You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
My other half is issued trousers to wear by her employer. Recently, as a cost cutting exercise, the employer has started issuing 'unisex' uniform trousers, which are actually basically men's trousers. They do not appear to have any concessions to the anatomical differences in the female figure, and are measured in male sizes. She finds these trousers uncomfortable due to the degree of bunching around the waist under her belt and the fact that they want to sit at the wrong height for her, meaning that either the crotch or the waist is at the wrong height for comfort and freedom of movement. Her job is fairly physical, and she needs to be able to crouch, kneel sit and stand comfortably. Other women in the same employment have taken to buying their own (£60ish) uniform trousers as the issued trousers are so bad. I don't think that they should feel the need to do this.
Should her employer provide female specific trousers, and is the failure to provide properly fitting uniform any sort of breach of equality legislation? She would be happy with unisex if it fitted and was comfortable for 40hrs a week, but she needs some sort of leverage to make the employer sit up and pay attention.
Thoughts?
Generic uniform is pretty common now as it avoids buying various sizes and shapes, if the fittings they provide don’t fit they need to bring this up with their employer. They will either pay for adjustments or a special order, generic uniforms also don’t fit some males too so it’s not exactly discrimination.
Are they bottle green by chance?
One for the union, if she's a member.
We have generic uniforms that everyone hates. The women 'cos the fit makes their bums look big them ( cut for easy movement) men because the uniforms are more women shaped than mens and they have elasticated waists. they just do not fit me at all
NO sex discrimination for the OP. Why not alter them if they are that bad?
It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, which the company is clearly doing. If the job is done by both sexes it's entirely reasonable to have both womens and mens trousers.
One for the union, if she’s a member.
Not in the slightest. They’re providing uniform that is the same for both sexses, you’d need to prove that it’s only women they don’t fit but I bet that is never the case. If they made women wear short skirts and they weren’t allowed to wear trousers at all then that’s discrimination.
If they allowed men to order trousers other than the standard and reimbursed them and not the women that would be discrimination. If they provide the uniform they will pay for adjustments, none standard sizes or may contribute towards a special order from another supplier.
It’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, which the company is clearly doing
How exactly?
nickc. It is not discrimination if its unisex trousers. Ours our and suit no one.
In the spirit of gender-fluidity she should choose to self identify as male instead of female, this way the trousers would magically fit perfectly overnight. Problem solved.
In the OP you mention bunching under a belt - it the job involves moving and handling a belt should not be worn. the trousers should have a drawstring waist. That could be grounds for challenging the uniform if you can show they create a moving and handling risk
Drac; bottle green indeed. Regards unisex = rubbish fit for both, actually an entirely unscientific vox pop finds that they suit men a lot more than women. Most chaps are fairly happy with the trousers, most women seem not to be.
TJ; No belt? That's a new one on me! cant quite imagine how that would work in our scenario. Do you have anything linkable to that effect? would be interesting leverage if nothing else.
Most chaps are fairly happy with the trousers, most women seem not to be.
...but the standard issue, unisex bra? Not so much.
Fits me OK.
v8ninety - sorry no link. Its why ours have drawstring waists that I hate or so I was told. Same as the tops have pleated shoulders which looks very odd on a bloke
If she is really getting uncomfortable bunching under a belt tho that gives you a way in as a moving and handling issue tho IMO. Much better line to take than discrimination.
the belt and the bunching means restricted movement.
Most chaps are fairly happy with the trousers, most women seem not to be.
We get a mixed response. Previous to going unisex we had females who would order male sizes as they preferred the fit of them.
One for the union, if she’s a member.
Not in the slightest. They’re providing uniform that is the same for both sexses, you’d need to prove that it’s only women they don’t fit but I bet that is never the case. If they made women wear short skirts and they weren’t allowed to wear trousers at all then that’s discrimination.
“Not or in the slightest” - why not? I was under the impression that one paid one’s union fees to deal with issues at work.
Men are on average taller than women. It would seem unacceptable to me to provide ‘unisex’ trousers that fit someone from 5’ to 5’6”. Then say they’re not discriminatory to men since there is a man who’s 5’ 5” that they do fit. Calling them unisex does not necessarily make them so.
Gauss. If the same trousers are offered to everyone and they are unisex then no discrimination. Ours come in a few waist sizes and lengths. So you can have fat and short or tall and skinny
there is no sex discrimination in the OPs post - so no point in taking it to the union. I'd bet there was a consultation and the unions agreed.
Men are on average taller than women. It would seem unacceptable to me to provide ‘unisex’ trousers that fit someone from 5’ to 5’6”. Then say they’re not discriminatory to men since there is a man who’s 5’ 5” that they do fit. Calling them unisex does not necessarily make them so.
“Not or in the slightest” – why not? I was under the impression that one paid one’s union fees to deal with issues at work.
They’re unisex not male only they come in various sizes and lengths, getting Union on their ass does no one any favours and a decent union rep will bounce you back by telling you this.
If the same trousers are offered to everyone and they are unisex then no discrimination.
