A survey of UK dress code for Software Engineers
Craig Cockburn
I've worked in a variety of organisations where the dress code varied
from not having a dress code at all (Digital) to forcing men to wear
shirts and ties at all times (Newell and Budge). All for substantially
the same work, i.e. not client facing and not on a client site. There
seems to be a lot of confusion over dress codes especially as many
businesses claim that a so-called "business" dress code creates a better
impression. Although at Digital I heard at least one story about a
customer who was pleased when someone turned up to fix a problem wearing
jeans because at least they knew they were getting a software engineer
at that point....
I also have some quite widely publicised views on the subject
http://www.siliconglen.com/craig/announce.html (article 2 July 96)
So I thought it would be fun to see what attitudes really are. Being
famous for being casual doesn't seem have been much of a problem for
Brian Souter, Richard Branson or Bill Gates.
http://www.siliconglen.com/#poll
comments welcome
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). SiliconGlen.com Ltd. http://SiliconGlen.com
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish FAQ, wedding info, travel, search tools, stop spam and more!
Nor
"Craig Cockburn" <cr...@SiliconGlen.com> wrote in message
news:8x80kbLw...@SiliconGlen.com...
>
> I've worked in a variety of organisations where the dress code varied
> from not having a dress code at all (Digital) to forcing men to wear
> shirts and ties at all times (Newell and Budge). All for substantially
> the same work, i.e. not client facing and not on a client site. There
> seems to be a lot of confusion over dress codes especially as many
> businesses claim that a so-called "business" dress code creates a better
> impression. Although at Digital I heard at least one story about a
> customer who was pleased when someone turned up to fix a problem wearing
> jeans because at least they knew they were getting a software engineer
> at that point....
>
> I also have some quite widely publicised views on the subject
> http://www.siliconglen.com/craig/announce.html (article 2 July 96)
>
> So I thought it would be fun to see what attitudes really are. Being
> famous for being casual doesn't seem have been much of a problem for
> Brian Souter, Richard Branson or Bill Gates.
>
> http://www.siliconglen.com/#poll
>
> comments welcome
Brian Souter is more famous for his homophobia
Nor
oddspace
<cr...@SiliconGlen.com> reckons:
> I've worked in a variety of organisations where the dress code varied
> from not having a dress code at all (Digital) to forcing men to wear
> shirts and ties at all times (Newell and Budge). All for substantially
> the same work, i.e. not client facing and not on a client site. There
> seems to be a lot of confusion over dress codes especially as many
> businesses claim that a so-called "business" dress code creates a
> better impression. Although at Digital I heard at least one story
> about a customer who was pleased when someone turned up to fix a
> problem wearing jeans because at least they knew they were getting a
> software engineer at that point....
>
> I also have some quite widely publicised views on the subject
> http://www.siliconglen.com/craig/announce.html (article 2 July 96)
>
> So I thought it would be fun to see what attitudes really are. Being
> famous for being casual doesn't seem have been much of a problem for
> Brian Souter, Richard Branson or Bill Gates.
>
> http://www.siliconglen.com/#poll
>
> comments welcome
I've always used the rule - dress better than your customers, but not your
boss.
I do notice a lot of uncessesary ties in scotland, especially since the
people here have such bad fashion sense generally.
David Hansen
<cr...@SiliconGlen.com> wrote this:-
>I heard at least one story about a
>customer who was pleased when someone turned up to fix a problem wearing
>jeans because at least they knew they were getting a software engineer
>at that point....
A very sensible customer.
Personally I think that a good rule of thumb is that performance of
someone is inversely proportional to how "well" they are dressed.
However, not everyone has the same rule of thumb.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
ejaycee
"Craig Cockburn" <cr...@SiliconGlen.com> wrote in message
news:8x80kbLw...@SiliconGlen.com...
>
varied
> from not having a dress code at all (Digital) to forcing men to
wear
> shirts and ties at all times (Newell and Budge). All for
substantially
> the same work, i.e. not client facing and not on a client site.
There
> seems to be a lot of confusion over dress codes especially as
many
> businesses claim that a so-called "business" dress code creates
a better
> impression
I have no problems with casual but there is a big difference
between smart casual and sloppy casual and the impression it
gives, especially if the employee has to deal with clients or
represent the company.
I remember being harangued by a union official because I had
asked a member of the sales staff to dress neatly. I was told
that if they chose to dress a certain way that was obviously
*their* standard and I had no right to impose *my* standards on
anyone else, and who was I to say their standard was wrong
because it was different to mine.
The company got round it by introducing a clothing allowance
which allowed us to dictate what they wore.
Ejaycee
Richard Caley
e> I have no problems with casual but there is a big difference
e> between smart casual and sloppy casual
The use of words like `casual' indicates the sillyness. I can be just
as casual (or not) and just as smart (or not) in a white shirt, tie
and trousers which match a jacket as in a bright pink shirt and
trousers which only have to match themselves. A slob can slob whether
or not the trousers match the jacket.
People who work in suits can be divided into those who would anyway
(clearly not of interest for this discussion), those who wouldn't and
look like children forced to wear their best clothes to visit granny
(who would look probably make a better impression in clothes they
chose) and those who concentrate on trying to look `smart' in the
enforced uniform when they should be concentrating on the work.
Uniforms are intended to make the point that the person you are
looking at is just an interchangable unit. There are times when this
can be reassuring (McDonald's burger flippers are the same the world
over, police officers and nurses are all supposed to be equally
trustworthy, PC World staff are all equally clueless). However, when
dealing with a profesional of any kind, a uniform just says `we have
sent you a clone, don't expect any special skills'. I don't find that
reassuring.
--
Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
Bagpuss
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 22:10:56 +0000 someone who may be Craig Cockburn
><cr...@SiliconGlen.com> wrote this:-
>
>>I heard at least one story about a
>>customer who was pleased when someone turned up to fix a problem wearing
>>jeans because at least they knew they were getting a software engineer
>>at that point....
>
>A very sensible customer.
Yep
>
>Personally I think that a good rule of thumb is that performance of
>someone is inversely proportional to how "well" they are dressed.
>However, not everyone has the same rule of thumb.
Similar view, bullsh!t to skill ratio is in proportion to level of
dress :-)
We dress "comfortable smart" at work with a dress down on Fridays. For
me thats pretty much trousers and polo or round necked jersey. With
Fridays being 1/2 day I tend to spend the morning still in my leather
jeans from riding the bike to work.
I also usually put extra hair bands in my hair to keep the ends ties
up too rather than a collection of rat tails.
I'm also used to working in an engineering company environment so when
I was out on the shop floor for any period of time (say s/w testing or
sorting out problems) I would wear parra boots for at least some
protection just incase something did land on my feet.
When talking with customers/other sites dress smartly but remember the
ratio and be an exception to the rule.
I agree with the dress smartly for interviews. It looks too much like
either you don't care, are arrogant or are so good that they will want
you right there. If its the latter then you probably wouldn't need to
be at the interview anyway.
--
This posting are my opinions alone and do not reflect the opinion
of other saggy old cloth cats be they a bit loose at the seams or
not.
I'm gonna drink till I re-boot
Richard Tobin
oddspace <ooddddss...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>... fashion sense ...
That's one of those terms like "military intelligence".
-- Richard
--
Spam filter: to mail me from a .com/.net site, put my surname in the headers.
FreeBSD rules!
Simon Brooke
>
> "Craig Cockburn" <cr...@SiliconGlen.com> wrote in message
> news:8x80kbLw...@SiliconGlen.com...
>>
>> I've worked in a variety of organisations where the dress code
> varied
>> from not having a dress code at all (Digital) to forcing men to
> wear
>> shirts and ties at all times (Newell and Budge). All for
> substantially
>> the same work, i.e. not client facing and not on a client site.
> There
>> seems to be a lot of confusion over dress codes especially as
> many
>> businesses claim that a so-called "business" dress code creates
> a better
>> impression
>
> I have no problems with casual but there is a big difference
> between smart casual and sloppy casual and the impression it
> gives, especially if the employee has to deal with clients or
> represent the company.
