Casino cocktails...forget makeup

[Boosterman]

I posted this in the story about the woman who got fired over makeup but its so long now I doubt anyone will notice it. I have never understood how casinos can get away with forcing women to wear 2-3 inch heels (not pumps) and carry 20 pound trays for 7 hours a shift usually despite all the medical evidence of how bad this is for your back, ankles and feet. Thats what you should be outraged about IMO.

[Nikepallas]

1. Mom was a dealer who had to wear those type of shoes. I thought

they stopped enforcing that. When I was out their a few years ago I saw some girls in lower heels...maybe I didn't notice closely.

I did read the first post about the makeup please keep us informed about her case.

[Spinzonner]

2. Perhaps there were Workers Compensation claims over it

that persuaded them of the wisdom of changing the policy.

[Boosterman]

3. Hmm Vegas might have changed

but I dont think so. They do have a very strong union. When I was in Atlantic City I saw the same heels and I know my wife still has to wear them.

[DS1]

4. Please enlighten a dude.. What's the diff between heels and pumps

:shrug:

[Boosterman]

5. Pumps are wider

They distribute the weight more effectively thus reducing the stress on your feet, ankles, back, etc. They still suck though :). Well at least according to my wife and shes a toughie.

[DS1]

6. thx

:hi:

[MercutioATC]

7. It's called a paycheck.

Want to be paid? Look good and pass out free liquor.

It's really that simple.

[Boosterman]

8. So if I payed you well enough

you would work in an asbestos factory?

[MercutioATC]

9. No, I'm doing O.K. without risking my health.

Besides, asbestos is covered under OSHA regulations. I don't believe makeup is.

[Boosterman]

10. Hmm I dont think you read my thread.

Perhaps you would care to reread it?

[MercutioATC]

11. Yes, I did.

There are plenty of jobs that take a toll on one's health. Waitressing in Vegas is pretty far down the list as far as I'm concerned.

[Boosterman]

12. My point was

that people are upset about makeup. That post has like 250 + responses. I show a genuine health hazard

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/44/1676_55010?z=1626_52856_5004_00_04

that is also sexist and...

Oh btw ever try to walk on wet floors in high heels? How about carrying a 20 lb tray that is inherently unstable with the choice of glassware used and bottled water?

[MercutioATC]

13. Sorry, I thought you were adding to the makeup rant.

I understand now.


My apologies.

[Pithlet]

15. A paycheck

is not an excuse for any employer to treat their employees however they wish.

[MercutioATC]

16. It is if the employees agree to it.

I was told when I started my job that I could plan on permanent hearing and vision damage by the time I retired. I took the job anyway.

For the paycheck.

[Boosterman]

17. Hmm what job?

So they informed you ? What would your feelings be like if they didnt inform you? Lets say you brought them documented proof and they ignored you? How would you feel then? What if you required surgery after 2 years on the job(saw that happen)?

[MercutioATC]

19. Air traffic controller.

We were told "unofficially" by an instructor. I'm O.K. with it. I knew what I was getting into when I took the job.

I'd think that a woman taking a waitressing job where she was required to carry trays and wear heels wouldn't have to be told that heels are less than comfortable and can cause long-term problems.

[Boosterman]

21. Hey dont get me wrong

My wife knows. Shes got another year tops. Between the two of us we got set up so we can both go to school. But the point is...arent we supposed to be for workers rights? And which is more important? Make up or some potential long term disability?

BTW how did that hurt your vision and hearing if you dont mind my asking? Dont worry about derailing the thread it mine. heh. Its going nowhere.

[MercutioATC]

23. I sympathyze, but I believe in free enterprise.

If I want to open a bar called "Blondes" and hire only blonde staff (or staff that's willing to dye their hair blonde), I think that should be my perogative. Hair dye can cause health problems, but if the workers don't want to take the risk, they can work elsewhere.

OSHA does have guidelines for what's permissible and what's not and I'm comfortable with those guidelines. As long as OSHA guidelines are complied with, I don't see an issue.


As far as my job, staring at a CRT for long periods of time and gatting the occasional static burst in your ear causes damage. So far, I'm O.K. (after 14 years), but it's a risk I assume to get my paycheck.


BTW, I'm glad you're almost set up for school. Congrats :)

[Boosterman]

29. I understand what you mean

The whole concept of workers rights and business rights is a tricky one. However the make up one and the shoes one in my wifes case were changed after they were already employed.


Oh and heck I almost forgot about this evil casino story. The GM for a casino here decided to change cocktail uniforms. She announced in front of like 500 people that there would only be uniforms up to size 14? I think. The irony is this GM weighs like 280. The cocktails went nuts. There were about 10 girls at least that wouldnt make that requirement. They raised a fuss over my objections and got it changed. The GM lost her job like 3 months later. The reason I objected was...I wanted them to sue the crap out of em. And I hate lawsuits.