However, there is an ‘if’ at the start start of your sentence, to which the OP’s wife and other women at her work would take issue. Ie they do not appear to be unisex.
the "if" refers to the general situation. In this case its clear they are unisex.
However, there is an ‘if’ at the start start of your sentence, to which the OP’s wife and other women at her work would take issue. Ie they do not appear to be unisex.
Well they are but let’s say they are not it is still not discrimination they have to show that the women are being treat unfavourably. If a few women say these sizes don’t fit that’s a few not all, if they refuse to offer an alternative or a fix then it could be seen as unfair but only unfavourable if they offered men different sizes and not women.
and a decent union rep will bounce you back by telling you this.
How so? In what way decent? I was under the impression that workers pay their union fees to have someone speak for them on issues at work. This appears to affect several female workers at the OP’s wife’s work. It may not appear a huge issue, but why would any employer not want their employees to be comfortable and why would a union rep not want to do what they can to facilitate this?
In this case its clear they are unisex.
You have me at at a disadvantage as I do not know these trousers. However, it seemed clear to me they weren’t unisex. Do you mean because nobody is comfortable in them?
Of course they do but in the first instance your report the isssue to your line manager who will take it up and come back with an answer. If you don’t think the answer is reasonable then you can see a union rep for their opionion on it, they will give you advice as to whether it is or not. If you’ve not tried to address it with your employer first then a union rep should advise you to do that.
Do you mean because nobody is comfortable in them?
No, he means some women aren’t some men aren’t you know unisex. Although V8 says it’s more women than men by his own admission on straw poll. Either way it is not discrimination.
‘unisex’ uniform trousers, which are actually basically men’s trousers. They do not appear to have any concessions to the anatomical differences in the female figure, and are measured in male sizes.
In this case its clear they are unisex.
I don't think that they are unisex. I think they are male trousers, being issued to both sexes. Calling them unisex doesn't make them so. As I have said; speaking with both male and female staff, there is an imbalance of satisfaction in favour of men. Genuinely unisex trouser could be a solution, but more sizes and fitting options (shapes? IANAT) would be required. just calling men's trousers unisex does not seem fair.
Of course they do but in the first instance your report the isssue to your line manager who will take it up and come back with an answer. If you don’t think the answer is reasonable then you can see a union rep for their opionion on it, they will give you advice as to whether it is or not. If you’ve not tried to address it with your employer first then a union rep should advise you to do that.
Ah, okay I agree with you there. Are you presuming that the OP’s wife and nobody else has done that? I missed that and had presumed the opposite.
Not sex discrimination, badly fitting clothing. Is it height discrimination that my shirts constantly come loose from the waist because they are too short. I'm 6ft3 and shirts are pretty much only sized by going wider, not longer.
The sizing is shite V8 better than the last providing but still way off. I think that’s part of the issue that no one has much an idea how they will fit as they vary so much even order to order.
I agree the naming of them as unisex is possibly used in the looses of terms by the manufacturer.
Is it height discrimination that my shirts constantly come loose from the waist because they are too short?
Maybe but height isn't a 'protected characteristic'. Sex is. (see also, gingers)
I'm not sure that I'd regard this as sexist, just badly fitted kit
"and are measured in male sizes" seems sensible, presumably waist size and leg length. It's more consistent than "med" or "12" (you only have to look at cycling kit sizes 🙂 )
Has anyone sent kit back saying that it doesn't fit? Will their stores people arrange a personal visit if needed?
If your other half wanted to ride a Paramedic motorcycle (big assumption based on bottle-green), and was told that it's a Honda ST1300 Pan-European or nothing and wasn't big enough to handle it, then I think that would be sexist; she's being excluded from a role because of something that's easily fixed by buying her a smaller 'bike
Paramedic? OT’s wear green.
I thought all uniforms fitted badly? Every one I’ve ever been issued has anyway. You’re getting it for free, suck it up or alter it.
You’re getting it for free
Not really.
there is no sex discrimination in the OPs post – so no point in taking it to the union.
I'm surprised at this from tj, it seems unhelpfully adamant and quite possibly wrong. Discrimination would potentially arise if the trousers were substantially more problematic for women than men (or the other way around) on the whole, irrespective of what they are called and irrespective of the fact that they might not fit all men perfectly. Illegal gender discrimination only requires that the policy is typically less favourable to one gender, not that it invariably is. This is the basis of the principle of indirect discrimination. If the trousers are the same design as those previously issued only to men then it seems very clear to me the OP has a strong case. That will remain the case even if the union officials waved it through as a trivial matter (which it is, to them, because they are almost all fat old men).
height isn’t a ‘protected characteristic’
Height is precisely the example used on the acas page to explain the principle of indirect discrimination. Probably the first thing you'll see if you try googling to learn a little about it.
Height is precisely the example used on the acas page to explain the principle of indirect discrimination. Probably the first thing you’ll see if you try googling to learn a little about it.
Fair point, and an interesting read.
thecaptain I appreciate your taking the time to write clearly my take on the matter too.