The issue is, if you're skilled enough and specialist enough, *and* you do
the work, nobody is going to hassle you about how you dress or what hours
you work. If you're replaceable, then they are. I've only once, for one
nine month period in 1992-3 when the IT market was very depressed, done a
job where I was required to adhere to a dress code (they wanted me to wear
a tie; I did, for the duration). I can recall one colleague who used to
work a twenty eight hour cycle, working ten hours and taking eighteen off.
She would gradually move into and out of phase with the rest of us as the
weeks went by. Another, male, colleague in the same team always came to
work in brightly coloured pajama trousers. Nobody complained, because they
both did extremely specialist jobs in compiler design extremely well.
I still work in jeans and walking boots and usually a jersey. I don't wear
legwarmers and utility belts any more, because I'm middle aged and comfort
counts for more than shock value. Oh, and my hair is still shoulder length.
But if you ever see anyone working in a suit, don't trust them. People wear
suits because they want to look safe and conventional and therefore
trustworthy, and it's usually because they don't think they'd earn that
level of trust just being themselves. Think about it: who wears suits?
Salesmen, lawyers, money men, politicians. Scum.
Simon, who occasionally wears a suit himself.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Generally Not Used
;; Except by Middle Aged Computer Scientists
ejaycee
"Richard Caley" <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> In article
ejandrac (e) writes:
>
> e> I have no problems with casual but there is a big difference
> e> between smart casual and sloppy casual
>
> or not the trousers match the jacket.
This is oh so true.
You could give several people the same amount to buy clothes and
within 1 month there would be slobs among them. It is a state of
mind.
Which is why I think the way someone dresses everyday as opposed
to how they scrub up can reflect their persona, because we can
all put on the glitz when needed or we think we need to impress.
Ejaycee
Emas Refugee
> In article <fKqy9.70978$g9.2...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, ejandrac (e) writes:
> Uniforms are intended to make the point that the person you are
> looking at is just an interchangable unit.
So the geek uniform of jeans, t-shirt and whatever is cleanest in the
underwear drawer shows us what?
> There are times when this
> can be reassuring (McDonald's burger flippers are the same the world
> over, police officers and nurses are all supposed to be equally
> trustworthy, PC World staff are all equally clueless).
Sorry but this judging a book by its cover approach just doesn't wash.
I could take the most clueless MCNE monkey, remove the cheap suit and
put him in jeans and a t-shirt and he would still be a clueless monkey
(Albeit a better dressed, clueless monkey).
> However, when
> dealing with a profesional of any kind, a uniform just says `we have
> sent you a clone, don't expect any special skills'.
See my comments above regarding geek uniforms. It's just a shabbier
level of conformity.
Emas Refugee
> ejaycee wrote:
> But if you ever see anyone working in a suit, don't trust them. People wear
> suits because they want to look safe and conventional and therefore
> trustworthy,
And nerds wear t-shirts and jeans for exactly the same reason. They
want to appeal to their own peer group and now the mystique of the
hacker means that they are practically forced to wear the same uniform
if they want to be accepted. The problem is that the suits and the
geeks don't trust each other and the uniform becomes a very visible
point of contention.
> and it's usually because they don't think they'd earn that
> level of trust just being themselves. Think about it: who wears suits?
> Salesmen, lawyers, money men, politicians. Scum.
And, by the same standard of reasoning, it's long-haired hippy scum
who cause all the trouble in the world and can't be bothered to do
hand's turn.
Angus Creech
> And nerds wear t-shirts and jeans for exactly the same reason. They
> want to appeal to their own peer group and now the mystique of the
> hacker means that they are practically forced to wear the same uniform
> if they want to be accepted. The problem is that the suits and the
> geeks don't trust each other and the uniform becomes a very visible
> point of contention.
Reminds me of a place I worked many moons ago.
Major battle ensued - I think in the end, smart black denims with a
shirt were ok. I wanted blue, but you have to comprimise. Still wearing
black jeans (not the same pair obviously). Thing is, jeans *are* more
comfortable. Forcing people to wear clothes they are not happy in just
creates needless resentment, over something as petty as their attire. If
I have to deal with customers, fine, I'll wear a suit, otherwise it's
jeans all the way. Conformity is not high on my agenda.
The main clash with "suits" comes over things like a) flexitime and b)
projects. Suits have trouble with people below them in seniority who are
brighter than themselves, and who often have the better ideas when it
comes to technology. I find this is usually the case, especially with
senior software developers.
Suits usually come from business degrees where a scientific grasp of
logic is beyond them. I'm not talking about your young, fresh CS grads
straight into the job here, I'm talking about 30-something developers
who understand business.
> And, by the same standard of reasoning, it's long-haired hippy scum
> who cause all the trouble in the world and can't be bothered to do
> hand's turn.
Hmmmm, a slightly imflammatory comment :p
Angus
Richard Caley
er> And nerds wear t-shirts and jeans for exactly the same reason. They
er> want to appeal to their own peer group and now the mystique of the
er> hacker means that they are practically forced to wear the same uniform
er> if they want to be accepted. The problem is that the suits and the
er> geeks don't trust each other and the uniform becomes a very visible
er> point of contention.
I think you are off in a different argument.
What people choose to wear oes divide them into tribes as you say.
However, we were talking about dress codes enforced from outside,
whcih says nothing about the person in the clothes except that they
are employed by a manager with too little work and too muh time.
Richard Caley
>> Uniforms are intended to make the point that the person you are
>> looking at is just an interchangable unit.
er> So the geek uniform of jeans, t-shirt and whatever is cleanest in the
er> underwear drawer shows us what?
Geeks use their imagination for somethign other than picking clothes?
Also of course, to the extent that it is uniform, that geeks want to
be seen as geeks. Another kind of interchangable unit.
>> There are times when this can be reassuring (McDonald's burger
>> flippers are the same the world over, police officers and nurses
>> are all supposed to be equally trustworthy, PC World staff are all
>> equally clueless).
er> Sorry but this judging a book by its cover approach just doesn't
er> wash.
I wasn't juding anything by the cover, I was judging organisations by
their policy decisions. The employee may or not be what I
advertised. Indeed, the organisation is trying to advertise `competent
enginneer' by the uniform and I am saying that that advertisement is
not worth anything.
Some police are bent, some nurses are grumpy, I'd have to see a PC
World employee with a clue and check carefully for them being a ringer
to extend the rule that far.
er> I could take the most clueless MCNE monkey, remove the cheap suit and
er> put him in jeans and a t-shirt and he would still be a clueless monkey
er> (Albeit a better dressed, clueless monkey).
No, it would make you an emplyer with a different uniform.
>> However, when dealing with a profesional of any kind, a uniform
>> just says `we have sent you a clone, don't expect any special
>> skills'.
er> See my comments above regarding geek uniforms. It's just a shabbier
er> level of conformity.
There is a difference between the person choosing clothes which look
similar to others (a general tendancy of human beings) and the
employer enforcing that. It is about the policy of and so the culture
of the organisation. `we hire people without much imaginatin about
clothes' says something very different to `we worry about what colour
socks our engineers are wearing'.
For instance, a dress code implies enforcement. Resources which could go
into the service are going into checking what colour socks people are
wearing.
Simon Brooke
> Richard Caley <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:<873cqdz...@pele.r.caley.org.uk>...
>> In article <fKqy9.70978$g9.2...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, ejandrac (e)
>> writes:
>
>> Uniforms are intended to make the point that the person you are
>> looking at is just an interchangable unit.
>
> So the geek uniform of jeans, t-shirt and whatever is cleanest in the
> underwear drawer shows us what?
It's a wannabe geek. Real geeks wear whatever they feel comfortable in.
Personally, for me, that's almost always a jersey. I know other people who
habitually wear an extraordinary variety of things. Yes, sure, some of them
wear jeans and t-shirts, but mostly in warmer climes or in summer only. One
of the things about being a geek is you probably have drawers full of
t-shirts and polo shirts and so on that you've been given by one vendor or
another at one show or another, and it's very easy to slip one on in the
morning... if you live in California, or somewhere. Here in Scotland they
aren't really warm enough and if you see someone who always comes to work
in just a t-shirt and jeans, either the office heating's turned up too far
or (s)he's a hardy bastard or (s)he's a wannabe.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.