[Pithlet]

24. Some jobs are inherently dangerous

And there is only so much an employer can do. All the risks can't be alleviated. But, they should be alleviated to the best of the employers' abilities. They should have to do everything they can to ensure that employees aren't needlessly injured. Employers can and will cut corners to save themselves money at the expense of their employees safety. They should not be able to do that just because an employee needs the paycheck. If your employer is cutting corners, and then "unofficially" telling you you are in danger, then they are in the wrong. If they're merely telling you about the dangers inherent in the job, and they aren't cutting corners, then that's not workplace abuse.

[Boosterman]

35. Yes but in this case they can be alleviated

Doctors recommend no more than a 1-inch heel. Some casinos do that. Some dont. Some require 3 inch heels. As far as I know they arent warned. Perhaps some casinos do warn them. I suppose they should know the risk on their own though...or should they?

[Pithlet]

20. For the paycheck.

People need a paycheck to live. That doesn't mean they should have to sign away their rights to a safe work environment. Just because you're willing to sacrifice that for a paycheck doesn't mean any employer has the right to ask that of you. If no employer is allowed to do it, then no one has to suffer. People can pursue means to make a living without having to decide whether they want to sacrifice life, limb, and equality to do it.

If corporations aren't held to any standards, then they have no incentive to keep their employees safe. If we all just throw up our hands and say "Well, the employee accepts it, so we can't force a company to increase safety standards", then none of them will. Millions of children worked in sweatshops (and still do in many parts of the world). The reason why workplaces are safer in the US, and children go to school instead of working for factories, and we have minimum wage, and overtime (until recently) is because people fought for those things. They gave their lives for those things. They didn't just throw up their hands and say "Well, they're getting paid for it. They chose to work there".

The argument that they're doing it for a paycheck, and therefore it is okay, is just rationalization and apologizing for workplace abuse.

[MercutioATC]

26. That's what OSHA is for.

If an employer meets OSHA guidelines, I don't see a problem. A lot of jobs require some sort of sacrifice. Is it reasonable for me to complain because I work a bizarre schedule and get irregular sleep?

[Pithlet]

28. Lots of workplace rules fall outside of OSHA.

OSHA is not the be all and end all of protecting the rights of the workforce. EOA, ADA, rules against sexual harassment, just for examples.

It wouldn't be reasonable for you to complain about bizarre schedules and irregular sleep if that is unavoidable in your particular field. I was addressing your "Paycheck" argument, which was that if an employee agrees to it because they need the paycheck, then they don't have the right to complain about abuse in the workplace.

[MercutioATC]

36. I was talking about worker safety, not rights.

You're obviously correct. OSHA does not protect workers' rights.

[Pithlet]

14. We can be outraged by both.

The damage does not have to be physical in order to be important. The sexist double standard inherent in a policy that forces women to wear makeup, but not men, should not be overlooked.

[Boosterman]

18. OK but it seems odd that more women arent outraged by this.

Guess I need to get a major news story published.

[Pithlet]

22. Why does that seem odd to you?

Why does it seem odd that a double standard based on sexist views outrages anyone, regardless of their sex? Women can relate to sexism in the workforce, so it would make sense that a lot of women voice their outrage.

[Boosterman]

25. Well because both the make up and the shoes are a double standard

One poses a significant health risk...the other is minimal. Which issue should concern you more?

[Pithlet]

27. Both.

They both concern me equally. I don't think we have to be less outraged at the double standard that the employer used in forcing their female employees to wear makeup, because other employers (or even the same employer) force their employees to do things that physically harm them.

[Boosterman]

30. Well I am going to disagree with that

No offense meant at all. Its simply a matter of priorities with me. besides like I said earlier in the other thread...no ones looking at their feet. Believe me you dont want to look at most cocktails feet.

[Pithlet]

31. That's fine.

I just don't understand why you would be shocked that others don't see it that way.

[Boosterman]

32. Not really shocked

Everyone sees things through their own perspective. I tend to be overly analytical. If two things are equally wrong in one way (at least from my perspective) and you add an additional physical hazard to one or the other then that one takes precedence. Theres probably some component I am missing to this. But I dont know what it is.

[Pithlet]

33. I guess

what I got from your post is that you thought the outrage about the makeup deal was misplaced, because of other issues with the shoes going on. My point is that there is no reason to downplay the importance of an issue because of the existence of other issues. If that makes sense :)

In other words, let's say we're discussing animal cruelty. Often, in such discussions, someone will interject by saying something like "Well, there are children who suffer, too. Why aren't we talking about that problem? Why all the outrage about animals? They aren't as important". To me, it misses the point entirely. Animal abuse IS an important issue, and one worthy of much passion and devotion. I don't think the existence of cruelty to children should necessarily negate the issue of cruelty to animals. I, personally, would place the issue of child abuse as a much higher priority in our society, but I would not begrudge those who are passionate about animal issues, or feel that their outrage is any less worthy of discussion.

[Boosterman]

34. Not misplaced per se

Sorry if I gave that impression. I wasnt trying to denigrate anyones feelings about the topic. I TRY to respect others feelings on most matters. I probaly wasnt articulate enough. I do still feel this is a more significant issue. Read the Web MD link if you get a chance :)