jamesg1213
Siluroo
Personally I think that if an employer enforces a dress code then they should be finacially held liable in future for any medical claims that are a result/partial result of such a requirement, ie, should be sued for damages.
What if a building contractor didn't enforce the wearing of safety equipment such as steel-toed boots and hard hats? Should they be sued if someone was injured through not wearing such?
To clarify in some work places you are required to wear a certain BRAND and STYLE, as approved by management, unfortunately when it comes to humans, one size does not fit all, and foot sizing and shape are no exception.
In my country the qualifier is that an employer must provide a safe working environment for their employees, no matter if its a building site, shop or an office, and the appropriate level safety gear is required to be in supply and worn, it is a shared responsibility in that regard.
As far as I am aware, there is no requirement that the safety gear be comfortable or proper fitting in order to prevent long term harm to an employee. The safety equipment is tested for external trauma, not trauma from extended use of ill fitting equipment.
To put it into a better perspective, If you wear ill fitting or badly designed shoes for long enough, you will have to see a foot doctor for some kind of issue, or just put up with the pain providing of course you live long enough. If you were inadequate safety footwear, then you increase your risk of injury in the case of an accident which may or may not happen. One is guaranteed cost in the future, the other a risk of a cost.
I do not know if you have worked in management or in government, or if you have had any training on site safety risk assessments which are in my country compulsory for all, if not the majority of work sites. You may or may not bew familiar with FREQUENCY vs PROBABILITY RISK ASSESSMENT methodology, which is the most commonly used tool for determining what level of protective clothing or other safety measures are needed in the workplaces I have been in. I am also sure that I am not qualified to teach you if you do not.
What I do know from personal experience is, that if you complain about footwear being uncomfortable, you will be laughed at, told 'stop complaining and get back to work'. You may even be told that 'it is normal, do not worry about it', or even, 'I have the same problem, you will get used to it'. If you persist, depending on the management you have, and your relationship with them, there is a good chance you will be fired and told 'good luck elsewhere'. These are things I have witnessed, or been part of, not imagined examples.
Sorry for the long answer, but you did just ask a how long is a piece of string type question.
If you let people where comfortable shoes that fit the safety profile of the work site
Anyway, I did not argue that people should not wear safety gear, I was stating that wearing a compulsory uniform can be harmful to a person, so for health reasons alone, there needs to be at least some flexibility in choice, before you get to the stage where you start having to produce medical certificates to exclude you from the company dress code, and if an employer prevents you from such a choice and you develop a problem, they should be at least partially accountable. Someone has to pay the medical costs, either the insurance company, government, patient or employer, and in the case of the employer stating 'you must wear this', should they not be accountable?