My red hair is 'unprofessional' but tattoos aren't!!

[IntegrityisDead]

I work in a uniformed role in the UK, uniform standards say 'Conspicuously "unnatural" colours (e.g. pink) and extreme hairstyles are not allowed.'
I am spitting feathers!!
My hair is L'Oréal Preference Bright Red 8.624.
Yes it's bright

There is no rule against colouring hair, AFAIK that has always been permitted.
The paragraph is specific in that it should not be "unnatural" therefore I have never dyed it pink or blue as the rules require.

So dye it a more natural shade of red?

If you're genuinely going to argue that hair colour is anyone's natural hair colour then clearly YABU. Just as many people have green eyes naturally, I couldn't argue that lime green contact lenses are "natural". No one naturally has that shade of hair.

Your issue also has nothing at all to do with tattoos - you don't get to be pissy that other people's choices don't violate the dress code just because your choices do. You gain nothing from demanding that others have less.

If you have had this colour hair and then the policy changed and you are being disciplined then YANBU.

If you knew the rule and decided to dye your hair that colour anyway and are now being spoken to then YABU.

If you knew the rule and decided to dye your hair that colour and haven't actually been spoken to then YABVU (because you've broken the rule and invented something to be outraged by).

To be fair dying your hair bright pink is not the same as natural red hair

You’re SO cross that you deliberately contravened the clear uniform standards of your role and got pulled up for it?

honestly - what did you expect?

But that colour isn't natural red.

@BeeRogue is that not what I said?

You could contact acas to see if this rule can be justified. Or if you're rich go to court and see if you can set a precedent for all professionals who want to dye their hair!

I hate pointless rules and ridiculous, unfounded judgements based on appearance.

How many folk have you ever met with natural hair this colour?

No, of course not. It's a hair dye. Compared to a career or even just an income, it's completely irrelevant.

I suppose you could offer to cover it by wearing a headscarf. Like you can cover most tattoos.

You said pink isn't the same as natural red. I agree but OP's hair is neither pink nor natural red. It came across that you were saying OP's red hair doesn't break the rule that specifies no pink hair.

I do not think it is a hill you should die on

I know its a pain, but I would chose another colour

Wouldn’t you say that L'Oréal Preference Bright Red 8.624 is a ‘Conspicuously "unnatural" colour’, OP?

Not much point spitting feathers about a very clearly worded rule you’ve broken!

Your problem here may be that you don't understand what 'eg' means.

If you dyed your hair to a colour that is what could be called ginger then you are within your rights. Ginger in all its varieties is a natural hair colour.

If your hair is pillar box or fire engine red, then you are, ehem, splitting hairs over the meaning of the term 'red'.

'Red hair' isn't actually red.

The law is actually very clear that employers are allowed to dictate this. Provided that the rules are discriminatory and don't violate health and safety policies, it's a simple matter of contract law - and OP is violating the contract.

Its obviously dyed and therefore unnatural in exactly the same way many very light or platinum blondes are. Many poorly dyed blondes are in fact more yellow than blonde. The hair displayed however is on the continuum of natural colours and not an isolated artificial colour. Its an enhanced tone of a natural colour ie red or auburn hair, not a colour that does not occur naturally such as blue or green.

Posters are kidding themselves if they don't think that its women who don't get pulled up on their appearance more than men.

Should say *aren't discriminatory

Shame - absolutely love that colour.

Op, I am one of the 2% of people who are natural redheads. Hat hair dye is not a natural colour. Yabu.

I mean - in principle I agree that bright red hair isn’t unprofessional, and neither are tattoos. I work in a creative industry, it’s pretty common. But I know absolutely loads of people disagree. If the rule is clearly stated before you commence employment, then by accepting the job you’ve agreed to the terms. If you want bright red hair desperately, find a different job.

*that hair dye!

I think most companies would have a hard time justifying dismissing someone who broke these silly policies, if ever taken to tribunal about unfair dismissal.

I did quote the actual words
"conspicuously" unnatural " colours (e.g. pink) and extreme hairstyles are not allowed."

"Non-offensive visible tattoos are permissible anywhere on the body, including hands and arms, as long they are not on the face or on the front or side of the neck (above the collar line). Tattoos behind the ear lobe on the back of the neck are also acceptable within these policy guidelines."

I have asked that I be provided with swatches of acceptable hair colours. It has been this colour for at least a couple of months - I change it quite frequently.

As a bit of history I come from a family of extreme redheads and have always been gutted that I missed out hence resorting to artificial (not unnatural) colours for at least the last 30 years.

So yes, it’s unprofessional.

Come on, there are only a very limited spectrum of natural red hair shades in our species and L'Oréal Preference Bright Red 8.624 could not in any context be considered to fall within that spectrum. It clearly isn't natural shade.