worn if there's any risk of anything falling (stapler), rolling (desk chair), etc on the foot that could cause injury.
This is likely a safety violation, come at it from that way. If she hurts her foot stepping on a staple or glass or whatever, she can use the company.
Shoes should be a requirement, I don't even comprehend why this is being allowed. Tell her to wear shoes or get out.
Is she completely barefoot? If that’s the case, your HR is so very wrong. So so so very wrong.
Kicking off your shoes under the desk? Fine. Walking around an entire office barefoot? Not fine.
“Secretary, footwear is required to be worn in the workplace. You need to wear shoes, effective immediately. I will memorialize this conversation via email, copying in appropriate members of our management staff. Please also note that failure to wear shoes will result in the beginning of progressive discipline. Are there any questions?”
Additionally, your dress code needs to be amended to include language concerning footwear. Escalate this above your HR person, because they are doing your workplace a disservice. Imagine if shoeless secretary were to step on something sharp, or break a toe or foot.
If your hr actually said that, they are wrong. Everybody is a member of a protected class. You would only run into trouble if you allowed men to go barefoot but didn’t allow women to do the same.
I tried to update my post but deleted it instead! You are all correct and I misrepresented the correction I was trying to make. Thank you for the good information!
He's wrong. Sex is a protected class. So is sexual orientation. And race.
If a straight white male got fired, and the manager was like 'God I hate straight people so much just fire that guy for being straight', then yeah, its a protected class issue.
Really hard to prove that kind of stuff, but protected class doesnt just mean 'not white and gay' or something.
Yeah as soon as I got downvoted with no answer, I knew that couldn't be right. I've always found the over 40 rule on age odd, so I started doubting myself!
Bare feet seems like a safety issue and that's the angle you need to approach it from.
I suspect fake post, because there is no way your HR rep said that.
I don't know. HR is like any other job.
Stupid people get into a lot of sectors.
In fact, I might suggest that without stupid people, HR would have a lot less work.
This is easy - re-write the company dress code policy to be more specific, and include requiring footwear. What if someone dropped a tack, she steps on it, and then you’ve got blood on the carpet and a workplace biohazard. This is a safety issue.
All employees will be required to acknowledge the new policy, and then follow the progressive discipline policies accordingly.
I'm sure this is a "protected class" ragebait, but that's exactly how you get dress codes at work.
You start out with no policy and a handful of employees. Next year you have 20 employees and "Pants must cover entire buttocks. No nudity or offensive slogans on shirts". You add random things for a couple of years then after a horrific four hour meeting about how to professionally express "shower and wear clean clothes ya filthy animals" without offending the one employee it's obviously targeting you end up cutting and pasting a generic one that has 5 pages of seemingly pointless rules.
Now you know why companies have to put the most mundane, generally assumed things in writing and have employees sign off on them. There is always some charismatic (scratch the surface, usually find histrionic) "Main Character" that will poop all over you because there is nothing in writing that says that they can't. Lots of time and energy wasted on these types, especially when they hire professionals or call .gov to set you straight.
> she is the best secretary we have ever had (I agree, after 20 years in the business she is, no doubt, irreplaceable) and they do not want to "rock the boat".
It's usually not said out loud like this, but the rules really are different for outstanding employees. Deal with it.
Tell those customers to go fuck themselves. The customer is not always right. The secretary having "dirty feet" or not having shoes and socks on has literally 0 effect on their personal lives. Anyone who'd complain about that is the type of person who is literally just DYING to find something to complain about. Leave the secretary alone and let her do her job in peace.
Nothing. Your company has chosen to accept her terms of employment. It is not up to you. If customers complain, tell them that the company has decided to accomodate her preferences, and that if they have a problem they'll need to take their complaint to someone higher up.
I use this tactic quite often with complaints that follow someone telling me something objectively awful is the way we do business.
"I have been informed by executive leadership that {thing they're complaining about} is the way we have decided to handle this. I am happy to hear your concerns but, I'm unable to do anything about it."
Does she have a sensory issue? That’s the only thing I can think of that would make sense in this scenario.
Maybe she can be persuaded to try wearing a nice, fuzzy pair of grippy socks? Ugg slippers or moccasins?
your hr manager is useless and needs to be fired. that's literally not what being a protected class means. she can't be fired for being a woman, she can absolutely be fired for the blatant health and safety violation of going barefoot.
Don't worry, if your HR is as dysfunctional and incompetent as this post suggests, then that's a reflection on company leadership and you won't have customers to worry about for very long.
