Rejecting applicants based on choice of attire

[Raikas]

No you dhouldn't. I'm very much against rejecting someone based on apperances, looks and prejudice. You are basically discriminating her for using a blause you found inappropiate. I hate this kind of thing. Where her answers good? How is her CV? You now, the things that matter to the interview and to the job she will perform.

Part of job performance is getting along with your coworkers and (in the case of customer-facing roles) your customer. And a bit part of that is knowing how to work with the company culture - someone who under-dresses (or overdresses, for that matter) is choosing not to work with that culture, and that's very much a part of work performance.

And that's doubly true for retail/sales/customer service people - whether or not clothing is superficial, if your role requires you to present a certain image to an audience, going against that image is failing to do your job properly.

 

[axlryder]

It's fine if you say no. I'd agree that a hint of cleavage or a small amount could be tasteful. What the girl had, I'd say, is too much to alleviate my other concerns. In retrospect, I consider what she had, honestly, excessive.

Then we're agreed, it's just a case of line drawing.

Well it's not an applicable example and I've yet to hear a hypothetical that sounds reasonable and negates my initial concerns.

Considering other people in this thread have said they know or are women who struggle to be physically comfortable and not show cleavage I don't think it's so far off.
And like I say, that's just one example, I don't have breasts so my knowledge in the area is pretty limited.

you deeming it apt doesn't somehow constitute a sound argument, it just makes you sound biased in the opposite direction.

That's because it was a summary, and like I said a pretty dramatic one at that.

I already explained how it could be a factor and I don't think her cleavage was minute enough to fall under the radar.

You explained it was a factor, but not why it was a factor.
But that was before we were saying the cleavage was excessive.
Cleavage is a non-factor in an interview, in the same way the candidates trousers being flared or not is a non-factor.
Excessive cleavage is a factor, in the same way the candidate wearing parachute pants is a factor.

My point was that that portion of the comment served no practical purpose and didn't actually validate anything beyond your own capacity for hyperbole. I'd suggest leaving out summaries.

As for reasoning, consideration for the potential concerns of your employer and customer's comfort and intent to not be physically distracting or possibly misrepresenting oneself shows conscientiousness. I also know that the concerns of other women in this thread just don't really apply here, as the girl's figure wasn't some kind of anomaly or outlier that might warrant difficulty in finding a range of clothes, and I know there is plenty of business attire available in regular old clothing stories that shows practically no cleavage. I honestly don't think it takes a lot of cleavage to raise a flag unless there really is likely some physical reason.

 

[Smeatza]

My point was that that portion of the comment served no practical purpose and didn't actually validate anything beyond your own capacity for hyperbole. I'd suggest leaving out summaries.

Nah, people usually get it.

As for reasoning, consideration for the potential concerns of your employer and customer's comfort

Just to play devil's advocate now, what concerns might an employer have with a candidate showing cleavage?
Is it reasonable to have such concerns in regards to what many would consider a minor fashion choice? Are such concerns ethically defensible? Does this not vary depending on the nature of the business? What is the nature of the business in question may I ask?

and intent to not be physically distracting or possibly misrepresenting oneself shows conscientiousness.

Again, to play devil's advocate.
Is it fair to blame the candidate for the fact others might be distracted by their style of dress?
The same applies to judgements others might make. Speaking of which kind of representation (or misrepresentation) does cleavage make?
Again, how significant such factors would be surely depends on the nature of the business.

 

[Raikas]

You believe this crap? Do you know most people in retail are given uniforms to wear?

I don't know which country/city you're in, but I've never lived somewhere where this is true outside of fast food places and a handful of chain shops. The vast majority do not - most have a dress code, but that only reinforces the importance of dressing for the interview.

Most employers really have no other choice because of an over abundance of potential employees. Hell, a few of them that I know even rejected applicants that were even more qualified themselves just because they didn't like the look of their nose or nails. Even another mate of mine managed to get a job and he hasn't cut his hair in years and has never shaved.

