http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36264229

This world would be a fcuksight better if everyone dressed casually short of dangerous situations.

The heels issue sounds like a throwback to women getting their arses felt up, more of a societal decision than a 'presentable uniform'.

I can understand the smart dress code, they are a professional services company and want to put over a professional image, but high heels aren't necessarily "smart".

Flat / normal heeled shoes can also be smart. If she had turned up in trainers or flip-flops, then I could see it being an issue, if she turned up in normal, smart leather shoes with low or no heels, then I don't see that as a problem. Requiring women to wear high heels is just sexist.

if they wish the woman/women to wear high heels for their work dress code i believe the men should also have to wear high heels as part of the dress code
maybe some of the men would enjoy that you never can tell ...

I keep asking but they wont let me

It's easier to seek forgiveness than permission

On a more serious note I suspect such a rule would fall flat on its face against say a disability discrimination claim.
Certainly a throwback although we had fun at work recently when the HR department uploaded a 'new' dress code policy to the intranet. It was so ridiculous (old fashioned) it got laughed out of town and they claimed it was an old document that was uploaded by mistake.

The most unfathomable bit about the story to me is that Price Waterhouse Coopers (eff your corporate rebranding) outsource their receptionists. I mean,, what?

Srsly? That's what you're going with?

Typical corporate deniability. "We outsourced this therefore anything bad that happens isn't our fault". Cock AND Balls.

If you wear high heels, kick yourself | Carole Cadwalladr | Opinion | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... cola-thorp

Didn't even know about the other demands.

The author's got it spot on IMO, and I'd extrapolate it to some of the other BS women buy into. And men increasingly.

I hadn't realised their dress code stipulated a minimum level of makeup for female employees as well
I mean, seriously just [LIFTED] off right there.
Okay, so we don't know what the male equivalent is but somehow I doubt it will impose the same level of cost on the employee.

The obvious male equivalent would be 'all male employees are required to be clean shaven'. I don't know if they actually have that, but then the outsourcing company in question sounds so utterly neanderthal that they may not even have considered the possibility of male receptionists.

It would also specify length of hair as well (maybe even acceptable haircuts), with opt outs for religious reasons. Possibly even how much jewellery/piercings and tattoos on show - but that would cover both men and women.