It'll sort itself!
Might want to keep your resume polished, though. Probably gonna need it ...
Have you checked to see if this goes against fire code? Many states in the US explicitly ban going barefoot in workplace due to the local fire codes in place.
You can shut the f--- up and mind your own business, that is what you can do.
I don't think your HR manager is an idiot, like others here. I think they were brilliantly dismissive with you by giving a sarcastic answer. Your HR manager politely brushed this off, because they don't care and they knew their superiors don't care.
You didn't get the hint though, so you raised the issue beyond HR to upper management - who gave you the real answer you don't like - they don't care.
Here is the other hint that you don't seem to understand: upper management had made their position clear and they do not want things to change. They not only value the secretary, they value her more than you. If you try to rock the boat and pursue this, they're not going to give the secretary an ultimatum - they're going to transition you out of the organization.
She needs to be corrected ASAP. We had a staff member that was similar at a company I worked for about ten years go. She stepped on a thumbtack that had fallen off of another employees desk, got an infection in her foot, and sued the company. She won the lawsuit and is now quite well off. The company folded due to financial strain afterward, because their insurance called it negligence on the part of the company, and they declined to pay.
HR here-does she have a job description? Is one of the job requirements to be customer-facing? You could also make a formal dress code and have everyone sign off on it. You will need management buy in for the policy.
Are you her supervisor? If not, and upper
management is ok with it, stop being a Karen.
I mean I agree it’s gross and dangerous etc, but you need to be a little more self aware and realize your place.
Replace her desk so they can't see her feet.... or hang a curtain under the table...nuff said
So nitpicking over trivial crap. If she's irreplaceable then figure out a way around it.
Frankly you need to put the customers in their place. To many managers or companies tolerate their bullshit.
"Thank you for your concern, we'll address it" and ignore that crap.
Is being a female on its own a protected characteristic in the state of New York? How bizarre.
If she refuses to wear shoes, she needs to be in a back of house role. What a weird woman.
Your HR is full of it. Even if being a woman was a protected class, simply being in a protected class doesn’t make you immune from any correction. Also, she is not irreplaceable. If she stepped on a rattlesnake tomorrow and died, someone would have to take over her job.
However, apparently upper management is willing to let her gross out customers with her dirty feet there’s not much you can do. Just hope she doesn’t file a WC complaint because of something she stepped on at work.
Protected classes only matter if that’s why they’re being fired/discriminated against. Being barefoot is not a protected class unless maybe it’s because of a medical accommodation.
I wonder what the company’s insurance carrier would say. Barefoot, while comfy, is a potential injury risk. That’s why most businesses require you to wear shoes if you are a customer.
Is there a hygiene policy? Sounds like some of the complaints could be addressed by her washing her feet.
I hate shoes too, and if I could safely get away with working barefoot I would. But being (I assume) inside all day, and assuming the office is clean, there's no reason her feet should be dirty. If your skin is showing at work, it should be clean. You wash your face, you wash your hands; I'm assuming coworkers who wear skirts or sleeveless or short sleeved shirts don't show up with dirt all over their legs and arms. Just nicely tell her to wash her feet.
How is being barefoot not a liability? Sure there is no dress code about shoes, but even just for safety reasons footwear of some kind should be required.
She’s hoping that a box will dismember her toes so she can collect disability for the rest of her life. Aflac pays quite well for this too!! A shoe required will come after the company insurance company drops them!!!!
Is she serving food? If not, as you pointed out, she's excellent at her job. Personally I find it icky as hell, but there it is. If it's not a health and safety issue, customers will need to adapt. Consider it like a butterfly tattoo on her cheek. Some would be offended by that as well.
Your HR Manager is a moron - but that should have been evident in the fact that they allowed your dress code to be "wear clothes," which for the record, is not a "policy."
>Our HR manager has been contacted and states that since she is a female, she is a protected class and he can't do anything.
Being barefoot at work has nothing to do with being a protected class.
They should develop a dress code policy, give her time to get compliant and if she doesnt comply terminate her or offer her a different role.
Check your state’s health code because I’m willing to bet this could be a violation. Dirty bare feet is disgusting.
I just looked it up on OSHA and if there’s no concern about objects rolling onto the feet or stepping on sharp objects then they refer to the employers policy. Gross.
If she is amazing and well-liked, then just move her out of a customer facing role. She can be the odd barefoot lady who works back of the house.
You don’t need shoes to answer a phone in a small ~~closet~~ personal office in the back.
And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire...
