Nose rings in the office

I have a problem with an employee wearing not just jeans, but nose rings and multiple ear-rings and eye brow rings to the office. Have talked with her, her supervisor has talked with her, the nose ring has come out, but still has brow rings. This is an office environment.
«1

Comments

  • 54 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Appearance codes (dress, jewelry, hair, etc.) are difficult to define because it is hard to think of every possible scenario. When the supervisor spoke with her before was it clear that she had to remove the jewelry in order to keep her job, or was it simply a polite chat about what may not represent the company well? The policy needs to be established clearly according to the needs of the company (including the need of a certain public image), then she needs to be told (preferably in writing) exactly what to change, and what will happen if she does not. Then do it.


  • This is one of those topics which seem simple -- but only on the surface. It must be treaded carefully, because acceptable fashions change (and some of this may even be generational). While you and I may think nose and brow jewelry is over the top -- for some people years back, so were pierced ears. I would like to see this issue handled more person-nally, i.e., a conversation with the employee. Is there a ligitimate business reason the company wants the face jewelry off, or is this just a personal preference on the part of (some) management person?
  • I agree with Dasher on this one. Only 30 years ago women were not allowed to wear pants to the office. How many of us would disagree with this policy now? Out of the 100+ women in my office, I can only think of one that wears a skirt every day. I think this is a generational issue unless you have a legitimate reason. Is this person greeting customers or sitting at a cube all day.
  • This person is not only greeting customers, she is greeting very ultra conservation customers that can make or break our company.
  • I read in December that a $2 million discrimination suit was allowed to proceed to court on the basis of religion. An employee refused to remove facial piercings, stating that it was a sign of her faith in the Church of Body Modification. The court apparently agreed. The employer may win the suit but at what cost?

    Anne in Ohio
  • I believe the nose ring was designed to tie up a bull in the corral sooo maybe a chain from the nose ring to the desk would make the ring into a useful, functioning tool in the workplace! x}>
  • When nose ring wearers are explicitly protected under the Constitution, I'll worry about it. Until then, if I see a nose ring, the wearer goes home.
  • We don't allow nose rings, brow rings, tongue rings etc. in our facility. That's not the image we want to portray in our medical facility. If we have someone who comes in displaying one, they are asked to remove it while at work.


  • I agree with WOCO and Rockie, and somewhat with Safety. There is no such thing as The Church Of Body Modification. Long standing legal precedent finds that a claim on religious grounds must be based on some sort of recognized religion, not simply a flip claim of belief in some idiotic practice.

    Lessons in the historical shifts in jewelry patterns aside, an employer has an absolute right to define and enforce an appearance/dress code policy. It need not be proven on the Forum or to an employee that such policy is based on anything other than the employer's right to establish a policy, period. Religious accomodation is one thing. Eyebrow, navel, lip, tongue or testicle piercing in an employer's customer service area or anywhere he so chooses, is quite another. Workplaces, contrary to some opinions, are not democratic venues and often one might expect to find such odd things as rules, codes, guidelines, expectations and consequences.

    Whereas we might listen as children protest that "Gosh, Mary can stay out until 12:30", we are not equally condemned to listen to our workers say "Well, 37 years ago they wouldn't show Elvis' lower half on Ed Sullivan". Post teenagers are not a group given protection under our labor laws.
  • Right now there are no laws protecting body piercings. I just like to be fair to all employees, if I allow ear rings I allow nose rings. If they don't see or greet customers, and look neat other wise, I don't care. However when I worked for a healthcare organization we required all jewelry (including religious jewelry) to be covered or removed. No make up was allowed either. This was for the safety of the patients as well as the employee. Healthcare is an entirely different universe. This really is a preference issue.
  • One last thing Scott: Don't forget that in the absence of a labor law to the contrary, the PREFERENCE that wins out is that of the employer.
  • You are most definately right, unless you live in NY or CA. I swear the two are in competition to see who can be the most pro-employee state.

    We have a business casual dress code and allow body piercings as long as the employee is not meeting with a customer or respresenting the company at a public event. On those occasions we require professional attire.

    As far as the not wearing make-up, it was a long standing policy of the hospital because they felt that make up contained germs and some patients have allergies to make up as well. We used to have a nurse supervisor that did spot checks for make-up and hair spray. I don't think anyone gave her that authority but I saw her once send an emplyee home for wearing hairspray.
  • Scott - there ain't no way I'm going to prohibit makeup in the workplace. It might scare the patients to death!
  • Do you ever worry about how bad things will have to get in order for our grandchildren to tell our children, "Yeah, but when you were a kid Eminem and Marilyn Manson were considered edgy!"



  • Scott, NO MAKE-UP??!!! Man, I think that could be a health hazard in and of itself..I guess I would never make it in the healthcare industry..I have to have my mascara and lipstick..
  • No dress code or policy was mentioned in the original posting, but "I have a problem"... nose rings... multiple ear-rings... eye brow rings in the office".

    The nose ring was removed after the supervisor spoke with the employee. The brow rings remained. What was agreed to in the meeting with the supervisor, we do not know. Obviously, there remains a problem with the employees dress habits.

    Did the employee have the holes and/or jewelry when hired -- we do not know. Most of us HR types certainly attempt to match job candidates with the culture they will be working in. But it happens -- people change or we miss the signs. That being said, employees do have personal rights (not talking about religion or any other kind of discrimination or issues here).

