Jobseeker accuses Carowinds of discrimination

eightdotthree said:
I am representing my company at that point and shorts and a t-shirt is not professional. Neither would a mohawk.

According to whom? Who decides this? The most beloved (or hated) CEO in the world wears black turtlenecks and jeans pretty much whenever he's in public. I saw Microsoft's principal researcher this year speak in flip-flops. Let's be serious, these are people with far greater impact on the world than a ride operator with dreadlocks, so why do they get more relaxed accepted standards?

Arguing that CF has the right to not hire someone who refuses to comply with the dress and grooming code is yet another dead-end strawman go nowhere conversation. Arguing a company has the ability to dictate appearance just distracts from the meat of the nut - the actual rules.

Bottom line is regardless of legality the policy is stupid, originally from an HR viewpoint and now, thanks to the complaint and story from a PR viewpoint. CF would do well to find some sort of middle ground to put a happy ending on the whole thing and realize that reworking their grooming policies to reasonably accommodate a person with dreads is not going to mean the end of the company.

eightdotthree said:
I am representing my company at that point and shorts and a t-shirt is not professional. Neither would a mohawk.

Jeff said:

According to whom? Who decides this?

The hiring company!

ridemcoaster said:
Guess you wouldnt.. Unless it was you that was turned down...

That's such a crap argument. You can do better.

1. It assumes one has never experienced the situation.

2. It assumes one cannot understand a situation unless they experience it.

Either way the qualified could be emotionally hurt by this type of rejection.

Are we really arguing potential emotional distress over not being hired for a job? Puh-leeeze!

Jeff said:
According to whom? Who decides this? The most beloved (or hated) CEO in the world wears black turtlenecks and jeans pretty much whenever he's in public.

Steve Jobs also represents a brand that is known for being cool, a suit and tie doesn't fit that image.

Jeff said:
I saw Microsoft's principal researcher this year speak in flip-flops. Let's be serious, these are people with far greater impact on the world than a ride operator with dreadlocks, so why do they get more relaxed accepted standards?

I would bet money that he doesn't dress that way when he is in business meetings outside of the campus.

The point is that Cedar Fair has this rule and it doesn't discriminate against her race or religion. You can't always have what you want, there are rules in life and she needs to follow them.

For sure sounds like "25 And Over" #10.

A dress code, or suggested attire on an invitation, is not an instrument of The Man.

No Gonch.. if you read the whole thing I wrote.. I said , its probably not her dream job (thus not affecting HER emotionally) but im sure there are some people out there that being turned down for something stupid as appearance could affect.

Course this takes the talent to be able to look outside your own world and possibly think that some people may have some level of feelings for the things that happen to them.

Oh and my "unless its you" is far from a "crap argument".. More of a statement.

Jeff said:

According to whom? Who decides this? The most beloved (or hated) CEO in the world wears black turtlenecks and jeans pretty much whenever he's in public. I saw Microsoft's principal researcher this year speak in flip-flops. Let's be serious, these are people with far greater impact on the world than a ride operator with dreadlocks, so why do they get more relaxed accepted standards?

Probably the billions in their wallets. There are people with far greater impact on the world who do have standards for grooming and appearance that must be upheld. Most operating rooms, for example. Like it or not, appearance does matter. Why do you suppose most defendants show up in the courtroom in suit and tie vs. grungy T-shirts and baggy pants? If their attorneys didn't think appearance made a difference in how one is perceived, they wouldn't care what their clients wore.

If this girl can demonstrate that there are no other African-Americans employed at Carowinds of CF in general, she might have a case. At age 18, she has many years of job rejection ahead of her.

You (plural) may not agree, but a company does have the right to decide on its own standards for grooming and appearance. If anyone here thinks it's too rigid or too archaic, don't go there-- sell your units-- rip up your passes. Simple.

ridemcoaster said:
No Gonch.. if you read the whole thing I wrote.. I said , its probably not her dream job (thus not affecting HER emotionally) but im sure there are some people out there that being turned down for something stupid as appearance could affect.

So you're saying someone might be emotionally affected because they didn't get a job.

You've just said it two different ways now.

Course this takes the talent to be able to look outside your own world and possibly think that some people may have some level of feelings for the things that happen to them.

I would hope people have the same level of talent for applying perspective to a situation as well. Feelings are quite unrational at times. Being "emotionally hurt by this type of rejection" as you put it originally is probably one of those times.

Oh and my "unless its you" is far from a "crap argument".. More of a statement.

Ok, a crap statement.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

RatherGoodBear said:
If this girl can demonstrate that there are no other African-Americans employed at Carowinds of CF in general, she might have a case. At age 18, she has many years of job rejection ahead of her.