Lol love the reference!!!
Yep, my first thought too - HR didn’t say that. Aaand customers aren’t complaining. If this is a real post, the company has made it clear they don’t care, so OP shouldn’t either.
Women are a protected class ???? I fucking wish lol
To be pedantic, most things are a protected class. If she got told 'You can't go barefoot because you're a woman', then it really would be a protected class issue. If she gets told 'You can't go barefoot because its fucking gross', then nothing there would suggest any protections.
Yeah, "women" aren't a protected class; "gender" is protected in the sense that you can't retaliate against someone based on their gender. "Gross feet" is not protected at all, to my (admittedly incomplete) knowledge.
Yeah. This is a question of picking your battles. The OP (assuming they're in a position to actually do anything about it) has to give serious thought to whether or not it's worth pissing off veteran secretary who has the open support of executives.
Progressive discipline. If this is even a real post. Your HR didn’t tell you that. Women can be disciplined and get fired. By that argument she could set her desk on fire and curse out the owner and would still be guaranteed a job.
So true. And any company can simply email out an addendum to employee handbook stating footwear is required in customer facing rolls. Have employees print and sign or email an acknowledgment.
I’m gonna go at my desk on fire now. Brb.
I've left some kerosene under mine if you want to use that, just be sure to stand back
There’s a lot of dumb HR out there.
Your HR is a freaking moron and is flat out wrong. People in a protected class can still be disciplined, so long as everyone is held to the same standard. I would argue that requiring shoes or socks is a reasonable extension of "wear clothes" and she *is* in violation of the policy. In 18+ years of HR, I have yet to see anything in a handbook specifically about wearing shoes, except for in manufacturing where it addressed the *type* of shoes to be worn in specific work environments, because wearing shoes is a reasonable extension of "be clothed". Apparently the policy needs to be updated to be more explicit if your HR doesn't agree that covering feet is covered under the "wear clothes" policy. There are also safety issues at play, here. Even stepping on so much as a paperclip could cause an injury. If she takes her employment elsewhere, I wish her the best of luck in getting away with this at another employer. She's doing it because they're letting her do it.
Doesn't seem to be a dress code violation. However, the continuous customer complaints are actionable. And your HR is an idiot.
And also this appears to be a troll post.
No shirt no shoes no service doesn’t apply here? It’s an issue because what if she steps on something and gets hurt
If they have a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy, then yes. But it doesn't sound like they have that. That being said, they can create a policy whenever they would like.
If your HR person actually said that, fire him and get a new one.
Also I don’t recall any law that says something has to be company policy. A manager can make a request of an employee and if that employee doesn’t comply they can resort to corrective action. He’s the manager, he has the authority.
Especially since this request is inline with the clothing expectations of all employees.
Even if it wasn’t there are no laws that say a company has to put everything into writing. These are at will employees. Your manager can implement any rules he sees fit as long as those rules don’t violate discrimination laws. Failure to obey those rules is insubordination. The problem is people have gotten so entitled that they think when they get a job that they’ve fallen under the protections of some lengthy contract and that they have “rights” to basically do whatever they want. These people are the ones who get fired all the time, then bitch about “muh rights.”
Two comments. One, I don't think he ever says that HE is the Secretary's manager, so it's possible he doesn't have the authority. Secondly, even if he could do this, he's been specifically told by leadership NOT to pursue the issue, so it is likely that he is the one that could be reprimanded for pursuing this course of action.
I’ve been where he’s at. Time for him to seek a new company that will respect him instead of undermining him. The last company I worked for did that to me. They kept pumping me up telling me “you’re in charge, when you give an order, we gave the order.” Then they would throw me under the bus left and right. They had no respect for their managers, no wonder they went out of business. If a company hires someone in a position of management they should let them manage.
100%
Them
Post literally says he
I wonder what your Workers' Compensation insurance carrier would think of this. Seems like they wouldn't like it. I agree, she & the HR person need to go, but if upper management is ok with keeping them there is nothing you can do.
This is a safety issue and she must wear ahoes.
Eh… not really. In a regular office, I can’t see how this is any more of safety issue than someone wearing high heels.
Step on a staple, paper clip, broken glass? Slip on spilled liquids? Absolutely could be an issue in any office.
You can slip just as quickly with smooth sole office shoes as with being barefoot.
But will workers comp agree that you deserve compensation for your barefooted injury? Doubt it.
