Jobseeker accuses Carowinds of discrimination

Lord Gonchar said:
But I have no problem with CF implementing that standard for their company.

Neither do I, except when I believe that there is an inherently immoral component to it. I know that's territory where few people will agree with me, since morality is something so ridiculously abstract that it almost can't be defined. I just wish that if you and anyone else who even slightly agreed with me on that issue, that you'd just not be OK with it. Now I'll resist the temptation to bring in your non-voting ethos into the conversation. ;)

Or maybe just the opposite. If this thinking is really so wrong and outdated, you'd be wildly successful.

Would I? Again, when I look at the prevalence of racially motivated morons like the guy with the "Obama is a muslin[sic]" sign, or hate toward Mexicans veiled in labor issues, I can only feel like the relatively trivial issues around hair style in this country don't stand a chance. I try not be jaded in that sense, and electing a (half) black president is certainly a start, but it's a serious leap of faith to hope you can exert the kind of influence that would make this stuff go away. Let's face it, American history shows there's always someone or something to hate.

Which half of Obama is black?

I understand why amusement parks had dress codes in the 50s and 60s. Disney was trying to distinguish his park from travelling carnivals and fairs and then, as in now, there was certainly some hesitation on the part of customers who's safety was in the hands of someone who didn't know how to use a toothbrush.

And, I'm really ok with certain appearance codes that are in place now. I had to meet those standards at Geauga Lake, Disney and Cedar Point...and even have certain standards in the City I work in now. (Not too many of my peers are required to wear a shirt and tie everyday but that is an expectation my City Manager has...and I'm fine with it.)

Now, I do believe those appearance codes should be reviewed on a regular basis and I don't know if that is done inside Cedar Fair or not. As I said in an earlier post, cornrows were pretty "out there" when we first saw them but they are widely worn now as a common hair style. If businesses in Miami outlawed dreadlocks they'd be severely limiting their prospective hiring pool.

I think there needs to be some common sense injected into the conversation and if it is only a bunch of old, white guys making the decisions it isn't really a good indicator of what your audience will accept.

Frankly, some of Kinzel's ties are pretty hideous so someone should call him on that.

The only point I understand you to be making at this stage, Jeff, is that you think judging certain appearances is icky. Not all appearances, just some.

Wearing one's pants half-way down your butt is not ok. Wearing a jacket and tie to work is not ok. Dreads, piercings, tattoos...all ok.

We will never be able to get to a place where anything goes in terms of appearance. Really. For every decent attempt there is to express oneself, you will have another attempt at shock value. I think it was even said in this thread that while tattoos should be ok, having a tattoo of a sexual act that is visible would not be ok.

If you allow non-traditional body piercings, what do you do when customers complain because they can't understand what someone with a tongue or lip piercing is saying?

Dress codes are arbitrary by nature. So how does a company draw a line in a way that does not put them at risk for subjective discrimination?

Okay, I'm gonna bite on Jeff's comment a bit.

Look at North Korea. the dictatorship has changed them for the bad. They ao BLINDED by the comunism around them, they have no clue that there's a better world out there.

Cange CAN be good. If we don't change, well, things would be quite boring. The things we change about ourselves make us unique. I'll use myself as example. I've got a Ford Ranger, one of about a gabillion out there. What makes me different is that I've probably have one of a small few in the world that's puple with a teal green cap on the bed. The truck relfects that i work hard, but the color denotes me as an oddball.

Carrie M. said:
If you allow non-traditional body piercings, what do you do when customers complain because they can't understand what someone with a tongue or lip piercing is saying?

That precisely demonstrates the flaw in that thinking. Neither affects speech. (Well, the tongue does maybe for a few hours, but I don't think that counts.)

How does a company know where to draw the line? How should I know? Remember, what I take issue is the reason for drawing it. That people fear what they don't understand or care for, in my eyes, remains only inches away from not liking people for their race, religion or all of the things we commonly accept as things that aren't right to judge people by.

I don't even think it needs to go as in depth as Carrie's example. I think it's a totally shallow, superficial and personal choice. I suspect it's no more than this:

"We like our employees to have a 'clean cut' and neat appearance"

There's no flaw in the logic. The want what they want for their own reasons. We could debate those reasons forever. There's no point in it. We'd probably be better off debating my hair or your piercings or Carrie's shoes - at least those are all things directly related to us as a group.

