Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
2016-05-16.
Miss Nicola Thorp fa domanda di assunzione come receptionist presso la sede di una delle massime società di consulenza mondiale.
Presentatasi il primo giorno di lavoro, rifiuta di indossare la divisa, specificatamente scarpe con tacco da 5 cm, che ritiene essere un proditorio attacco sessista.
Licenziata, da luogo ad una campagna stampa di vasta eco. Avanza richiesta danni.
* * * * * * *
Il fatto.
«Nicola Thorp says she was told to leave on her first day at City accountancy firm after refusing to wear shoes with a 2-4in heel»
*
«A receptionist claims she was sent home from work at a corporate finance company after refusing to wear high heels»
*
«Nicola Thorp, 27, from Hackney in east London, arrived on her first day at PwC in December in flat shoes but says she was told she had to wear shoes with a “2in to 4in heel»
*
«Thorp, who was employed as a temporary worker by PwC’s outsourced reception firm Portico, said she was laughed at when she said the demand was discriminatory and sent home without pay after refusing to go out and buy a pair of heels»
* * * * * * *
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).
«PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) è un network distribuito in 158 Paesi con oltre 210.000 professionisti, che fornisce servizi professionali di revisione di bilancio, advisory e consulenza legale e fiscale.
La società odierna è il risultato della fusione tra la Price Waterhouse e la Coopers & Lybrand avvenuta nel 1998.
La società, colosso mondiale dei servizi professionali, è tra le più prestigiose del pianeta e fa parte delle cosiddette “Big Four”, ovvero le quattro più grandi aziende di revisione, insieme a Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young e KPMG.
Fino al 2002 a queste si aggiungeva la Arthur Andersen, prima del fallimento in seguito allo scandalo Enron negli Stati Uniti.» [Fonte]
La PwC aveva a fine 2015 208,109 dipendenti in tutto il mondo con un fatturato di circa 35.4 miliardi di dollari americani.
È una delle maggiori società mondiali nel proprio settore di interesse. La sua clientela vive ed opera in ambienti tipicamente eleganti e, spesso, raffinati.
* * * * * * *
Receptionist.
Il/la receptionist è la figura-chiave delle strutture ricettive di una società, accoglie il cliente al suo arrivo, verifica l’appuntamento ovvero lo procura, fornisce informazioni, accompagna il cliente da chi di dovere, spesso è in grado di parlare fluentemente più lingue
È il primo biglietto da visita di una società. Sia ben chiaro: il solo sorriso e la sola performance del receptionist sarebbero del tutto inutili senza una successiva prestazione professionale adeguata. Tuttavia costituisce il primo impatto della società sul cliente.
Di norma, maggiore è l’importanza sociale ed economica dei clienti e degli affari trattati, maggiore è la cura nella selezione dei receptionist: sopra un minimo entry-level la divisa aziendale è un obbligo. Si pensi soltanto alle hostess, che indossano invariabilmente una accurata divisa.
* * * * * * *
La divisa.
«Workplace dress codes are ultimately a form of branding, according to Talbot. “Your clothes and personal style represent who you are and what you care about, and what staff wear to work has a significant bearing on the image that business projects,” she explains. “It’s therefore paramount that what your employees wear reflects your business accurately, and a dress code can help ensure that.”
Natalie Bayfield is CEO of Bayfield Training, which has a policy of not allowing trainers or light blue jeans at work. She says the firm’s dress code isn’t intended to prescribe what can or can’t be worn but rather to encourage the team to consider the impact of what they wear on what they’re achieving at work.
“We want people to value the work they do, and what you wear to work contributes to that. Taking pride in your appearance and making an effort to look smart transmits a powerful message,” explains Bayfield.