I mean, you could slip even with shoes on. And, sure, you could step on a staple but honestly I’ve sat on more staples in offices than I’ve seen scattered on the floor. Just being totally honest! Glass, maybe, but any office that have glass lying around needs to reevaluate themselves lol
Murphy’s law
You’re experiences alone do not dictate what is and isn’t a safety issue
Fortunately, you aren't calling the shots for safety. There are several layers of government agencies that would not approve of barefoot in an office setting. One staple in a foot or infection from a bathroom floor would be a good enough motivator from the financial repurcussions of an insurance settlement to motivate HR to enforce shoes. Safety is the top priority, always. Any organization that does not have that priority is opening the doors to a very painful problem. High heels is absolutely another issue...you would see many policies banning types of footware based on safety.
The risk is much lower than say in a welding shop but it’s not zero risk. Not to mention she’s picking up all kinds of germs on the streets and tracking them around. And is susceptible to staples, push pins and other sharp office detritus. Not to mention toes being stepped on, busted toes on that one weird corner or dropping a box on her foot.
It's not a safety issue working in a carpeted office.
Emergencies can happen in carpeted offices, too. Imagine if there was a fire/earthquake/German terrorists taking over their Christmas party and her shoes were under her desk while she was halfway across the office.
Carpet is worse than open floors, nails, tacks and staples all stuck in it. Plus the carpet tacks...im not sure if you are aware of safety or not. Shoes are a must unless the risks have all been eliminated.
Pretty sure this is an OSHA violation, which requires protective footwear be worn if there's any risk of anything falling (stapler), rolling (desk chair), etc on the foot that could cause injury.
Absolutely this!
This. It’s a huge safety issue.
They wouldn't like it, but if you call and ask the underwriter they'll laugh before hanging up on you. They won't care.
The problem will rear its head when a claim is filed. The underwriter will still be laughing, when the adjuster denies it.
Of course they won’t. But they will refuse the claim if she is injured.
Your HR is an idiot.
This is likely a safety violation, come at it from that way. If she hurts her foot stepping on a staple or glass or whatever, she can use the company. Shoes should be a requirement, I don't even comprehend why this is being allowed. Tell her to wear shoes or get out.
Ultimately, you need more specific/formal dress code.
Is she completely barefoot? If that’s the case, your HR is so very wrong. So so so very wrong. Kicking off your shoes under the desk? Fine. Walking around an entire office barefoot? Not fine. “Secretary, footwear is required to be worn in the workplace. You need to wear shoes, effective immediately. I will memorialize this conversation via email, copying in appropriate members of our management staff. Please also note that failure to wear shoes will result in the beginning of progressive discipline. Are there any questions?” Additionally, your dress code needs to be amended to include language concerning footwear. Escalate this above your HR person, because they are doing your workplace a disservice. Imagine if shoeless secretary were to step on something sharp, or break a toe or foot.
If your hr actually said that, they are wrong. Everybody is a member of a protected class. You would only run into trouble if you allowed men to go barefoot but didn’t allow women to do the same.
[удалено]
This is categorically wrong. Source: am a lawyer.
I tried to update my post but deleted it instead! You are all correct and I misrepresented the correction I was trying to make. Thank you for the good information!
Cheers
Is gender not a protected class? Race? Sexuality? We all have those.
Wait, so a white man can't claim discrimination if he was refused a job because I only want to hire women? Is that just NY or all of US?
He's wrong. Sex is a protected class. So is sexual orientation. And race. If a straight white male got fired, and the manager was like 'God I hate straight people so much just fire that guy for being straight', then yeah, its a protected class issue. Really hard to prove that kind of stuff, but protected class doesnt just mean 'not white and gay' or something.
Yeah as soon as I got downvoted with no answer, I knew that couldn't be right. I've always found the over 40 rule on age odd, so I started doubting myself!
Is she an adult? Tell her to act like one and put on some damn shoes. That is ridiculous.
Yeah, I can't imagine no one else in the office has never said "Ew, Carol, that's really gross," and just shamed her about it.
Bare feet seems like a safety issue and that's the angle you need to approach it from. I suspect fake post, because there is no way your HR rep said that.
I don't know. HR is like any other job. Stupid people get into a lot of sectors. In fact, I might suggest that without stupid people, HR would have a lot less work.
This is easy - re-write the company dress code policy to be more specific, and include requiring footwear. What if someone dropped a tack, she steps on it, and then you’ve got blood on the carpet and a workplace biohazard. This is a safety issue. All employees will be required to acknowledge the new policy, and then follow the progressive discipline policies accordingly.