    It just seems to me we are about to cross over the line here. Absent a dress code specifically stating what the limits on jewelry are, management can not expect employees to be compliant with their private/personal opinions or problems with the jewelry one wears. I might speak with the employee and explain management's side of the issue. I might even mark the employee down on appearance categories in their evaluations. Would I insist that they not wear the nose rings/multiple earrings (how many is too many?) or eye brow ring -- NO! I don't even want to answer the lawyer's letter not less go before a judge on this one. Shucks, the judge may be wearing three earrings. . .
  • Your post reminds me of the time when I worked at a bank and we hired a nice looking, nicely dressed young lady to work on our teller line.

    The first day she came to work, she was unrecognizable. She was wearing her hair skinned back and slicked down with some icky, sticky goo and held back in a little pony tail behind her head. Looked like she hadn't washed her hair in a month!

    She was also wearing knee socks with sandals.

    In our very ultra-conservative,small town bank, this went over like a lead balloon. She was told to either wash the mess out of her hair and lose the knee socks or don't bother to come back. She complied, but we never did figure out what caused her lapse of sanity.


  • Maybe she just didn't want to set the bar too high her first day. ;)
  • Absent
    >a dress code specifically stating what the limits on jewelry are,
    >management can not expect employees to be compliant with their
    >private/personal opinions or problems with the jewelry one wears.

    I respect your right to that opinion; however, it's not a correct statement. An employer does absolutely have a right to tell an employee her/his personal choices are not in line with the expectations of the company. He need not draw out a difinitive rulebook full of limitations and acceptable things or engage in a jousting match with an employee over what was or was not specifically included on a list.


    I might even mark the employee down on appearance categories
    >in their evaluations. Would I insist that they not wear the nose
    >rings/multiple earrings (how many is too many?) or eye brow ring --
    >NO!

    If I understand you correctly, you favor 'marking the employee down on appearance'; however you would not enforce it further or advance the discipline? I don't follow that reasoning at all. If we are not prepared to defend and perhaps advance our discipline, we certainly should not be meting it out to begin with.

    I don't even want to answer the lawyer's letter not less go
    >before a judge on this one. Shucks, the judge may be wearing three
    >earrings. . .


    A judge has the authority to state boundaries and enforce discipline only in his courtroom; as does an employer at his place of employment, again, as long as they do not violate the protections provided by law. If my policy states that employees are expected to dress and groom in a manner appropriate to a business environment, I assume that some few may not understand what that means or pretend not to. If that happens, a discussion by the appropriate management team member will explain that brow rings, multicolored hair, nose rings/bones and other visible rings, (beyond a pair of earrings) and other invasive devises are not appropriate to this business environment. Now, it is assumed the employee will comprehend and will have the option to comply or go home.

    This is not 'a generaltional thing' at all. It is a fact of life. It comes with the turf of owning a business.

  • Actually....at one time in my life, I worked in a law office and I've seen judges send lawyers out of the courtroom for not being properly attired.

    Ever see "My Cousin Vinnie?"
  • Loved that movie -- Vinnie won too! He was too too cute.

    To evaluate an employee on dress that may not be "considered" appropriate for the environment one works in is not a matter of discipline at all. It would be a measurement of how the employee thinks and acts and a rating of judgement.

    "the appropriate management team member will explain that brow rings, multicolored hair, nose rings/bones and other visible rings, (beyond a pair of earrings) and other invasive devises are not appropriate to this business environment."

    Of course it is generational when you consider which age group wears the nose rings and brow rings (hopefully it is a passing fad -- but who knows).

    "beyond a pair of earrings" Many many ladies (maybe men, too) now have four piercings in their ears and wear TWO PAIR of earrings on each ear. Are you going to send them home also? Will you send the men who wear one or two? Why not send home those whose earrings are too large or too gaudy.


    I do not agree with you on this one. Companies have the right to set standards of dress, of course, and can establish policies and dress codes which should be adhered to. However, to try to enforce a no policy policy on jewelry is carrying it too far.




  • >
    >Of course it is generational when you consider which age group wears
    >the nose rings and brow rings (hopefully it is a passing fad -- but
    >who knows).
    >

    You obviously haven't seen some of the 50 year old guys I ride with.
  • That is one of my all time favorites!
  • When I said generational I meant that in 20 years when most of us have retired, a pierced nose may qualify as business attire. Who know what cultural norms will have changed by then. None of us have a crystal ball that can see into the future. At my first job many moons ago, my boss had her nose pierced back then, it was a part of her culture and the culture of that organization.
  • We're strictly customer service - and mostly an older crowd. Our policy states "exposed piercings are limited to two each ear." If there's a couple more in the ear, we won't mess, but nose and lip are no-nos. Tongues - well it's mostly not exposed I guess....x:P
  • >>Ever see "My Cousin Vinnie?" <<

    I don't allow employees to talk like that, either. ;)
  • I must be getting old - but - just what purpose does a nose ring serve? Is there a function here that I'm missing? I mean, if it takes a nose ring to enhance facial quality then beam me up Scotty; the natives are not human. I guess if there was a medical necessity to the nose ring and a physician attests to that I would not fight it.

    Now, for the next question, what about tattoos?

  • From P&P:

    Tattoos which cover more than one-third of any exposed body part must be concealed. This excludes facial tattoos, which are not allowed.



  • Just a comment. I took my dogs to the groomers over the holiday weekend, and the young lady at the front desk (new employee) was wearing a nose ring. This thing was pierced in between the partition between the nostrils. I found myself talking to the nose ring instead of the employee.

    All I could think about was how much this must have hurt.


  • But think Rockie, how that enables her to bond with the oxen and hogs customers might bring in for Vet treatment, all of which also have suitable nose rings through the cartilege between the nostrils. She must be very sensitive to want to carry her vocational empathy quotient to that level.
Sign In or Register to comment.