Emas Refugee
> Emas Refugee wrote:
> > The problem is that the suits and the
> > geeks don't trust each other and the uniform becomes a very visible
> > point of contention.
>
> Reminds me of a place I worked many moons ago.
>
> Major battle ensued - I think in the end, smart black denims with a
> shirt were ok. I wanted blue, but you have to comprimise. Still wearing
> black jeans (not the same pair obviously). Thing is, jeans *are* more
> comfortable.
That's your own preference. Others may feel differently.
> Suits usually come from business degrees where a scientific grasp of
> logic is beyond them. I'm not talking about your young, fresh CS grads
> straight into the job here, I'm talking about 30-something developers
> who understand business.
Sadly 30-something developers who understand business are a rare breed.
> > And, by the same standard of reasoning, it's long-haired hippy scum
> > who cause all the trouble in the world and can't be bothered to do
> > hand's turn.
>
> Hmmmm, a slightly imflammatory comment :p
Which you've chosen to quote out of context.
Emas Refugee
The places that I've worked with a dress code have pretty much left it
to staff to police themselves.
Angus Creech
> That's your own preference. Others may feel differently.
I wouldn't want to impose demin jeans on anyone who didn't feel so inclined.
> Sadly 30-something developers who understand business are a rare breed.
I don't mean business at the top-level; that's what managing directors
are for. I mean software issues, development platforms, etc etc. Senior
management often has the final say on these issues, and they are the
least qualified to do so. This in-built inefficiency in commercial
enterprises frequently makes me marvel how many businesses actually _work_.
A typical example would be the forcing of Microsoft-only technology on
project solutions. CEOs' near-evanglism on Redmond products often has
little to do with the programming language concerned, reliability or
reusability, and more to do with the reassurance they feel which has
little grounding in fact.
One place I used to work for finally decided to switch to Perl as the
main language for development - a good choice, and I doubt management
realise exactly what an excellent business decision that was.
Angus
Richard Caley
er> That's your own preference. Others may feel differently.
Which is why dress codes are silly.
Richard Caley
er> The places that I've worked with a dress code have pretty much left it
er> to staff to police themselves.
Doubleplus unsuit?
Simon Brooke
> Angus Creech <cre...@tardis.ed.ac.uk.nospam> wrote in message
> news:<I5My9.60$Dk7.7...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
>> Emas Refugee wrote:
>> > The problem is that the suits and the
>> > geeks don't trust each other and the uniform becomes a very visible
>> > point of contention.
>>
>> Reminds me of a place I worked many moons ago.
>>
>> Major battle ensued - I think in the end, smart black denims with a
>> shirt were ok. I wanted blue, but you have to comprimise. Still wearing
>> black jeans (not the same pair obviously). Thing is, jeans *are* more
>> comfortable.
>
> That's your own preference. Others may feel differently.
Hey, if other people want to wear shorts, or kilts, or sarongs, or tights,
or lederhosen, that's up to them. That's the point about freedom.
>> Suits usually come from business degrees where a scientific grasp of
>> logic is beyond them. I'm not talking about your young, fresh CS grads
>> straight into the job here, I'm talking about 30-something developers
>> who understand business.
>
> Sadly 30-something developers who understand business are a rare breed.
If you think they're rare, you are looking in the wrong place.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.
Craig Cockburn
Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk> writes
>Emas Refugee wrote:
>
>> Angus Creech <cre...@tardis.ed.ac.uk.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:<I5My9.60$Dk7.7...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
>>> Emas Refugee wrote:
>>> > The problem is that the suits and the
>>> > geeks don't trust each other and the uniform becomes a very visible
>>> > point of contention.
>>>
>>> Reminds me of a place I worked many moons ago.
>>>
>>> Major battle ensued - I think in the end, smart black denims with a
>>> shirt were ok. I wanted blue, but you have to comprimise. Still wearing
>>> black jeans (not the same pair obviously). Thing is, jeans *are* more
>>> comfortable.
>>
>> That's your own preference. Others may feel differently.
>
>Hey, if other people want to wear shorts, or kilts, or sarongs, or tights,
>or lederhosen, that's up to them. That's the point about freedom.
>
http://www.siliconglen.com/#poll
Farmer Brown
<MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote:
>However, we were talking about dress codes enforced from outside,
>whcih says nothing about the person in the clothes except that they
>are employed by a manager with too little work and too muh time.
Indeed. One of the funniest things I have ever seen was when we had a
'mufti' day at work and everyone wore their casual clothes... some of
the managers *shakes head in disbelief*. Seems that some people wear
suits every day because it means they don't have a clue what to wear
otherwise.
==
*Not Y3K compliant
Richard Caley
fb> Seems that some people wear suits every day because it means they
fb> don't have a clue what to wear otherwise.
Dontcha hate those closet slobs!
Emas Refugee
> Seems that some people wear
> suits every day because it means they don't have a clue what to wear
> otherwise.
That applies equally to the jeans and t-shirt brigade.
Graeme Dods
full of developers and there is a seriously wide ranging standard of
dress. The one who stands out though is the guy who wears shorts all
year round, even when its snowing outside.
I've noticed the absence of one regular ed.general poster from this
thread, he works at the company in question. Perhaps he's the regular
shorts wearer and recent cold weather has curtailed his usenet
activities?
Have fun!
Graeme
Andrew MacCormack
>
> The company that is downstairs from us (we lease their top floor) is
> full of developers and there is a seriously wide ranging standard of
> dress. The one who stands out though is the guy who wears shorts all
> year round, even when its snowing outside.
Did he have a beard? I may know who you mean: he got very hot cycling
all the way from central Edinburgh every day.
> I've noticed the absence of one regular ed.general poster from this
> thread, he works at the company in question. Perhaps he's the regular
> shorts wearer and recent cold weather has curtailed his usenet
> activities?
Personally, I used to wear shorts to cycle to work in summer only when I
lived in Bristol, but now I live too far from work for me to cycle (I
could do it, but I'd rather spend those 3 hours a day doing more
fulfilling things like watching Fame Academy :-)
-- Andrew MacCormack and...@cadence.com
-- Senior Design Engineer Phone: +44 1506 595360
-- Cadence Design Foundry http://www.cadence.com/designfoundry
-- Alba Campus, Livingston EH54 7HH, UK Fax: +44 1506 595959
Robert Peffers
"oddspace" <ooddddss...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:aqcdui$d3j$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> In news:8x80kbLw...@SiliconGlen.com, Craig Cockburn
> <cr...@SiliconGlen.com> reckons:
> > I've worked in a variety of organisations where the dress code varied
> > from not having a dress code at all (Digital) to forcing men to wear
> > shirts and ties at all times (Newell and Budge). All for substantially
> > the same work, i.e. not client facing and not on a client site. There
> > seems to be a lot of confusion over dress codes especially as many
> > businesses claim that a so-called "business" dress code creates a
> > about a customer who was pleased when someone turned up to fix a
> > problem wearing jeans because at least they knew they were getting a
> > software engineer at that point....
> >
> > http://www.siliconglen.com/craig/announce.html (article 2 July 96)
> >
> > So I thought it would be fun to see what attitudes really are. Being
> > famous for being casual doesn't seem have been much of a problem for
> > Brian Souter, Richard Branson or Bill Gates.
> >
> > http://www.siliconglen.com/#poll
> >
> > comments welcome
>
> I've always used the rule - dress better than your customers, but not your
> boss.
>
> I do notice a lot of uncessesary ties in scotland, especially since the
> people here have such bad fashion sense generally.
>
>
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Your perception of what constitutes,*The people here's*, *Bad fashion sense
generally*, depends entirely on what criterion you are using to measure
that, *Bad fashion sense*.
If you are using, say, Bond Street in London as a yardstick then the natives
on crofts on the Isle of Lewis do indeed have a bad fashion sense. However
if your criterion is the fashion of the Isle Of Lewis then the guy in the
Bond Street Suit looks a real wally cutting the peat in a bog on the Isle Of
Lewis.
