Work Uniform/Dress Code

[martin4963]

£13 for a polo OK.So if u were told when you took the job on you have to fund a dress code would you of not taken the job? no of course you still take the job.

 

Welcome to the real world, not some public sector haven that you teachers work in.

Pay up or face the disciplinary process

 

 

What planet Are you from ? ....This is the head of a school trying to force the unenforceable, there are no provisions in my wifes contract of employment for dress code, as you seem to speak with so much knowledge, perhaps you`d like to cough up the money yourself - either put up or shut up !

personally, if I applied for a job and was told that I had to provide my own uniform, I would tell the employer where to shove his job (as I have done in the past)

[martin4963]

Not quite show how jeans every qualified as smart/casual.

 

Sounds to me like the head is simply trying to enforece an existing rule.

 

I'm strugling to see how asking someone to where black trousers and a polo shirt could be seen as unreasonable, even if it is a shirt with the school logo on it.

 

Andrew

 

Jeans have evolved quite a bit over the last few years and are now a far cry from the original "workwear" denim.

 

By all accounts there was no actual dress code for non-teaching staff, and there is certainly no clause in her contract of employment which mentions uniform or dress code. I totally agree that there is nothing wrong whatsoever in asking someone to wear black trousers and polo shirt, providing of course the school provides them.

[martin4963]

I think the black trousers should be paid for by you and the logo top paid for by the school. The logo top can't really be worn for any other purpose other than work - the trousers can.

 

 

Mmmmm, that`s one way of looking at it !

[dx_]

I think the black trousers should be paid for by you and the logo top paid for by the school. The logo top can't really be worn for any other purpose other than work - the trousers can.

If it's not in the contract t&c Martin, maybe your wife can put that to the head teacher? Meeting in the middle.

[MrShed]

Mmmmm, that`s one way of looking at it !

 

Not just one way of looking at it, but I believe the legal way of looking at it.

 

Black trousers are not a "uniform", unless they SPECIFY you have to wear particular black trousers. If they dont, then you would be expected to buy them yourself.

 

The polo shirt, having a logo on, should be provided by the school.

[lihi]

What does it say in the contract?

 

Personally I couldn't care less what teachers or teaching assistants wear, as long as they're doing the job they're paid to do and the children are doing well what does it really matter?! I don't judge schools on the image of the teachers/ass's wear, they're judged by results and children's happiness. I don't remember seeing a section for staff dress last time I read an ofsted report but I can understand why some heads want it implemented.

 

I'd tend to agree in terms of being reasonable the school should supply any logo'd uniform and the black trousers bought by employee. £13 is a lot of money when you haven't got any (lets remember why the majority of us are members on CAG!) at least if a plain black top is specified you have the personal choice to drop into Gucci and spend £200 or into Primark and pay £3. I've never worked for a private or public company and paid for specified uniform.

[teaboy2]

Do the teachers have to wear the same uniform too? if not then the head teacher is acting dsicriminately against the teaching assistants by asking them to wear the same uniform as the students. it could then be implied that the head teacher sees the teaching assistants as pupils. In order to maintain discipline of the pupils, it is vital that they know who is in charge, and having teaching assistants wear the same uniform will leave the pupils believing that they have no authority over them. it is discrimination to have a dress code for men but not for women. So the head teacher would be discriminating against the teaching assistants by making them wear uniform that is the same as that of what the pupils wear, when the teachers dont have too. so there is a case for discrimination if this goes ahead.

 

As an employer myself i can tell you now that clothes incorporated with a company logo have to be provided by employer for free at first at the start of your employment and only items of such clothing being replaced need to be paid for by the employee at certain price such as at cost price, unless the company has a policy of providing free replacement clothing etc. Clothing such as trousers and suits or anything that does not incorporate a company logo and is not required for health and safety reason, is expected to be paid for by the employee not provided by the company.

 

So those of you saying well i had to pay for my suit to work at my office so its right she should pay for clothing even though its incorporated with the school logo, then you need to get your facts right. ask any shop assistant wearing a jumper or shirt incorporated with their shops logo, if they bought their first jumper or shirt and i bet theyll say no it was provided by the company. infact perfect example is that of police officers, do they pay for their unifrom? no, probably only pay for replacement from time to time. So all you people that wear suits to work are saying the police have to pay for their uniform too and that our girls and boys in the armed forces should have to pay for their uniforms too, are you? there is a big difference between casual dress code such as wearing suits then that of uniformed dress code where a unifrom is required.

Edited October 22, 2009 by teaboy2

[MrShed]

Do the teachers have to wear the same uniform too? if not then the head teacher is acting dsicriminately against the teaching assistants by asking them to wear the same uniform as the students. it could then be implied that the head teacher sees the teaching assistants as pupils. In order to maintain discipline of the pupils, it is vital that they know who is in charge, and having teaching assistants wear the same uniform will leave the pupils believing that they have no authority over them. it is discrimination to have a dress code for men but not for women. So the head teacher would be discriminating against the teaching assistants by making them wear uniform that is the same as that of what the pupils wear, when the teachers dont have too. so there is a case for discrimination if this goes ahead.

 

As an employer myself i can tell you now that clothes incorporated with a company logo have to be provided by employer for free at first at the start of your employment and only items of such clothing being replaced need to be paid for by the employee at certain price such as at cost price, unless the company has a policy of providing free replacement clothing etc. Clothing such as trousers and suits or anything that does not incorporate a company logo and is not required for health and safety reason, is expected to be paid for by the employee not provided by the company.

 

So those of you saying well i had to pay for my suit to work at my office so its right she should pay for clothing even though its incorporated with the school logo, then you need to get your facts right. ask any shop assistant wearing a jumper or shirt incorporated with their shops logo, if they bought their first jumper or shirt and i bet theyll say no it was provided by the company. infact perfect example is that of police officers, do they pay for their unifrom? no, probably only pay for replacement from time to time. So all you people that wear suits to work are saying the police have to pay for their uniform too and that our girls and boys in the armed forces should have to pay for their uniforms too, are you? there is a big difference between casual dress code such as wearing suits then that of uniformed dress code where a unifrom is required.

 

Not being funny - but some of this is some really funny and surreal stuff!

 

I particularly like:

 

it could then be implied that the head teacher sees the teaching assistants as pupils

 

Where was it said that the uniform was the same as the pupils?????

 

It is complete claptrap to say that two differing roles cannot have two differing dress codes.

[PriorityOne]

 

It is complete claptrap to say that two differing roles cannot have two differing dress codes.

 

You may be right.... but this would be a very bad move in a school, in my opinion. Teaching Assistants are sometimes treated like sh*t by students as it is.... because students think TAs don't have any clout re. discipline, so if a school decided to over-emphasise the difference in status with a uniform, it could make a TAs life hell.

 

I see examples of this every day in my job.... and that's without a staff uniform.

[jackieandwayne]

I grumbled and rebelled once when I had to wear a uniform when I had previously been allowed to wear smart casual (but never jeans). But eventually I realised that my personal clothes were lasting me a lot longer. And at the dreaded Xmas do it didn;t really matter what I wore, I certainly didn;t have to spend a fortune as before, because I looked so different when I turned up out of uniform!

 

Swings and roundabouts - but I think the school should pay for the tops and you pay for the trousers and they should definitely let you have a say in the style and distinguish you clearly from the pupils.