Well I'm simply offended that the word 'man' appears in humanity. I mean WTF?... Yes I know I'm a man but I'm offended for all the non-men, not just women, but the whole sexual number line out there out there who might if they looked at the word 'humanity' for a few minutes while high, and might think .. why does it contain 'man' when humanity it meant to encompass everyone? I propose we change humanity to hu-one-ity to bring the one of the individual into the fold of the great and mighty all of us. Oh the hu-one-ity of it all. Plus I'd like to sue for millions, just in case any ppl possibly offended may have experienced adverse side effects such as giving a moment's clarity as to the stupidity of the PC world, or possible dread at the thought that PC-ness of our time is a massive waste of time and crippling our society. Please continue.

Look, I think it's very simple.

There is no way to demonstrate that the OP is creating a hostile work environment that would pass the "reasonable person" test.

However, it would take more courage for your boss to tell the squeaky wheel to STFU than it does to try to make you give in so there's no longer a fuss in the workplace.

The only way that changes is if you make a fuss about the hostile work environment that has now been created for you.

Unless the company wants to go down the road of instituting policies stating that you will only set foot on property in work attire (and face a host of discriminatory problems there) the complaining individual has no legitimate gripe. It's purely personal taste.

The law isn't the problem. "PC" isn't the problem. The problem is a supervisor's inability to manage a worker with too much time on her hands.

If you dig in your heels on this one they have nothing. You are in the right and you are being harassed.

^^Word^^
It's the boss lacking the spine that dumps it on the OP's lap.
Why do I imagine a human rights tribunal if the OP and the Mgr. tried to speaking the offended?

Have you gone to HR and said "I have this complaint, but i'm confused, could you show me what i'm doing that is against policy, or explain exactly what it is that this complaint is based on?" Have you talked to the woman who sent the complaint to ask what the problem is? Hearsay is and supposition is, to put it mildly, vacuous and meaningless. Get the facts.

Solution:

Defend your positon. You are in health care, and your activity is documented as very, very healthy in a proactive way, preventing a host of illnesses associated with obesity and inactivity. Point out that you are an example to be followed, and that your cycling clothes are simply state-of-the-art for your activity.

Mention that it might be strange that healthcare professionals are complaining about something that they should be supporting 100%. In fact, maybe some brochures in your office will back you up

:beer:

Don't get mad, just trump their play. Quote some noted physicians.

(I bet some of those nurses could use Jenny Craig. Maybe they are the ones who are a bad example!)

In the long-run, someone might even thank you for your leadership.

(Whoever heard of nurses objecting to bicycling? What silliness! ...pass the wings...)

Come to think of it... isn't it odd that someone else, who works in healthcare and sees it all , would be offended by whatever it is they see wrapped in lycra?

Yea great idea. Start an exercise culture at work. Get a few studies together from insurance companies about how exercise improves health of employees, cuts down on insurance costs, improves attendence and productivity. Soon everone will wear underarmor and lycra at your work. All except the old fat lady on the cart hopefully. Really though, come up with some studies, there are lots out there. Might get you a raise or the employee of the month parking spot or something. And drive the old nurses nuts.

+1 to this.

IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PERFORM OPEN HEART SURGERY OR INSERT A CATHETER AT THE SHOPPING MALL KEEP YOUR @#$!@@$#%@#$^@#%@#$^ DISEASE RIDDEN SCRUBS AT THE HOSPITAL YOU IDIOT.


seriously. Tell them to kiss it. I told my manager "no" when she complained about my bike shoes inside the building. I came to work early, changed into my dress shoes and even commuted in a suit.

I compared it to me coming in carrying the keys to my car, if I was driving, or my train pass, if I was rail commuting.


The shoes stayed. Everyone loosened up.

I became "weird-bicycle-guy"
and everyone got the hell over it.

And this was in Asia, where the stick is crammed MUCH further up their rectums.

That's not necessarily the situation. Ever talk to someone who works in a "zero tolerance" workplace? In at least one situation that I know of, it means that if anyone makes a complaint that anything you do or say or write offends them, and you can't prove that the incident is completely fabricated, you're out, no 2nd chance, no arguments.

In this one case, a friend posted on an informal internal-only blog that he'd read a funny review of one of the recent Star Wars movies, and he posted a link. In the review, on about the 4th page, the reviewer used the "N" word. It was NOT his article, he just posted a link and said it was funny. The article WAS funny too, the N word thing was a passing comment which was a little distasteful but honestly it was a pretty intelligent comment as well.

My friend was one of the most productive programmers they had. He had never had any record of problems, and everyone in his department including the bosses and directors vouched for him as a great guy and asked that he not be fired. He was gone the next day.

THAT is what this kind of crap leads to.

I find that hard to believe...was this a job in government or education?

I can't imagine that happening in the real world of business...at worst, I'd envision the guy getting a reprimand.

From a dress code point of view you are technically correct. However, I think there are two issues here and I was thinking "tolerated in the workplace" refers more in terms of sexual harassment. The post below responds to this pretty good.

1.) Keep in mind that if the company enforces this issue as a dress code issue than they have to enforce it 100%, which would mean there would be no bike commuting in anything short of proper business attire. Nobody else would be able to set foot on the property in anything less than proper business attire either.

2.) I am not an expert but there are standards that need to met in sexual harassment for a complaint to be credible. To me this seems like a convenient application by the complaining party to cause vindictive harm to the accused party.

G'ah this kinda thing gets me so riled up. Here you are doing what's best for the enviornment and your health and some people just gotta complain.