I think your definition of, *Bad fashion Sense*, just means someone who is
dressed differently from yourself. The whole subject smacks of class and
hypocrisy. Dress as you want to for, somewhere along the line, someone did
just that or we would all be dressed as Adam did in the Garden Of Eden.
There are two types of people. Those who do there own thing and are thus the
leaders and those who follow and are thus the slaves. You sound very like a
slave.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),,
frae Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
In Kelty, *Kingdom Of Fife*,
Scotland, (UK).
b...@peffersspecs50.freeserve.co.uk
*The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.pffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
Richard Tobin
Emas Refugee <ema...@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
>> Seems that some people wear
>> suits every day because it means they don't have a clue what to wear
>> otherwise.
>That applies equally to the jeans and t-shirt brigade.
Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing? Unless you actually find
clothes interesting, it makes sense to keep wearing what you're used
to.
I find choosing clothes about as interesting as choosing toilet paper.
Jeremy C B Nicoll
What I don't understand about this is why anyone should think that you
have to have "a clue" about what you wear. "Casual wear" should mean
waht someone is comfortable in, not whatever happens to be regarded by
some people as trendy clothing at that point in time. So long as some
people only regard "casual wear" as meaning "fashionable clothes to be
seen in" there'll never be clothing that one group of people think suits
another group of people (who have different ideas).
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Graeme Dods
> Graeme Dods wrote:
> >
> > The company that is downstairs from us (we lease their top floor) is
> > full of developers and there is a seriously wide ranging standard of
> > dress. The one who stands out though is the guy who wears shorts all
> > year round, even when its snowing outside.
>
> Did he have a beard? I may know who you mean: he got very hot cycling
> all the way from central Edinburgh every day.
Got it in one! I wondered if you'd work out who I was referring to. I
thought he still had the beard though? I've only once cycled from
Edinburgh to Livingston for work and I'm not surprised he gets hot (20
odd miles each way is just too much for me). Surely the rather over
zealous air-con in this building would cool him down fairly quickly
though?
Have fun!
Graeme
Reginald Molehusband
> Andrew MacCormack <and...@cadence.com> wrote in message news:<3DCF978E...@cadence.com>...
> > Graeme Dods wrote:
> > > The one who stands out though is the guy who wears shorts all
> > > year round, even when its snowing outside.
> >
> > Did he have a beard? I may know who you mean: he got very hot cycling
> > all the way from central Edinburgh every day.
I wear shorts probably eight months of the year, I don't see any
point in changing when I get to work and shorts are in several ways
much more convenient than longs for cycling, as well as being more
comfortable.
I work as a developer, wear, have a beard and (before I moved a east a
little) cycled from central Edinburgh down to Leith. It's not me is it?
--
Reginald Molehusband
Edinburgh, Scotland
Angus Creech
> The entity currently known as Reginald Molehusband wrote:
>
>>I wear shorts probably eight months of the year, I don't see any
>>point in changing when I get to work
>
> Or washing, for that matter.
Handbag alert!
Angus
Angus Creech
>
> I think your definition of, *Bad fashion Sense*, just means someone who is
> dressed differently from yourself. The whole subject smacks of class and
> hypocrisy. Dress as you want to for, somewhere along the line, someone did
> just that or we would all be dressed as Adam did in the Garden Of Eden.
> There are two types of people. Those who do there own thing and are thus the
> leaders and those who follow and are thus the slaves. You sound very like a
> slave.
Socialism, religion and a swathe of asterisks, all from an article on
dress codes! I have say it Bob, you have *surpassed* *yourself*.
Angus
Simon Brooke
> I do notice a lot of uncessesary ties in scotland, especially since the
> people here have such bad fashion sense generally.
Aren't *all* ties unnecessary by definition - apart from those used to hold
up trousers, of course?
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.
Craig Cockburn
Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk> writes
>oddspace wrote:
>
>> I do notice a lot of uncessesary ties in scotland, especially since the
>> people here have such bad fashion sense generally.
>
>Aren't *all* ties unnecessary by definition - apart from those used to hold
>up trousers, of course?
>
Craig Cockburn
<cr...@SiliconGlen.com> writesOnly 18% going for the "wear a tie" options at the moment, keep up the
voting!
Angus Creech
> I've shared an office with him.
> Fortunately, I was two desks away.
You could always get your revenge by eating curry and drinking Guinness.
Angus
Emas Refugee
> In article <98f13f40.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> Emas Refugee <ema...@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Seems that some people wear
> >> suits every day because it means they don't have a clue what to wear
> >> otherwise.
>
> >That applies equally to the jeans and t-shirt brigade.
>
> Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing?
No, but there seems to be an attitude in the jeans and t-shirt brigade
that says "Look at us, we're all individuals" and an equally
wrong-headed attitude amongst some viewers that buys into this
viewpoint. Changing one uniform for another does not make you a daring
iconoclast, no matter how trendy you think you are.
Of course people who take jobs in companies with dress codes and then
write letters to the paper complaining that they are uncomfortable in
their suits need to either a) Get a new job or b) Get a better suit.
Reginald Molehusband
He got his revenge by wearing the same faded 'Dire Straits' t-shirt
every day, without fail. The fact that it was faded suggests it may
have seen a washing machine at some point in its life, but it could
have been no more than a distant memory for it.
Angus Creech
> No, but there seems to be an attitude in the jeans and t-shirt brigade
> that says "Look at us, we're all individuals" and an equally
> wrong-headed attitude amongst some viewers that buys into this
> viewpoint. Changing one uniform for another does not make you a daring
> iconoclast, no matter how trendy you think you are.
I think the point is, you have the choice of the uniform. People are
nothing, if not conformists; so let them conform in the most comfortable
fashion possible. And suits are minging anyway, so there.
Angus
Angus Creech
> He got his revenge by wearing the same faded 'Dire Straits' t-shirt
> every day, without fail. The fact that it was faded suggests it may
> have seen a washing machine at some point in its life, but it could
> have been no more than a distant memory for it.
<sad eighties joke>
Re-re-wear, not fade away?
</sad eighties joke>
Angus
Sandy Dunlop
> In message <7IGlKtEe...@SiliconGlen.com>, Craig Cockburn
> <cr...@SiliconGlen.com> writes
>>>
>>I hope you've all been voting in the poll
>>http://www.siliconglen.com/#poll
>>
> Only 18% going for the "wear a tie" options at the moment, keep up the
> voting!
I fall into the "Can wear polo shirt, chinos, formal shoes (business
casual)" category - the second most popular with 17 votes, but I don't
often meet customers so normally jeans, t-shirt and vans.
--
sandy dunlop
www.sandyd.org.uk
Outgoing mail is certified virus free thanks to Linux - http://www.gnu.org/
Robert Peffers
"Graeme Dods" <dod...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:59655c11.02111...@posting.google.com...
Which Edinburgh was that? Conversely what Livingston?. When I lived just a
couple of miles from Livingston Edinburgh was just 11 miles away and the AA
quotes it as 13.5 miles from Edinburgh to the Lizzie Bryce roundabout.
Alan Brown
> Which Edinburgh was that? Conversely what Livingston?. When I lived just a
> couple of miles from Livingston Edinburgh was just 11 miles away and the
AA
> quotes it as 13.5 miles from Edinburgh to the Lizzie Bryce roundabout.
> --
>
I have driven past through that roundabout many times but nobody I meet can
tell who Lizzie Bryce was.
Anyone know?
alan
Helen Ramsay
"Alan Brown" <alanw...@lineone.net> wrote
That was easy:)
http://www.wlonline.org.uk/site/living/library/local/lizzie.htm
"Who was Lizzie Bryce?
Around the year 1860, a gaunt old woman might have been seen outside a
whitewashed cottage not far from Calder House, feeding a few cows on the
narrow piece of land known as Raw Strip.
Who was she, and how does she come to have a modern-day pub and a busy
roundabout named after her?"
Read on Macduff!
Cheers, Helen
Mark Cairney
>
> No, but there seems to be an attitude in the jeans and t-shirt brigade
> that says "Look at us, we're all individuals" and an equally
Altogether now...Yes, we ARE all individuals (bad and dare I say it rather
obvious Monty Python reference)
Mark
Graeme Dods
> Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
> Which Edinburgh was that? Conversely what Livingston?. When I lived just a
> couple of miles from Livingston Edinburgh was just 11 miles away and the AA
> quotes it as 13.5 miles from Edinburgh to the Lizzie Bryce roundabout.
