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

Are you arguing that the shade of red your hair dyed, is natural? 😬 It’s as unnatural as pink or blue.

That is a conspicuously unnatural hair colour though. I'm a redhead, my entire family are redheads of varying shades, none of us have hair THAT red. It's just not a natural shade.

YABU, rules are rules. I think it's a stupid rule but you knew of its existence and you're arguing semantics because they didn't specify the exact shade you've chosen as unacceptable.

Count yourself lucky you don't have afro hair and get told that the hair you were born with is unprofessional. At least you chose to have that colour and can presumably get rid of it pretty easily. (and yes, there are ways to deal with workplace rules on hair which are patently racist, but still doesn't make it alright that people have to go down that route and complain and fight for it).

You knew the rule. You agreed to the rule. You're paid to abide by the rule. You broke the rule.

Tattoos are irrelevant. The foundation and purpose of the rule is irrelevant. The fairness of the rule is irrelevant.

YABU

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.

Just pick a more natural redhead colour then. Even in a family of ‘extreme’ redheads none of them have brick-red hair naturally.

That’s a completely unnatural shade of red.

However, if they’re allowing visible tattoos I don’t see how they can allow that and not allow this - both are clearly modifications that make someone stand out.

thanks for posting the actual wording.
I think you're in the wrong, but i do also think if someone has pulled you up on this, they are being a tad overzealous (or are you in a Guards regiment or something?)

My personal opinion is that the tattoo regulations are way better than such things have been in the past, which is progress. I don't believe rainbow sparkly hair makes someone unprofessional, much less the colour you have picked. But the fact that it isn't really natural looking does put you in the wrong. Just go more auburn and you'll be fine.

(my red-haired mum was bullied awfully at school for her hair - you want the good parts of red hair, well now you can also enjoy one of the negative ones )

Lobby for a relaxation of the rules, lobby lobby. That's the only way to get it changed.

(also agree with pp that it is more likely that women are pulled up for this kind of thing)

YABU in the sense that the shade you’ve dyed your hair isn’t a natural one.
Res hair is natural but bright red hair isn’t.

And if, per your update, you have an issue about not fitting in with your red-head family, why not dye your hair a natural shade of red (that suits your skin tone)? You don't fit in as ginger any more than before by dyeing your hair an unnatural shade of red.

I very much agree with this. My natural hair is considered unprofessional so I wear it straight every single day. Last week, because I'm on maternity leave, I left it natural and my 3yo DS said "mummy, your hair is all wibbly wobbly" because he'd never seen it before!

Unless you are an anime character then L'Oréal Preference Bright Red 8.624, as it appears on the box is most definitely NOT a natural colour. Sorry OP.

I sympathise, OP. I worked for a couple of years in a professional role with hair that colour, but then we didn't have strict uniform rules. It's rubbish, but I don't think you'll win.

It will boil down to the wording used in the contract. Red isn't an unnatural colour, and the policy mentioned "colour" not "shade". Its an unnatural shade of a natural colour.

I mean... I kind of agree with you at one level that emphasis on "looking professional" is often arbitrary, highly subjective and a bit micro-managing.

But the rules were pretty clear on this when you joined and you have now dyed your hair a colour which you knew was against the rules. So no I don't think its a hill to die on. I think it would be extremely foolish to jeopardise your job for a particular shade of hair dye. Just dye your hair a more subtle colour, learn a lesson and crack on.

Is it a job where there might be an increased risk of being identified if you stand out by having an unnatural hair colour?

Even it it isn't, rules is rules, an you are being pedantic by saying the rules only give examples of pink and blue - there are loads more unnatural colours, and you know it.

However, if they’re allowing visible tattoos I don’t see how they can allow that and not allow this - both are clearly modifications that make someone stand out.

no. There are fairly strict rules around the tattoos as we can see from what OP posted. Dyed hair is also not prohibited, but it does have parameters within which the colour must fall. If tattoos can be restricted, so can hair colour.

The fact that some uniformed organisations are now more relaxed about tattoos is heartening and may mean further relaxations in terms of hair colour in future. I'd have a similar attitude to OP if she had got a tattoo of particular parts of the lyrics to Killing In The Name on her arms, and been pulled up on that. And then argued "Fuck you i won't do what you told me" is used by thousands of people every day. And it would be "you knew the rules but you did it anyway"

As a professional I used to work somewhere that tattoos were an issue but not my hair (mine is never the same colour I change it all the time) I used to get my tattoos in hidden places. You follow the rules of where you work and if you don’t want to them move on. Now I don’t care it’s me, part of life and if it stops me getting a job elsewhere then so be it, it’s their loss.

2% of the world's population have red hair - it's not unnatural.

Your hair dye shade is though. That’s not the colour of anyone’s natural hair.

I went and looked up that color, it’s not “red hair” as would occur in nature, the kind often described as ginger. It is very much the bright Manic Panic, cartoon type of coloring that the policy intended to cover.

I happen to think that over-the-top bright hair color can be very beautiful. I have used similar dyes in the past. it still is a very bold hair choice and In this case it does violate the company policy.

Go with Electric Mango from the same colour range, you could probably get away with that as I’ve met people with naturally intense orange hair before.

Hahahahahahaha. I dare you to try that one in court. Where are you getting your legally accepted distinction between colour and shade from? Is beige a shade of brown or a colour of its own? Is magnolia a shade of yellow or a colour of its own? Mauve? Burgundy? Turquoise? But, funnily enough, it's irrelevant anyway. Employers have the right to implement new dresscodes and can terminate employment if employees refuse to follow them... So, all that would happen even if the court agreed that a colour and a shade are different (they aren't), is that they'd reword the rule and OP would be in exactly the same position.

I'm actually pretty well placed to know about this because not only am I a lawyer but I also studied linguistics at undergrad and did a module on the linguistics behind different colours.

Beautiful colour but you know it is not a shade found in nature when you did it. Should be easy enough to tone down a bit, unless having bright hair is more important than having an actual job.

You're completely over reacting.

Its fair enough to be annoyed if you think the rules have changed on you for no real rationale. I don't see how the colour of your hair affects your ability to do your job in the slightest. And it's a fair point that tattoes also aren't natural - although presumably most peoples tattoos are largely covered up by their clothes. Presumably your work would also not be ok with people with full face tattoos either.

But youre being disingenuous about the red hair thing. A percentage of the population may have natural red hair but nobody has the bright red colour you've picked therefore it is not a natural colour! That's obvious!

You would be perfectly within your rights to challenge it but I would do so calmly and with some actual rationale and will probably achieve more than going in "spitting feathers" and "soooo cross!"

Die on the hill of the hair you want if

You don’t like the job

AND

You don’t need the job

The only times I’ve gone for Death By Hill when I needed the job was when it was something that affected a lot of people who had physical characteristics they neither chose, nor could change even if they wanted to.

Can you wash it over with temp. or semi perm brown to tone it down a little while you look for a job that suits you better ? I recommend freelance if it’s an option. I’ve loved the freedom of the last 20 years, and the “job security” of the first ten wasn’t worth all the kerfuffles and harrumphing it caused me.

There’s red hair and then there’s red hair. You know you’re twisting it to suit your agenda. I work for the police as a civilian and the officer rules are the same and are quite clear. The first image is natural, the second is not.