Sunday, December 07, 2014

UK: Businesses must not seek to hire "good-looking girls"

A job advertisement by Pizza Hut which said it was looking for “decent, good-looking girls” has been removed after complaints it was sexist.

The advert for the chain's Leatherhead branch was posted on the website Gumtree but was removed after people reported it to Pizza Hut's head office.

It read: "Pizza Hut Leatherhead looking for full and part time drivers. Need to have your own car.  "We are also looking for a decent good looking girls for Reception. That role is just part time."

Jackie Quinn, the president of Leatherhead’s Chamber of Commerce president said the advert was sexist and claimed Pizza Hut had “let itself down”.  "It's not acceptable to be sexist, they could have put good-looking girls or boys but they didn't even do that," she said.



slinky said...

A Chamber of Commerce that is anti-business? That's a new one.

Anonymous said...

How much do you want to bet that Jackie Quinn is fat pig?

Anonymous said...


I'll take that bet.

A simple Google search comes up with pictures of Quinn and show her to be an attractive, middle aged woman who runs her own real estate business.

But if you have to base your opinion on what someone looks like or your insecurities, that is your issue and problem.

It should also be noted that this type of ad would fail here in the US as well. There is nothing within the business model of a Pizza Hut that would require a person of a certain look or gender to be a host or receptionist for the front of house.

Anonymous said...

Typical government solution to a nonexistent problem. Just why can't an employer hire whomever he pleases? Oh right, because someone might get their little feelings hurt.

Wanted: Host, hostess or person of indeterminate gender identity to greet customers. Persons of all hair colors (including purple), with multiple piercings and copious tattoos are welcome to apply. Height, weight, appearance, health history, education not an issue. Be advised that this is short term employment as we expect to go out of business soon. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious, would an ad agency be able to hire only good looking models for an ad campaign without being criticized?

Anonymous said...

I guess you have to hire the good looking ones without saying what you are looking for.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:15,

Yes. You would be able to hire only "good looking models" for an ad campaign.

The reason being that courts have ruled that there are certain jobs where looks are an integral part of the job. (A good example of the policy is Hooters, where men are not allowed to be servers and there are appearance standards. Vegas casinos have the same standards for their waitresses, dancers, etc.)

It is hard to say that a person asking "how many in your party?" depends on how that person looks or whether they are a male or female.

The demand for a good looking female where the job does not depend on it being a female receptionist or even a female is where the ad fails.

Anonymous said...

You can't say it. You just have to do it. Honesty is not allowed in advertising, especially when advertising for employment. There might be extra hoops one has to jump through to get the employee you want, but it is far more preferable than being stuck with an employee that is ugly, lazy, with a disagreeable personality.

Anonymous said...

Her comment makes it pretty clear that they are not concerned with the 'good looking' comment but in the requirement that their reception be staffed by girls.
Is there any good reason why they would only use girls for that job?
If so, fair enough. If not, they are stupid.

Anonymous said...

The concept of freedom eludes the majority here. The excuse will of course be, "but it's the law." How pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:37,

The idea of freedom does not elude people.

"Freedom" does not mean you should be "free" to oppress others. "Freedom" does not mean that you should be able to infringe on the rights of others.

Other people have freedoms too and when your "freedoms" run into their "freedoms," there is a problem that has to be resolved somehow.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:06 So glad to see you're OK with coercion, as long as it's the all knowing, all feeling government doing the coercing. Obviously much does elude you.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:52,

Assume for a moment that your neighbor decides to play music so loud at night that you are unable to sleep. Are you going to call the police to have the music shut down? Or are you going to acknowledge that your neighbor has the "freedom" to play music loudly and deprive you of sleep?

The next day you start to go to work and find that your neighbor has parked in the only space on the street which happens to be blocking your driveway preventing you from going to work. Are you going to call the police after you knock on the neighbor's door, asking him to move his car and him refusing to do so? Or are you going to call your boss and say "I can't make it into work today because my neighbor is exercising his freedom to park where he wishes?"

If the government tells your neighbor to shut the music off and move his car, isn't that the coercion you are speaking of? A

Are you only in favor of what you label a government coercion when it favors things and ideas of which you approve?

You see the government saying that race and gender should not matter in a hiring decision as "coercion." I see it as protecting the rights of those who you apparently would happily discriminate against because of artificial criteria other than the ability to do the job.

People have the right to pursue economic opportunities. (You may remember "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

Government should protect those rights.

That being said, it is not up to the government to say that a certain race or gender has to be hired, only that they be given the opportunity to be hired.

People have the freedom to enter the marketplace and be considered for a position based on their abilities. People do not have the freedom to oppress others from entering the marketplace because of some misplaced discrimination based on race or gender.

That is what eludes you.

Each and every day "freedoms" clash in this country. We have laws that attempt to resolve many of those conflicts.

In short, should the government protect the freedom of a person entering the market to be considered for a job? Absolutely. Should the government demand that a certain person be hired for a job (ie a "quota")? Absolutely not.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:52,

What or who exactly is being coerced here?

The government isn't coercing the company to hire a certain person of a certain race, gender or appearance.

What the government is doing is protecting the rights of people to enter into the market and be treated equally in that they are judged on ability.

What is evading you is that we are all equal in that we should all have the opportunity to meet the promise within the Declaration of Independence of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." You seem to be perfectly happy in saying that a person can deny another person those rights.

One person's "freedom" should not be allowed to impede the freedom of others.