FL city requires employees to wear underwear, deodorant

[Mendelson]

News item below, from clickorlando.com

Now, if this were passed to cover WDW employees, it raises a question for CMs in character attire. If you are wearing, say, a Mickey costume, does then your clothing you have directly on your body, say a t-shirt and shorts, count as underwear? Thus allowing you to not wear what would be traditionally considred underwear, such as your Fruit of the Looms? Not a bad way to circumvent the law, should you feel so inclined.

Important societal questions, to be sure. And for the record, I agree with the mayor.



"A Florida city has written common sense into its employee dress code: Wear underwear to work.

The Brooksville city council recently approved a revised dress code as part of its effort to update existing policies.

The revision instructs employees to observe "strict personal hygiene," including the use of deodorant. It lists "the observable lack of undergarments and exposed undergarments" as "unacceptable attire."

It also prohibits clothing with foul language or messages promoting drug use, "sexually provocative" garments, halter tops and piercings anywhere except the ears.

Repeat offenders can be fired.

The city council approved the dress code 4-1. Mayor Joe Bernadini opposed the revision, saying the underwear edict "takes away freedom of choice.""

[Boojum]

It's amazing to me that Florida has to CONSIDER an ordinance like this. I mean, what motivates people to NOT wear underwear at work?????

There is no common sense anymore. I blame disco.

[DizneyRox]

So there's hope that maybe Disney will require guests to wear deodorant to the parks? That would be GREAT!

:fingers:

[Mendelson]

What motivates them to not wear underwear? Comfort, perhaps, if they like it.

I can't understand why they care! Cause really, if I'm sitting at my desk, it doesn't make a difference to anyone whether or not I have on underwear. You don't suppose some poor sap has to be the underwear police, do you?

Surely this was spurred by some local event(s)...there must be some context.

[cer]

I blame disco.

Too funny!

[Ed]

It's amazing to me that Florida has to CONSIDER an ordinance like this. I mean, what motivates people to NOT wear underwear at work?????

There is no common sense anymore. I blame disco.

They don't call this state FloriDUH for nothing! As for the motivation, it DOES get very hot and humid around here..... :shrug:

The good news is Brooksville is 70 miles away!

And I blame the evil dolls. :thedolls::thedolls::thedolls:

[Ian]

I may be reading this wrong, but I think this only applies to employees of the city. Private entities don't have to comply with this.

Companies, public and private, have a right to specify their dress codes just like employees have the right to seek employment somewhere that has a dress code that suits them.

[brownie]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it doesn't say you can't go without wearing underwear but says the "observable lack" of underwear is unacceptable. Of course, someone would have to be looking to determine this.

[mixelate]

I agree, who would be checking to make sure people are wearing underware? Hmm.. IMO I do not think some laws are actually THOUGHT OUT before passed, lol. There hardly ever seems to be common sense used.

[murphy1]

Maybe they can get them to also pull up their pants!

[jillluvsdisney]

Who gets to enforce this? Will there be a pit sniff and a panty check? This has to be a joke, right? I can't believe politicians have time to come up with stuff like this. :down::jaw:

[gueli]

" I'm Going Commando (Jerry) !!!":D

hey does this mean that little inadvertant bra strap slip (the strap partialy exposed) is now banned ?

[MNNHFLTX]

Maybe they can get them to also pull up their pants!Already done--note the ban on "exposed undergarments".

This dress code is actually not uncommon, at least in my line of work. All the hospitals I have ever worked at have had very specific criteria in their dress code--including clauses specifying the use of underwear.

[Marilyn Michetti]

EEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWW........:sick:

[mixelate]

Maybe this is the wrong question to ask - What does it really matter if people wear underwear or not? Other than personal reasons, how does this harm the public?

I can understand the deodrant thing though!

[Mufasa]

Actually, the question/issue of underwear as it relates to Disney theme park characters was addressed back in 2001 after a few months of negotiations between the Teamsters union which represents the CMs portraying characters and the company.

