Community Chat

[PurpleBunny]

There are rules to the "perks" - don't want to adhere to the rules?  Don't partake of the perks. Everybody thinks the rules shouldn't apply to them. That's what's wrong with this society. 

[Lucky Charm]

I'll correct my previous post.

Company rules are company rules.  (Workplace)

There was a dress code in the handbooks for the banks I worked at, the insurance company I worked at and the Catholic school I worked at. 

Plainly stated in print what was acceptable and what was not acceptable.

Was for both men and women.

You comply or look for employment elsewhere if it's too stringent.

[jaxs mom]

I personally don't care. Am I supposed to be monitoring who's using a pass and who isn't on the plane, as a passenger? I'm not. 

[Isobel Archer]

---

@Noel7 wrote:

If rules were rules, America would still be under the rule of the UK monarchy.

---

Well if the girls want independence from the rules of flying free on United, they can always buy a ticket.

Not sure this rises to the level of oppression you seem to equate it to.

[Bri36]

If the airline requires a dress code, then the girls should have dressed appropriately.

When I first heard the story, they didn't say the girls were flying on employee passes.  They made it seem like they were paying customers. 

[SaRina]

I could be mistaken, but I thought I heard (with half an ear) on a news program that these "rules" may not have been applied evenly -- that is, a man who was flying under the same circumstances was permitted to wear shorts. Now, if leggings are banned because they are deemed too casual for females, I would think shorts would be too casual for males. It may appear that sexism is rearing its ugly head here. 

[Isobel Archer]

---

@SaRina wrote:

I could be mistaken, but I thought I heard (with half an ear) on a news program that these "rules" may not have been applied evenly -- that is, a man who was flying under the same circumstances was permitted to wear shorts. Now, if leggings are banned because they are deemed too casual for females, I would think shorts would be too casual for males. It may appear that sexism is rearing its ugly head here. 

---

But were the men's shorts "more than 3 inches above the knee in a standing position?"  A lot of men wear long shorts.  I don't know, I didn't see the shorts in question, but then neither did you.  And there is a big difference anyway between long shorts that are not skin tight and leggings.

But yes, I totally get that folks think they should be able to wear whatever they want and expose whatever they want and that no one should have the ability to limit them in any way.  Oh well.  Again, they can always buy a ticket.  I don't see their "freedom" being limited - what I see is the insistence that United subsidize that freedon.

[Silver Lining]

I was a reservationist for a major airline at Atlanta Hartsfield International. The employee passes were not just handed out to us. If you wanted to fly free you had to comply with the rules. That's how it works and that's how it should be.

[SaRina]

@Isobel Archer, like I said, if casual is the criteria by which the rules were made (and I assume so because these passengers are "representing the airlines"), IMO there is no difference in the "casual factor" between any length of shorts vs. leggings. I don't know if casual is indeed the criteria or if the person(s) making the rules share my opinion on what is too casual... or if the person(s) making the rules just feel that leggings on a 10-year-old are too revealing and that is their criteria. Who knows what they are thinking?

[Drythe]

A wonderful woman I know transports animals in need by using her United Employee Pass.  She ALWAYS makes sure she meets the guidelines.

I'm sure the many animals she's helped are grateful that she is willing to climb into those clothes on her days off just to help them.

I don't see this as a Woman's issue either, just a policy for a Company Perk.