“But our dress code also leaves plenty of room for individuals to interpret it in accordance with their own personal sense of style.” She says staff need to look professional in the office because clients can drop in unannounced. “While it’s not impossible to make a pair of jeans look smart, we want the team to adopt a more professional approach and make the right impression at the same time as feeling comfortable. It’s easier to do that if you feel good about what you’re wearing but still free to be an individual.”» [Fonte]
* * * * * * *
La reazione di miss Thorp.
«Thorp said after speaking to friends and posting about the incident on her Facebook account she realised that other women had been in similar positions. She has since launched a petition calling for the law to be changed so companies can no longer force women to wear high heels to work. It has so far received more than 11,000 signatures»
*
«I don’t hold anything against the company necessarily, because they are acting within their rights as employers to have a formal dress code, and, as it stands, part of that for a woman is to wear high heels. I think dress codes should reflect society and nowadays women can be smart and wear flat shoes»
*
«Apart from the debilitating factor, it’s the sexism issue. I think companies shouldn’t be forcing that on their female employees »
* * * * * * *
Conclusioni.
A sommesso parere dello scrivente, essendo Miss Nicola Thorp a conoscenza che accettare di lavorare come receptionist avrebbe implicato indossare una specifica divisa, avrebbe potuto benissimo declinare l’offerta.
Comprendiamo anche molto bene come il dichiararsi perseguitata sessualmente sul lavoro sia la prima fase per poter citare in giudizio la società e cercare di ottenerne un congruo risarcimento.
«Feminism gave women the freedom to choose what they want to do with their lives and they can choose whether they want to wear high heels or not»: certamente, nella loro vita privata, ma non possono imporre ciò a tutto il mondo, massimamente alla società n cui vorrebbero lavorare: anche quest’ultima è libera di non assumere femministe.
*
La stessa super-femminista del Guardian ammette infatti che:
«I know some women who love heels.»
Che le femmine si mettano d’accordo prima tra di loro.
→ The Guardian. 216-05-11. Receptionist ‘sent home from PwC for not wearing high heels’
Nicola Thorp says she was told to leave on her first day at City accountancy firm after refusing to wear shoes with a 2-4in heel.
*
A receptionist claims she was sent home from work at a corporate finance company after refusing to wear high heels.
Nicola Thorp, 27, from Hackney in east London, arrived on her first day at PwC in December in flat shoes but says she was told she had to wear shoes with a “2in to 4in heel”.
Thorp, who was employed as a temporary worker by PwC’s outsourced reception firm Portico, said she was laughed at when she said the demand was discriminatory and sent home without pay after refusing to go out and buy a pair of heels.
Portico said it set the uniform rules for staff but would review its guidelines, the BBC reported.
Thorp told BBC Radio London: “I said, ‘If you can give me a reason as to why wearing flats would impair me to do my job today, then fair enough’, but they couldn’t. I was expected to do a nine-hour shift on my feet escorting clients to meeting rooms. I said I just won’t be able to do that in heels.”
Thorp said after speaking to friends and posting about the incident on her Facebook account she realised that other women had been in similar positions. She has since launched a petition calling for the law to be changed so companies can no longer force women to wear high heels to work. It has so far received more than 11,000 signatures.
“I was a bit scared about speaking up about it in case there was a negative backlash,” she said. “But I realised I needed to put a voice to this as it is a much bigger issue.
“I don’t hold anything against the company necessarily, because they are acting within their rights as employers to have a formal dress code, and, as it stands, part of that for a woman is to wear high heels. I think dress codes should reflect society and nowadays women can be smart and wear flat shoes.
“Apart from the debilitating factor, it’s the sexism issue. I think companies shouldn’t be forcing that on their female employees.”
A Portico spokesman said: “In line with industry standard practice, we have personal appearance guidelines across many of our corporate locations. These policies ensure staff are dressed consistently and include recommendations for appropriate style of footwear for the role.
“We have taken on board the comments regarding footwear and will be reviewing our guidelines in consultation with our clients and team members.”
A PwC spokesman said: “PwC outsources its front of house and reception services to a third-party supplier. We first became aware of this matter on 10 May, some five months after the issue arose. The dress code referenced in the article is not a PwC policy.”
