女性員工一定要穿高跟鞋嗎

When Nicola Thorpe turned up for her first day’s work as a receptionist at PwC’s global headquarters in London, she was sent home without pay for wearing the wrong shoes.

妮古拉•索普(Nicola Thorpe)第一天去普華永道(PwC)在倫敦的全球總部當前臺接待員，結果還沒領薪水就被請回家了，原因是她穿錯了鞋子。

The problem, according to managers from the staffing agency Portico — which supplies workers to the professional services firm — was that Ms Thorpe’s footwear was flat. She then refused to go out and buy the heels that are part of the agency’s dress code: between 2in and 4in.

爲這家專業服務公司輸送工作人員的人才中介機構Portico的經理們表示，問題在於索普穿的是平跟鞋。而且她拒絕出去購買該機構着裝要求中規定的高跟鞋：鞋跟要在2英寸到4英寸之間。

To be fair, some employment lawyers say this kind of dress code is not illegal as long as men and women have to meet a similar level of “smartness”. Men can be required to wear a jacket and tie, for example, even when women are not.

一些就業律師表示，公平地講，既然男性和女性都必須達到類似程度的“儀容整潔”，這種着裝規定並不違法。比如，男性可能會被要求穿西服外套、打領帶，對女性則沒有這樣的要求。

Faced with all the negative publicity, and a complaint from PwC, Portico announced that it was changing its policy. But one has to wonder about the purpose of the requirement in the first place. Did Portico think it was supplying waitresses to Hooters?

面對種種負面報道，以及來自普華永道的投訴，Portico宣佈它正在修改政策。但人們要問，最初制定這種規範的目的何在？Portico以爲它是要給貓頭鷹餐廳(Hooters)提供女侍應生嗎？

A sexualised dress code might be deemed appropriate for a casual restaurant chain that advertises with pictures of scantily clad waitresses and describes itself as “delightfully tacky yet unrefined”. (I confess I am not a fan. But at least the place is honest about what it offers.)

對於一家廣告上登着穿着暴露的女侍應生、自稱“令人愉悅的俗氣而天然”的休閒連鎖餐廳，凸顯性徵的着裝要求可能會被認爲很合適。（我得說我對此不感冒。但至少這個地方誠實地說出了它所提供的東西。）

In fact, while Hooters waitresses are required to sport low-cut T-shirts and hot pants, even they are allowed to wear trainers. Long hours on their feet carrying huge trays of drinks would make uncomfortable footwear an impractical addition to the uniform.

事實上，雖然貓頭鷹餐廳的女侍應生按規定須穿低胸T恤和熱褲，但她們也被允許穿運動鞋。她們需要長時間端着擺着飲料的大托盤走動，因此，在穿着制服之外，還要穿着不舒服的鞋子是一種不切實際的附加規定。

Here at the Financial Times, the newsroom includes women in ballet flats and 4in spikes, while men don anything from brightly coloured running shoes to old-fashioned Oxford brogues. I have my own rule that I totter around on high heels only when wearing a dress that would look out of place in the office.

在英國《金融時報》，新聞編輯室裏有穿着平底鞋的女性，也有穿着4英寸高的細高根皮鞋的女性，而男性則穿着從顏色鮮豔的跑步鞋到老式的花紋牛津皮鞋等各色鞋子。我的原則是，除非穿了一條在辦公室裏看起來格格不入的連衣裙，否則我不會穿高跟鞋顫巍巍地到處走動。

Whatever your personal preference, a heels requirement certainly has no place in the lobby of a consulting firm that regularly bangs on about the need for diversity and even sponsors a blog about equality issues called “The Gender Agenda”.

不管你的個人偏好是什麼，必須穿高跟鞋的要求在這樣一家諮詢公司的大堂並不合適，畢竟普華永道經常宣揚多樣化，甚至還贊助了一個討論平等問題、叫做“性別議程”(The Gender Agenda)的博客。

PwC argues, in a letter sent to those who complained through its website about the heels policy, that Portico’s policy is “industry standard”. The firm notes that many of its own female employees wear flats “because of the high mobility required by many of our roles”. So highly educated PwC accountants and consultants, who could obviously seek employment elsewhere, have a choice and can avoid the pain that goes with wearing high heels. How enlightened. But when PwC hired Portico to staff its lobby, the management either did not care about, or did not bother to look at, the rules the agency imposes on its receptionists.

對於那些在普華永道官網上抱怨其高跟鞋政策的人，該公司在一封信中稱Portico的政策是“行業規範”。普華永道指出，“因爲我們的很多職位需要行動方便”，所以有很多女職員穿着平跟鞋。普華永道的會計師和諮詢師們受過高等教育，顯然能夠在別處找到工作，因此他們有選擇餘地，可以不用承受穿高跟鞋帶來的痛苦。多開明啊。但是，當普華永道僱傭Portico爲其招募的大堂工作人員時，管理層或者是根本不在意，或者是不願費心去看一看該機構對其前臺接待員施加了什麼規定。

Though the heels requirement has been scrapped, Portico’s dress code for women still specifies that a minimum of five different types of cosmetics must be worn “at all times and regularly re-applied”. It also regulates acceptable colours of nail polish (plum is OK but green is not) and lays down rules for tights (black for darker skin tones and “natural” for everyone else).

儘管必須穿着高跟鞋的要求被廢除了，Portico的女性着裝要求依然規定女性“任何時候”都要使用最少5種不同種類的化妝品，“並且經常補妝”。其着裝要求還規定了可以接受的指甲油顏色（紫紅色是允許的，但綠色不行），還有關於連褲襪的規定（膚色較深的人必須穿黑色，而其他所有人必須穿“肉色”）。

The company also bans stubble, bright coloured hair dye and ponytails for men, but in general the rules for women are far more prescriptive. The whole thing puts me in mind of 1950s airline stewardesses or geisha entertainers in Japan, who used to wear their own brand of uncomfortable footwear — wooden sandals balanced on tiny stilts.

該公司還禁止男性留鬍子、染亮色頭髮、留馬尾辮，但總體上，針對女性的規定要一板一眼得多。整件事讓我想起上世紀50年代的空姐或者日本的藝妓，後者過去穿着標誌性的不舒服的鞋子——木屐。

Dress codes that force female staff to be decorative are particularly outdated at a time when companies are being urged to boost the ranks of women on their boards. No wonder more than 100,000 people have already signed Ms Thorpe’s petition asking Parliament to intervene. Women are sick and tired of being told to toe the line.

在企業被督促提高女性在董事會地位的時代，強迫女性員工發揮裝飾性作用的着裝要求尤其過時。也難怪有10餘萬人在索普要求議會介入的請願書上簽名。女性已經厭倦了被告知要服從命令。