Edinburgh is more than just a singularity on a map, it is about 8-10
miles across (going by road). I live the other side of Edinburgh from
Livingston. Also, there is more to Livingston than just the Lizzie
Bryce roundabout (unfortunately). There's a good few square miles of
industrial estates and Barrat cardboard boxes :-)
Have fun!
Graeme
Emas Refugee
> I think the point is, you have the choice of the uniform.
The point of a uniform is that it removes the choice from the
individual. You can choose what uniform you wear by your choice of job
(Suit, Overalls, Gown and funny wig, etc.) but once you're in that
uniform you're just another one of the herd.
>And suits are minging anyway, so there.
And a Megadeth t-shirt that hasn't been washed for six weeks isn't?
alan
news:98f13f40.02111...@posting.google.com...
> Of course people who take jobs in companies with dress codes and then
> write letters to the paper complaining that they are uncomfortable in
> their suits need to either a) Get a new job or b) Get a better suit.
I made that mistake once, and rectified it fairly quickly thereafter. What
really pissed me off though was that men would be on disciplinary charges if
they took their tie off or unbuttoned a top button, whereas women walked
around in sleevelss dresses or t-shirts and leggings, and no-one said
anything about it. That sexism was really unacceptable, and was part of the
reason I left
regards,
/aln
Angus Creech
> The point of a uniform is that it removes the choice from the
> individual. You can choose what uniform you wear by your choice of job
> (Suit, Overalls, Gown and funny wig, etc.) but once you're in that
> uniform you're just another one of the herd.
So what should I do to become unique? Wear plus fours?
>>And suits are minging anyway, so there.
>
> And a Megadeth t-shirt that hasn't been washed for six weeks isn't?
<g>
On par with Dave Mustaine's hair.
I think you refer to sub-group of programmers, the ex-Goths. Forced to
get a hair cut and step out of their black leather breeks, they wreak
their revenge by smelling the place up. Other forms of torture include
inadequately sound-proofed headphones, a Sony Discman and a large
collection of Nine Inch Nail albums.
Angus
M Holmes
: Emas Refugee wrote:
:> The point of a uniform is that it removes the choice from the
:> individual. You can choose what uniform you wear by your choice of job
:> (Suit, Overalls, Gown and funny wig, etc.) but once you're in that
:> uniform you're just another one of the herd.
: So what should I do to become unique? Wear plus fours?
Whatever you like so long as it's not nudism. I have a sensitive stomach.
: Angus
Mike "Authoritarian" Holmes
M Holmes
: "Emas Refugee" wrote in message
Just wear t-shirt and leggings and take 'em to the EOC if they demur.
Of course I have a vested interest: ever since I heard that the folks at
the EOC have been whining that men have been making more complaints than
women and that's not what they're there to do, I've wanted to see 'em
quirm.
I dunno. Somewhere in this sensitive new age guy there must be an
unreconstructed male that failed re-education. Perhaps I should eat more
muesli.
FoFP
Angus Creech
Scarily, I was about to make the same comment - but I usually sit 10
feet away from Mike, it's best not to bait him. Which is hard not to do,
given his penchant for a certain crusty old progressive rock band..
Angus
Richard Caley
ap> men would be on disciplinary charges if
ap> they took their tie off or unbuttoned a top button, whereas women walked
ap> around in sleevelss dresses or t-shirts and leggings, and no-one said
ap> anything about it. That sexism was really unacceptable, and was part of the
ap> reason I left
Wouldn't it have been better to come in in a sleeveless dress and if
they do anything about it sue the pants (or skirt) off them. Basicly
why leave when you can be sacked and compensated.
--
Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
Charlie Stross
as <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> declared:
>: So what should I do to become unique? Wear plus fours?
>
> Whatever you like so long as it's not nudism. I have a sensitive stomach.
Ahem: I go nude to my office about half the time.
On the other hand the entrance to the said office is about four feet
from my the bedroom door, is centrally heated, and the only person likely
to barge in on me is someone I share a bed with anyway. (I tend to
wear clothes when I have to go out.)
Helpful tip: if you take to the nude office thing, avoid leather or
fake-leather furniture. Ouch.
-- Charlie "tasteless? Moi?" Stross
Jim Noble
news:slrnat5ac7....@raq981.uk2net.com.antipope.org
> Helpful tip: if you take to the nude office thing, avoid leather or
> fake-leather furniture. Ouch.
... also pull out keyboard drawers.
TTFN, Jim
Robert Peffers
"Helen Ramsay" <hra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_0iA9.10600$L47.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
I was born in a wee hamlet called Mid-Camps about a mile east on East
Calder. We lived in a small farm cottage with no electricity. We used dry
batteries and an accumulator to run our wireless set. The man who delivered
the batteries and accumulators was called Bryce and was reputed to be
related to Lizzie Bryce. However that was the extent of my knowledge of
Lizzie Bryce. Yir ae wee wonder Helen.
The naming of wee bits of farmland was a well established custom in the
area. I remember another bit of farmland known as, *Pat Docherty's*, by the
Clifton Road. I never found out just who Pat Docherty had been but did glean
some little information about a particularly gruesome unsolved axe murder
from some of the older people.
Robert Peffers
It is the custom to measure distance from Edinburgh as being from the GPO,
(do they still call it that?), at the end of Prince's Street. One must
assume the same would be true of Livingston.I used to cycle from Edinburgh
to 1 mile east of East Calder in a little over 20 minutes. Mind you there
was a lot less traffic, (and a few less roundabouts and traffic lights
etc.), back then.
Robert Peffers
"Richard Caley" <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87znsdw...@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
BTW:
Where does the engine fit in Software Engineering? While having the utmost
respect for the software writers I have to laugh at the term Engineer being
applied to the job. It is a bit like the TV menders who also called
themselves Engineers. After 50 years in electronics I have yet to find an
engine in a TV set.
Robert Peffers
And be very careful where you place your cup of hot coffee. The keyboard is
not the only vulnerable bit of equipment.
alan
news:aqtoa7$al3$2...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> Just wear t-shirt and leggings and take 'em to the EOC if they demur.
>
> Of course I have a vested interest: ever since I heard that the folks at
> the EOC have been whining that men have been making more complaints than
> women and that's not what they're there to do, I've wanted to see 'em
> quirm.
"Vested" interest - when talking about clothes... let us hope that was not
intentional...!
Anyway, the job was shaping up to be pretty uninspiringand the office was
an overheated dive - the clothing issue, while a major contributor to my
discontent, was not the only negative point. Under those circumstances, why
go out of your way to gain a reputation as a troublemaker? The Scottsh
software industry is small enough that reputations can quickly be gained and
spread (and it's smaller now, worse luck :-( )
I'd agre with your sentiments about the EOC, however
regards,
/alan
alan
Where does the engine fit in Software Engineering? While having the utmost
> respect for the software writers I have to laugh at the term Engineer
being
> applied to the job. It is a bit like the TV menders who also called
> themselves Engineers. After 50 years in electronics I have yet to find an
> engine in a TV set.
Must be the same engine as civil engineers use - though I've met many who
were considerably less than civil!
> *The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.pffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
Is this an intentional mis-spelling of your websites address (not intended
as a sarky comment; it may well be deliberately mis-spelled to stop address
harvesting)?
regards,
/alan
Craig Cockburn
<alan_...@hotmail.com> writes
The scenario you describe was certainly true at Scottish Amicable, many
years after the Sex Discrimination Act was put into place.
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). SiliconGlen.com Ltd. http://SiliconGlen.com
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish FAQ, wedding info, travel, search tools, stop spam and more!
Craig Cockburn
Refugee <ema...@lycos.co.uk> writes
>
>Of course people who take jobs in companies with dress codes and then
>write letters to the paper complaining that they are uncomfortable in
>their suits need to either a) Get a new job or b) Get a better suit.
how about people who take a job in a company with no dress code at all
then are told after two years that they must wear a shirt, tie and
trousers pressed down the front for doing the same job they used to do
in jeans and a t-shirt. This change imposed with no negotiation or
changes in official terms and conditions of employment and no
compensation and the only reason for the change is because their
physical address of work has changed to one with different dress codes.
