About Me

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Ugh

This is just stupid.

You ever find it funny that car salesman, realtors, bankers, lawyers (I am one) always wear suits while doctors, nurses, oil riggers what have you wear whatever they want to.

Its because car salesman, realtors and their ilk are trying to make you have a good impression of them while they are ripping you off. Their only incentive is to sell sell sell. Lawyers and bankers are the same way, they are trying to get you to give them your money, nothing more nothing less. If they spent as much time acting ethically and doing the right thing as they do "looking professional like" then they wouldn't have the reputation that they do.

I show up in nice jeans, a button down, nice shoes, I look clean, neat and groomed. I have bigger problems to worry about (like the current legislative session) than getting my suits to the cleaners and back. I do have my shirts pressed now. If I go to court, I put a suit on.

I get it if the team wants to bar distractions like friends and family and have conduct agreements in their contracts. Hey no riding motorcycles Ron Gant.

Its just silly.

7 comments:

Captain Canuck said...

workplace attire is not just for bankers/lawyers. Most retail establishments have to put in place rules regarding visible piercings and tattoos. People are a representitive of the image the company they work for want to project.
Bobby Cox has the same rules in ATlanta. No stereos, no excessive bling, no long hair, etc... you never hear any ball player complain about Bobby.
Agree with the rule or not, no matter. It's a team rule and Hanley needs to suck it up.

stusigpi said...

Typical style over substance. Most employers would rather have someone that plays their game than talent.

Nothing wrong with rules, but there should be some reasonableness to it, not just arbitrary rules that make no difference. How exactly does the relate to his ability to play or to the team?

As someone that works in regulation, there are so many arbitrary rules that make no difference. This new ploy by the team is nothing more than, well, style over substance.

Duane said...

Well, image is everything, right? I mean, forcing a guy to get a hair cut and not wear jewelry will make them play better right? ummmm not so much. Agree on the shysters looking nice to distract you while they steal. I tend not to trust folks wearing ties, but that is just the farmer in me talking.

Groat said...

With the bad rap that lots of athletes are getting nowadays, I think he's just trying to improve peoples' perception of his players. Grooming standards are not a bad thing, those in the military have to deal with them all the time. For the amount these players get paid, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that their clubs could more or less control their lives during the season.

Current Cards said...

That has been the Yankees policy for years, no long hair, no facial hair, no jewelry ect... I mean isn't this like a dress code in a company or school?

It seems like as private companies as long as they are investing in these players are free to make rules as they see fit in order to better the image and therefore bottom line of the company.

Though, I am all for Hanley demanding a trade, let's get him back on the Red Sox! So piss him off to no end!

stusigpi said...

The hair cut and all that other stuff is not typical of an employer. In fact asking a guy to cut his dreads would be seen as possibly discriminatory. Plus these guys are not meeting the public or in customer service.

The Yankees grooming standards are a joke as so hilariously depicted on the Simpsons.

If they lose ramirez over it, is it worth it? Or is it micromanaging that does nothing but piss off your employees?

Current Cards said...

Ahhh, Homer at the Bat, Best. Episode. Ever. His sideburns were excessive though...