It's their (CF's) approach. They're not saying anyone who doesn't meet that standard is a lesser person or incapable of performing the duties. They're saying you wouldn't be representing their company in a way they were comfortable with.

I just can't find that offensive - just like I can't find the girl with dreads offensive or the kid with his pants riding low offensive or the dude with the nipple piercings offensive or the chick with a full back tat offensive. It's not offensive. It's not a cause for concern.

Jeff, you're really fishing when you claim that somehow Microsoft is in the right to categorically deny employment to someone who shows up for an interview formally dressed-- I won't say in a tie, since I'll include women in this scenario as well. Because a person who shows up "less casually" dressed obviously thinks clothes matter more than job performance? But you think that's not a judgment equating job performance with appearance? It's the same thing Jeff, you can try to spin it like a Tilt-a-Whirl on steroids, but it's the same. Do the folks rejected by Microsoft get to cry and go on about how they've been emotionally scarred?

I don't think it's a question of moral or immoral either-- I'm not even sure where that came in. Another thing I would look at in the CF case is if you have posted policies about grooming and appearance and an applicant shows up challenging that, I'd wonder what else that person is going to challenge. Is she going to be a team player, or is it going to be all about her? Fair question, since the idea of free expression and being oneself was mentioned previously in this thread. I think that's as fair an inference to make as the Microsoft example. Both candidates are being judged on their ability to "fit in" with the company based on the appearance they choose to present.

If anyone here is upset about someone being judged because they wear dreadlocks or piercings or baggy pants or look like a goth, let me ask you this: Are you equally as upset by a person being judged if they wear their hair really short, or a crucifix, or highwaters, or look like a redneck? (Of course, certain people here will argue that people who look like that have obvious undesirable behavior and values so it's OK to judge them.)

Microsoft has their dress code. Hooters has their dress code. Cedar Fair has their dress code. My employer has a dress code. Many people's employers have dress codes.

I think claiming that the reason to be against Cedar Fair's dress code as some altruistic stance against hate and prejudice is about as extreme as it can get.

No one fears the girl in dreadlocks. No one fears a person in a suit.

And hey Gonch! What the hell's wrong with my shoes, you punk? ;) :)

Carrie M. said:
And hey Gonch! What the hell's wrong with my shoes, you punk? ;) :)

The same thing that's wrong with my hair...

Not a damn thing. :)

RatherGoodBear said:
Jeff, you're really fishing when you claim that somehow Microsoft is in the right to categorically deny employment to someone who shows up for an interview formally dressed...

I made no such claim. I don't speak for them. Their indication was that is simply wouldn't fit the culture there, and if you don't fit in, you probably won't get hired.

And I know what you're thinking, sure, same can be true for dreadlocks. But as I explained before, with no agreement from anyone, it's quite one thing to ignore potential based on appearance (Carowinds), and quite another to expect that appearance gains you respect automatically (Microsoft).

Because a person who shows up "less casually" dressed obviously thinks clothes matter more than job performance? But you think that's not a judgment equating job performance with appearance? It's the same thing Jeff...

No, that's not what our culture teaches at all. How many times have people said here in this thread or in school or anywhere else that clothes are an issue of respect? We even have a cliche for it, that "the clothes make the man."

Look, you don't have to agree with me, because we're all ultimately arguing that appearance choice matters or it doesn't, whether it be for reasons of respect, capability or just outright rejection of the unfamiliar.

If anyone here is upset about someone being judged because they wear dreadlocks or piercings or baggy pants or look like a goth, let me ask you this: Are you equally as upset by a person being judged if they wear their hair really short, or a crucifix, or highwaters, or look like a redneck?

People who conform to familiar conventions are rarely judged for it. That's like asking me if as a white, well-to-do, straight male I've ever been a victim of an "-ism." If you really believe otherwise, I think that's naive.

Justify it however you (the abstract and general "you") want, but being apathetic toward the write-off of people based on appearance choices (visible ass cracks not withstanding) will always bother me. I'll again say that Brian's suggestion that these standards be revisited is the most rational action.

Jeff said:
Justify it however you (the abstract and general "you") want, but being apathetic toward the write-off of people based on appearance choices (...) will always bother me.

Unless Microsoft does it, in which case you will pat them on the back and applaud them for getting it right.

Jeff said:
But as I explained before, with no agreement from anyone, it's quite one thing to ignore potential based on appearance (Carowinds), and quite another to expect that appearance gains you respect automatically (Microsoft).

I don't even understand what that statement means.