Basically, it came down to allowing those entertainment CMs to be able to take their Disney issued under-garments home and launder it themselves after a few complaints of problems like lice amongst other complaints.

"Regular" undergarments can't be worn with some costumes as they would bunch up or have other wardrobe issues so those performers would wear something more like compression shorts for example.

The issue was that CMs would be issued their undergarments and then would turn it back in to Disney to be laundered and they would receive other undergarments from a general undergarment pool (yes, a shared pool)- which led to complaints from workers about cleanliness.

[magicofdisney]

Actually, the question/issue of underwear as it relates to Disney theme park characters was addressed back in 2001 after a few months of negotiations between the Teamsters union which represents the CMs portraying characters and the company.

Basically, it came down to allowing those entertainment CMs to be able to take their Disney issued under-garments home and launder it themselves after a few complaints of problems like lice amongst other complaints.

"Regular" undergarments can't be worn with some costumes as they would bunch up or have other wardrobe issues so those performers would wear something more like compression shorts for example.

The issue was that CMs would be issued their undergarments and then would turn it back in to Disney to be laundered and they would receive other undergarments from a general undergarment pool (yes, a shared pool)- which led to complaints from workers about cleanliness.
I had no idea they shared undies. I'm sorry, but I'd have to draw the line at that.

As for this issue in general, I've seen way too many white pants on women who weren't wearing underwear. Think, wet t-shirt contest. I'm sure something like that is what got this subject brought to head.

[Ian]

Already done--note the ban on "exposed undergarments".

This dress code is actually not uncommon, at least in my line of work. All the hospitals I have ever worked at have had very specific criteria in their dress code--including clauses specifying the use of underwear.Hygiene is so important in the health care industry ... it makes me kind of happy to hear this!

[PAYROLL PRINCESS]

It sounds like maybe they got tired of seeing the underwear sticking up out of the pants as so many are wont to do now adays. Or maybe women wearing dresses twithout undergarments hat inadvertently expose body parts in a breeze etc.
As far as the deoderant issue, this is very common in most employee handbooks. I've known of many instances when a manager has had to address an employee with B.O. I think as long as common sense is used it won't become an issue.

[crazypoohbear]

It seems to me that most of the people I have observed without undergarments on are the very ones who should be wearing them!
As for the deoderant, years ago I worked with a woman who was of indian decent (ghandi) and she did not use soap, perfumes or deoderant. We were union and went to the union about it. She told them that it was against her reglious beliefs to use such items! Don't know if it was or not but she was told that she needed to do something so she didn't offend her coworkers. we worked in an office not a construction site so she wasn't out in the sun sweating, she just smelled.
Common sense seems to be very fleeting these days.
We were just on a cruise and one woman in particular did not seem to own ANY undergarments of any kind. She was certainly flapping free and one day while walking up the stairs from the pool deck area I saw WAY more than I ever wanted to see in my life!!!:sick:

[Disney Doll]

If I can't tell from a casual glance then I don't care. However, the people that usually necessitate these rules are the ones who create a scene. Yeah, I'm picturing the one's who go without undies and somehow end up showing everyone that they are without. :sick: Wind, super tight pants, whatever. My eyes do not deserve such torture! The deodorant thing is just yucky. Everyone needs it. Period. Oh and an undergarment pool for the character CMs, no way! Eww!

[Ian]

As far as the deoderant issue, this is very common in most employee handbooks. I've known of many instances when a manager has had to address an employee with B.O. I think as long as common sense is used it won't become an issue.


As for the deoderant, years ago I worked with a woman who was of indian decent (ghandi) and she did not use soap, perfumes or deoderant. We were union and went to the union about it. She told them that it was against her reglious beliefs to use such items!This actually happened to me as a manager ... I had a woman who worked for me who refused to use hygiene products of any kind due to her religion and my team kept coming to me and complaining about it.

Finally, I went to HR and they did back me up on it, because it was deemed not to be a "reasonable accomodation" for her co-workers to have to smell her stinky self all day long.

