EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2521

That workplaces are generally better off with uniforms

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
1 point
darth_timondarth_timon (PRO)
Firstly, may I say thank you to Admin for taking part in this debate with me. I dare say I have chosen the easier of the two positions!

The benefits of uniforms in the workplace depends on the workplace and what we mean by uniform. In a retail environment, I would submit that the benefits are obvious and numerous - firstly, a defined corporate uniform makes it easier for customers to distinguish who is an employee of the store, making it easier to know who to turn to for help and advice. Secondly, that employee becomes a walking advertisement for the retailer when they go out on a lunch break or traveling to and from work.

In an office environment, uniforms (in the sense of smart attire) convey a sense of professionalism. A shirt, tie and jacket can look very dapper, providing an air of authority and confidence. It can also help ensure a good attitude within the workplace (a more relaxed environment with no uniform can work, but it can also encourage an overly laid-back approach that adversely affects productivity.

Uniforms can also reinforce a sense of belonging, a 'tribal' mentality that increases loyalty of employees to their employer. An employee can begin to associate with their employer, with a sense of positive association with their colleagues (we are all one team, as characterised by, among other things, wearing the same uniform).

In my next post, I will provide sources to verify some of my claims.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-09 08:00:39
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I too, wish to thank my opponent for taking part in this debate, and for their opening contentions. I'll open my case first, and then introduce some rebuttal material.

Workers are not robots
In this debate, it goes without saying that we're discussing people. Real people, with unique identities. People come from a range of backgrounds - different cultures, different religions, different values. To say otherwise is simple discrimination. The forced equality mantra that everyone is the same and will respond to a uniform in the same way, is incorrect from its very premise - humans are dissimilar.

In practice, that means that when a young airline stewardess feels her uniform skirt is showing too much of her legs, that's going to make her unhappy in the workplace. She's going to become self-conscious, and start noticing whenever anyone briefly glances in her general direction. It means that the truck driver is under constant pressure at every stop to wash his few sets of uniforms, while also getting a reasonable rest stop so as not to be a danger on the roads, and getting going again on time to maintain his productivity. He's going to become stressed and anxious. It means the ferris wheel operator gets mocked at his job for looking like a clown, even by his mates, and he begins to resent his ferris wheel operator job more and more by the day. These are but a few examples of what really happens when uniforms are introduced.

Pro's argument, surprisingly, completely fails to consider the impact on those actually most affected by uniforms: the employees themselves. In service terms, such staff contribute to an overall lowering of the quality of work, which directly in turn affects the company's bottom line. Not only that, but it is also riskier. For example, a demotivated employee is unlikely to go through all the workplace safety procedures properly, and that puts both them, their clients, and the business at risk. They are also likely to be less loyal to the company themselves, and may even drive potential customers away from the business.

This is true even outside of psychology. For example, a nurse may know that her uniform doesn't fit her particular body shape, putting herself and patients at risk of infections. Even though the nurse may be exceptional at her job, she is unlikely to be hired over a nurse who does fit the uniform and the "image" that the hospital wants to present. That means lower quality of care for patients. A poorly designed uniform may limit employee movement or just be plain annoying, with all the disadvantages that follow from that.

Cost
Inherently, uniforms are expensive. Unifirst, one of the largest uniform suppliers in the world, charges almost $600 in the latest online catalogue for two sets of shirts, pants and coveralls, the basic apparel of most secondary industry. Add to that other protective gear like hard hats, and it becomes apparent that uniforms are not cheap.

This leaves most workplaces with uniforms with effectively two options:
  • Find some way to force employees to purchase their own uniforms, annoying employees still further
  • The company buys their own uniforms, resulting in ongoing costs and implementation costs
Since a company's ongoing costs for uniforms are directly proportional to staff turnover (in addition to costs for things such as cleaning, repairs etc) the fact that uniforms aren't fun for employees is going to hurt profits.

Expression
The choice of uniforms is not a zero-sum game: in fact, while choosing to have uniforms has all these drawbacks, choosing to not have uniforms has clear benefits. People who are able to express their own identities and "what makes them unique" in the workplace. People will never choose an Apple laptop because they were busy admiring the uniforms of the employees there. They probably don't even remember them the moment they walk out of the store. But they might choose an Apple laptop because of an employee's friendly personality. They might want to buy from somebody of the same ethnicity or religion because they're more comfortable with that. Or maybe they just don't like it when the salesman complains the entire time about his silly uniform.