If you're job-hunting in a market where there's underemployment then I fail to see why you think people shouldn't take the extra step to make themselves stand out in a positive way. In over-employment areas, you do see more flexibility, but that's because the employers are desperate for workers and are willing to be flexible on a number of other points as well (experience/education/etc.) - I saw a fair bit of that when I was in Calgary 2005-2009 (the oil boom meant that lower level jobs were almost impossible to fill).

 

[axlryder]

ignore, mispost

 

[axlryder]

My point was that that portion of the comment served no practical purpose and didn't actually validate anything beyond your own capacity for hyperbole. I'd suggest leaving out summaries.

Nah, people usually get it.

As for reasoning, consideration for the potential concerns of your employer and customer's comfort

Just to play devil's advocate now, what concerns might an employer have with a candidate showing cleavage?
Is it reasonable to have such concerns in regards to what many would consider a minor fashion choice? Are such concerns ethically defensible? Does this not vary depending on the nature of the business? What is the nature of the business in question may I ask?

and intent to not be physically distracting or possibly misrepresenting oneself shows conscientiousness.

Again, to play devil's advocate.
Is it fair to blame the candidate for the fact others might be distracted by their style of dress?
The same applies to judgements others might make. Speaking of which kind of representation (or misrepresentation) does cleavage make?
Again, how significant such factors would be surely depends on the nature of the business.

If applied equitably then people are likely getting that it looks pointlessly asinine (which it does).

Also, yes, it's the interviewee's responsibility to take into account the concerns of others if those concerns are commonly understood and recognized by a substantial portion of people(and "modest dress" most certainly is, degree of cleavage deemed appropriate obviously existing on a spectrum here). Your devil's advocate points have all already been made elsewhere in the thread, and while there are arguments for both sides, at the end of the day the validity of concerns don't even need to be an issue because it's not about whether or not it objectively matters if the food is kosher, you probably aren't going to bring pork to a Jewish potluck. They may not even care about or observe kashrut, doesn't really matter though if you don't already know. Obviously you still have the issue of what straddles the line between acceptable and not-acceptable dress, but I think overall it's better to try and offend as few people as possible, unless you're actually trying to work the sex appeal angle, which is obviously a gamble. and I'll leave it at that for the sake of brevity, as I actually don't have time for this convo anymore.

 

[generals3]

Generally it depends on how up tight the interviewer is. It's not worth changing the way you look because if you like the way you look then would you want to work at a place where you have to lie about who you are? I mean really it is on a par with rejecting someone because they are too fat or too skinny or too black because you are making a decision based on assumptions rather than facts.

No it is not on par. Because one chooses how they dress, however they do not choose to be black. Consequently the way you dress actually does say something about you and your behavior. It may be misread, sure, but that goes for everything in life.

The way I see it dressing appropriately for an interview suggests you put that extra effort in it (and thus suggests more motivation) but also that you know how to adapt your behavior when necessary.

And I once saw a professor lashing out at a pupil for not coming in a suite to the oral exam because he saw that as a sign of lack of respect. The way he saw it is that not even being arsed to wear a suite was suggesting he didn't give a rats ass.

And let's not forget there are also plenty of jobs where clothing matters. Think of sales, banking, consultancy, etc.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

First impressions count when getting a job, and if you can?t obey the dress code for whatever reason, the employers simply won?t care. I see that as neither a good thing nor a bad thing, since the customers are going to be just as prejudiced when seeing you as a representative as they are. If it?s between her and an equally meritorious or qualified candidate, nitpicking is going to have to happen. You are trying to get the best person for the job and judge who?s likely to give you the least trouble.

But anyway, you?ve made your decision. I suppose, for reference for this continuing discussion, you could bring up a picture of a woman wearing a similar blouse to the one you interviewed.

Also, this sounds really close to the argument someone gave when I asked him about his racist hiring practices. Not accusing you of anything, but if you think stereotyping your applicants is a good and necessary thing to do, it seems likely this would apply to areas other than dress.

