Bra Check - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-29-2005, 04:29 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,341
Local Time: 01:51 PM
I think y'all are being a bit harsh. Randhail was just having a bit of fun - along the lines of cydewaze's comment (about the kilt) or, perhaps more importantly, how absurd it is to check for bras and, alternatively, the sue-happy nature of the U.S. After all, if one can be offended by this, why can't someone sue for a person not wearing a bra? It really becomes a fine line...
__________________

__________________
http://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 04:37 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


when I worked in retail the dress code said something like "appropriate undergarments"

they had a real obsession w/ the female employees wearing pantyhose too, I would even catch the managers looking to see if we had them on.. a few times I even heard them asking
Trying to get this back on track....

I bet men are far more likely to draft a dress code that includes pantyhose. That was the thing my wife hated the most about the professional attire requirements for her job.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 04:46 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,341
Local Time: 01:51 PM
If you take a job, you are most likely told of a dress code early on. There may be numerous reasons for this dress code - ranging from safety to what is considered professional attire. You may not like it, but then, you knew this taking the job. If you resent it, do not accept the job.

To sue for $9M because of a bra check is asinine. If there is a complaint to be made, it should be done appropriately. I cannot accept anyone being so "humiliated" by this that it's worth $9M.
__________________
http://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 04:49 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho
To sue for $9M because of a bra check is asinine. If there is a complaint to be made, it should be done appropriately. I cannot accept anyone being so "humiliated" by this that it's worth $9M.
It's too bad that lawyers take legitimate claims and stretch them beyond credibility with inflated damages demands.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 04:50 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 04:51 PM
Yes having your balls prodded to see if you are wearing underwear is the same as a bra check as it's an invasion of your personal space and privacy in the workplace not to mention degrading, doesn't seem appropriate to me.

I don't know who drafted the policy about pantyhose nbc, it came from the corporate office I would assume. Retail tends to be female dominated but most of the jerks at the corporate level are probably men Pantyhose do look more professional but to have your legs scrutinized like that to see if you're conforming is weird..so I can only imagine what a bra check feels like.

When I go into the same store now I'm shocked at what they can wear-jeans, sneakers, skimpy stuff, etc. It's not an upscale store.

There are dignified professional ways to enforce a dress code-humiliating someone like that is neither. Just take her into an office and speak to her in a professional manner about it.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 05:00 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,341
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Well, we really don't know the whole story here. From what I read, I received the impression that the bra-check was done by a female supervisor - and it was just a pat on the back. That alone is hardly something humiliating.

When she had to lift her shirt up, that might be a bit more annoying, but it's not like she was asked to perform a strip search. We hardly know what "lifting her shirt" is - was it to the point to prove a bra was on? If so, again, hardly humiliating.

And even if the person was a bit embarrassed, was she humiliated to the point of $9M?

We are only hearing one side of the story - which is why I defended some of randhail's light-hearted comments. At what point can we sue for being "offended" or "humiliated" or "annoyed"? What if randhail really was offended by having an overweight coworker not wear her bra at work? Could he sue for $9M? Where is the line drawn?
__________________
http://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 05:10 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho
Well, we really don't know the whole story here. From what I read, I received the impression that the bra-check was done by a female supervisor - and it was just a pat on the back. That alone is hardly something humiliating.

When she had to lift her shirt up, that might be a bit more annoying, but it's not like she was asked to perform a strip search. We hardly know what "lifting her shirt" is - was it to the point to prove a bra was on? If so, again, hardly humiliating.

And even if the person was a bit embarrassed, was she humiliated to the point of $9M?

We are only hearing one side of the story - which is why I defended some of randhail's light-hearted comments. At what point can we sue for being "offended" or "humiliated" or "annoyed"? What if randhail really was offended by having an overweight coworker not wear her bra at work? Could he sue for $9M? Where is the line drawn?
Being grossed out by someone overweight not wearing a bra to work is far, far different than having a supervisor ask you to lift up your shirt. I don't care if it is a male or female asking you to do it - it is still degrading. How would you feel if a supervisor asked you to drop your trousers at work to make sure you were wearing underwear?
__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 05:15 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
There are dignified professional ways to enforce a dress code-humiliating someone like that is neither. Just take her into an office and speak to her in a professional manner about it.
Well, if that happened, we would have this thread.

