Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Ethics and personal responsibilty
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="soberups" data-source="post: 363890" data-attributes="member: 14668"><p>I have always felt that UPS has the right to set reasonable grooming and appearance standards. The problem starts when management singles out certain "favorite" people for enforcement of those rules, or comes up with a totally arbitrary and unfair definition of "reasonable."</p><p> I have a tattoo, but it is not visible unless I pull my shirt sleeve up. Its fine to have a no visible tat rule, but it is unfair to inform the driver of that rule 15 years <u>after</u> you hire him with the tattoo already in place. Some sort of grandfather clause is required here. For new hires, it is entirely reasonable to say no visible tats is a condition of employment and they can make their personal choices accordingly.</p><p> As far as piercings go---we have a reasonable rule here, which is that both men and women are allowed to have earrings only, one per ear, but those earrings cannot be large enough to pass a dime thru. No nose, lip or other visible piercings allowed. It is unfair to allow women but not men to have an earring, but it is a resonable and safe compromise to have a size limit on that ring.</p><p> As long as UPS is fair and consistent in their implemntation of an appearance policy, I am OK with it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="soberups, post: 363890, member: 14668"] I have always felt that UPS has the right to set reasonable grooming and appearance standards. The problem starts when management singles out certain "favorite" people for enforcement of those rules, or comes up with a totally arbitrary and unfair definition of "reasonable." I have a tattoo, but it is not visible unless I pull my shirt sleeve up. Its fine to have a no visible tat rule, but it is unfair to inform the driver of that rule 15 years [U]after[/U] you hire him with the tattoo already in place. Some sort of grandfather clause is required here. For new hires, it is entirely reasonable to say no visible tats is a condition of employment and they can make their personal choices accordingly. As far as piercings go---we have a reasonable rule here, which is that both men and women are allowed to have earrings only, one per ear, but those earrings cannot be large enough to pass a dime thru. No nose, lip or other visible piercings allowed. It is unfair to allow women but not men to have an earring, but it is a resonable and safe compromise to have a size limit on that ring. As long as UPS is fair and consistent in their implemntation of an appearance policy, I am OK with it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Ethics and personal responsibilty
Top