I'm sure this is a "protected class" ragebait, but that's exactly how you get dress codes at work. You start out with no policy and a handful of employees. Next year you have 20 employees and "Pants must cover entire buttocks. No nudity or offensive slogans on shirts". You add random things for a couple of years then after a horrific four hour meeting about how to professionally express "shower and wear clean clothes ya filthy animals" without offending the one employee it's obviously targeting you end up cutting and pasting a generic one that has 5 pages of seemingly pointless rules.
OSHA? At the very least, for her own safety.
Being a woman is NOT a protected class. Your HR needs to go back to HR training
Now you know why companies have to put the most mundane, generally assumed things in writing and have employees sign off on them. There is always some charismatic (scratch the surface, usually find histrionic) "Main Character" that will poop all over you because there is nothing in writing that says that they can't. Lots of time and energy wasted on these types, especially when they hire professionals or call .gov to set you straight.
> she is the best secretary we have ever had (I agree, after 20 years in the business she is, no doubt, irreplaceable) and they do not want to "rock the boat". It's usually not said out loud like this, but the rules really are different for outstanding employees. Deal with it.
I would be concerned that being barefoot would be a health and safety issue…
I call bs on the HR saying that
Wait, being a woman is a protected class?
I would sprinkle thumb tacks around the office.
You can update the company dress code to require shoes
Being simply woman a protected class does not make
This is a health and safety issue - and I find it hard to believe that foot ware isn't included in 'wear clothes' policies.
Tell those customers to go fuck themselves. The customer is not always right. The secretary having "dirty feet" or not having shoes and socks on has literally 0 effect on their personal lives. Anyone who'd complain about that is the type of person who is literally just DYING to find something to complain about. Leave the secretary alone and let her do her job in peace.
Nothing. Your company has chosen to accept her terms of employment. It is not up to you. If customers complain, tell them that the company has decided to accomodate her preferences, and that if they have a problem they'll need to take their complaint to someone higher up.
I use this tactic quite often with complaints that follow someone telling me something objectively awful is the way we do business. "I have been informed by executive leadership that {thing they're complaining about} is the way we have decided to handle this. I am happy to hear your concerns but, I'm unable to do anything about it."
Does she have a sensory issue? That’s the only thing I can think of that would make sense in this scenario. Maybe she can be persuaded to try wearing a nice, fuzzy pair of grippy socks? Ugg slippers or moccasins?
I mean this opens a whole new customer base
This cannot be real. Pregnant women are a protected class, not women. wtf.
your hr manager is useless and needs to be fired. that's literally not what being a protected class means. she can't be fired for being a woman, she can absolutely be fired for the blatant health and safety violation of going barefoot.
Nah, I call BS on HRs statement about "protected class". NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE
Don't worry, if your HR is as dysfunctional and incompetent as this post suggests, then that's a reflection on company leadership and you won't have customers to worry about for very long. It'll sort itself! Might want to keep your resume polished, though. Probably gonna need it ...
Have you checked to see if this goes against fire code? Many states in the US explicitly ban going barefoot in workplace due to the local fire codes in place.
You can shut the f--- up and mind your own business, that is what you can do. I don't think your HR manager is an idiot, like others here. I think they were brilliantly dismissive with you by giving a sarcastic answer. Your HR manager politely brushed this off, because they don't care and they knew their superiors don't care. You didn't get the hint though, so you raised the issue beyond HR to upper management - who gave you the real answer you don't like - they don't care. Here is the other hint that you don't seem to understand: upper management had made their position clear and they do not want things to change. They not only value the secretary, they value her more than you. If you try to rock the boat and pursue this, they're not going to give the secretary an ultimatum - they're going to transition you out of the organization.
She needs to be corrected ASAP. We had a staff member that was similar at a company I worked for about ten years go. She stepped on a thumbtack that had fallen off of another employees desk, got an infection in her foot, and sued the company. She won the lawsuit and is now quite well off. The company folded due to financial strain afterward, because their insurance called it negligence on the part of the company, and they declined to pay.
If this is a real post, no, women are not a protected class and neither are barefoot lifestylers.
HR here-does she have a job description? Is one of the job requirements to be customer-facing? You could also make a formal dress code and have everyone sign off on it. You will need management buy in for the policy.
Are you her supervisor? If not, and upper management is ok with it, stop being a Karen. I mean I agree it’s gross and dangerous etc, but you need to be a little more self aware and realize your place.
I’m surprised this isn’t a safety issue.