You (plural) may not agree, but a company does have the right to decide on its own standards for grooming and appearance. If anyone here thinks it's too rigid or too archaic, don't go there-- sell your units-- rip up your passes. Simple.

Finger. Nose.

It's really no more complicated than that. None. Not at all.

I had a couple of thoughts on this, but they will surely pale in comparison to RGB's post. He pretty much nailed things right on the head in a concise way.

I am really floored to hear that so many people think the general public has evolved their perceptions of appearance so much that they don't have an issue with hair, tattoos, piercings, or whatever. That is not my experience at all and I would doubt it holds true for the general mid-west. Bear's point about courtroom appearances is pretty incisive that way.

I also can't believe that so many don't think this kind of filtering is going on in just about every organization that hires people. One way or another an organization determines the style that will best suit their mission and hires accordingly.

The only difference here is that Carowinds specifies the expectation, publishes it to applicants, and provides an opportunity for an applicant to comply if he/she chooses. Why would we be condemning them for being clear and upfront about their expectations?

Edited for spacing goofiness.

Are we really comparing courtroom or hospital operating room dress and grooming requirements to...

...a girl who wants to work for peanuts checking lap bars all summer in dreads?

Does anyone here really want to address the specifics of the story or is spouting off "welcome to the real world" platitudes and repeating over and over that a private company has a right to set (stupid) grooming and dress standards simply good enough?

So silly. I have the right to say no one can enter my house without a purple hat on their head but it's still dumb.

matt. said:
Does anyone here really want to address the specifics of the story or is spouting off "welcome to the real world" platitudes and repeating over and over that a private company has a right to set (stupid) grooming and dress standards simply good enough?

I think it's been addressed several times. It's just not the answer you want to hear.

We all know that the girl's hair doesn't affect who she is or her potential performance at any given hourly position at Carowinds.

But CF wants to present their company in a certain way. That's their right - the same as it's her right to have that hairstyle.

As far as employment with the company goes, she soesn't meet the requirements they have set. She's apparently not willing to meet those requirements so they part ways.

Later that girl claims it was discriminatory approach, her mommy called the park and the local news was notified. They seem to believe the 'no dreads' policy is a indirect way of implementing a 'no african-americans' policy (paraphrasing based on their 'caucasians' comment in the article) and made a lot of noise.

I don't think anyone here is buying that this was a race related incident. We're discussing whether we think it's right or wrong to hire someone based on something superficial like hairstyle.

What more needs addressed, matt?

Well, the specific nature of the story is limited to the fact that the girl indicates she was discriminated against for race in a hiring practice. She wasn't. That was covered in Brian's very first post.

Discussing whether or not the policy is stupid is as arbitrary as discussing whether or not thinking it is stupid is actionable.

You think the policy is stupid. That's your opinion. Where does the discussion go from there?

eightdotthree said:
I would bet money that he doesn't dress that way when he is in business meetings outside of the campus.

You would be wrong. This was at what I'd describe as a "mixed audience" conference, with everyone from in-the-weeds codemonkeys to executives that decide platform strategy.

@RGB: Are you really comparing surgeons and lawyers to ride operators? For real?

Some of you keep coming back to what the company has a right to do, and I don't think anyone is arguing against that. If it's legal, they can do whatever they want. This discussion is about the implications of enforcing that right, in this case the PR result of potentially outdated standards. Let me bring it back here again, since no one will respond to the question: Is Cedar Fair's policy out of touch with what is culturally acceptable, and therefore overlooking qualified people?

My personal opinion on dreadlocks notwithstanding, I think that the claims of racism based on only African-Americans wearing dreads is bull-pucky. Lately I've seen more Caucasians wearing dreads than African-Americans, and the Caucasian dreads are usually not as nicely maintained. One girl that I used to see frequently at school used to have the nastiest crop of dreads that I've ever seen in person-- and she was white.

And did anybody see that "What Not to Wear" episode with the girl with dreads waaay down her back? (I think the woman's name was Kristin.) Yuck. But again, not well cared-for.

I think that if the dreads are neat, clean, and well-maintained, there shouldn't be a problem with them. Oh, and cornrows are different than dreads-- cornrows are a type of braid, but dreads are pretty much permanent (FWIU), and to get rid of them they pretty much have to be cut out.

If it wasn't for the fact that I think I look better with some hair around my face, I might be tempted to try cornrows!

CatPurrson

RGB was not comparing ride operators to lawyers. He was comparing the general public who attends amusement parks with the jury who judges defendants in the courtroom. They both judge appearance with a critical eye.

I thought I did address your point, Jeff. But more directly, no, I do not think CF's policy is out of touch with what is culturally acceptable. And yes, they are likely overlooking qualified people, but not simply because they are out of touch as you put it.