When workers look in the closet in the mornings and decide what to wear, wearing the same thing day in, day out, is just plain boring. That's why human beings tend not to wear the same thing every single day. It feels creepy and boring, too. But personal expression is how people sell. By showing some personality, employees are motivated and enthused about what they're doing. They enjoy themselves and that's infectious - improving business all around.

Distinguish employees
There are actually very few environments where this should be necessary even within "retail" - if a girl's standing behind a counter and has a name tag on, you can probably make a safe bet that she's a sales clerk, even if she's wearing something totally crazy like a wetsuit or something. People know that. Similarly, personal anecdote: I got my bicycle repaired the other day. No uniforms in the bike shop. Just cycled up to the workshop, found some dudes with moustaches, lycra pants, and spanners - and indeed, those were the right people. It's not hard. On the other hand, the guys who stock the shelves at your local furniture shop likely have better things to do than respond to random inane customer queries.

Even if there are some borderline cases where it might be useful to be able to quickly identify staff, there are other ways to do so. In fact, not having uniforms can force teams to actually get to know one another and do team-building like high-performance teams typically do! If this is not possible, other solutions like name tags are practical, affordable, and unintrusive.

Walking advertisement
First, nobody wants to be a billboard. Such uniforms therefore tend almost never to be worn outside of work, and then only as spare clothes for dirty work like gardening. This further alienates employees, as having people stare at you during your lunch break is never comfortable.

Second, absolutely nobody buys stuff because a t-shirt told them to. I'm sure many people have dozens of random shirts they've won in raffles or something, that in no way indicate actual purchasing behavior. In similar ways, wearing, seeing, or otherwise keeping uniforms around the house won't actually fool anyone into parting with their money.

Looks professional
Looking the same as everyone else is hardly professional, but rather inauthentic. Motivated employees can be trusted to find their own unique ways to appear professional without the need for rigid systems like uniforms. Besides, let's be realistic, nobody thinks rubbish collectors are super professional just because they have uniforms on. There's no reason why it isn't the same for office environments, either.

Tribal mentality
Friends don't wear exactly the same clothes. Families don't wear exactly the same clothes. Real tribes don't wear exactly the same clothes. There's a reason for all this. A tribal mentality is fixed around shared norms, which requires buy-in. People need to want to wear the uniform before it can help reinforce that tribal mentality. If people don't want the uniform from the beginning, they're not going to think "oh cool, it's awesome to be part of a team where nobody's unique and we all wear the same stuff". We feel that there are other norms that a tribal mentality could be much better built around instead - like team-building, or even little cultural things like going out after work on Fridays.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-09 22:51:47
| Speak Round
darth_timondarth_timon (PRO)
Thank you Admin for your reply.

In respect of your first point (Workers are not Robots), I would submit that whilst there are some examples where uniforms might actually prove detrimental to employees, these are not commonplace. It is true that some employees may be uncomfortable with their uniforms (for a variety of reasons), but in reality, how often do such circumstances arise, versus the many employees of many companies that have no issue with a uniform of any kind?

Could a uniform negatively impact productivity? I would deem this unlikely, when compared to the many other factors that could affect an employee's work ethic.

There are a number of reasons why a uniform (be it a dress code within an office, or defined uniform complete with logo) can be of benefit to employees. Small Business Chronicle outlines a number of reasons why dress codes can benefit an office (a set dress code prevents people from feeling the need to engage in competitive one-up-man-ship with their attire), whilst in a retail situation, the risk of damaging one's own clothes is reduced by having a uniform.

Speaking from personal experience (I have worked in both office environments and in retail, in fact I currently still work in retail sales), I have not been adversely affected by being required to wear uniforms, and nor has this been an issue to my colleagues. In my office days, everyone looked smart, there was no potential for 'fashion wars', and in my retail days, it certainly made it easier not only for customers to identify me as someone they could approach, but whilst I lacked a uniform, I felt distinctly uncomfortable. For me personally, I found it easier to identify with my colleagues (on a work level at the very least) once I had a uniform of my own.

From a cost perspective, here in the UK at least, employees can claim back the cost of washing uniforms via HMRC, whilst a dress code or uniform negates the risk of the employee damaging their own/nicer clothing during the course of the working day.

Identifying Employees

To contrast your bicycle shop example with that of a large retailer (such as a supermarket), customers often need assistance in locating products. It is considerably easier to locate a member of staff if that member of staff has a uniform - I can attest to this from experience of my own.

