Tweet
Instead of getting defensive and assuming what I think, I suggest you READ what I think particularly my last post on this page:
Whether you like it or not, people do have to eat and put a roof over their head and certain hairstyles will limit their career opportunities. It's a fact and if you can't see that then you are even more of a bonehead than I thought.
It is irresponsible to say to young people "Wear your hair however you like and dress however you like and the doors of opportunity will still open for you." When I am on hiring panels, I fight for the best qualified candidate and believe you me the arguments do get heated but few people will do that. Most will just take the money and run. That is reality so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Some matters like natural vs natural hair can be fought through the courts, unions and human rights tribunals. If a style is really extreme, unless one can prove they require special accommodation on religious grounds like the Sikhs did in Canada, there isn't a hope in hell that they will win.
So far, I don't believe any Rastafarians have been successful in winning cases not in America, Canada, Jamaica or even Africa. There was a partial victory here in South Africa:
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/why-rastafarians-cant-be-fired-for-wearing-dreadlocks
Partial because while the court rules as follows:
It did not address the underling issue:
So nothing has really been clarified.
More details here: http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/dread...8#.Uqy8__RDvWg
There is another case pending in the USA and I think the gentleman has a good chance of winning that one due to his high level of experience in the industry and the fact that he suggested a reasonable accommodation that the company rejected. I posted about that in the other thread too.
So I repeat, the issue of locks in the workplace is NOT about natural hair....it goes beyond that.
Once again...don't assume and don't you dare speak for me. I do my own thinking and my own speaking. Seen?
Whether you like it or not, people do have to eat and put a roof over their head and certain hairstyles will limit their career opportunities. It's a fact and if you can't see that then you are even more of a bonehead than I thought.
It is irresponsible to say to young people "Wear your hair however you like and dress however you like and the doors of opportunity will still open for you." When I am on hiring panels, I fight for the best qualified candidate and believe you me the arguments do get heated but few people will do that. Most will just take the money and run. That is reality so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Some matters like natural vs natural hair can be fought through the courts, unions and human rights tribunals. If a style is really extreme, unless one can prove they require special accommodation on religious grounds like the Sikhs did in Canada, there isn't a hope in hell that they will win.
So far, I don't believe any Rastafarians have been successful in winning cases not in America, Canada, Jamaica or even Africa. There was a partial victory here in South Africa:
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/why-rastafarians-cant-be-fired-for-wearing-dreadlocks
Partial because while the court rules as follows:
But it did uphold the decision of the Labour Appeal Court that the dismissals were automatically unfair on the basis that it discriminated against the officers on the basis of religion, culture and gender.
Some of the dismissed officers based their claim on the fact that they were members of the Rastafarian religion, asserting that they wore dreadlocks as an outward manifestation of their religion – much like wearing a headscarf or a cross would be an outward manifestation of the religion of some Muslims or Christians.
Other officers gave cultural reasons for their hairstyle. One – Mr Ngqula – said he wore his dreadlocks to obey his ancestors’ call, given through dreams, to become a “sangoma” in accordance with his Xhosa culture. Another – Mr Kamlana – said he was instructed to wear his dreadlocks by his ancestors and did so to overcome “intwasa”, a condition understood in African culture as an injunction from the ancestors to become a traditional healer, from which he had suffered since childhood.
The dismissed officers were relying on section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act which states that a dismissal is automatically unfair when it is based on either direct or indirect unfair discrimination.
Some of the dismissed officers based their claim on the fact that they were members of the Rastafarian religion, asserting that they wore dreadlocks as an outward manifestation of their religion – much like wearing a headscarf or a cross would be an outward manifestation of the religion of some Muslims or Christians.
Other officers gave cultural reasons for their hairstyle. One – Mr Ngqula – said he wore his dreadlocks to obey his ancestors’ call, given through dreams, to become a “sangoma” in accordance with his Xhosa culture. Another – Mr Kamlana – said he was instructed to wear his dreadlocks by his ancestors and did so to overcome “intwasa”, a condition understood in African culture as an injunction from the ancestors to become a traditional healer, from which he had suffered since childhood.
The dismissed officers were relying on section 187(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act which states that a dismissal is automatically unfair when it is based on either direct or indirect unfair discrimination.
In Department of Correctional Services and Another v Popcru and Others, the SCA (in a judgment authored by Maya JA) did not comment on the specific cultural, racial and religious assumptions underlying this Code.
More details here: http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/dread...8#.Uqy8__RDvWg
There is another case pending in the USA and I think the gentleman has a good chance of winning that one due to his high level of experience in the industry and the fact that he suggested a reasonable accommodation that the company rejected. I posted about that in the other thread too.
So I repeat, the issue of locks in the workplace is NOT about natural hair....it goes beyond that.
Once again...don't assume and don't you dare speak for me. I do my own thinking and my own speaking. Seen?
and he shaves. :O He is happy for the extra money, believe you me. Thank God the sagging pants thing only lasted for one summer but even then, he wore trousers whenever he worked for me. When he is in a position to set up his own business then he can do whatever he likes. See what I wrote in the parenting section. 
A siginficant portion of the Japanese population is also descended from them something like 40%. That is why some Japanese can easily get their hair to locks.
It was part of Egypt from about 1500 BC. I cut and pasted to show you what you clearly don't know.
Comment