GET A LIFE NURSE RATCHET!

Sorry for shouting, I hope it all works out for you.

That was the '60's...

In the OP's case, it's Nurse Fatchet. :D

I wear lycra to work. I'm also a supervisor. It's not proper office attire, and I change as soon as possible.

If I was asked by my boss to wear something over the lycra or figure out a way to change before walking into the office proper, I would do so. I'm sure there's a compromise that would satisfy both parties. I'm already hauling a few pounds of stuff into work and adding a few ounces in the form of a pair of shorts isn't going to make much difference.

Let's say I had someone working for me who liked to jog/run into work. They drove on Monday and brought clothes for the week. Tuesday - Friday they show up wearing shorts and an athletic bra. Perfectly acceptable running attire, but not appropriate for the office.

As long as the person was quick to change and didn't linger dressed like that than in common areas, I'd let it slide until I got a complaint. At that point I may talk to the employee in question but more likely I'd seek a higher up to clarify what if any official position there was on this type of situation.

I wouldn't force one employee to change their behavior base just on another employee's preference unless I myself thought there was a lot of merit to it or there was a clear company policy.

There's a possibility that there's more going on here. It may not be the lycra so much as the idea that somebody else is getting special treatment and being allowed to do something they themselves couldn't get away with. Just guessing. When there's a healthy positive working environment, people are more tolerant than when there's not.

I do not argue that Lycra or any sportswear for that matter is not proper office attire for doing work in the office. But I do dispute that there is some universal standard that sportswear is not appropriate in the work place when one is not working. There are more than enough companies that have onsite fitness centers and/or running clubs, aerobic classes, etc. People do these activities before, after, and during lunch breaks. With more and more companies adapting wellness programs to combat high healthcare costs, seeing people wearing workout clothes in the workplace during certain times of the day is only going to become more common and accepted.

You can argue that Lycra is a bit risqué but the exposure should be minimal for a bike commuter who promptly changes when he/she comes or goes. In this situation I really don't see a good reason to complain except for the joy of complaining.

I don't think there is a universal standard, nor do I think lycra should be banned from appearing in any office. I however, think there are ways that employers can allow and encourage healthy behavior such as commuting and still limit lycra exposure, - including asking the rider to throw on a loose pair of shorts before walking into the building. Do I think that should be necessary? No. But I also don't think it's completely unreasonable and definitely not worth waging a huge battle over.

Station the complainer on the DARK SIDE of the Cafeteria. In a windowless closet, she will never see you come in again. Problem solved!! :lol:

"Limit lycra exposure"???

What, like somebody's retina is going to be damaged by seeing somebody else wearing lycra?

What's next? Women can't wear slacks that show off their "assets"? What about tight sweaters?


I certainly hope that the dangers of "lycra exposure" are a non-issue. I can see it being a problem in repressed societies like Saudi Arabia and Ohio, but in most of the intelligent world folks can handle it without requiring any extraordinary measures.


Perhaps the OP should throw on a burqa before entering the building. :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...fghanistan.jpg

I do work in a zero tolerance workplace. USAF. I have to be familiar with this sort of thing as an officer. Your friend, in that situation, would have grounds to fight wrongful termination if he got an attorney. The issues of potential racism make that one sticky, but I would give him greater than 50/50 odds of winning that one.
Trust me, I know very well about zero tolerance...I've heard that phrase quite a bit. But zero tolerance does not mean "guilty until proven innocent". There is still a burden of proof, and what happens too often is that supervisors automatically lynch the accused out of fear of the accuser and the potential workplace time bomb they may represent.
Supervisor's need to keep their craniums screwed on straight and THINK about things, and in many of these outrageous cases the accused need to know their rights.

Yep, that's pretty much what I was saying.

Some people can pull off the spandex/lycra look, some of us can not. I promised my daughter years ago that I would wear jogging shorts over mine.

that's ridiculous, i'm so glad i work around men/manly women..

Sorry, I was trying to be glib.

The reality is that we are routinely judged by what we wear. What's appropriate in some circumstances is not in others. Companies via dress code (either formal or relaxed) are trying to convey a certain image to customers, business partners, and their own staff.

In our organization many of our business partners would judge us as "progressive" if they saw one of our staff walk into the office in cycling shorts. Others may question whether or not we're are the type of company they want to be associated with. I'm not joking. Given that environment it's not unreasonable to place limits on what an employee can wear on site. I also think it's possible to do that and still promote cycling as a mode of transportation.

An example memo:

"To promote a healthy lifestyle we've decided to build an enclosed bicycle parking area in the South lot. In exchange, please enclose your lycra covered junk in something appropriate before walking into the building. We got an eyeful at last year's Holiday party and that was quite enough".

Personally I don't think anyone should be bothered if someone wants to walk around naked, but that's not the society we live in.

You are, of course, free to disbelieve things that actually happened. It did happen. Private industry. Zero-tolerance means just that. At-will state. You can be fired for wearing a tie they don't like, and you have no recourse.

That's bizarre....never heard of a private company going that overboard. They're in business to make a profit, so how does it help them to do that if they fire their "best programmer" for a minor screw-up or wearing the wrong tie?

Perhaps there were other issues involved in your friend's firing...it's not uncommon for folks to claim to be fired for "no good reason" when, in reality, there's a documented history of problems.

Most companies are pretty paranoid about firing anyone "for cause" without significant documentation...in this day and age, not documenting the firing process could easily lead to a suit from the fired employee.

And if they just "let the employee go" (instead of firing them for cause), then they're going to be paying out for unemployment.