Not all managers know how to treat employees professionally and with dignity.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 05:27 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
For Honor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 5,278
Local Time: 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail
Can I sue overweight women if they don't weat bras for mental anguish and suffering?
Makes me smile, but, I guess we can't do that. It's every person's right to express how fat they want to be. But then again, if go on medication because a particular woman refused to get her obeseness out of the way, then sue her fat ass.


(taken with a does of sarcasm). But you can make a 9Mill case out of anything these days.


=========


Quote:
Karen Tenney claims in the lawsuit against Essex County that a supervisor at the Horace Nye Nursing Home where she worked placed her hand on the back of Tenney's sweater to feel for a bra clasp.

When a clasp wasn't found, Tenney, a dietary aide, pulled up her sweater to show she was wearing a black sports bra. The move triggered other workers inside the dietary unit to show off the bras they were wearing.
I know it sounds bad, but.... was she forced, or asked to do it? Were the other workers forced into it?

I mean, maybe I'm missing something. It would seem odd for them to just start flashing their bras, etc. But.... was it demanded that they do it?
__________________
For Honor is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 05:28 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
For Honor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 5,278
Local Time: 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Oh yeah, appropriate bras are a must but who gives a damn about all the disgusting men who refuse to wear anti-perspirant. Ever been stuck in a confined place with one of them, your head squeezed between a wall and their armpit?
Not quite the same thing.........


but....


I still agree with you
__________________
For Honor is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 05:30 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
For Honor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 5,278
Local Time: 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I don't know, can I sue if someone's comments cause my intelligence to drop?

Sure you can.


I can sue interference for getting athritis in my fingers. Probably even in my toes if I really wanted to.


Guilty until proven innocent
__________________
For Honor is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 05:30 PM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by For Honor


It would seem odd for them to just start flashing their bras, etc. But.... was it demanded that they do it?


this happens to me all the time

i should get an attorney
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 05:43 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
For Honor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 5,278
Local Time: 04:51 PM
(edit - whoops - misquote)


Look, I'm not going to point fingers. I'll refer to a vauge person outside of this thread. And I know this is FYM, but...... I think some people just like to get angry or offended, as a way to vent emotions and such

I mean......

It's kind of like, "interpret this situation as you will". From the short article at the beginning, there were a lot of holes in the story. Of course, and undisputably so, women's rights, all rights, at work place, for all people, that is a major thing. Privacy, etc.

But....

well, I guess I'll just leave it at that and leave the thread. My most sincere apologies, Mrs. Springsteen, if it appears that all I have done was disrupt another one of your threads. That is not my intention.
__________________
For Honor is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 05:44 PM   #44
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho
Well, we really don't know the whole story here. From what I read, I received the impression that the bra-check was done by a female supervisor - and it was just a pat on the back. That alone is hardly something humiliating.

When she had to lift her shirt up, that might be a bit more annoying, but it's not like she was asked to perform a strip search. We hardly know what "lifting her shirt" is - was it to the point to prove a bra was on? If so, again, hardly humiliating.

And even if the person was a bit embarrassed, was she humiliated to the point of $9M?

I think you're missing the point which is why a check in the first place. If you tell everyone to wear a bra, fine. If someone walks in and it's obvious someone's not, then make a complaint. Innocent until proven guilty. But you don't have to pat everyone down everyday and lift their shirt if you can't find a clasp. It's like those parents who ask their child if they made poopy in their pants and when the parent doesn't believe them they check for themselves in front of their playmates. These people are adults and need to be treated as such, not babies with diapers.

Now is it worth 9 mil, probably not, but that's mostly the lawyers fault.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 05:46 PM   #45
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by For Honor



Sure you can.


I can sue interference for getting athritis in my fingers. Probably even in my toes if I really wanted to.

Um, no because you didn't have to be here. Completely not relevant at all.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com