But talk about an awkward conversation! :blush:


We were just on a cruise and one woman in particular did not seem to own ANY undergarments of any kind. She was certainly flapping free and one day while walking up the stairs from the pool deck area I saw WAY more than I ever wanted to see in my life!!!:sick:This actually happened to Emily and I one time in, of all places, Epcot!

We walked out of what was then Ice Station Cool and the first thing we saw was this woman with a very short skirt on and a very strong breeze blowing and .... well ... HELLO! The goods were just boldly and proudly on display. What made it more shocking was that I would say the skirt blew up for a good 3-5 seconds and she never smoothed it down or anything. Just stood there with it all hangin' out!

[crazypoohbear]

This actually happened to Emily and I one time in, of all places, Epcot!

We walked out of what was then Ice Station Cool and the first thing we saw was this woman with a very short skirt on and a very strong breeze blowing and .... well ... HELLO! The goods were just boldly and proudly on display. What made it more shocking was that I would say the skirt blew up for a good 3-5 seconds and she never smoothed it down or anything. Just stood there with it all hangin' out!

FIRST... GROSS
Second.... If she was lettin it all hang out for that long then she was looking for an audience. You don't stand there in the "all together" and not know it

[Ian]

If she was lettin it all hang out for that long then she was looking for an audience. You don't stand there in the "all together" and not know itThat was our take on it, as well. I'm pretty sure she knew what was happening and was fine with it.

[Granny Jill A]

I laughed and laughed over this post. How funny that folks have to be TOLD what to wear. I don't want to see anyone's tush or chest parts flapping in the breeze. Nor do I want to "smell" anyone unless it's a nice clean scent of soap or a very light fragrance.

I marvel at the "free to be me" movement these days. Whatever happened to modesty and good taste?

[Ian]

Whatever happened to modesty and good taste?Wish I knew the answer to this. Being tasteless and crude seems to have become the new accepted standard for behavior.

As a country, we seem to have developed a penchant for celebrating the lowest common denominator.

[crazypoohbear]

How funny that folks have to be TOLD what to wear.

I marvel at the "free to be me" movement these days. Whatever happened to modesty and good taste?

You basically asked and answered your own question. Parents don't want to or are afraid to tell their kids NO!
NO, don't wear that,
NO, I won't buy you that
NO, you are not leaving my house in that
NO you can't have that.
NO, you look ridiculous in that.
NO, NO, NO.

My sister's and I have a few phrases.
A BELLY shirt is something you should NOT wear if you have a BELLY.

DWI= Dressing Without Instructions :D
The Government needs to pass a law that every home has a full length mirror at the front door so you can see what you look like BEFORE you leave the house.

:marg::beer: Bottom's up, doesn't mean what it use to mean :D

[magicofdisney]

You basically asked and answered your own question. Parents don't want to or are afraid to tell their kids NO!
NO, don't wear that,
NO, I won't buy you that
NO, you are not leaving my house in that
NO you can't have that.
NO, you look ridiculous in that.
NO, NO, NO.

My sister's and I have a few phrases.
A BELLY shirt is something you should NOT wear if you have a BELLY.

DWI= Dressing Without Instructions :D
The Government needs to pass a law that every home has a full length mirror at the front door so you can see what you look like BEFORE you leave the house.

:marg::beer: Bottom's up, doesn't mean what it use to mean :D
There are some cute observations there and I agree with your post. It amazes me to see kids in the most inappropriate outfits, walking alongside their parents.

I think some parents don't realize they have to start young with clothing restrictions, regardless of how "cute" it is. If you let a kid wear whatever they want and then suddenly decide that when they're a teen they need restrictions, many will just ignore their parents and wear what they want anyway.

It amazes me to see a parent/teen relationship where the teen tells the parent how things are going to run. (This reminds me of a recent Hannah Montana show where Miley tells her dad she's going to date Jake whether he likes it or not.) When I was a teen, my parents said jump and I didn't even need to ask how high, I already knew.

[TheMartellFamily]

This is always a good thing.