In a sales environment, I am more confident as a representative of the goods and services my employer sells if I 'look the part', be that by wearing smart attire, or a company uniform. Customers can see that I appear smartly dressed. There is a classic saying in the sales world that 'people buy from people', before they even consider the details of the products/services they buy. Appearance can convey a great deal in this industry.

A theoretical example of this: If I were to step foot into an establishment such as Harrods, I would be expecting a certain level of service, and accompanying that service I would expect the member of staff I spoke to to look the part. This is understandably the expectation of Harrods as an employer - they deal with many customers from rich and powerful backgrounds, who would not be impressed by a member of staff that was dressed any less than impeccably. Once again, it comes down to the saying that people buy from people - it may not be fair or right to judge people based on their dress code or appearance, but it is human nature, an instinctive aspect of us, and we respond better to those who match or mirror our expectations.

In some respects, this overlaps with the Expression portion of the argument.

Advertising

Whilst you are correct that people do not tend to wear their uniforms around the home or when not at work (it would be highly unusual to do so, though I do know one person who, oddly, does this!), I did not make the suggestion that people did tend to wear their uniforms when not at work. However, myself and my colleagues in the retail positions I have held have frequently gone to get lunch whilst in our uniforms, and some of us walk to and from work in our uniforms.

I can say that I have never noticed anyone staring at me whilst I am in uniform, but the objective from the employer's point of view is not to ensure people are blatantly staring, but to subtly get their brand attention (it is for this reason that delivery trucks and vans are painted in company colours, and why shopping bags will have company logos emblazoned upon them).

There is evidence to suggest that uniforms do have more of an impact upon a company's visibility than other means of advertising: This link not only reports on surveys to that effect, but also reports on how both employees and customers feel about staff in uniform.

Looks Professional

A company will want/need to project a certain image. Be this through a corporate dress code (a salesman dressed in suit and tie will look tidier and more professional than someone in an unbuttoned shirt for example), or (as per the previous link) a uniform with a logo. Customers consider a uniformed employee of a shop to be more trustworthy/knowledgeable than one who is wearing whatever they choose. It therefore makes sense from a business point of view.

Employees themselves (55% as per the link) feel a uniform actually improves productivity.

In respect of your rubbish collector example, I don't personally consider them to be any less professional because they wear uniforms, and in fact, in their case, the argument of safety comes into play - there are certain environments where uniforms are not only desirable but in fact a necessity - the emergency services for example.

Tribalism

Again, speaking from personal experience, a uniform can reinforce a connection between employees - and also with the employer. It is my personal view that, through sharing a common (if simple) connection, it can help ensure that employees are more willing to work hard for the brand they work for, and for each other.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-10 03:40:49
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
Evidence
I want to begin by investigating pro's data, because it strikes me as a little strange.

His second link is an advertorial for a uniform company. That's an inherent conflict of interest. Looking at the actual facts of the article, basically none have a citation. Only two pieces of research are mentioned. The first is an online self-reported survey conducted by Ipsos in 2010, which among other things, also concluded that 56% of workers think it's appropriate to wear speedos to work. The methodology for the question of workplace productivity of uniforms, which was not in any way actually measured, was to ask a biased question to a self-selected internet sample, then artificially bump the percentage up even higher by "weighting" it according to regional population. In places like North America and Europe, a majority said that people in casual clothes are more productive.

The other piece of research it cites - nominally by Ashwini Poojary - was actually sponsored by Unifirst, making it biased (Unifirst, incidentally, also regularly funds other "studies" using self-reported internet data). It found "there is a positive correlation in companies whose uniform wearers are
regularly exposed to the public and the belief that uniform programs are
an effective marketing tool" - in other words, companies that have uniforms already, said that uniforms are great. This is hardly surprising, as the study itself points out.

The Houston Chronicle piece was an opinion piece, and actually cites no research at all. 

Instead, I think we should consider evidence from McPherson, because it is peer-reviewed and scholarly. His extensive survey showed: "41% felt casual dress improved worker productivity while only 4% perceived a negative impact... 51% said they did their best work when dressed casually". He also noted that "dressing casually can lead to better attitudes about work, greater spontaneity, and improved relations among employees" and that "the more comfortable employees are, the more productive they will be".

His is not an isolated study. Biecher famously penned in her landmark study that "We learned that you don’t have to wear a uniform to get the job done. It is not what you look like—it is what you can do". The National Casual Businesswear survey found the same thing - 60% said it improved productivity. Another famous study with a very large sample of accountants found more or less the same percentage. 