Angus Creech
> Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
> BTW:
> Where does the engine fit in Software Engineering? While having the utmost
> respect for the software writers I have to laugh at the term Engineer being
> applied to the job. It is a bit like the TV menders who also called
> themselves Engineers. After 50 years in electronics I have yet to find an
> engine in a TV set.
Canadian engineers are kicking up a stink over MCSE certificated spanner
monkeys calling themselves engineers. Apparently you have to have a
P.Eng in before you can do that.
( http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/28040.html )
Perhaps academic researchers should moan about GPs?
Angus
alan
news:ahZ9wCH+...@SiliconGlen.com...
> The scenario you describe was certainly true at Scottish Amicable, many
> years after the Sex Discrimination Act was put into place.
I didn't know ou had worked at ScotAm! I've got quite a few friends who
used to work there - and some who still do (though it's now the Prudential).
Come to think of it, I've got a wife who worked there!
regards,
/alan
alan
> how about people who take a job in a company with no dress code at all
> then are told after two years that they must wear a shirt, tie and
> trousers pressed down the front for doing the same job they used to do
> in jeans and a t-shirt. This change imposed with no negotiation or
> changes in official terms and conditions of employment and no
> compensation and the only reason for the change is because their
> physical address of work has changed to one with different dress codes.
regards,
/alan
Angus Creech
>
> how about people who take a job in a company with no dress code at all
> then are told after two years that they must wear a shirt, tie and
> trousers pressed down the front for doing the same job they used to do
> in jeans and a t-shirt. This change imposed with no negotiation or
> changes in official terms and conditions of employment and no
> compensation and the only reason for the change is because their
> physical address of work has changed to one with different dress codes.
As I understand, it's often a political decision.
Much the same as the whole flexitime argument, those who are customer
facing (sales, HR, etc.) have to be smart when dealing with clients, in
much the same way they have to be in 9-5 to man the phones. Allowing one
group in the company (software developers) extra privileges such as
wearing jeans, T-shirt, etc., and flexitime, can create resentment from
the majority.
I've worked in open-plan offices where programmers worked alongside
sales people, yet we weren't allowed dividers because it was said to be
"creating barriers between different teams", which is of course exactly
what we were trying to do for some bloody peace and quiet..
Angus
Richard Caley
rp> Where does the engine fit in Software Engineering?
Same place it does in Civil Engineering? The only time a fly-over has
an engine is when some daft bugger embeds his car in it.
I agree it's a silly title, but not because engineer implies an engine
anymore.
A car mechanic is not an engineer dispite being surrounded by engines
every day.
Richard Caley
ac> Perhaps academic researchers should moan about GPs?
Everyone knows medics fake it from insecurity. That's why surgeons
don't feel the need to, all those knices prop up their egoes enough already.
Richard Caley
ac> Much the same as the whole flexitime argument, those who are customer
ac> facing (sales, HR, etc.) have to be smart when dealing with
ac> clients,
Again, this is confusing smart with a particular enforced dress
code. Clearly it is possible to be smart without being in a suit,
equally clearly lots of people look far from smart when poured into a
suit.
It's not about `smart'. It's about depersonalisation.
Angus Creech
> Again, this is confusing smart with a particular enforced dress
> code. Clearly it is possible to be smart without being in a suit,
> equally clearly lots of people look far from smart when poured into a
> suit.
>
> It's not about `smart'. It's about depersonalisation.
I am not allowed a colloquialism or two? Bollocks depersonalisation.
That may be the result, but it's simply being done because that is what
clients in certain businesses prefer.
Angus
alan
> I am not allowed a colloquialism or two? Bollocks depersonalisation.
> That may be the result, but it's simply being done because that is what
> clients in certain businesses prefer.
There is an argument that employees may be asked to wear a specific costume
when meeting clients. Fair enough - it's just like an actor being on stage.
But when emplyees are not meeting clients, I disagree with an employer
enforcing a specific dress code upon the employees.
regards,
/alan
Craig Cockburn
Creech <cre...@tardis.ed.ac.uk.nospam> writes
Jeremy C B Nicoll
Angus Creech <cre...@tardis.ed.ac.uk.nospam> wrote:
> Much the same as the whole flexitime argument, those who are customer
> facing (sales, HR, etc.) have to be smart when dealing with clients, in
> much the same way they have to be in 9-5 to man the phones. Allowing
> one group in the company (software developers) extra privileges such
> as wearing jeans, T-shirt, etc., and flexitime, can create resentment
> from the majority.
And do the customer-facing people also have to work through the night,
often at the weekend, and get rung up in the small hours when something
falls over? No.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Angus Creech
> And do the customer-facing people also have to work through the night,
> often at the weekend, and get rung up in the small hours when something
> falls over? No.
Been there, got the T-shirt; couldn't wear it though. <g>
Angus
Richard Caley
ac> I am not allowed a colloquialism or two?
Only if you have permission rom your line manager.
ac> Bollocks depersonalisation. That may be the result, but it's
ac> simply being done because that is what clients in certain
ac> businesses prefer.
They prefer to deal with depersonalised units rather than people. See
also burger flipper uniforms. That's what clients in the burger
business prefer (as expressed by sales of burgers), they would rather
not hink of what an acne ridden minimum wage slave does when
confronted with raw food, so it's best to hide the fact that they are
dealing with a person as far as is possible.
Suits on salesbods, no different.
Angus Creech
> ac> I am not allowed a colloquialism or two?
>
> Only if you have permission rom your line manager.
:p
> They prefer to deal with depersonalised units rather than people. See
> also burger flipper uniforms. That's what clients in the burger
> business prefer (as expressed by sales of burgers), they would rather
> not hink of what an acne ridden minimum wage slave does when
> confronted with raw food, so it's best to hide the fact that they are
> dealing with a person as far as is possible.
Wrong. Businessmen wear suits, and by wearing one you fulfill a
stereotype. It's expected. Many may not care, but then suppose that one
client has 100 grand he's willing to invest in a project for your
company. If you don your jeans before you head into the meeting, you
risk fulfilling another, negative, stereotype - judgements may be formed
with your (to him) scruffy attire as a basis.
Angus
Richard Caley
ac> Wrong. Businessmen wear suits, and by wearing one you fulfill a
ac> stereotype. It's expected.
yes, they expect a front person for the company, not a person.
ac> Many may not care, but then suppose that one client has 100 grand
ac> he's willing to invest in a project for your company. If you don
ac> your jeans before you head into the meeting, you risk fulfilling
ac> another, negative, stereotype - judgements may be formed with your
ac> (to him) scruffy attire as a basis.
Equally, if I put on my suit, I fit the steriotypeof someone who has
obviously been forced into a suit and so is effectively lieing to the
customer.
So maybe (shock) it would be better to demand that people who deal
with outsiders dress smartly.
The average in-a-suit-cos-of-a-dress-code bod doesn't look smart, they
look silly. If you demanded that they look presentable they would mak
a better impression.
Emas Refugee
> how about people who take a job in a company with no dress code at all
> then are told after two years that they must wear a shirt, tie and
> trousers pressed down the front for doing the same job they used to do
> in jeans and a t-shirt. This change imposed with no negotiation or
> changes in official terms and conditions of employment and no
> compensation and the only reason for the change is because their
> physical address of work has changed to one with different dress codes.
Well they can shut up and wear a suit or leave.
Simon Brooke
> Craig Cockburn wrote:
>>
>> how about people who take a job in a company with no dress code at all
>> then are told after two years that they must wear a shirt, tie and
>> trousers pressed down the front for doing the same job they used to do
>> in jeans and a t-shirt. This change imposed with no negotiation or
>> changes in official terms and conditions of employment and no
>> compensation and the only reason for the change is because their
>> physical address of work has changed to one with different dress codes.
>
> As I understand, it's often a political decision.
>
> I've worked in open-plan offices where programmers worked alongside
> sales people, yet we weren't allowed dividers because it was said to be
> "creating barriers between different teams", which is of course exactly
> what we were trying to do for some bloody peace and quiet..
