Kilted Bus Driver

[Jock Scot]

I have noticed that many coach drivers of the local(Scottish) tour bus industry here, wear the kilt almost as a matter of course these days. It has been a noticeably common trend over the last five years or so.

[Crazy Dave]

Good point about "paying attention to the roads". Safety should always be a prime concern with regards to public transportation. I might be a little jaded from living in Washington D.C., where often, people don't even seem to notice when I'm wearing a kilt. However, distracted driving in general is a huge problem here.

Dave

[plaid preacher]

I am decidedly of two minds about this. Anyone who knows me, knows that I am all about the rules and dressing in the uniform without adornment. I also can't back this fellow's argument that it was some sort of discrimination. However, when you have a day when you say "the uniform doesn't apply" then it is completely disingenuous to tell someone that their attire "does not comply with the uniform". You have told your employees that they do not need to comply with the uniform. And I cannot see how wearing a kilt would get in the way of carrying out his duties. He is driving a bus, not climbing ladders or anything that would put his performance at risk.

So I don't believe that is complaint to the human rights commission was valid, but I I also think the bus company is being a little too "selective" and taking a day that was supposed to be fun and being a little heavy handed. It they have a problem with what people wear - then they should make their employees wear a uniform; no exceptions.

[plaid preacher]

I am decidedly of two minds about this.&nbsp; &nbsp;Anyone who knows me, knows that I am all about the rules and dressing in the uniform without adornment.&nbsp; I also can't back this fellow's argument that it was some sort of discrimination.&nbsp; However, when you have a day when you say "the uniform doesn't apply" then it is completely disingenuous to tell someone that their attire "does not comply with the uniform".&nbsp; You have told your employees that they do not need to comply with the uniform.&nbsp; And I cannot see how wearing a kilt would get in the way of carrying out his duties.&nbsp; He is driving a bus, not climbing ladders or anything that would put his performance at risk.<br><br>So I don't believe that is complaint to the human rights commission was valid, but I I also think the bus company is being a little too "selective" and taking a day that was supposed to be fun and being a little heavy handed.&nbsp; It they have a problem with what people wear - then they should make their employees wear a uniform; no exceptions.

[Karl R]

I'm also of two minds regarding this. Since we haven't seen the "relaxed dress code," the specific details are unknown to us. And this is the kind of situation where the devil is in the details.

For example, a dress code could permit hats, but explicitly forbid wearing a kippah/yarmulke. Since the kippah/yarmulke is typically worn by members of one religion/ethnicity, the rule would be clearly singling out those individuals. Someone could argue that the rule isn't discriminatory, but I would find that argument unconvincing.

On the other hand, a relaxed dress code might forbid any bare-midriff attire. That rule would prevent someone from wearing a sari (in the traditional manner), but it wouldn't be specifically targeted at the attire of one ethnic group.

The casual dress code at my office doesn't permit kilts ... and it doesn't mention kilts at all. However, it seems that "the bus line had previously made it clear to employees that kilts were off-limits on casual Fridays." That sounds like kilts were specifically mentioned as verboten. If that's the case....

I'm also not buying the "kilt is a distraction" argument. I was driving in a kilt yesterday. It didn't distract me at all. If someone was asking me questions about my kilt, that would be distracting. However, buses generally have clearly posted rules forbidding passengers from distracting the bus operator while the bus is in motion. A kilted bus driver can simply point to that rule and not answer questions while driving.

[AFS1970]

I want to side with the bus driver in this case, at least from an emotional standpoint. I just can't because (as others have pointed out) he seems like he just wants to cause trouble. Two things jump out at me in his arguments, first being that he says he wears the kilt on special occasions, yet is arguing that it should be considered casual closing. Seems like direct opposites to me. Second he lumps in national dress with religious dress, which a kilt is certainly not a part of. He doesn't seem to mention any other national dress which is specifically allowed as part of casual Friday, which if he could, would seem to make his perceived discrimination a bit more real.

[WillowEstate]

I don't want to put the cat among the pigeons but I'm with the company on this. In a jurisdiction where company dress codes and uniforms are not illegal, as in this case, then if the company allows "Casual Fridays" then clearly, it is not illegal for it to impose some boundaries to how casual casual can be. In most organizations, where the concept of casual Fridays is introduced, you will find that there is a definition of what is permitted. Typically, a company might state that it should be smart casual; torn jeans, logo T-shirts, flip-flops are typically forbidden, as is anything the organization, for whatever reason, considers dangerous or damaging to its image. It's very common that such relaxations are limited to non customer facing staff.

In this case, the bus company has ruled that kilts are not permitted, presumably along with other items - mini-skirts for the lady drivers maybe. Perhaps they think that a kilt would be restricting in the case of an accident or a passenger being taken ill. We don't know but it is the company's decision and had been clearly stated.

If our hapless driver decided that this was unacceptable and, it seems, he just wanted to cause trouble, then his correct course of action should have been not to go running off to court but to take the issue to company management and human resources and discuss the matter there. Deliberately defying the company instruction is not the way. If he could not come to an agreement with the company, then it would be his choice whether to comply with the restriction or resign and find a more accommodating organization.

We've had similar discussions in this forum in the past about wearing kilts to an interview or as regular, if unconventional work attire and the consensus has always been that the job is more important than throwing it away on your attire. I see this case in the same light. Your mileage may, of course, vary.