I really don't think the hair that you are splitting with that could get any thinner.

But for the sake of the argument, let's try that sentence this way:

It's one thing to ignore potential based on appearance (Microsoft regarding applicants wearing suits and dresses), and quite another to expect that appearance gains you respect automatically (Carowinds regarding applicants with short hair and no visible tattoos or piercings).

Huh, would you look at that. :)

That you would think I give Microsoft an exception and then say you don't know what I mean in the second quote seems like the problem to me.

GO JEFF GO! GO JEFF GO!

There is a lot that can be learned in this thread about both sides of the argument. I realize that all the people who post on CoasterBuzz are not as big of jerks as I once thought. You all understand and agree with me in the basics of the topic, which is people shouldn't be judged on basis of appearance.

So my question is this. Should businesses, like Cedar Fair, realize that we are living in 2009, and start relaxing some of their grooming guidelines? I mean Walt Disney has been dead for 43 years. Isn't it time that they stop asking their employees to try to look like him.

If they gave in just a little, I'd be happy. Half the guys I know wear earrings now. A lot of guys I know have longer hair than CP allows. How many Americans have tattoo these days? They are asking these people to change who they are and what makes them unique from the next guy.

If the public can go into Burger King or Wal Mart and see a regular guy with earrings, shoulder length hair, and a few tats at the checkout counter, why would it be any different if they saw people like that working at an amusement park?

I don't think that the argument should be, "Does CF have the right", I think it should be, "Sould they change".

Edited for spelling

LostKause said:
So my question is this. Should businesses, like Cedar Fair, realize that we are living in 2009, and start relaxing some of their grooming guidelines? I mean Walt Disney has been dead for 43 years. Isn't it time that they stop asking their employees to try to look like him.

I don't think that the argument should be, "Does CF have the right", I think it should be, "Sould they change".

No. I don't think they should change. Should I run out and get tats and piercings because lots of people have them now?

Sure, times have changed. We all get that. But that still doesn't make CF's decision to create a certain grooming standard any less valid than the girl's decision to wear dreads.

If they gave in just a little, I'd be happy.

If the public can go into Burger King or Wal Mart and see a regular guy with earrings, shoulder length hair, and a few tats at the checkout counter, why would it be any different if they saw people like that working at an amusement park?

So you're unhappy at CF parks because of their grooming policy?

Isn't wanting people to change what you and Jeff (had to pull you back in, man) are arguing against? What CF is doing isn't wrong. What the girl is doing with her hair isn't wrong.

Why are we asking one to change and not the other? Isn't that just the reverse of CF asking the girl the same thing if she wants a job?

CF maintains one standard. The girls another. Maybe this is a case where we don't all have to get along and can agree to disagree and go our serparate ways. It's just not the right fit for either side.

(this post officially sets the record for use of the word, "change" :) )

I realize that all the people who post on CoasterBuzz are not as big of jerks as I once thought. You all understand and agree with me in the basics of the topic, which is people shouldn't be judged on basis of appearance.

Sounds like someone was making assumptions and judgements. Get out of the 50's, man! ;) :)

Jeff said:
That you would think I give Microsoft an exception and then say you don't know what I mean in the second quote seems like the problem to me.

I guess it's easier to point that out than to clarify.

Lord Gonchar said:

No. I don't think they should change. Should I run out and get tats and piercings because lots of people have them now?

Well, if you liked the style, sure you should. But if you both like the style and have a desire to work for CF, you can't. One would have to find a compromise between his dreams and his self expression. It wouldn't have to be this way if CF could chill out a bit.

So you're unhappy at CF parks because of their grooming policy?

Isn't wanting people to change what you and Jeff (had to pull you back in, man) are arguing against? What CF is doing isn't wrong. What the girl is doing with her hair isn't wrong.

I'm not arguing the people should change, I'm arguing that business should change on the basis that the people have already changed

But I'll agree with rest of the above quote to a point, but I will ask this. Is public acceptance of personal appearance being hindered by some businesses, like CF, and their unwillingness to find a compromise that benefits potential employees? Another words, if CF and others would allow males to wear earrings, for example, wouldn't it help the rest of society to be more accepting of males wearing earrings?

LK said:

I realize that all the people who post on CoasterBuzz are not as big of jerks as I once thought.

Then Gonch said:

Sounds like someone was making assumptions and judgements. Get out of the 50's, man! ;) :)

Jerk! :) :)

^ Took the words right outta my mouth.. LK.