... and how the fsck you're supposed to get any real work done with sales
people gibbering about all the time is completely beyond me. Separate
buildings is better, separate buildings in different places is best.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
There's nae Gods, an there's precious few heroes
but there's plenty on the dole in th Land o th Leal;
And it's time now, tae sweep the future clear o
th lies o a past that we know wis never real.
Alan S. Crowe
> depersonalisation. That may be the result, but it's
> simply being done because that is what clients in certain
> businesses prefer.
Does this ever get put to the test? Consider this scenario,
the economy is booming (happy memories) so you go to your
client and explain: The job market is tight. The good staff
prefer a relaxed dress code, and are moving to companies
that offer it. You can only continue to provide staff in
suits if you pay more to compensate, ie suits cost
money. Will the client come up with 10% more money to keep
getting staff in suits or will he tolerate a relaxation of
the dress code?
My judgement is that clients are very happy to accept free
gifts. You tell them that having suited staff is valuable
and, provided you offer this gratis, they are happy to nod
and say yes, it is wonderful to see suited professional
looking staff. If however you attempt to monetize this
benefit, and seek higher rates from customers who meet staff
in suits compared to those who meet staff jeans and
tee-shirts, well,....
My guess is that only the crudest of vulgarity will do
justice to the negativity of the reaction from the client.
My conclusion is that dress codes are purely to flatter the
vanity of the managers, by having their subordinates dress
up like liveried servants. The clients are happy enough to
play along, provided they never see a price tag, but they
never pay a penny extra. The shareholders take a straight
loss, having to pay above the market rate for wages because
their managers have imposed a restriction on supply, to
those who will put up with a dress code.
Alan Crowe
Simon Brooke
> Wrong. Businessmen wear suits, and by wearing one you fulfill a
> stereotype. It's expected. Many may not care, but then suppose that one
> client has 100 grand he's willing to invest in a project for your
> company. If you don your jeans before you head into the meeting, you
> risk fulfilling another, negative, stereotype - judgements may be formed
> with your (to him) scruffy attire as a basis.
You will fulfill another stereotype, yes, but whether it's positive or
negative depends on the person you're meeting. People who made their money
in this industry won't invest in suits, so know your client.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'
Simon Brooke
> Where does the engine fit in Software Engineering? While having the utmost
> respect for the software writers I have to laugh at the term Engineer
> being applied to the job. It is a bit like the TV menders who also called
> themselves Engineers. After 50 years in electronics I have yet to find an
> engine in a TV set.
Engineering is not about making engines. Engines are things made by
Engineers. The French spelling 'ingeneur' indicates the root: an engineer
is someone who is ingenious. People who are ingenious make engines, and,
these days, also write software. It's also worth pointing out that the
original 'engines' were 'siege engines' - ballistae, trebuchets and so on -
and no more like car engines than like software.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; ... of course nothing said here will be taken notice of by
; the W3C. The official place to be ignored is on www-style or
; www-html. -- George Lund
Andrew MacCormack
> It is the custom to measure distance from Edinburgh as being from the GPO,
> (do they still call it that?), at the end of Prince's Street. One must
> assume the same would be true of Livingston.
Livingston doesn't have a GPO, or a Prince's Street... anyway, I thought
that measurements were taken from Waverly (which is nearly the same)...
but then would you measure to Livingston South or North stations? Let's
face,it: the "standard" distance is irrelevant if you live in Portobello
or Wester Hailes or if you're going to Deans or Kirkton...
> I used to cycle from Edinburgh
> to 1 mile east of East Calder in a little over 20 minutes. Mind you there
> was a lot less traffic, (and a few less roundabouts and traffic lights
> etc.), back then.
Did you cycle from the GPO? :-)
When I cycled from Queensferry to my work (south west corner of
Livingston) it took 1 hour to get to Pumpherston and another 30 minutes
to cross Livingston from there.
-- Andrew MacCormack and...@cadence.com
-- Senior Design Engineer Phone: +44 1506 595360
-- Cadence Design Foundry http://www.cadence.com/designfoundry
-- Alba Campus, Livingston EH54 7HH, UK Fax: +44 1506 595959
Ian Morrison
news:js9ca-...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk
> Engineering is not about making engines. Engines are things made by
> Engineers. The French spelling 'ingeneur' indicates the root: an engineer
> is someone who is ingenious. People who are ingenious make engines, and,
> these days, also write software. It's also worth pointing out that the
> original 'engines' were 'siege engines' - ballistae, trebuchets and so on -
> and no more like car engines than like software.
But one of the original posts in this thread referred to "software
engineers" going round to people's offices and fixing problems - surely
such people should be described as "software mechanics", not
"engineers"? Therefore Auld Bob is quite right - one does not generally
have to be particularly "ingenious" to fix the average PC problem.
------
Ian O.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Simon Brooke
> The entity currently known as Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> Angus Creech wrote:
>>
>> > I've worked in open-plan offices where programmers worked alongside
>> > sales people, yet we weren't allowed dividers because it was said to be
>> > "creating barriers between different teams", which is of course exactly
>> > what we were trying to do for some bloody peace and quiet..
>>
>> ... and how the fsck you're supposed to get any real work done with sales
>> people gibbering about all the time is completely beyond me. Separate
>> buildings is better, separate buildings in different places is best.
>
> Ah, you're Not A Team Player, then?
Got it in one.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Lusers are from Uranus.
Robert Peffers
> Robert Peffers wrote:
>
> > Where does the engine fit in Software Engineering? While having the
utmost
> > respect for the software writers I have to laugh at the term Engineer
> > being applied to the job. It is a bit like the TV menders who also
called
> > themselves Engineers. After 50 years in electronics I have yet to find
an
> > engine in a TV set.
>
> Engineering is not about making engines. Engines are things made by
> Engineers.
> The French spelling 'ingeneur' indicates the root: an engineer
> is someone who is ingenious.
Aye! Right!
> People who are ingenious make engines, and,
> these days, also write software.
Nope! Engineers make, work or or operate engines.
> It's also worth pointing out that the
> original 'engines' were 'siege engines' - ballistae, trebuchets and so
on -
> and no more like car engines
The only one mentioning car engines is you.I just said, *engine*, without
any further definition.
>. than like software.
>
> --
> si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
> ; ... of course nothing said here will be taken notice of by
> ; the W3C. The official place to be ignored is on www-style or
> ; www-html. -- George Lund
>
If you want the proper definition it is this:-
engine // n.
1 a mechanical contrivance consisting of several parts working together,
esp. as a source of power.
2 a a railway locomotive. b = fire engine. c = steam engine.
3 archaic a machine or instrument, esp. a contrivance used in warfare.
engined adj. (also in comb.).
engineless adj.
[Old French engin from Latin ingenium 'talent, device': cf. ingenious]
engineer // n. & v.
n.
1 a person qualified in a branch of engineering, esp. as a professional.
2 = civil engineer.
3 a a person who makes or is in charge of engines. b a person who maintains
machines; a mechanic; a technician.
4 N.Amer. an engine driver.
5 a person who designs and constructs military works; a soldier trained for
this purpose.
6 (foll. by of) a skilful or artful contriver.
v.
1 tr. arrange, contrive, or bring about, esp. artfully.
2 intr. act as an engineer.
3 tr. construct or manage as an engineer.
[Middle English via Old French engigneor from medieval Latin
ingeniator -oris, from ingeniare (as engine)]
engineering // n.
the application of science to the design, building, and use of machines,
constructions, etc.
Now then- do you still want to argue?
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),,
frae Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
In Kelty, *Kingdom Of Fife*,
Scotland, (UK).
b...@peffersspecs50.freeserve.co.uk
(Remove specs to make reply).
*The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
tom
Robert Peffers wrote:
Many apply the word engineer in its 19th century context.
In actual fact in the UK and a few other ignorant countries the definition
of an engineer is anybody who fixes your tv or photocopier or even
a plumber.
