Jobseeker accuses Carowinds of discrimination

Majorcut said:
There are certain parks where dreads would be ok but not for CF. They are going on a standard appearance that has succeeded.

You are right in that the same employee appearance has succeeded for CF...for many, MANY years. At least they allow women to wear slacks these days instead of long dresses.

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.

Until you start seeing a lot more people with dreds, or men with earrings, or black fingernail polish at the workplace, you and many other people will still be prudish. Could you imagine, a guy with a mohawk serving your family ice cream? Would that really leave a bad taste in your mouth?

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.

So would it leave you with a bad taste in your mouth if you were to observe an employee sporting dreds at HRP? Six Flags or HRP, they are both theme parks, and they both provide the same kind of service. HRP allows wild styles because of it's theme. It's really an exception because it is themed to loud music, which supports the idea of freely expressing yourself.

edit - quote problems

ridemcoaster said:
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?

Why leave Disney out of it? They are another example of an organization with strict guidelines for appearance and behavior for their employees.

Gonch said:
If enough people quit applying, they'll have to loosen their 'standards' to adapt to the social change.

I agree. I even tried to introduce that concept on page 5. I think that if there were enough people who do not meet the measure of CF's appearance guidelines (or who would choose to work somewhere else rather than adapt), then CF would find itself out of luck and change would occur.

In that regard, the people who are covering up their piercings and tattoos in order to work at CF may be contributing to the issue or at the very least delaying the necessary 'awakening' for CF.

Carrie I leave Disney out of it because they dont fit that particular example I gave for the hiring of those with alternate lifestyles since a decent size of Disney employees fit that. I cant argue they refuse it.. if they dont refuse it.. Would be silly.

I dont mean leave them out of the overall example.. Just THAT particular example..

Carrie M. said:
I guess it's easier to point that out than to clarify.

I don't know what more I can say.

And honestly, what does my inability to clearly debate my position have to do with the fundamental question that I ask over and over? I keep asking, is it OK for people (or companies on behalf of, or in response to other people) to make assumptions about others based on their choices in appearance? I can't imagine that any rational person would say yes. Perhaps, yes, in limited situations, but not unconditionally yes.

LK, since you seem to be stuck on the idea of employees "freely expressing themselves," let me ask why should I as a customer pay employees to express themselves instead of waiting on me? Moreover, what kind of experience am I going to have dealing with employees who are more concerned with pissing and moaning over some policy they don't like than in dealing with their customers?

For the record, I don't think that LK's direction for the discussion is even remotely helpful.

Jeff said:
I keep asking, is it OK for people (or companies on behalf of, or in response to other people) to make assumptions about others based on their choices in appearance?

And honestly pal, I think that's where we disagree the most. I don't believe that CF is making assumptions about people in their hiring practices, any more than you believe Microsoft is making assumptions about people in theirs.

They both engage in the same weeding out processes simply based on appearance. But it has nothing to do with the people they are weeding out or their perceptions of them. It has to do with the culture and image both organizations are trying to foster.

I'm with Carrie on this one. That was a great way of wording it.

Then at what point do you as a business and say to hell with convention and do the right thing? Can we not agree that in this specific case that hiring a girl with dreads is not going to bankrupt the company?

Jeff said:
Can we not agree that in this specific case that hiring a girl with dreads is not going to bankrupt the company?

Yes.

Then at what point do you as a business and say to hell with convention and do the right thing?

But I don't think they're doing the wrong thing. I don't think this is a right/wrong discussion. It's not wrong to establish an image (grooming standards) in which you want employees to represent you.

When is Microsoft going to do the right thing and hire people who wear ties to interviews? (I'm being facetious, they're under the same lack of obligation as CF is)

Agreed. That was exactly what I was going to say.

RatherGoodBear said:

let me ask why should I as a customer pay employees to express themselves instead of waiting on me? Moreover, what kind of experience am I going to have dealing with employees who are more concerned with pissing and moaning over some policy they don't like than in dealing with their customers?

1. People who can look the way they want are still qualified to do the job. Their work performance has nothing to do with their chosen style.

2. It's already the future; 2009. If Cedar fiar relaxed their grooming guiedlines from what probably started in the 1940's or '50s, employees who may take issue with it wouldn't be complianing.

3. If an employee is more concerned about pissing and moaning about anything (the kind of employee that I would call a complainer), the company should get rid of them. Complainers are very counterproductive to the success of the business in the first place, no matter what they look like.

And Jeff is right. My argument isn't completely complimenting his argument. My stance slightly shifts throughout a lot of threads.

Majorcut said:
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.

As others have said, CF's standards seem outdated. I disagree with the policy and I feel bad for the girl, but if there are enough people with Majorcut's thinking then I guess CF is doing the "right" thing when it comes to their image and their bottom line. That's what it comes down to at the end of the day. To Jeff's points it's definitely not right morally, but as a business they have that choice. I doubt the executives spend much time in their board rooms on philosophies and questions of true right and wrong. They just take the world that they're given and try to make money in it.