Drawn back in:

Some say that the companies shouldnt look to change policy because society has changed.. But where do we draw the line with change and hold companies accountable to the society changes.

Piercings are pretty common place but some feel the companies shouldnt feel forced to adapt to that if it doesnt fit their image. Well 50 years ago women couldnt hold executive positions in most companies because they felt it didnt fit the "image" of the company.

How about those with alternate lifestyles.. Should they be refused employment at some organizations (lets leave Disney out of this) because of their lifestyle and a company thinking it doesnt fit their image?

So my question is who draws this arbitrary line in the sand.. To some (specifically that person denied the job due to her hair) places outward appearances in the same category as any visual discrimination.

To me it seems like more emphasis on what a person looks like weighs more than their capability just to preserve an image that honestly in this day and age isnt a big a deal. But I have to be fair cant solely pick on CF for this one.. BEC does the same and they go down to how your beard is shaved.

I guess my problem is who decides that line in the sand between outright discrimination and preserving the "look" needed. And what features fall in that category safely. Its not totally the company (as it wouldnt have got press if it was), and its not society as she would have gotten the job.

One would have to find a compromise between his dreams and his self expression.

These sorts of compromises happen all the time, and the choices we make have costs. As with most other things in life, there's no free lunch. Someone who dreams of working in an amusement park has to decide which is more important: the earrings, or the job? Not having to make that choice would be more pleasant, but it's CF's perogative to impose it. We only get to make the choice given the options---we don't get to change the options.

Going back to my son and his mohawk---my wife took the kids on a trip to visit friends in Pittsburgh, and they visited the Zoo when he had it spiked up, about 5", and tinged red. A 5" vaguely-reddish mohawk on a 7 year old is relatively unusual here in Ann Arbor, and apparently it's even more unusual in Pittsburgh, because people made a big deal out of it. He (and they) got a lot of reactions, ranging from little old ladies in babushkas who would touch it (with permission) and giggle, right on up to the double-stroller upper-middle-class soccer moms clucking, rolling their eyes, and throwing out the I'd-never-let-my-son-do-thats just loud enough for my wife to hear.

Later that night, he said he wished that people wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Maureen told him that if he wanted to wear the 'do, sometimes folks would make a big deal out of it. The only way to put a stop to it would be to shave it off.

He thought about that for a while, and decided that he'd keep it---and did, for almost another year.

Would it have been better if people just ignored and accepted it? Sure. But, they didn't have to---and some didn't. I'm sure many of them came to conclusions about our family that aren't even remotely true, based only on my son's hair. For example, I'm sure many of those soccer moms would be pretty shocked to find that my wife is a physician. Is that justified? No; but, it is what it is.

Another words, if CF and others would allow males to wear earrings, for example, wouldn't it help the rest of society to be more accepting of males wearing earrings?

Yes, it would. But, I don't think CF is under any obligation to play this role, and while I would welcome it if they did, I don't begrudge them that they don't.

You seem to forget that this is a business and in such it has to keep a certain appearance up. There are certain parks where dreads would be ok but not for CF. They are going on a standard appearance that has succeeded. If I saw an employee of SFOG with dreads, it will leave a bad taste in my mouth and I will tell my friends about it. IT will hurt business if there isn't a certain business appearance going on at all parks. I can see that the former HRP would have a certain nich for that type of an employee but not all of the amusement parks fall into that category.

LK said:
I'm not arguing the people should change, I'm arguing that business should change on the basis that the people have already changed

Then it should be self-correcting, shouldn't it? It's like the price discussion we always have with each other. If it's really a problem, it won't last. People won't pay the prices and the company will be forced to change theiur approach. It's still their right to charge whatever they want for a drink.

Same thing here. If enough people quit applying, they'll have to loosen their 'standards' to adapt to the societal change.

ridemcoaster said:
So my question is who draws this arbitrary line in the sand..

I think that's been the core of the debate. I say we all draw it somewhere different personally - for ourselves, that is.

So it just makes sense to me that the business should make the same personal decision about how they want employees representing them (the company) to the world. (and that's where you run smack into Brian's thing on choices...and he's right, so there's no need to elaborate)

It's not my place to tell them they're wrong anymore than it's my place to tell you or Jeff or LK that their look is wrong.

That's where I'm coming from. To me, saying CF is wrong is no different than CF saying dreads are wrong for them - you're questioning someone's personal standard...it's circular and makes my brain explode.