Are suits for work on the way out?

[Pompidou]

I go around in business casual - just a button-down shirt and pair of slacks rather than a full out suit. That said, I get the same treatment as Jim and Torpedo. A lot of the things I defend in others are things I'd never do myself.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Well, much as I hate enforced dress codes, I can see why the skin toned underwear rule was suggested. Many shirts/blouses are made of rather thin material, and though not thin enough to see a skin tone brassiere through it, let's say, a black or bright red/pink/baby blue etc. garment will be seen through it. (We will avoid all the politics of why this is an issue - colleagues ogling and customers distracted etc. etc. - and whether those issues are anyone's business except the person wearing the coloured underwear. That the rule had to be implemented suggests that those potential issues were becoming actual issues in the workplace.)

Were you to bring in such a rule, surely men should also be forced to wear skin toned undershirts? There are few things worse, in my opinion, than a white shirt through which one can see the undershirt. NOT classy.

First of all, if anybody at my workplace, like my boss, tried to get close enough to verify if my underwear was skin toned, my next steps would be contacting HR and a lawyer. That dress code was stupid.

 

[Torpedo]

Any suits you may happen to put on the way out, please address to me. I will give them a caring home .

 

[Cobden]

Well, much as I hate enforced dress codes, I can see why the skin toned underwear rule was suggested. Many shirts/blouses are made of rather thin material, and though not thin enough to see a skin tone brassiere through it, let's say, a black or bright red/pink/baby blue etc. garment will be seen through it. (We will avoid all the politics of why this is an issue - colleagues ogling and customers distracted etc. etc. - and whether those issues are anyone's business except the person wearing the coloured underwear. That the rule had to be implemented suggests that those potential issues were becoming actual issues in the workplace.)

Were you to bring in such a rule, surely men should also be forced to wear skin toned undershirts? There are few things worse, in my opinion, than a white shirt through which one can see the undershirt. NOT classy.

I think a more logical, reasonable and delicate approach would be to mandate that underwear should not be visible - applies to both sexes, gives them plenty of leeway, and avoids the rather intrusive nature of the rule in question.

Sorry, back on to the topic at hand: the dress code at my work is business casual, but it's suprising how many of the young men (myself included) wear neckties - though none wear suits as that is seen as the preserve of those demi-Gods on the top floor (or, as the are normally known, middle management) and one doesn't want to step on toes.

 

[Puzzicato]

First of all, if anybody at my workplace, like my boss, tried to get close enough to verify if my underwear was skin toned, my next steps would be contacting HR and a lawyer. That dress code was stupid.

If you are wearing a white bra under a white shirt you can see it from the other side of the street, you don't have to be close up! By stating that underwear needs to be skin toned, it also deals with the fact that a lot of women (mostly younger ones) think that white underwear isn't visible.

 

[Betz]

I wear a suit every day to work, even if I do not expect to be meeting with clients (I am a lawyer). I think it shows respect for the office, respect for the profession, and respect for yourself and your coworkers. While I agree that some jobs/professions may not feel that the suit is practical any longer, I feel it's benefits for a professional workplace quite outweigh the "comfort" of a less formal workplace.

I find the conclusion that less formal workplaces foster better communication to be somewhat odd. Whenever I wear a suit I feel much more confident in myself, and that leads me to be more proactive and more vocal about my position, whereas when I am more informal my naturally shy natures seems to break through.

 

[Pompidou]

I find the conclusion that less formal workplaces foster better communication to be somewhat odd. Whenever I wear a suit I feel much more confident in myself, and that leads me to be more proactive and more vocal about my position, whereas when I am more informal my naturally shy natures seems to break through.

I think the real conclusion to be drawn, between that article and posts here, is that people dressed in a way they feel most comfortable (not necessarily just in a physical sense), are better communicators. I think coercion is the real problem - the real obstacle to better communication. When you wear a suit to work, it just feels natural - feels right. In a culture of declining suits and ties, that won't be a majority opinion anymore. I'm not surprised Google is having a great deal of success with engineers brainstorming at the on site basketball hoops. Likewise, it also comes as no surprise that Microsoft continues to have great success in the traditional corporate atmosphere people here prefer. You know what's the best thing? That there's a right company for every style. Choice and having the option to do what you want is the most important thing - for TFL's suit lovers, and for the average jeans and t-shirt joes on the street.

 

[sheeplady]

If you are wearing a white bra under a white shirt you can see it from the other side of the street, you don't have to be close up! By stating that underwear needs to be skin toned, it also deals with the fact that a lot of women (mostly younger ones) think that white underwear isn't visible.

Well, I think I would agree with cobden that underwear should not be visible should be the rule, if this is actually a problem in the office environment. No one has the right to mandate specifically what I wear underneath my clothing if the only way they can tell is by making me take my clothes off (unless there is a good safety reason for specifying undergarments of a certain fabric or design). If you go by the rule that it shouldn't show, as long as it doesn't show, does that not serve the same purpose?

I think that for most work environments when you get to the point where you are mandating what people should wear when it isn't even visible to you, you have crossed the line into a privacy issue. For example, I think that a dress code indicating that a woman should wear a skirt with unseamed pantyhose or stockings is fine. These are visible things that anyone who can see, well, can see. However, I don't think that this dress code should be able to mandate that I can only wear pantyhose (barring any type of safety issue that makes stockings and garter belts unsafe). If I meet the visible criteria of covered legs, and no one can see my garter belt and stocking tops, (again, barring safety issues), I think I have met the requirements of the dress code.

So, no, I don't think they should be able to mandate what they can't see of my clothing, as long as there are no safety issues that prohibit certain clothing types. Some of you may disagree, but this is a touch too far for me.

 

[Effingham]

Wait, so those leisure suits were actually work appropriate during the 1970s? I thought it was more of casual wear in general.

Remember Herb Tarlick on "WKRP in Cincinnati"?

 

[Sam Craig]

Baby, if you ever wondered
wonder what ever became of me ...

If we could get those great polyester wash and wear suits back, we'd have it made.
Throw them in the washer and dryer ... saves alot on dry cleaning costs
And they will outlast a nuclear blast

Of course they are uglier than all get out ...

Sam