And hopefully Sharpton and the NAACP don't teleport down here and this blows over. I might lose my mind if this turns into a whole big thing. CF's policy does not equal racism, BUT if you had a bad taste in your mouth because you saw her working at a theme park then I'll just say there are some cultural gaps that still exist. I just watched a video of the news story and her hair looked presentable. If dreadlocks = some type of negative in your mind (gangs, low class, whatever) then I'm not sure we're as far along as a country as many think.

LK, I would expect someone to have dreads at a park like the freestyle music park since they will represent an era in musical history naming the reggae style. The answer to your question about the mohawk, it would leave a very bad taste unless it was in a music park in which the era that they represent would be the punk era of the late 70's to early 80's.

I don't feel bad for the girl since it's up to the park to hire her or not. It has nothing to do with the standards being out of date but it has to do with what has worked in the past and will continue to work in the future. This is a business which has to keep up a public appearance in a business like manner. I would have made the same decision if I was the hiring agent for the park since dreads have the appearance of being unwashed. The employer shouldn't have to bend to what their future employees want but the other way around.

So in your opinion dreads have the appearance of being unwashed. That's much less disturbing then the path I thought you were going down. I dissagree, but I take back my cultural gap comment. I wasn't sure exactly what you meant. I still think dreads could look clean (like the girl's look) or sloppy/dirty just like anyone else's hair. I think the employer has every right to have that policy, but I can still feel bad for the girl. She was crying about the whole ordeal. Nothing wrong with a little compassion even if she's mistaken.

Dreds can be washed with a shampoo that doesn't contain certain ingredients. It's 2009, and we have the technology to clean dreds without them falling out.

So would you be friends with someone with a mohawk or dreds (or a male with earrings, or black fingernails, or someone who wears a grill in thier mouth, or someone with a very long goatee...), or would their hairstyle be too offensive to you?

That's a big problem with the world today.

It's hard to add much to this conversation at this point, but...

From someone who is well past 25, is often described as a "conservative", never had a tattoo, a piercing, or an objectionable hairstyle and enjoys wearing a tie...

Whether we are talking about grooming standards, or an arbitrary list of what I need to do to "grow up", isn't the real issue just someone else trying to force their opinions on me? Conform or else?

I understand the business impact, others in my own family would disagree with my acceptance of these employees and complain about their appearance. Then they would get on the ride or eat their fries and they would get over it. They would come back the next time. Does Cedar Fair know that someone with deadlocks would negatively impact the guest experience? Based on what?

My opinion... they have the right, they are way out of touch, as are many employers. This is evidenced by the hot topic in the business world of dealing with multi-generational employees and customers, with a special focus of "dealing" with generation Y.

Tattoos are a tricker subject. I may have no problems, but there are many with negative views, some people may be offended by them due to religious reasons as well. From a legal standpoint, tattoos become a slippery slope, once I allow the cute star tattoo on one girl's ankle, then I lose legal grounds for not hiring Mike Tyson due to his crazy face tattoo.

Jeff, I agree with everyone else, Mr. Softee is just as wrong and are making assumptions based on appearance, no matter how altruistic the reasoning.

Bill8888 said:
Does Cedar Fair know that someone with deadlocks would negatively impact the guest experience? Based on what?

To be fair, this is just an assumption on our part. I don't think there's any official word to that end.

It could very well be for no other reason than, "This is how we want to present our company to the world. It's what we feels represents who we are and makes sense to us to do things this way."

Maybe the girl should have applied months earlier, when everyone else was, and then she would have had the time to get a new hairstyle before her summer employment started.

Bottom line, she didn't get the job making funnel cakes, and its Cedar Point's fault. They made the rules, which are the same when I worked White Water Landing in 1990. They expect an image to uphold. Period. Its their right to do so. Same with all the Disney Parks, same with the park I work for.

Maybe Paramount allowed the Bob Marley look, maybe not. Its not anyone's concern. What Kinzel, Falfas, Hildebrant and the rest of the senior guys want, they get. Cedar Point's clean cut image has led to a Cedar Fair takeover of many parks, and they are cleaned up.

Our company adopted a lot of their guidelines, and it shows. Cedar Fair, like us, are pretty much private. Our family owners have the right to say how we will dress, act in public, etc. If we don't like it, have a nice day.

If that college girl wants to make funnel cakes, dress like Spongebob, or sell dippin dots, she needs to fix her doo. Period. Again, she can cut the doo, or work at Old Navy. Its her choice. Not Carowinds.

I say that the image that the company wants to present clashes with the product that they offer. Cedar Point, for example, is known to have some of the most thrilling coasters and rides in the world. I've heard music from Korn (Word Up), Sammy Hagar (I can't drive 55), CCR (I put a spell on you), The Rolling Stones (I can't get no satisfaction), among others, playing on the park's midways. They even have a store that sells band t-shirts.

I would want people to think that my park employees were cool, not prudes. Cedar Point's clientele are mostly regular people who either have themself, have a freind or relative, or have seen other employees at other businesses, with one or more of these objectional styles.