Petition for the Rejection of Team Member Uniforms sign now

To those proposing an enforced uniform, effective February 20th 2011, for all Value Village, Savers, and Village des Valeurs employees;

The Team Members of store 2038, at Bloor St. and Lansdowne Ave. in Toronto, Canada, and others, would like to make it known to their employers that the enforcement of uniforms has not been received with positive notice. The undersigned do not comprehend the rationale behind the enforcement of this new policy due to several outlined reasons:

1. Team Members are immediately identifiable by coworkers and customers by their red vests and need no further distinguishing as Value Village employees.

2. Many Team Members rely on the convenience of wearing their clothes they wore to school, family gatherings, second jobs, etc. Leaving uniforms at work would entail the installment of necessary gendered changerooms to avoid time mismanagement, rather than the one-person washroom currently available.

3. A major customer attraction to the store is its unique and vintage finds. Logic would indicate that having employees dress in their best thrift finds would reflect some of the greatest attributes of the store. As it is many Team Members encourage sales by acting as advertisements for the products that can be found. To require us to blandly and uniformly dress is to remove this valuable part of store promotion.

4. We feel that this false attempt at "professionalism" will foster feelings of repression, authoritarian victimization, and neglect for employee opinion among the Team Members. An angry worker that feels enslaved will ultimately affect production and sales in a negative way. This seems to eliminate any profit that might for some reason be gained because employees are wearing uniforms.

5. A sense of freedom and goodwill towards the company is gained simply because of the relaxed working atmosphere and the lack of such authoritarian corporate symbols as dress codes. The enforcement of such can produce a feeling of suffocation in a marketplace that is generally viewed as casual and accepting of personalities and tastes across the spectrum. This should be reflected in employee attire. A tuxedo at a monster truck rally doesn't belong: dress pants and a collared blouse in a high-intensity, highly physical thrift store salesclerk position don't quite belong either.

6. The company would lose thirty dollars in potential sales per worker for uniforms, which may not offer them more than one working outfit. Workers are therefore required to pay the difference from their own pocket or pay the extra laundering costs in order to meet hygenic standards laid out by the company. These are unfair costs to pass down to loyal employees, and will not be appreciated, again negatively influencing production and output.

7. To enforce a more professional image may alienate some customers, especially those who appreciate the low-budget atmosphere of the store. Somebody living in less-than-desirable conditions may be turned off our brand of thrift store due to the posh appearance of its workers. The workers themselves will feel alienated from the customers, visually and socially segragated by enforcing us to uphold certain high-class values in a place that welcomes all classes.

8. We collectively deal with many various hardships during our shifts. Uniforms will complicate things for everybody. Their introduction will lead to a loss of money for many employees who exceed their scanty credit limit, which is not fair to ask of non-unionized minimum wage workers. The policy will create tension between management staff, who must enforce uniforms, and their employees, who may encounter instances when they don't have an acceptable uniform (due to financial or time contraints). The enforcement of uniforms will add to the stress workers feel on a daily basis.

We, the Team Members of Value Village #2038, and others oppose the policy of enforced uniforms on these premises. Please recognize that your employees feel that the costs of implementing uniforms would largely outweigh the benefits, in both the case of the employee and the company itself.

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook sign_with_twitter
OR

If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and the password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.

Privacy in the search engines? You can use a nickname:

Attention, the email address you supply must be valid in order to validate the signature, otherwise it will be deleted.

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

Shoutbox

Who signed this petition saw these petitions too:

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook sign_with_twitter
OR

If you already have an account please sign in

Comment

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

Goal
0 / 50

Latest Signatures

No one has signed this petition yet

Information

Bobbie ChristianBy:
People and OrganizationsIn:
Petition target:
Head Office - Savers Inc.

Tags

No tags

Share

Invite friends from your address book

Embed Codes

direct link

link for html

link for forum without title

link for forum with title

Widgets