José Abeto Zaide By José Abeto Zaide   The French would just say, “Vive la difference!” But across the channel, the ERA may take a different turn. Besides tackling the issue, the British parliament has yet to give a verdict on the corporate practice that women wear high heels and dye their hair blonde. Nicola Thorpe, a part-time actress in between jobs, soon after started a petition to make required high heels illegal in company dress codes on the grounds of discrimination. It has since amassed 79,191 signatures and counting. Ms. Thorp said after she launched the petition that “dress codes should reflect society.” “Twenty years ago, women weren’t allowed to wear trousers in the same role that I’m doing now,” she said. “And it’s only because some women spoke up about that and said, ‘We feel like we have a right to wear trousers,’ that that’s changed.” Women may wear trousers, but men still wear the pants in the family. The College of Podiatry told the committee that women who wear high heels for long periods have “reduced balance, reduced ankle flexion, and weaker muscle power in the calf” and are prone to disabling pain. In London’s financial district on Monday, many workers felt that companies were entitled to impose dress codes but that mandatory high heels went too far. She says: “A lot of things are enforced, but high heels in particular because that can also be a health issue for people. I think that’s unnecessary,” said company director Penelope Mantzaris. He says: banker Dan Matthews said his company expected men to wear suits and ties “and I think that’s a fair request. So I suppose it’s fairly contradictory in a way, because in one respect I’m saying that we men should be required to wear a suit and tie but women shouldn’t wear high heels. But I think that’s just where the line happens to be at the moment.” But now the firm Portico released a statement updating their rules. The change comes after Simon Pratt, managing director of Portico, said he was committed to reviewing the uniform guidelines. What will the current high heels debate ultimately mean for employers? The resounding conclusion of the British parliamentary Joint Committee following its investigation into Nicola Thorpe’s online petition objecting to workplace requirements for high heels: “Are we really still in an age where dress codes in the workplace are sexist and operate to place woman at a disadvantage?” The press has focused on the sexual objectification of women through being asked to wear high heels, dye their hair blonde, or wear revealing clothes in the workplace. Whatever the specific complaint is, the message is clear: inequalities in dress codes are still a live issue. For some reason or another, this is believed to be good for corporate morale. The pressure is on the government to ensure that the protection offered by the Equality Act 2010 is available to employees in practice, and that employers are held accountable for any breaches of the law in a proportionate way. The findings of the Joint Committee are overwhelmingly that employers are happy to risk non-compliance due to the minimal consequences for doing so. However, the Joint Committee report recommendations require significant changes to the Equality Act 2010 which we believe are unlikely to happen solely due to pressure exerted from dress code legislation. Reductio ad absurdum, when no one is looking, the next thing that will happen is that the tansgenders will also take the initiate to wear high heels. Never mind the blonde hair. *** Rx: On my account about “Planting rice is never fun,” Dr. J. P. Ruffy gave feedback: “According to new British research using 3-D optical tracking equipment, the correct posture could protect gardeners and farmers from chronic injury and slash their risk of joint disease. Poor technique (a deep forward bed at the waist and fully extended arms) increases the load on the lower back by 50% and doubles the shoulder pressure. Over time, pressures on these regions contribute to chronic pain and raise the risk of injury and osteoarthritis (a degenerative joint disease that develops when the cartilege between joints breaks down). Bending knees is the better solution. This finding may be passed on to the Department of Agriculture and the Departmet of Health with the expectation that it will increase productivity and reduce infirmity.   FEEDBACK: [email protected]