You mentioned that you were put off by the supervisor-like employee at Hershey with his pants down below his waist. Why? What made that a line for you in terms of acceptable appearance? It had nothing to do with his skill sets.

I take a very different stance on neatness/cleanliness and things you physically do to your body, whether it be hair or body modification. Underwear touches your naked ass, and I shouldn't have to see underwear. That's where I draw my line. It's like the young goth chick we saw on the monorail. Her fashion may have been non-conventional, but there was nothing dirty or messy about her (or her friend with the Cheetos-colored dreads ;)).

If they're not missing out on good employees because they're out of touch, then what is the reason? Because it's their choice? That's not really an answer.

They are missing out on good employees because all employers miss out on good employees via the very arbitrary crapshoot that is the hiring process. It happens no matter what the hiring standards. I think that's the point Gonch was making earlier.

But my point was, you drew the line on the jeans and CF draws the line with dreads. Both are arbitrary. How can one be ok and the other not?

Jeff said:
You would be wrong. This was at what I'd describe as a "mixed audience" conference, with everyone from in-the-weeds codemonkeys to executives that decide platform strategy.

But it's not a business meeting at an executive's office.

Jeff said:
I take a very different stance on neatness/cleanliness and things you physically do to your body, whether it be hair or body modification. Underwear touches your naked ass, and I shouldn't have to see underwear. That's where I draw my line.

That's where you draw your line. Cedar Fair drew theirs somewhere else.

"(Crap, did I just become LostKause?)"

Lol, Andy. Very good points, even if the jokes on me.

IOA started allowing males to wear earrings while I was working there back in '01. The "goodwill" that they showed their employees rippled friendly energy throughout the entire park, that reached all the way to their guests (many who were men who wore earrings, btw).

Before my employment at Cedar Point, I had to get my sholder length, hair cut off, and recolor back to it's naturial color. I knew that their grooming guiedlines were ridiculous, but I complied, because working at CP was a dream come true.

If any of you are unfamiliar, go ahead and take a look at the goofy grooming guirdlines...

http://www.cedarpoint.com/public/jobs/general/grooming.cfm

(All right, fess up. Who chuckled at the illistrations?)

A very good point was made in the news article. Cedar Fair will allow someone with dreds to buy a ticket, come in and enjoy the rides and shows, and purchase treats and gifts. Why can't the employees have the same hairstyles as the guests? I firmly believe that your emplyees should be relatable to your guests. If you serve everyday people, your employees should look like everyday people too. That is a good way to create a connection between the two groups, which leads to mutuial respect.

It clear that CF is simply way behind the times in many areas, especially in terms of employee appearance. They want every man to look like Walt Disney and every woman to look like Beaver Cleaver's Mom. Not everyone looks like they stepped right out of the 50s.

Upon being hired, CF employees forfet the right to express themselves in a healthy way, which is just one of the many ways that the company crerates a mindset void of indeviduial identy.

When you work at Cedar Point, your identy becomes where you work within the park. You lose who you used to be, the guy in the band, the girl who is a gifted artist, the dude who is an awesome football player, or the girl who used to be on TV. ...Assimilated into the Borg, if you will.

Do they have the right to force people to become robots molded into their specifications in exchange for employment? Of course. Do they look like assholes in the process (as Jeff suggested)? That up to each individuial. To me, yes 100% Will it prevent a signficant number of people from visiting the park? Probably not, but it's still doesn't make it right.

Lost Kause - Who probably unintentionally offended someone at some point of my post.

I think that it's not really an issue of acceptability with culture at all. I believe that today you are able to express yourself as you like and I completely agree with that. I also think that if you want dreads, tattoos, baggy jeans or whatever that is your choice.

I think where the sticking point comes in is when you work for someone else and they put a set of expectations on you as far as attire and appearance. This is done not only by private companies, but also by the government. Any branch of the U.S. Military has rules as far as hair style, appearance, etc. goes. They don't care what your race, creed, culture is. It is volunteer last I checked and if you want to be a part of it you must abide by their rules. If not....you need not apply.

I believe that this is how private companies operate as well. Some have a much more laid back and casual approach to appearance and some are much tighter and strict. You are representing the company and they can have input as far as personal expectations. If you don't know this, then you can simply choose a different place of employment.

I understand that it seems ridiculous to exclude someone due to a hairstyle, but if exceptions are made for one then it opens up a whole can of worms for the company as a whole. I work in an industry where it is required to wear a suit each day to work and a neat hairstyle as well as appropriate grooming are required for the job. If I didn't like it, I could go elsewhere and if they didn't like how I looked they could choose not to hire me. Seems kind of rigid, but the employer has the choice. They may lose good employees this way, but I think if it were my company I'd also have some expectations for my employees as well.