Also, it’s pretty pish anyway, even if it’s not discriminatory. Go out to work to make a living, possibly doing a job beneficial to society - but don’t expect to be comfortable, just be grateful your getting ‘free’ clothing!
The captain. I callit as I see it. I have t owear a unisex uniform that is a better ( but not great) fit for most women than men. It never occurred to me to think of this as discrimination and from the information provided in the OP I don't see any in this case
I did suggest another line to take to challenge the uniforms
V8, don't forget if she does end up buying her own clobber, you can claim a wee tax break for having to launder your work kit. Think its only about £6 a month, but might as well have it than not.
Has anyone sent kit back saying that it doesn’t fit? Will their stores people arrange a personal visit if needed?
@Timba, stores people, is, in actual fact, one chap who works by himself, 50 miles away, and is responsible for providing uniform to the entire, fairly substantial and geographically spread out organisation. He hasn't got the resources. When uniform is sent back, the next size up or down is supplied. The fit is still poor.
It never occurred to me to think of this as discrimination
@TJ, But maybe it is? fairly, low level, accidental, indirect discrimination, but does that make it right? Seems to me that in your situation that you have just taken the 'suck it up' option, and that is both reasonable and understandable. It's not the same as saying it isn't discrimination though.
Go out to work to make a living, possibly doing a job beneficial to society – but don’t expect to be comfortable, just be grateful your getting ‘free’ clothing!
That isn’t the case though. There is a variety of sizes to try, the manufacturering quality control is pretty crap though so it varies what may fit for some. If you can’t find one at all then you can request a size outside the normal ones or to have them altered. That goes for men too.
It isn’t discrimination at all.
That isn’t the case though. There is a variety of sizes to try, the manufacturering quality control is pretty crap though so it varies what may fit for some. If you can’t find one at all then you can request a size outside the normal ones or to have them altered. That goes for men too.
Okay, I should shut up ( unfortunately there is something about this forum that encourages me to post my opinion when I don’t know all the facts, not something I would usually do). It was not clear from the OP that people could have the trousers altered. The fact that women are choosing to pay ~£60 rather than do so, is puzzling (and hints at it not being that straightforward).
If you can’t find one at all then you can request a size outside the normal ones or to have them altered. That goes for men too.
@Drac, I think your employer may be more open to this than my other half's. This isn't the case here, there are no alternative sizes (other than mahoosive) and no alterations service. It's a 'like it or lump it' situation and it seems that considerably more women are finding themselves having to lump it than men. Hence my pondering about discrimination.
The trousers they are buying are a far superior quality there’s a few staff buy them, even men, not me though I just put up with the crap work ones. If I order my normal waist size they’re tight as hell, if I go one size up they I look a scater kid as they hang off my arse.
I think your employer may be more open to this than my other half’s. This isn’t the case here, there are no alternative sizes (other than mahoosive) and no alterations service. It’s a ‘like it or lump it’ situation and it seems that considerably more women are finding themselves having to lump it than men. Hence my pondering about discrimination.
Then it needs challenged but it’s still not discrimination, we’ve had pretty much the same amounts of complaints as before about them although most say they fit a bit better but the quality is shite.
What we need is to bring in a new law that forces women to wear short skirts whilst at work. Freedom of movement, plus, they look hot!
Diggidy.
but it’s still not discrimination
If they are passing off male fit as unisex, then there's a chance it is.
But they’re not.
How do you know?
I wear them.
I wear them.
I wear them too, and I'm not so sure...
Maybe the OP's other half's uniform is from a different supplier. Either way, it sounds like their are issues with the implementation of the Core Ambulance Uniform. It would be interesting to see if the planned benefits materialise.
Maybe you’ve stretched them out of shape and a new pair would fit your other half better 🙂
All Wales NHS uniform for nurses is based on the same for male and female.
No zip on trousers or opening. No crotch for the old chap. You have to pull them down and sit to wee. You then either have to wear them low for your winky and get chub rub or pull them high and stuff your junk into one leg compartment.
Poor men.
Maybe the OP’s other half’s uniform is from a different supplier.
A lot things such as uniforms are done as a joint purchase between a group of trusts to negotiate better prices.
The problem is it’s cheap and therefore sizes and cuts are pretty poor.
I'm such a nerd that I looked up our policy (some of our staff wear scrubs and such) and it just says "Needs to be suitable" mleh, i'm most likely wrong, it's probs not discriminatory, still sucks though...
Whilst it might involve some discrimination (if the trousers are actually male versions) I don;'t really think you'd get anywhere trying to argue a case. Given the switch seems to have been due to cost saving measures I also doubt the company will want to back out the change (unless a very large percentage of people complain). Ultimately if she wants to carry on working there it's probably less hassle/quicker/simpler to just get them altered or maybe fund a properly fitting pair (how long do trousers last in her job)?
My wife is a nurse, oh how we laugh at the thought of a nurse getting dressed up in uniform for sexy fun nowadays....
She gets a TSO (trouser shaped object) for the bottom, and a tent for the top. Sorted.
You wonder hard it could really be to make something like a Ron Hill trackster in the right colour as an option. That's be dead comfy for working in.