While corporate sponsored research will inevitably show signs of bias towards whatever that company manufactures (in this case, uniforms), independant research has shown the same result over and over: in the majority of cases, casual attire - not uniforms - is the greater boon for businesses.

Workers
My opponent thinks that uniform issues in the workplace are uncommon. I would argue that this is actually far from the case. Indeed, despite the fact that people no doubt select workplaces based on what kind of stuff they want to wear, uniform related issues are surprisingly normal. Each of the examples I presented in the previous round was based on a real-life case. Let's not forget that these issues have been experienced by operators as diverse as  Virgin rail, Abercrombie and Fitch, Heathrow Express, National Express, Spring Airlines, Allen and Overy, and the Olympic Games, and that's just British examples of major uniform scandals experienced in the space of just a few years. Failblog has an entire section dedicated to it.

But put aside the scandals. This is something that affects people in real-life, day to day, on a personal level. To give just one small example, Robin Cassidy recently opined in the Huffington Post: "I am happier to do more for my employer because I am comfortable at work." It's clear this cannot be dismissed as a fringe issue. Entire companies have been caught out, and even in those where workers are nominally "happy" with their uniforms, thousands are also driven away every year because of them.

If a uniform is not significant enough to negatively affect productivity then pro must concede it is also not significant enough to positively affect productivity. If there is any effect at all, it is negative.

Damaging a uniform is worse than damaging personal clothes, not least because while personal clothing is relatively expendable, uniforms are really expensive. If anything being more careful around the workplace so as to not damage valued clothing is a good thing for safety etc. I've never seen competitive one-upsmanship (seriously, how many times have you seen people try to have the more formal casual Friday than their colleagues?) but even if it did happen, it wouldn't be a bad thing and projects the "professional" image that pro thinks everyone should assert. If anything, it is pro's experience that is unusual.

Cost
Even if in the UK uniforms are subsidised, somebody's still paying for the uniform - be it taxpayers or workers or companies. And somebody is going to be losing money on that, which fuels the profits of the uniform companies (and be assured, they are making some pretty nice profits).

Expression
"Looking the part", as I pointed out previously, does not mean looking like a robot. Having an individual or unique style is itself a selling point. People are different. People prefer to buy from different people. If everyone in a company looks the same, you're really only appealing to a single customer. So this idea that everyone has the same expectation of a Harrod's employee is false. I'd be far more comfortable dealing with real people, over people who read from a script and are styled in all the same way. This in and of itself proves that I have a different view than my opponent, and thusly, that different expectations exist.

The freedom of expression is a value in and of itself, and it should be protected even in what we wear to work.

Identification
If customers need to locate a product in a supermarket, they could also go to the desk marked "Customer Service". Or ask somebody who is taking products out of a trolley and stocking them on shelves. Or ask the person behind the Delicatessen counter. Or just read the various signs that the supermarket has no doubt put up around the place. None of these things require uniforms and all work perfectly well.

Advertising
I've dealt with my opponent's "evidence" already, but we should understand how brand attention works.

With the sole exception of people suffering from a condition known as "autism" (in whom this mechanism is damaged in some way), human brains have extremely complicated filters between the senses and memory. That's because we are constantly bombarded with information, and need to select only what is relevant to us. Things either register with our long term memory, or not. Therefore, smart marketers know that for effective branding, they first need to get attention. This is why things that are very unexpected, like flash mobs, are such effective tactics.

If it is the case, as I submit, that wearing random branded t-shirts does not indicate purchasing behaviour, then the only logical conclusion is that such attire does not pass the filters of the vast majority of the population. Therefore, it is inherently ineffective advertising, and does little to add to brand value.

The remainder of the points have been dealt with in rebuttals integrated above.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-11 00:54:14
| Speak Round
darth_timondarth_timon (PRO)
Thank you Admin for your reply.

Before I begin my next post in earnest, I need to point out that Admin's link regarding Virgin Media and other British examples of uniform issues is not working. I don't doubt what Admin states, but unfortunately I can't seem to get the page to load.

In respect of the McPherson article, again I cannot get the main body of the article to load. Once more, I do not doubt the accuracy of the claims - I am just annoyed at the web for not letting me view the article for myself!