I don't mean to cut in, and no offence, but...you can choose what you wear to a job interview. You can't choose your race. Every hiring company has a set of standards that their prospective employees must adhere to, and colour wouldn't be one of them due to discrimination laws.

You'd have a point if a woman was being turned solely because of her gender, not if she turned away because her low-cut top was seen as unprofessional for the interview and/or job (which you may or may not agree with; I'm on the fence, so I don't like to assume people's motivations for dressing a certain way, but at the same time, I don't have my butt on the line hiring prospective representatives for the company that pays my wages). But neither race nor gender have got anything to do with professionalism.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I don't mean to cut in, and no offence, but...you can choose what you wear to a job interview. You can't choose your race. Every hiring company has a set of standards that their prospective employees must adhere to, and colour wouldn't be one of them due to discrimination laws.

You can be racist against Muslims and Muslims aren't a race. I find it difficult to believe someone who extols the virtues of stereotyping and assuming the worst of people based on those stereotypes would turn out not to be a bigot. There are extremely negative stereotypes for most minorities so it seems like a perfect recipe for discrimination.

While you claim it isn't a case of sexism, I would disagree. For men the standard of dress is extremely simple, widely known and accepted. For women it is much harder to establish what is acceptable. For example in some work places it is considered unprofessional not to wear make-up, while in others this could count against you. If you accidentally overdo it, it can count against you. Women are judged more favourably if they dress feminine too. For example women who wore business skirts were rated more highly than those who wore the equivalent pants.

But if, somewhere among these conflicting pressures to look simultaneously feminine and professional, you wear a shirt that's slightly low cut, fuck you. You're probably a skank who's going to try to seduce the other employees.

 

[Bertylicious]

Generally it depends on how up tight the interviewer is. It's not worth changing the way you look because if you like the way you look then would you want to work at a place where you have to lie about who you are? I mean really it is on a par with rejecting someone because they are too fat or too skinny or too black because you are making a decision based on assumptions rather than facts.

No it is not on par. Because one chooses how they dress, however they do not choose to be black. Consequently the way you dress actually does say something about you and your behavior. It may be misread, sure, but that goes for everything in life.

The way I see it dressing appropriately for an interview suggests you put that extra effort in it (and thus suggests more motivation) but also that you know how to adapt your behavior when necessary.

And I once saw a professor lashing out at a pupil for not coming in a suite to the oral exam because he saw that as a sign of lack of respect. The way he saw it is that not even being arsed to wear a suite was suggesting he didn't give a rats ass.

And let's not forget there are also plenty of jobs where clothing matters. Think of sales, banking, consultancy, etc.

I dunno, I was trying to link in with the other thread about stereotypes. I mean is a person who doesn't give a toss about their image going to make a poor Trading Analyst? Does whether or not one's tie is crooked demark whether one can be trusted to take an effective position on the European gas market? Even if one assumes that all people with crooked ties are worthless fuck-ups because all the people you've met with crooked ties have been worthless fuck-ups then isn't that a logical fallacy?

In that instance, inferring something in that manner, why would it be so bad to compare such preconceptions with racial prejudice?

I'm being a dick here though; what you're talking about is when you've given someone a reasonable request, wearing a suite in your example (which to me means something to do with sofas or hotels but whatever) and they have failed to carry it out. I would suggest that this is a different thing to judging on appearence, although I can't see what bearing what one wears would have on one's performance in an academic examination so I'm not convinced the professor was in the right.

All that said, I would agree with you in relation to any role that would be "customer facing" but more out of regretable practical neccsity than out of some manner of prefference.

EDIT: I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that interviews are widley considered a bullshit recruitment method by modern organisations and that a proper system is to use some form of detailed, practical, assesment. In the real world setting most companies & HR departments don't have the time or resource to do anything other than interviews but in my eyes the true test of a new starter's viability is how the person does in their probation period. The selection you've made via interview may as well be drawn out of a hat.

