Slashdot Mirror
HP R&D Starts Enforcing a Business Casual Dress Code
An anonymous reader writes: HP was once known as a research and technology giant, a company founded in a garage by a pair of engineers and dominated by researchers. Whilst a part of that lives on in Agilent any hope for the rest of the company has now died with the announcement that HP R&D will have to dress in business "smart casual" with T-shirts, baseball caps, short skirts, low cut dresses and sportswear all being banned.
Who cares? Are that many geeks worn down by the brutal requirement to wear something slightly more formal than gym clothes?
This seems like a logical step to encourage an atmosphere of professionalism in which HP's remaining employees can train their H1B replacements.
A comma was missing:
"[...] as a research ant, technology giant [..]“
... in severance packages. A hostile work environment will definitely reduce personnel.
Of course the smart people who have no problem finding another job will leave first.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
... strutting around in their low cut shirts and bare midriffs... And do we really need to see your tramp stamps?
In other news, Jerry that keeps showing up to work in his S&M gimp suit will switch to a more work appropriate polo shirt. Thanks for ruining it for everyone Jerry... you jackass.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
HP management is looking for scapegoat for their incompetence and has finally ran out of (other) scapegoats.
A sure sign of a company in trouble is when assholes at the top begins to blame people at the bottom for all the failings. I expect to see a lot of people shorting HP soon..
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
.
The divisions that were left behind when Agilent was spun off were Just Another Company, with nothing special to speak of.
Basically, a way to get people to leave, without going through the trouble of laying them off or providing severance. The often overlooked part of this is of course that good people leave first, and mouth breathers and managers of all sorts hang on for dear life since they are unemployable elsewhere.
Perhaps they're also looking for ways to annoy enough people into quitting so that they don't have the pay out any severance when the next round of layoffs starts. This seems like something that would push a few people over the edge, though I suspect it might be some of their better workers. Then again, the current suit only cares long enough to hit some bonuses based on poorly chosen metrics in order to cash out with a golden parachute while the company collapses.
as long as shorts are banned
At my company, we require shorts and tank tops during the summer months. If you violate the dress code by wearing long pants or sleeves, then you are not allowed to complain about the AC temperature setting. It is currently set to 78F (26C).
Well, this shirt:
I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet your shirt is sexist and ostracizing
generated a shitstorm on the internet. So possibly HP management is feeling a bit gunshy. Nothing like nasty, screaming little facists trying to ruin your career over the irrelevant to ruin your day. Or week. Or month. Or even your career.
I would wager that what happened was some executive who thinks he or she is too high and mighty to do something like... notify anybody AT ALL that they're bringing important people through... decided to talk up how professional and awesome their employees are and then bring them through, only to catch the overweight bearded guy wearing sandals in the middle of eating a messy burger. Of course the problem is that the guy was wearing sandals!
I've witnessed this multiple times. One executive told me about how he never knows in advance when investors are coming through. I asked if they just walk up and down our street and randomly poke their head into our place. The answer to that question was a suggestion that I should update my resume.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I think it much more likely that they are wanting to trim some fat off of their employment expenses, and doing this is a quick and easy way to get some people to voluntarily quit without looking too conspicuously like constructive dismissal.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
First off the article linked was poorly written. It is only their professional services arm that has these new restrictions. R&D does not. Secondly who cares? I prefer business casual over some of the other forms of outfits that you can wear. Yes I can wear sneakers (trainers) and they might be very comfortable, but I buy an $80 pair of shoes, wear them every day, and they last 5 years. That is not all that expensive. Khaki's are lighter than Denim Jeans .. so I prefer them. Hey, less ball sweat. $40 a pair (you need five). I have light button down shirts that I wear over my under shirt and have never had a problem of being hot, or feeling constrained. Again, spend $40 on each shirt and you will only have to replace them if you get fat (or skinny) or after like 5 years. So lets see. $500 for 5 years worth of NICE clothes you can wear anywhere (church, wedding, christmas dinner, etc.) and you are more comfortable than when you wear jeans and a polo.