As this discussion evolves, I feel we perhaps need to distinguish between uniforms in the sense of what workers wear in an office and other working environments (though, based on what Admin has presented thus far, and on some digging of my own, I would be willing to concede that casual attire does not hinder an office environment).

In respect of Fail Blog, I am not convinced that a site aimed at satirising or parodying a wide number of social elements is a good gauge of opinion of how the average individual feels about wearing uniforms at work. Across the world, literally millions of people will wear a uniform to work every day. What percentage of these are actually dissatisfied with this, and what percentage of these feel having to wear a uniform adversely affects them?

Branding

I am not the only one who refers to the points of branding and equality. Global Post makes reference to these points as well, as does AZ Central, and Retail.About.Com (which also further references the point about being able to easily find a member of staff in a busy retail environment).

There is further evidence that uniforms help customers and companies. This article, by Kathy Nelson and John Bowen, speaks about the hospitality industry, and whilst it acknowledges that uniforms can backfire in some circumstances, that is more to do with errors of judgement from the employer, rather than any inherent flaw in the notion of a uniform.

If a uniform is not significant enough to negatively  affect productivity then pro must concede it is also not significant  enough to positively affect productivity. If there is any effect at all,  it is negative.

A uniform can not only directly aid a customer in finding a member of staff in a busy environment (I can speak from personal experience to this, in environments such as Tesco), which naturally helps productivity by bringing a customer to a member of staff who can then assist the customer.

I would argue that damaging my own personal clothing would be considerably worse than damaging my uniform. I would personally not rather rip a shirt or a pair of trousers that I might desire to use outside of work, but had no choice but to wear to work because I had no uniform and therefore had to run that risk. In respect of oneupmanship, I did not state it as personal experience.

Appearance

I have personally applied for a job with Harrods and having visited the store more than once as part of the application process, I believe it is exactly the sort of environment where it is vital to look the part, and this is best achieved in Harrods via presenting the utmost professional and smart appearance. I do not believe this hampers the business - far from it, there is an expectation from the clientele who frequent Harrods (and other, famous high street retailers) that employees dress in immaculate shirt and tie. This is not, in my view, detrimental to the business, and is in fact, vital to such a business in respect of its image. A customer at such an establishment will buy first from the staff looking superb in their uniforms.

Seeing a retail employee in the uniform of their employer, looking smart and in company colours, does not personally hinder my view of whether that person is trustworthy. In fact, it reinforces their relationship with the employer and ensures me that they are trusted enough to wear company colours.

Identification

In as far as Admin's example of going to the Customer Service desk is concerned, this assumes it would be a quick and simple thing to do, when in fact the Customer Service desk in many supermarkets is generally quite busy and could not easily approached without being prepared to wait. Signs are of course helpful, but sometimes someone might require a specific product that they cannot locate. Being able to more easily locate a member of staff in such circumstances is very useful! It is interesting that Admin has brought up the idea of asking someone working behind the Deli counter - individuals working behind such counters are often required to wear some kind of uniform, if for nothing else, hygiene purposes.

This raises a further issue around identification and uniforms across the wider working world. Whilst police officers can (and do) wear plain clothes for a variety of assignments, we are often quite inclined to trust a uniformed police officer, and their presence (if you're an honest citizen!) is quite comforting in most circumstances.

Safety

It goes without saying that uniforms of some descriptions are vital for safety. Firemen, for instance, are not going to be expected to go without the proper uniform.

Cost

It is debatable as to how significant the cost is of a uniform, to either the employer or employee. The very fact that employers are prepared to pay for uniforms would suggest to me there is enough evidence for uniforms to be of enough benefit to employers to be prepared to make that investment. I would submit this also connects to to the advertising argument.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-11 09:19:39
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I want to begin by apologizing over my malformed, non-working link from the previous round. Here is a corrected version (fingers crossed!)

Workers
In the previous round, my opponent once again failed to acknowledge the one group who is affected by workplace uniforms more than any other - workers. Above all, this debate is about what's best for workers, not for profits or customers.

My opponent and I could literally spend hours combing the internet for various opinion pieces on both sides of the issue. This in and of itself reflects the fact that people are not the same, and respond to workplace uniforms in different ways. That's unfortunate, because it proves that "one uniform suits all" doesn't apply in the workplace. Pro has failed to respond to any of my points here except to call them fringe, edge, marginal cases - despite my clear analysis that this kind of thing goes on all the time, in just about every industry that has uniforms.

