IMANE KURDI There's something about the color red. No other color holds so much symbolism: from the blood of the martyr, to the red of a traffic light, to the red card of a football referee, to the red flag of communism, right up to the red lines of Mr. Obama, so much hangs on that one color. But the red that interests me today is much more trivial and frivolous; it's that of red lipstick. Last week Turkish Airlines tried to ban its cabin crew from wearing red lipstick and red nail polish, not just red but bright garish colors. In rather amusing language, the statement from the company's press office said that wearing such colors “impairs the visual integrity of the intended look”. Cabin crew were required instead to “use personal grooming products that are in a more muted color palate”. As I am due to fly Turkish Airlines later this month, I was reassured to know that I will be flying a company with unimpaired visual integrity! What could possibly be more important! The language is wonderful, worthy of the most gifted of politicians, and politics is exactly what is behind this kind of thinking. Last February, Turkish Airlines flew into controversy when someone leaked mock-ups for new designs of cabin crew uniforms. Out went modern, Western-style suits; in came more conservative Ottoman-era inspired flowing uniforms. This caused an uproar in Turkey. It was seen as yet another erosion of the country's secular tradition and a move toward the more conservative tone of the current government. Banning red lipstick falls into the same debate of West versus East - although frankly, you only have to switch on your television set to see that the Middle East is the biggest customer of the brightest shades of red lipstick, and if anything the “muted color palate” is far more European in taste. But as it happens, Turkish Airlines Chief Executive Temel Kotil stepped in and said there was no such ban at all and blamed it all on overzealous junior staff. And so cabin crew can continue to impair the visual integrity of the intended look by wearing red lipstick. As for the uniforms, the new designs have not been finalized. Given the uproar the mock-ups caused, it's a likely bet they will come up with something a little less controversial. And then in Britain this week, there was almost the same controversy in reverse! Female staff on Virgin Trains have refused to wear new uniforms with red shirts. Yes, red again! The staff complained that the shirts were in a fabric that is see-through and too flimsy, with a cut that is too figure hugging. The company has responded by issuing vouchers for the women to buy appropriate underwear to wear underneath the red shirts! What an odd world we live in! Do companies have the right to impose on women a dress code that decides on their behalf how feminine they wish to be? I use the word feminine here to denote a whole array of traits – sensual, attractive, stylish, sex appeal, fashionable, vain, glamorous, pretty, elegant, and many more – that each woman chooses according to her own personality and character. Wearing a uniform is one thing, but ordaining what color lipstick to wear or paying staff to buy red underwear so that it does not show under a red shirt is surely a step too far. Surely that is a personal choice. Which brings me to uniforms and dress codes as a whole. Perhaps because I have never worn one, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of a uniform. It is not the uniform per se, but the idea of taking away a woman's choice to present herself as she wishes, be that in full hijab or in a work suit. In my view, that should remain a personal choice, or else it has no meaning. There are clearly professions where uniforms are necessary – and airline cabin crew is one of them – but even then, surely they should give the crew some leeway in terms of choosing between different combinations to find the one that most suits them, while retaining the corporate identity and the sense of authority that the uniform gives them. Ditto for dress codes. Yes, a company can expect their staff to show up smart for work and issue guidelines as to what “smart” means, but do we really want to live in a world where individuality is replaced by homogeneity? There is a line between presenting an image and branding. Employees can be expected to dress and act in a way that is appropriate for the company's image, but when this becomes so invasive as to become branding, that is a step too far. Consider this: A realtor in New York has offered a 15 percent pay rise to members of staff who agree to have the company's logo tattooed on their body. So far, more than 40 employees have taken it up. Apparently, getting the tattoo is a sign of employee commitment and implies that they will have a constant reminder to work harder. Am I alone in seeing red on this one? — Imane Kurdi is a Saudi writer on European affairs. She can be reached at [email protected]
