Dress code
Jul. 14th, 2003 02:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mamadebMy employers just instituted a dress code for the office. It is nothing unreasonable, imho - no shorts, no bare midriffs, tanktops or camisoles, no halter dresses or tops, no miniskirts or low necklines, no t-shirts (at least, no t-shirts with words or decorations.)
They would prefer casual business attire - shirts, ties and nice pants for the men; blouses and dress pants or skirts for the women (and they'd love suits or dresses), but will take jeans so long as they're not worn with a ratty t-shirt or a camisole or such. My employers themselves always dress better than these requirements.
This is a business and it's not unreasonable to expect people to dress in a businesslike manner, imho, as opposed to being dressed for the beach.
But then again, I was hired, in some small part, because, as they said, "You're not going to wear a halter and shorts." BTW, be grateful for that. :) So, I'm already surpassing code.
We are all, however, amused at the clause that requires bathing, largely because no one currently here seems to be remiss in that.
They would prefer casual business attire - shirts, ties and nice pants for the men; blouses and dress pants or skirts for the women (and they'd love suits or dresses), but will take jeans so long as they're not worn with a ratty t-shirt or a camisole or such. My employers themselves always dress better than these requirements.
This is a business and it's not unreasonable to expect people to dress in a businesslike manner, imho, as opposed to being dressed for the beach.
But then again, I was hired, in some small part, because, as they said, "You're not going to wear a halter and shorts." BTW, be grateful for that. :) So, I'm already surpassing code.
We are all, however, amused at the clause that requires bathing, largely because no one currently here seems to be remiss in that.