I'd finally also like to briefly answer the contention about possibly ruining personal clothing. Unlike personal clothing, if you ruin a uniform, you can't work until the store orders you a new one. If pro is really concerned about safety, perhaps he shouldn't be ruining his clothing at all. With proper precautions it isn't even a risk.

Branding
The sources that pro provides are, again, more and more opinions. Which just so happen to come from two websites run by the same writing-for-hire agency (Demand Media), and a website written by two guys working for a retail marketing company (Rick Segel & Associates). Hardly independent!

Nelson and Bowen, however, deserve a little more attention and was actually somewhat meritorious. They had a sample size of about 200, in one industry (their response rate was only 36%, and I can't help but suspect self-selection bias probably crept in somewhere). They tested two hypotheses with statistical analysis. The first was that a better designed uniform was going to make people be happier. They found evidence to this effect (unsurprisingly). The second was that this was going to be moderated by the degree of customer contact - basically, pro's point under "appearance" below. Their evidence did NOT support this hypothesis!

Both presupposed that people had to wear those uniforms, and did not question (at all) whether the uniforms were necessary. Much less were they concerned with branding. I'd therefore like to take a moment to extend my "advertising" analysis from the previous round.

Appearance
Even if Harrods were the epitome of all things retail, pro has yet to prove that the appearance of their uniforms, of all things, is the cornerstone of their success that he makes it out to be. There are many things that go into a purchase decision, and it may be that while uniforms are a disincentive (for reasons explained more fully in the previous rounds), there are other incentives to purchase from Harrods that seem more important to customers.

Identification
Even supposing the marginal inconvenience of spending a little longer finding a product were worth the many hundreds of millions that are wasted every year on uniforms, pro completely fails to engage with the analysis that ordinary shop-floor workers are still identifiable by what they are doing.

It's been many years since I've seen a police officer just casually strolling down the street just checking that there's no trouble in the area, looking for somebody to help. That's what the police did in the 1800s. Nowadays they cruise around in cop cars. To contact the police, you could call them, wave down a cop car, go to a police station - in this country you can even send them emails. Even if, for some reason, all these options were not available, and you really wanted to know whether that guy wearing a blue hat and swinging a baton down your street was a policeman, you could simply ask them. If you're really suspicious, you could ask for a badge. Not really sure why you'd ever need to do either of those things, but the option is there. Much like the shop-assistant there doesn't really seem to be much need for police uniforms for identification purposes.

Safety
Judges should bear in mind that this is effectively a new argument, introduced fairly late in the debate. It's all well and good to suggest that firemen dress themselves for the occasion, but what exactly that protection entails should nonetheless remain the right of the individual firefighter. Who are the fire service to say that one fireman cannot make a fashion statement as he battles some kind of blaze? Depending on the situation, it might not necessarily even put the fireman at any greater risk.

If there is a serious concern, it may be alright to legislate the necessity for certain types of gear to be worn with certain types of work - such as high-visibility strips for road workers - but to require a particular brand, color, and style, or even to require where those strips are worn? That's where it crosses the line, and ceases to be about safety. If an employee might be bald, there's no use in requiring all cooks to wear hair-nets.

Cost
Just because people are silly enough to buy some overpriced rubbish doesn't justify that rubbish being overpriced. The same is true no matter what the nature of the rubbish, or no matter what the reason for purchase. The fact is that this is a marginal cost businesses, employees and the general public could clearly do without. That applies not only to monetary cost, but also to time and other resources expended in the production and maintenance of all these uniforms.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-11 21:22:01
| Speak Round
darth_timondarth_timon (PRO)
Regrettably, I am not in a position to submit my fourth round tonight, so will have to forfeit this round. My apologies. 
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-12 07:15:38
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I'd like to thank my opponent for his contributions thus far, and look forward to the final round.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-12 16:47:53
| Speak Round
darth_timondarth_timon (PRO)
Thank you Admin for your patience yesterday!

As we move into the final round, I hope to demonstrate here why uniforms benefit both employees and employers.

Employees

As already mentioned, there is no cost to employees for a uniform. To respond to Con's point RE damage, it has been my experience, with every retailer I have worked for, that the employer provides a minimum of three shirts, not to mention fleeces, and they keep additional shirts and fleeces (and even safety boots, if required) on site for staff to use as spares should they need to, whilst new items are ordered. To anticipate concerns over sizes and cleaning, these are normally taken care of, thus sparing the employee having to do any of that.