In highly developed countries such as Germany and France Engineers
are highly qualified professionals. For instance in Germany Engineering
is considered as a profession above even medicine - same for many other
countries. In the UK the minimum qualifictaion to be a chartered engineer
is now a masters degree from the good Universities. A first degree no
longer fits the bill. Many engineers have Ph.Ds too. Engineers design
things not fix. Yes they fix as they design and develop new technologies
and products but they do not fix people TVs. TV repairmen are probably better
at this as they do nothing else.
It was engineers who designed the first CD players and all the PCs,
periherals etc. The guy who fixes your pc could be anybody from
the 13 year old next door to some form of skilled technician.
Visit Taiwan and Singapore and see how competative it is to study to
become an engineer. In France there are special Ecoles who specialise
in training engineers and you have to have the highest marks to get into them.
Probably a bit like being a Vet in the UK.
Software engineering is a new (last decade or so) branch of the profession.
As for engines - a mechanical engineer will design an engine. A civil
will design a bridge, an electronic engineer will design the next generation
of bluetooth technology and so on.Engineers also 'invent' though that term
is a little dated too as big teams are involved and hence many names on the
patents.
Professional Engineer
Technician Engineer
Technician
Electrician/Repair man
Plumber
in the pecking order...
Tom
Glenallan
"Robert Peffers" <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ar101m$6nc$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:js9ca-...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> > Robert Peffers wrote:
> > > Where does the engine fit in Software Engineering? While having the
> If you want the proper definition it is this:-
<snipped>
> engineering // n.
> the application of science to the design, building, and use of machines,
> constructions, etc.
>
> Now then- do you still want to argue?
> --
> Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),,
> frae Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
> In Kelty, *Kingdom Of Fife*,
> Scotland, (UK).
> b...@peffersspecs50.freeserve.co.uk
> (Remove specs to make reply).
>
> *The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
--------------
Well...maybe....
Here are my comments 2 years ago on this very topic.
They are still refresshingly appropriate. ;-)
From: Glenallan (robert...@lineone.net)
Subject: Re: Engineers
View: Complete Thread (13 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.scottish.clans, soc.culture.scottish
Date: 2000-12-04 05:46:36 PST
Engineers
Striking off in a different direction, as is my custom, it is interesting to
note these comments on the 'Engineer', unsung hero of the 20th century.
It is seldom an observation that is made, but it is an undoubted truth, that
the Engineer has done more than any other single profession to change the
world. More even than the architect, the Engineer has penetrated every
aspect of human life.
It is the Engineer, who in the future will be the hope and rescuer of the
human race. It is his unsung ingenuity which will find that solutions to
the problems of technology which beset the world. In the field of rapid
transport the effect of the engineer is obvious. In the medical and
clinical professions it is the engineer who will bring the new biological
sciences to impact directly on humanity.
Even in our built environment it is to the Engineer that we will
increasingly look for economical solutions to the housing needs of a largely
impoverished planet. In the context of delivering food to the planet, it is
more and more to the engineer that we will look for the solutions to the
problems of water supply and land management.
Even in the high-gloss areas of our shopping malls, the environment nearly
always owes more to the deliberations of Engineers than any other single
group. The elevator for example is an engineering creation. The very
structure of these cathedrals of our economic prosperity is an engineering
creation.
In the United Kingdom as a whole, the Engineer is the unsung hero of the
nation's development. It is a profession, in which the arts, sciences and
crafts, are welded together in a unifying whole.
Fortunately, through the influence on the Engineering Council and the 50
plus engineering institutions in United Kingdom the engineering profession
is slowly moving toward the recognition, which is its due.
Engineering with all it's diverse, disciplines is perhaps the most
underrated of all of the professions. Too often the popular view of this
profession is of someone wielding a 10-pound hammer. It is seldom realised
that a heart valve is an engineering creation or that the dialysis machine
is
an engineering creation or that the scanner in the medical profession is
also an engineering creation
Engineers are indeed our hope for the future.
Regards
Glenallan - Engineer.
--------------------
Glenallan
"Robert Peffers" <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ar101m$6nc$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Now then- do you still want to argue?
> --
> Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),,
> frae Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
> In Kelty, *Kingdom Of Fife*,
> Scotland, (UK).
> b...@peffersspecs50.freeserve.co.uk
> (Remove specs to make reply).
>
> *The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
With respect to the actual dress code for Engineers,
I have always found that a Lamont tartan tie, variously
encrusted with soup or grease from a Tunnock's pie,
together with a small hole in the arse of your troosers
is sufficient to convey to all that you are in fact
a 'professional engineer'.
Glenallan
---------
User
wrote:
If I worked with you, I think I would have left a long time ago.
But anyway, exactly the same situation was forced upon us where I used
to work a couple of years ago. The dept I worked in was 'smart casual'
then we were told we must wear 'suitable business attire' - ie a suit.
We all moaned but went along with it - some enterprising individual
took it up with the union. It transpired that there was no official
uniform for us and we were pretty much free to wear what we liked.
So we did.
The reason I hate wearing a tie is it serves no purpose other than to
constrict the neck and make it feel like you are wearing a leash.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Emas Refugee
>
Isn't that the whole point of Usenet?
Graeme Dods
> It is the custom to measure distance from Edinburgh as being from the GPO,
> (do they still call it that?), at the end of Prince's Street. One must
> assume the same would be true of Livingston.
Fair enough, that is how things are (were?) done when measuring
distances between towns, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with
how far I had to cycle from where I live in Edinburgh to where I
worked in Livingston. Your argument for my initial statement being
wrong is rather strange.
Graeme
Graeme Dods
> Nope! Engineers make, work or or operate engines.
*then*
> engineer // n. & v.
> n.
> 1 a person qualified in a branch of engineering, esp. as a professional.
> 2 = civil engineer.
> 3 a a person who makes or is in charge of engines. b a person who maintains
> machines; a mechanic; a technician.
> 4 N.Amer. an engine driver.
> 5 a person who designs and constructs military works; a soldier trained for
> this purpose.
> 6 (foll. by of) a skilful or artful contriver.
Don't you read what you went to the bother of copying (or maybe typing
in) from the dictionary. Your definition above only matches definition
3. The other arguments in this thread in support of terms such as
"software engineer" are backed up by definition 1 combined with-
> engineering // n.
> the application of science to the design, building, and use of machines,
> constructions, etc.
But then again, you possibly also have a very narrow definition of
"machine" or "construction" too. Plus that "etc." is a wonderful catch
all.
> Now then- do you still want to argue?
Yep :-)
Have fun!
Graeme
Charlie Stross
as <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> declared:
> ac> Perhaps academic researchers should moan about GPs?
>
> Everyone knows medics fake it from insecurity. That's why surgeons
> don't feel the need to, all those knices prop up their egoes enough already.
It's a bit more complex than that: the surgeons started out as
hairdressers -- back when you barber also pulled your teeth when
they rotted and chopped off your leg with a saw when you got
gangrene. The medics started out as something far more respectable,
and neither bunch got on with the apothecaries (pharmacists). Fast-
forward to the 19th century and you had snobbish medical doctors
insisting that surgeons were just "mister". Add anaesthesia and
aseptic procedures and a rising survival rate and suddenly those
"misters" actually turned out to do something a bit more intricate
than your average hog butcher. At which point the snobbery suddenly
inverted ...
-- Charlie
alan
news:slrnatakqj....@raq981.uk2net.com.antipope.org...
> Fast-
> forward to the 19th century and you had snobbish medical doctors
> insisting that surgeons were just "mister".
Now, I read somewhere (can't remember the source) that "Mr" for surgeons
came from terminology aboard naval ships, where the ship's surgeon was "Mr"
because that was how officers addressed one another...
regards,
/alan
Richard Caley
cs> Fast- forward to the 19th century and you had snobbish medical
cs> doctors insisting that surgeons were just "mister".
But medical `doctors' never were doctors. (well, clearly a few would
have had doctorates, but that was independent of them being
physicians).
The reason the status inverted is that the surgeons went directly from
too disrespected to be able to pretend to be doctors to too respected
to need to. Physicians hung around in the no mans land between.
Maybe `they' should declare that physicians shall be entitled to call
themselves doctor iff they can provide references to scientific
studies backing every treatment they suggest, that would raise an
interesting storm:-).