Alopecia World
www.alopeciaworld.com
Equality In The Workplace
Hair indeed is overrated, but under what circumstances is it necessary? This is a non gender specific question.
Equal Opportunity legislation in the UK, and many other countries, indicates that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of appearance. Hence as a general rule hair should not be necessary, unless an employer can demonstrate that there is a justification for expecting their employees to turn up for work with hair on their heads.
I would argue that in the vast majority of cases hair is not necessary, and certainly in all roles that are not customer facing. On the other hand there are clearly some scenarios where it is (ie in the acting profession, where a particular character has to have hair). However even in most customer facing roles I don’t see why hair should be considered necessary. In situations where a company has a particular ‘corporate image’ that they want to project, why should this exclude bald people? No reason at all – corporate images should be inclusive.
Equal Opportunity legislation in the UK, and many other countries, indicates that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of appearance. Hence as a general rule hair should not be necessary, unless an employer can demonstrate that there is a justification for expecting their employees to turn up for work with hair on their heads.
I would argue that in the vast majority of cases hair is not necessary, and certainly in all roles that are not customer facing. On the other hand there are clearly some scenarios where it is (ie in the acting profession, where a particular character has to have hair). However even in most customer facing roles I don’t see why hair should be considered necessary. In situations where a company has a particular ‘corporate image’ that they want to project, why should this exclude bald people? No reason at all – corporate images should be inclusive.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Adams on
-
I completely agree that hair should not be required for customer facing roles. I feel that besides being an appearance discrimination, it is a discrimination on the basis of a disability, as I am UNABLE to grow hair...yet this disability would not interfere with job performance in the least.
-
-
Permalink Reply by David B327 on
-
Hi Laura In this respect we do differ I’m afraid. In my opinion the inclusion of appearance in equal opportunity legislation should cover cases such as involuntary hair loss due to alopecia, and (assuming it does not already) then it should be amended to do so. Alopecia is not a disability. In fact the legislation should cover a person being bald because they choose to do so.
By the way I am actually disabled, and were it not for the Disability Discrimination Act (now superseded by the Equality Act) I would not be working. I was born able bodied, but became blind due to a condition called Retinitis Pigmentosa. With the DDA my employer was required to make a ‘reasonable adjustment’ to enable me to continue making a contribution in the workplace. This includes (for example) ensuring that websites conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Ironically enough I am gaining some expertise on WCAG as a result of my work duties. -
-
Permalink Reply by gldean1988 on
-
I'm a teacher with AU. I wear wigs, and my kids know it. I have a youtube video of the shaving process, and I've shown a few classes my bald head. No one at work cares, but I didn't go to the interview bald. I had my wig on and told them later. Shrug.
What I've found is most people don't care as long you don't.
-
© 2024 Created by Alopecia World.
Powered by