Con's ongoing reflection that people are not the same fails to acknowledge that everyone who enters into a contract of employment in an environment where a uniform is required does so knowing precisely that. It is not usually a deal-breaker in respect of taking up employment with a company that has a uniform or strict dress code - I know of no one who has refused employment on the basis of having to wear a retail uniform; it would be exceptionally unusual for a uniform to be the reason someone quit their job.

In one of Con's previous arguments, he argued that thousands of people leave their jobs due to uniforms. The following sites would suggest that it is barely an issue to employees, much less a factor behind quitting.

Human Resources have this article, there is this one from Linkedin, Business Knowhow has this to say, and that is just for starters.

Returning to the article regarding Virgin, Heathrow Express and the other examples from The Standard (thank you to Admin for getting that link working!), these would demonstrate the exception to the rule. Is there any evidence that the dress code with Virgin was a problem prior to the change? Likewise for Heathrow Express and the others? This would suggest that some companies, some of the time, make errors with their choices - it does not suggest an inherent problem with uniforms in themselves.

At the very least, wearing a uniform is not detrimental to the employee. It is certainly not a common factor in why someone might leave a job.

Employer

Covering predominately employer views and with a cross-section of different professionals at different levels within different businesses, this interesting Q&A illuminates views on uniforms, and how they can benefit everyone, employer, employee and customer. The answers are almost all in favour of corporate uniforms.

It could be argued that the ongoing existence of uniforms, the numerous opinion pieces that support using uniforms, and the point I raised before about companies being prepared to make that investment in uniforms, in addition to the BAYT Q&A, strongly suggests they are of tangible benefit to the employer. Businesses, especially in today's economic uncertainty, will not be prepared to risk millions unless they see a good opportunity to benefit from doing so. This should serve as evidence in itself that uniforms are a risk worth taking, in the eyes of many retailers around the world.

Appearance

I do not feel Con has addressed the argument of appearance. I do not ascribe appearance to be the be all and end all of the customer experience, but it goes without saying that an employee who is dressed smartly, be it as part of a dress code or with a uniform, is more likely to engender trust and confidence than an employee who is wearing jeans, trainers and a T-Shirt. People buy from people - they will judge customer service agents and salespersons by appearance first. This is human psychology and has been proven to work. It is not necessarily fair, but it is a fact of life.

Appearing smartly dressed is part of this process, as the BAYT Q&A would suggest.

Identification

In respect of a supermarket environment, to a customer, even a few minutes of waiting may be an inconvenience that is not acceptable to them. To able to quickly identify or find a member of staff to help them is, to that customer, the priority. Whilst there may well be staff stacking shelves, there will also be occasions where there are not any staff putting out stock, or those members of staff themselves may be occupied.

In respect of police officers, I cannot speak for where Con is from, but where I am from, the sight of 'bobbies on the beat' is still a reasonably common one. It is of great benefit to the community to see a visible police presence, which is naturally more obvious if they are uniformed officers!

Safety

It is something of an irony that, for Con's concerns regarding cost, he would seem to be advocating that safety gear be designed in different styles (thus increasing costs) to account for personal tastes. Flame-retardant gear for firefighters is designed for practicality and the same applies to people in other situations that require safety gear. It is about ensuring protection, not about a fashion statement.

Cost

I believe I addressed this in my earlier statement at the top of this post.

Conclusions

Whilst Con may dismiss the articles I have presented as opinion pieces, it is worth noting that is there is a consistent attitude toward uniforms in the workplace, from different sources. Can they provide the employee with a sense that they are part of a larger whole, part of a team? Not only is this my personal experience, but clearly, multiple companies, from multi-national firms to smaller, regional businesses, believe in this concept and are prepared to invest in it. This is also true of raising brand awareness and presenting the right image within stores.

Is there a cost to be had to the employer? Yes, but it would be a cost companies would be prepared to absorb, on an ongoing basis, if it were significant enough to hurt them, especially in the current economic climate. The benefit to the employee is clear - they do not have to pay for the uniform (and this usually includes multiple uniforms).

There are other benefits too - as discussed, safety comes into play in certain situations. There is a clear benefit to safety, for employee and employer!

Final Statement

I wish to say thank you to Admin for agreeing to be my opponent in my first debate on this site - it has been a fun and engaging experience, a challenging one that has pushed me to consider my posts very hard! Admin has been a formidable opponent and I look forward to future debates against him!