 

[Smeatza]

If applied equitably then people are likely getting that it looks pointlessly asinine (which it does).

Again this isn't a reason why, it's just another baseless judgement.
Why does it look assinine?

Also, yes, it's the interviewee's responsibility to take into account the concerns of others if those concerns are commonly understood and recognized by a substantial portion of people(and "modest dress" most certainly is, degree of cleavage deemed appropriate obviously existing on a spectrum here).

I'm not disputing this is the case, I'm asking if these concerns are ethically justifiable or even valid at all.

Your devil's advocate points have all already been made elsewhere in the thread, and while there are arguments for both sides, at the end of the day the validity of concerns don't even need to be an issue because it's not about whether or not it objectively matters if the food is kosher, you probably aren't going to bring pork to a Jewish potluck. They may not even care about or observe kashrut, doesn't really matter though if you don't already know.

I disagree, I would say the validity of such concerns is a big issue, bigger than any individual business or industry.
There's tailoring your business to it's target demographic and then there's following social and cultural norms without question.
You are right, at the end of the day it's usually about doing what's right for the business, but that doesn't mean we can't ponder why that's right for the business, whether that's fair and whether it's something worth taking a stand on.

Obviously you still have the issue of what straddles the line between acceptable and not-acceptable dress, but I think overall it's better to try and offend as few people as possible,

Not rocking the boat is often a valid business choice, sometimes not.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It is perfectly acceptable to reject based on the choice of attire. In an interview, it is safe to assume the following:
The person dressed in a specific way in order to send a particular message about themselves -or- they dressed haphazardly without caring about or considering the message it sends.

If a candidate stands out above the rest save for their choice in wardrobe, I would think only the most extreme wardrobe choice would be grounds for rejection. If they were instead similarly qualified for a position, then the wardrobe question can be an important tie breaker. If nothing else, dressing properly shows both that they care about the message they send with their appearance and that they are capable of making an intelligent choice about how to express themselves with fashion.

In terms of the specific example given, I probably wouldn't hold it against the candidate. Low cuts are common in all but the most conservative of female business dress. If the garb was profession in all other respects and would meet the workplace dress standards in your organization, I wouldn't see a problem with it.

 

[axlryder]

If applied equitably then people are likely getting that it looks pointlessly asinine (which it does).

Again this isn't a reason why, it's just another baseless judgement.
Why does it look assinine?

Also, yes, it's the interviewee's responsibility to take into account the concerns of others if those concerns are commonly understood and recognized by a substantial portion of people(and "modest dress" most certainly is, degree of cleavage deemed appropriate obviously existing on a spectrum here).

I'm not disputing this is the case, I'm asking if these concerns are ethically justifiable or even valid at all.

Your devil's advocate points have all already been made elsewhere in the thread, and while there are arguments for both sides, at the end of the day the validity of concerns don't even need to be an issue because it's not about whether or not it objectively matters if the food is kosher, you probably aren't going to bring pork to a Jewish potluck. They may not even care about or observe kashrut, doesn't really matter though if you don't already know.

I disagree, I would say the validity of such concerns is a big issue, bigger than any individual business or industry.
There's tailoring your business to it's target demographic and then there's following social and cultural norms without question.
You are right, at the end of the day it's usually about doing what's right for the business, but that doesn't mean we can't ponder why that's right for the business, whether that's fair and whether it's something worth taking a stand on.

Obviously you still have the issue of what straddles the line between acceptable and not-acceptable dress, but I think overall it's better to try and offend as few people as possible,

Not rocking the boat is often a valid business choice, sometimes not.

This isn't a question about what's right or what's wrong in the long run or what should be socially acceptable, it's a question about making a decision in this moment based around our current social paradigm. Also, rocking the boat is never a safe bet in business unless it's highly calculated. This is a job interview for management, the benefits simply aren't there to outweigh the risks for me.