Daniel Theriault, 24, dyed his hair bright pink this week for National Cancer Survivors Day, being held June 5, and said he was shocked when his bosses at Sleep Country Canada's distribution centre ordered him to cover it up or dye it a more "appropriate" colour.
This is the second year Theriault has dyed his hair to honour survivors of the deadly disease, including his own father, who beat lung cancer.
"I know a lot of people who have died from cancer, and I have a friend of the family who went under the knife for a type of cancer recently," he said.
"Tons of people on both sides of my family have died from all types of cancer."
A deliveryman for the last year and a half, Theriault said he was hauled into an office earlier this week and told his hair would have to be covered or changed or he'd be sent home without pay.
"Last year they made me hide it -- I would wear a hat while I was in the office," he said.
"This year I decided to stand up for myself. I didn't feel it was necessary to hide it -- this is for a good cause."
A May 24 letter signed by distribution manager Colin Campbell offered Theriault two suggestions -- wearing a hat "that conceals the majority of the hair" or changing his hair "to a more conservative business-appropriate colour."
"Should you decide not to comply, immediate suspension will occur and further disciplinary action may be taken up to and including termination," the letter warned.
The letter also stated that "responsibility for judging what is reasonable or unacceptable will lie solely in the hands of management."
Given the choice, Theriault said he decided to take the suspension but has already found a new job with a moving company, starting Monday.
Managers with Sleep Country Canada did not return calls for comment Saturday.
Not sure which side I fall on this one, does "I'm doing it for a good cause" trump any concerns/request from your employer? Or is the employer being overly callous?
^ while there was a stubborness on the side of the employee, the employer missed a real good chance of positive PR, and instead turned it into a negative.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Knut For This Useful Post:
I don't have a problem with the employer's actions at all. Just because you're doing something "for a good cause" doesn't mean you can ignore the rules of maintaining a professional appearance at your workplace. The boss was even flexible enough to tell the employee that he could keep his pink hair so long as he covered it with a hat while working.
I have a friend who printed t-shirts that said "Cancer can kiss my ass!" and sold them to raise money for charity. Should I have been allowed to wear one of those shirts to work because it was for a good cause?
While the employer is within their right to suspend him, I'd like to think they would know that suspending him would come back against them in the form of negative publicity, which might end up costing them so much more than the few "offended" customers who might complain about the guys pink hair. It does make me wonder though, if hair is an acceptable reason to suspend someone, why wouldn't weight or any other physical features be acceptable reasons, or are they already?
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I don't have a problem with the employer's actions at all. Just because you're doing something "for a good cause" doesn't mean you can ignore the rules of maintaining a professional appearance at your workplace. The boss was even flexible enough to tell the employee that he could keep his pink hair so long as he covered it with a hat while working.
I have a friend who printed t-shirts that said "Cancer can kiss my ass!" and sold them to raise money for charity. Should I have been allowed to wear one of those shirts to work because it was for a good cause?
I agree. The company has a certain image they want to uphold, they make the rules regarding appropriate appearance, the employee has to comply or find another employer that doesn't mind his appearance.
The good cause has nothing to do with it.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
Glad to see I am not the only one who thinks the request to at least wear a hat while working to cover most of it is perfectly reasonable.
Quote:
A May 24 letter signed by distribution manager Colin Campbell offered Theriault two suggestions -- wearing a hat "that conceals the majority of the hair" or changing his hair "to a more conservative business-appropriate colour."
I guess Shanahan was too busy to hand this suspension out.
We support our employees' dedication to charitable causes -- just as we do extensive charitable work as a company. We also have to make sure our customers are comfortable when our delivery associates enter their homes -- and that's why we require employees to maintain a professional, business-like appearance. In fact the acid test that I always use for the appearance of a Sleep Country delivery associate is whether my mom would be comfortable with this person setting up a bed in her bedroom.
In this case we had to make a judgment call whether our customers might feel uncomfortable by a stranger with pink hair in their bedroom, especially if it is not immediately evident that he was supporting a charitable cause. We realize that some will not agree with us, but we want to explain our reasoning and our attempt to strike the right balance.
I hope you can understand why Sleep Country Canada asked this employee to wear a hat. We thought it was a reasonable compromise and he wore it last year. This year instead of wearing his baseball cap he chose not to work his shift and to leave. We did not fire him.
In the end, I can only hope that we will be measured by our intention to serve our customers well and our track record of supporting charities.
While the employer is within their right to suspend him, I'd like to think they would know that suspending him would come back against them in the form of negative publicity, which might end up costing them so much more than the few "offended" customers who might complain about the guys pink hair. It does make me wonder though, if hair is an acceptable reason to suspend someone, why wouldn't weight or any other physical features be acceptable reasons, or are they already?
Pink hair isn't something that this guy was born with or is genetically inclined to have. It was his choice, and he knew it was against company policy.
Add to that that having pink hair does absolutely nothing to help cancer research.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
The Following User Says Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
Pink hair isn't something that this guy was born with or is genetically inclined to have. It was his choice, and he knew it was against company policy.
Add to that that having pink hair does absolutely nothing to help cancer research.
Right....just as no one is born fat....so where does it stop? Genetics is a horrible argument because we're all genetically born to want to screw like rabbits, but not everyone chooses too. End of the day you make the choice. Like I said I agree they can do this if they want, they also can't complain that their numbers will suffer from people who will no longer go there because of this ridiculousness.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
"This year I decided to stand up for myself. I didn't feel it was necessary to hide it -- this is for a good cause."
This is the part I have a problem with. He already knew it was against company policy to dye his hair, but rather than approach his employer and see if a mutually agreeable solution was possible, he just went ahead and did what he wanted.
Sleep Country's response to the Sun seems reasonable.
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to hmmhmmcamo For This Useful Post:
If it was a permanent thing I could understand the company's issue. But something he does for a couple days/weeks to support a cause he believes in and has been affect by, seems ok to me.
Right....just as no one is born fat....so where does it stop? Genetics is a horrible argument because we're all genetically born to want to screw like rabbits, but not everyone chooses too. End of the day you make the choice. Like I said I agree they can do this if they want, they also can't complain that their numbers will suffer from people who will no longer go there because of this ridiculousness.
You can ask someone to dye their hair overnight, but you can't reasonably ask an overweight individual to come back tomorrow 50 pounds lighter.
Right, but you get my point. It just seems silly to me: there's truly no benefit from this (its not like getting him to not have pink hair is gonna drive sales, he is a delivery guy after all), and it can only hurt sales, which it almost certainly will. Just seems like a pointless and potentially costly decision. Not smart to me.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Pink hair gets man suspended from work