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-13 08:19:30
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I, too, wish to thank my opponent for an enjoyable debate. I won't go too much into sources etc - other than to briefly cite that I have provided sources that contradict pro's, so pro's were not nearly as unanimous ("consistent attitude") as he claimed - since my opponent can't respond to anything I say here, but will attempt to quickly explain why I have won this debate.

Employees
I agree that employees enter contracts requiring them to wear uniforms. It's been my contention since the very first round that this practice is unfair and discriminatory towards anyone who cannot wear such a uniform, for example for cultural, religious, or even gendered reasons. How much better actualized would our society be if people didn't have to avoid professions that they would otherwise be best suited to, simply because they don't like what they would have to wear? It's demeaning and dehumanizing to the individual workers who have to live with the fact they are but another cog in the machine, because the employer wants all their staff to have a particular look, often without any relevance to the job.

I'd like to reiterate that this was the most important issue in this debate. Pro needed to show that the biggest stakeholders, the workers of the world, are in general better off wearing uniforms to work. In fact, I believe I have demonstrated that uniforms cause more strife, stress and worry for employees than they save.

Cost
If employees don't bear the cost, somebody else does (pro seems to be arguing from a UK-centric position here). The point is that uniforms are unnecessary and expensive, which pro never really contests.

It should also be noted, as I have shown and can be deduced logically, that having more shirts etc simply increases the cost. Similarly, just because some labors are not performed by employees in some circumstances does not mean that they simply magically happen. It's just another cost multiplier. Pro can pay to remove many of the issues with uniforms, but then one has to ask oneself what massive benefit outweighs this massive expense. Even if there were a few small positives to uniforms, it would not outweigh the cost.

Employers
Pro's line is that uniforms are a risk worth taking, simply because it is being taken. That's fallacious. Numerous companies pollute the atmosphere, but that's not to say polluting the atmosphere is a good idea.

Pro had two main benefits for employers: branding and appearance. For neither of these points was he able to demonstrate that wearing a uniform actually translated into business success. Sure, he provided the odd quote from some business-person - who, funnily enough, all just so happened to be justifying their own investments into uniforms or were, on the basis of the article's origins, very likely paid by a uniform company. But when it came to demonstrating that uniforms provide a real benefit in terms of sales, profits, or just about anything else measurable, pro came up totally short. And that's for one simple reason - such evidence does not exist.

In the final round, pro hammers home the appearance point. I wish to simply remind judges that "people buy from people" also means they don't buy from robots coerced into dressing all the same way. I talked in previous rounds, for example, about how a person from one culture is more likely to buy from a store person whose clothing communicates that they are of that same culture - if everyone looks the same, this cannot happen.

Identification
Even if there are exceptions like police, pro had to show that workplaces are better off in general. He is using exceptions to prove rules.

Regardless, every time pro has attempted to show a profession where he believed uniforms were required for identification, I have provided numerous other ways that same person could be readily identified. People identify people every day without uniforms, so I really don't see the problem here.

Safety
This was a later argument, and it's really only been focused on one industry, which is likely a huge exception.

That being said, giving people choice and opening up competition has never been problematic for any apparel market. I'm certain a mildly impractical but super cool looking firefighting suit would sell like heck. This was a late point, and pro only connected it to cost in the last round, so I hope I'm justified in briefly adding that I have no problems with cost if that cost is borne as a matter of choice - it is when you require the purchase of certain garments, by either the employer, the employee or somebody else, that I have a problem.

Company uniforms are not worth the investment. The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-13 22:14:07
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
Rather foolishly, I forgot that this debate has reply speeches. As such I feel like I just wasted my previous round. Bother.

All I really want to add is that I wish my opponent the best of luck in judging, and hope to challenge him again in future!

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-13 22:15:59
| Speak Round
darth_timondarth_timon (PRO)
I have to admit, I wasn't aware of a postscript, so to speak!

I don't have anything further to add at this time - I am happy with the arguments I have presented and once again wish to thank Admin for this debate.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-14 06:34:38
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
True Capitalist AcolyteTrue Capitalist Acolyte
I will explain my vote later today. I read this debate twice but I don't have time currently to explain my vote. It isn't a vote bomb, as I said I will explain my vote in the here in the comments section later.
Posted 2016-01-19 00:12:06
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-01-19 00:10:11
True Capitalist AcolyteJudge: True Capitalist Acolyte
Win awarded to: admin

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 5 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 1 day
  • Time to vote: 5 days
  • Time to prepare: 1 day
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29