→ The Guardian. 216-05-11. Can a feminist wear high heels?
One of the things feminism is about is freedom – and that means being able to choose what you feel comfortable wearing.
*
Is it unfeminist to wear high heels?
Sarah, by email
Only if the high heels are shouting up at you: “Oi, Sarah! Women aren’t good for anything but cooking, cleaning and shagging! Go and make us a cup of tea, will you, love?”
Other than that, there’s nothing inherently bad about high heels, just as there isn’t about most clothes. Sure, complaining about how it’s men who decide what’s sexy in a woman and then promptly stripping off to pose for a men’s magazine won’t help feminism and will make you look pretty silly, but let’s let sleeping dogs lie.
Look, feminism isn’t very complicated: it’s about equality. That’s it! We can all pack up and go home now!
Except not quite, because there are some niggling issues still. Leaving aside the ongoing argument about whether mainstream feminism still ignores various demographics of women (namely, non-Caucasian, non-middle class, non-heterosexual) as it once did, there are still many queries that are all basically variations on the theme of Sarah’s question: what is feminist and what isn’t? It would make life much easier if someone could just knock up an encyclopaedia detailing whether eye shadow is feminist and mascara isn’t, but that cannot be.
You see, what is one person’s embrace of their sexuality is another person’s patriarchal oppression. And you know why that is? Because women aren’t just women – they’re individuals. And individuals have different reactions and needs. Women are also, by and large, smart enough to tell when they, as individuals, feel elevated or downtrodden by something and whether their feelings come genuinely from themselves or because they have been brainwashed by the patriarchal society. So, in regards to feminism, while the overall message – equality – is universal, the details (marriage, sexual predilections, high heels) vary from woman to woman. And you know what? That’s just fine.
Feminism gave women the freedom to choose what they want to do with their lives and they can choose whether they want to wear high heels or not.
Personally, high heels are anti-feminist for me – and only for me; I’m not issuing some edict from on high here – although it took me until my early 30s to realise this. I careened through my 20s on heels so high they allowed me to see the world from the perspective of someone 6ft tall, albeit only for a few minutes, as I was generally only able to stay upright for brief periods. How I made it to 30 without a broken neck or at least ankle is possibly the eighth wonder of the world.
I know some women who love heels. Some who wear them on casual days, for no special reason at all. Some who claim that being taller makes them feel stronger, more empowered, and that they feel like a duck when they walk in flat shoes. I am not one of those women. For me, high heels are just fancy foot binding with a three-figure price tag and they render me so immobile that I can barely be bothered to get up off my seat to go to the loo, meaning that I may one day require a catheter whenever I wear heels, which would probably take some of the sexiness away from my Louboutins.
They put me in a terrible mood; they make me high-maintenance, such as demanding a taxi to go a distance of about 50 yards; and, worst of all, they make me boring because all I can do is talk about how much my feet hurt. Two inches is pretty much my limit on a heel for a day shoe, and I can go high on special occasions, as long as I am promised that I’ll be seated for most of the evening. If dancing is going to be involved, I’m back to the two-inchers, ideally something such as Janey flats from J Crew (which I have mentioned before and are the shoes I live in most) or Vara low pumps from Salvatore Ferragamo, if I’m feeling a bit posher and preppier.
I have no doubt these shoes would make other women feel insufferably frumpy, like a mix between Margaret Thatcher and the Queen Mum. They wouldn’t leave the house in anything lower than a six-inch platform from Charlotte Olympia. Others, by contrast, would find the two-inch heel far too prissy and only feel at home in some stompy combat boots.
But this is why our foremothers died for us, ladies: so we could choose our own footwear (well, that and the vote.)
In my two-inch heels I feel mobile, comfortable, confident, stylish and, most of all, I feel like myself. And you can’t get more feminist than that.
SenzaNubi 