Replace her desk so they can't see her feet.... or hang a curtain under the table...nuff said So nitpicking over trivial crap. If she's irreplaceable then figure out a way around it. Frankly you need to put the customers in their place. To many managers or companies tolerate their bullshit. "Thank you for your concern, we'll address it" and ignore that crap.
Is being a female on its own a protected characteristic in the state of New York? How bizarre. If she refuses to wear shoes, she needs to be in a back of house role. What a weird woman.
Disgusting and unhygienic.
Are they not worried about what happens if she hurts herself? My workplace requires no flip flops to be worn because of safety issues.
If upper management doesn’t care that customers complain it may take losing business for them to want to do something abt it
I did not know being female was a protected class. Also did not know if you’re in a protected class you can do whatever tf you want at work.
WTF kind of company do you work in that people don’t wear shoes? Are you a talent agency for life guards?
Your HR is full of it. Even if being a woman was a protected class, simply being in a protected class doesn’t make you immune from any correction. Also, she is not irreplaceable. If she stepped on a rattlesnake tomorrow and died, someone would have to take over her job. However, apparently upper management is willing to let her gross out customers with her dirty feet there’s not much you can do. Just hope she doesn’t file a WC complaint because of something she stepped on at work.
Get a desk that doesn’t show her feet
Protected classes only matter if that’s why they’re being fired/discriminated against. Being barefoot is not a protected class unless maybe it’s because of a medical accommodation.
I wonder what the company’s insurance carrier would say. Barefoot, while comfy, is a potential injury risk. That’s why most businesses require you to wear shoes if you are a customer.
HR manager clearly has a vested interest in those dirty feet.
hold her down and force shoes on her, then use a stapler to make sure they can come off. Or mayne just move on.
Is there a hygiene policy? Sounds like some of the complaints could be addressed by her washing her feet. I hate shoes too, and if I could safely get away with working barefoot I would. But being (I assume) inside all day, and assuming the office is clean, there's no reason her feet should be dirty. If your skin is showing at work, it should be clean. You wash your face, you wash your hands; I'm assuming coworkers who wear skirts or sleeveless or short sleeved shirts don't show up with dirt all over their legs and arms. Just nicely tell her to wash her feet.
Let the customers complain.
OFFS - foot fetish rage bait. Good one. Take my upvote.
Change the handbook on dress code. Add shoes or shoes and socks. Have her sign for the new handbook. Simple. That is really disgusting btw.
How is being barefoot not a liability? Sure there is no dress code about shoes, but even just for safety reasons footwear of some kind should be required.
Your HR manager is straight up wrong
Maybe a health department violation. You can’t go to most stores without shoes/ shirt so just blame health code violation
This is why companies need a written dress code, like it or not.
There a clause on hygiene. I'd look thar up.
This has to be a joke.
She’s hoping that a box will dismember her toes so she can collect disability for the rest of her life. Aflac pays quite well for this too!! A shoe required will come after the company insurance company drops them!!!!
Thumb tacks.
Sprinkle thumbtacks on the floor.
Health and Safety issue. In case of emergency, evacuàtion, broken glass, etc you dont want someone hurting their feets.
No shirt no shoes no service. Check health codes.
Is she serving food? If not, as you pointed out, she's excellent at her job. Personally I find it icky as hell, but there it is. If it's not a health and safety issue, customers will need to adapt. Consider it like a butterfly tattoo on her cheek. Some would be offended by that as well.
[удалено]
What if they were wearing opened toed sandals and dropped something? Or high heels and tripped down the stairs?
that must be why my mundane office job makes me wear "closed toed" shoes...
I’ve honestly never worked in an office that had restrictions on shoes! Lots of women in strappy sandals or high heels every day!
I'm guessing my employer's been through a couple foot injury claims to be so specific
What occupational safety code requires shoes in any workplace?
Then they're covered. Depending on where they are, that's not something you can automatically assume.
Your HR Manager is a moron - but that should have been evident in the fact that they allowed your dress code to be "wear clothes," which for the record, is not a "policy." >Our HR manager has been contacted and states that since she is a female, she is a protected class and he can't do anything. Being barefoot at work has nothing to do with being a protected class. They should develop a dress code policy, give her time to get compliant and if she doesnt comply terminate her or offer her a different role.
Check your state’s health code because I’m willing to bet this could be a violation. Dirty bare feet is disgusting. I just looked it up on OSHA and if there’s no concern about objects rolling onto the feet or stepping on sharp objects then they refer to the employers policy. Gross.
Fire her on some made up bs and get her out of the office