Of course this is all subjective. My current job allows people to wear jeans instead of Khaki's. I told my boss that I will never wear jeans, but if he lets me wear shorts that will be a different story. I would prefer to wear shorts and a t-shirt, but it is work. Seriously. If you are customer facing, it is not hard to look nice and professional. If you are a back room guy - Who cares.
IBM actually did very well with their dress code. It was a sales ploy, the company wanted to project an aura of reliable professionalism and they did.
I can understand a reasonable dress code to keep flip flops and non work attire to a minimum.
However, dressing like a professional doth not a professional make. HP would do well to remember that.
Who fired a Nobel Prize laureate over a joke and why does he still have a job? Whoever fired him should be fired for damaging the company.
Seriously, Political Correctness is fine and cute, but when it gets to getting shit done, it's time to stop the silly games and concentrate on what really matters.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This makes me laugh.
Years ago, I worked for a company in Mesa, Arizona. It's damned hot in that area, especially in the summer.
When the company tackled the thorny issue of dress codes, they wanted a unisex dress code--no double standards. The dress code ended up being, "You must be covered from shoulders to a little above the knee in clothing of good repair." Open toed shoes were okay, but no flip-flops.
That was it. No ripped jeans. No tube tops or spaghetti straps.
That said, there were some people who could just not handle hairy men's legs and, I'm told, argued vehemently against men wearing shorts. The head of HR basically said that whatever standards are there for women should also be there for men. If you want to wear skirts, you need to let men show their legs, too.
There were two other interesting things they did. One, they hung a sign in the lobby that said "This company supports a casual dress code." So you wouldn't wonder why people were wandering around in shorts. The other rule was that there were times--maybe once or twice a year--when it might be necessary to, shall we say, "dress to impress." When this happened, you would be notified by your manager--and it was up to your manager to do this and verify that you got the message--more than 24 hours before this would happen. If you were not notified and showed up dressed unimpressively, your manager was the one who caught the heat.
I learned two important lessons from one of my former bosses concerning dressing:
First: If you meet with a group of people, the least well dressed person is the one you're looking out for. It's either the tech or the decision maker. And both of them are important to you. The decision maker for obvious reasons, and the tech because he'll be the one asking the important questions and his reaction to your answers is also the important one, because he will later translate your answer to the managers. They can nod, ahh and ohh all they want to your answer, they don't understand it. It's the tech that will understand it and what he later conveys to his managers is what makes or breaks your contract. So that is the one person you need to convince.
And second, never trust a tech in a suit. Never. If you're in a customer meeting with someone who is allegedly a tech and he comes in dressed up like a manager, there's two possible reasons: First, he's not a tech but a sales goon who has been briefed by their tech, and he has been sent 'cause they fear their tech would tell us more truth about the product than they want him to. Or he is a tech and was forced to dress up to distract from the product being not able to stand on its own. If something needs a dolled up clown to sell it, it's not worth buying it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's something I never really understood. And it seems to be something that is actually pretty much an US thing. I don't see the same clinging to dress codes over here in Europe.
How the heck can it be important how someone dresses who is in no contact with customers? I can see the necessity of "professional" dressing when one has to do with customers. That's a given. You need to follow the rites of the human tribe. Dressing up in a similar way as the one you get into contact with makes him identify you as "one of his kind" and causes him to like you. He looks like me, so he's one of my tribe. That's deep in our ancestor's brain. That's why three piece suits are pretty much a necessity in management meetings because managers look at you and identify you as one of them if you're in the same three piece junk.
It's also, btw, the reason why techs don't like managers and why any tech dressing up as a manager immediately loses support with his peers. He's no longer "one of us". He's "one of them" now.
And no, I don't digress, actually, that's exactly the problem these things create. Because "business dress code" identifies a tech as "not one of us anymore". We not only don't want to wear that junk, we also don't like people wearing it. If anything, it alienates people.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.