Even in the heat
7 out of 10 bosses still require ‘uniform1
By HENRY GILGOFF
(C) 1973, NEWDAY
You know the kind of day. A scorcher. A record
breaker. The kind of day a man might reasonably
hesitate before noosing up with a tie.
A daydreaming day about calling in sick and riding off
to the beach or just lounging in the backyard. A setting to
consider shaking up the office in a burst of boldness
simply by dressing casually and comfortably.
The moment passes. Tie goes on, followed by jacket,
and one more colored-collar worker falls in line with the
rest of the troops driving off to sectors of the business
world where the tie-and-jacket is still a mainstay.
Of course, not everybody has to wear the outfit. And
for those who do, styles change.
Still, a survey of 370 companies last year by the Ad
ministrative Management Society of Willow Grove, Pa.,
found that 71 per cent of the firms demanded ties and
jackets. The survey did not distinguish between sport
jackets and suits.
“Why don’t the men rebel more?” asked Ernest
Dichter, a psychologist and motivational expert, and
answered: “TTiey’re too much like sheep.”
Dichter is president of his own consulting firm, Ernest
Dichter Creativity, and he dresses as he chooses.
On the day of the interview, he was wearing check
pants with red, blue, yellow and white stripes, and a
short-sleeve shirt open at the collar. The shirt happened
to be white but, he said, that was understandable
because “my pants are very colorful. Last week, my
wife told me I look like a parrot.”
Decision-makers following a hard-line clothing policy,
implied or stated, might shrink from a consultation with
a psychologist who dresses like a parrot. But if they were
to listen, here is what Dichter would tell them ; “We
should modernize our views as to what is necessary to
maintain our dignity. If our dignity depends on a tie and
jacket, it’s phony dignity.”
But, doctor, what about productivity? Let men appear
relaxed at the job, and maybe they will not treat their
work seriously enough. Not so, said Dichter. Abandoning
jacket and tie rules “would influence the workers’
performance positively. It would break down the
barriers between leisure and work.
“In countries like Israel,” Dichter said, “everybody
walks around in shirt sleeves. Once the ambassador
from Israel went to a special reception in Ghana without
a tie and he was bawled out by the Ghanians. He was told
it showed a lack of respect. But the ambassador told
them, “no, I’m just being comfortable. You’re just
copying the habits of the white colonialists.”
But why insist on ties and jacket? “It’s an american
version of what the Germans used to believe in very
strongly—the uniform. It may have something to do with
a lack of security. It’s hiding behind your uniform.”
Dichter said also that “It’s a status symbol” that helps
to delineate levels of income.
What would happen today if an employe refused to
follow his boss’ views on clothing is a subject some
management did not want to discuss. A spokesman for
International Business Machines Corp. would not even
consider such a “hypothetical,’ query. (IBM, he em
phasized, does not have a specific, uniform dress code.
“Each manager is expected to establish dress standards
at each location,” he said. Which, considering the size of
IBM, is something akin to saying that the federal
government has decided that dress is a states’ rights
matter.)
One IBM employee agreed with the spokesman that
the compnay is not as regimented as, he said, “myth”
has portrayed it. “There was once a unofficial code,”
he said, “probably in the mid-1960’s when white shirts
were understood to be required.”
Now the computer makers are looser. Now men in
management simply understand that suits are generally
expected. “It’s suits,” the IBM employee said,
“definitely.”
Politicians worry: Is her hemline modest enough ?
By HARRY TRIMBRON
<C) 1973. The Los Angeles Times
JERUSALEM — The Arabs
threaten war. Consumers are
reeling under galloping inflation.
There’s an epidemic of strikes.
And tourism, the nation’s major
source of hard currency, has
fallen off.
Major problems all, but
probably the most talked about
issues these days are a
secretary’s mini-skirt and a
campaign in June called Modesty
Month, sponsored by the Com
mittee for the Defense of Holiness
in Israel.
These seemingly disparate
elements are part of a national
controversy over proper attire
for Israelis. And the controversy
has reached even the Knesset
(parliament), which is debating
whether to formulate a dress
rode for Knesset members,
employees, and visitors.
That the debate should arise is
something of a novelty, for
Israelis are among the most
casually dressed in the world.
Normal attire for businessmen is
• an open-necked sport shirt,
slacks and sandals. Many even
wear walking shorts to the office.
Israel is probably one of the
few places in the world where
wearing a tie is considered a
political statement. For the old
time socialist-minded Zionist
pioneers, the tie is a symbol of the
urban capitalist exploiter, un
worthy of encircling the sun
burned neck of the pioneer
engaged in nation-building.
Except for the orthodox, who
cling to their black frock coats
and other traditional dress (and
even many of them forgo the tie),
just about the only well known
Israeli who consistently wears a
tie is Foreign Minister Abba
Eban.
The cause of the Knesset
debate was Guela, an attractive
secretary for the Maki (com
mrnist) party. As the days got
b er, Guela’s skirts, like those
oi other young female knesset
employes, got shorter. Finally,
the head of the Knesset guards
told Guela she would have to
wear longer skirts.
But Guela stuck to the mini. So
the guard chief called her into his
office, placed a coin on the floor
and told her to pick it up without
risking arrest for indecent ex
posure. Guela couldn’t but still
continued wearing her mini.
Last week, Guela, as
provocative as ever in her mini,
was barred from the employes’
cafeteria in the Knesset. She had
to eat in the visitors’ cafeteria.
The dress controversy follows
the classic split in politics. On the
right, and among certain
religious groups, are those who
fee! that far too many Israelis are
far too immodestly dressed. They
frown .on even a bare elbow.
Those on the left insist that
Israelis should be allowed to
wear—or not wear—what they
want. Knesset member Reuven
Arazi of the left-wing Mapam
party, commented: “There is no
place for imposing regulations on
suitable dress in a society like
ours.”
Maverick Knesset member Uri
Avneri complained in a debate
that Knesset authorities were
waging a campaign of religious
coercion aimed at turning the
chamber into a cathedral or
synagogue with Victorian taboos
on dress. The ultraorthodox
Committee for the Defense of
Holiness in Israel sponsored
“modesty month” in an attempt
to instill the ideals of modest
dress in the nation’s women. The
fight, the committee said, will
continue. About 3,000 distaff
members of the committe vowed
“not to rest or remain silent until
the plague of nudity is eliminated
from the streets of Jerusalem.”
A dress manufacturer, who
asked to remain anonymous,
offered nearly $500 worth of cloth
for women who wished to have
more modest clothing. The
committee said it would
distribute the cloth to women who
cannot afford to buy or make new
dresses.
I HFR
AFX CM
1 CROSS
w sTR^er
,f 0V M</caF
■sue £ays
7X "ASIC vox?
U FATHER
J ASK
HIM. '
(
He sms,
"kSX
' VOUR
mothcr:
I ASr
WB9.. -
SH6T 6AVS
■"ASK”
W009 ,
FATHER.
I ASkf
HIM.
Hf $At/S,
" STOP
BOrHirRftOcS
US'"
M CM'T
MV EAV
WHAT
THEV
MFAU 10
W FIRST
PLACE?
<g>/T73