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

That should help with the thirst. 😉

What about people with really obvious highlights or root growth that doesn't look 'natural'?

What about people dying their hair platinum blonde or that silver grey that’s been popular for a few years now?

That shade doesn't seem particularly unnatural, at least on my computer monitor.

Have you been sanctioned or warned about it or are you just indignant about the policy?

Do you work for a public agency or a private corporation, e.g. flight attendant etc.?

YANBU OP. If I'm dealing with a business I just want its representatives to be good at their job. I could not give the tiniest shiniest shite what colour their hair is.

Dyed pink hair is nothing like natural red hair.

Clearly your preferred shade of red isn't a natural shade but to be honest so there are so many women with terrible blonde (overly yellow and brassy) hair dye that looks equally unnatural.

I've read your posts and I'm still not clear if this is a recent update to policy. They used to be against blue and pink hair and now they've expanded that to include pillar box red?

Funny that they're pernickety about hair and chilled about tattoos. Clean and tidy hair would matter more to me than particular hair shades.

But that does sound like a really daft colour

The rules regarding hair colour, tattoos and clothing are clear regardless of whether they like them or not. I can’t wear jeans or turn up in a tracksuit, makes no difference to my ability to do the job but there’s a dress code so I either stick to it or potentially face a disciplinary.

As others had said, OP, you have not dyed your hair a "natural" colour hence it's against company policy. If your hair was dyed ginger or auburn, you could argue the point. But no one has hair that colour naturally.
So sorry but YABU.

If it did go to a tribunal (not court) then the wording used in the contract would of course be key.

Courts cannot generally re-write contracts except as an exceptional solution and certainly not in circumstances such as these. If you are indeed a type of "lawyer" as you claim, (very general phrase) then you should know the rules of contract construction and that courts will not readily intervene in rewriting the intentions of the parties, but will only interpret those intentions. This is very basic, first year stuff. Have you forgotten it?

And then on top of that, any policy and its implementation has to comply with the Equality Act. The employer cannot for instance, permit a man with grey hair to die his hair jet black (which rarely occurs naturally in white people) but not permit the OP to dye her hair a shade of red.

I agree its not a hill worth dying on, but might be tempted if I were the OP to say she has attempted to re-colour her hair a more muted colour and that it failed to take, and that hair dye should not be used to colour hair more than once every 6 weeks as it will cause damage.

I had irritatingly mid length hair when I started nursing, too long to leave down, too short to make a pony tail.
I managed to scrape it into bunches for my first day and was told they were unprofessional...

If it is the police they aren’t chilled about tattoos. They can be visible now, a recent change, but they are checked and if not appropriate they have to be covered still.

From what OP said, the policy has always been a no to "unnatural colours". It's not clear if the policy says "ie blue or pink" or if the OP has just put that in as her understanding of what unnatural means. But that's irrelevant as the colour she's dyed it is not a natural hair colour at all. Hence it's against policy.

C'mon OP you are just being difficult and trying to push your luck. You hair colour has nothing to do with natural red hair and you know it. The rules are really clear. You faux outrage is daft.

That type of red can look a bit Ronald MacDonald if you aren't careful. I know this because I dye my hair lots of different bright colours myself. I know it's not gone well when the kids ask me for a happy meal. 🍟🍔🥤

I agree with this, sounds like you were aware of the policy and firms are allowed to update/clarify policies over the years. If you feel that strongly, raise it but it’s not a hill I’d die on personally.

Makes sense. Thinking about the number of people there are with full sleeves of tatts these days, it must take a lot more time to look them all over compared to the odd tribal tatt back in the 90s.

I agree, the hair colour on the photo in that box dye doesn't look like a red, ginger or auburn that would occur in nature.

That said, I think it's a silly rule; I don't see why having even blue or pink hair should be a problem.

Rules are rules.
But some rules are stupid rules based on outdated normative views about acceptability of some kind.
If you have the energy and the financial security to do it, then stand your ground. Does your employer really want to be seen to be taking it to court, and if so is that going to be seen as a good use of their funding?
We need to move away from a model of society where we never question the right of an employer to dictate what we do with our bodies. Hair up for a kitchen environment, no jewellery for hygiene reasons etc etc fine, but why do we accept people wielding the right to dictate the way we look? It’s closely related to other types of discrimination which are now rightly being called out, and it’s an antiquity we would be well rid of.

I'm inclined to agree with you Op, red is a natural hair colour, even though yours is bright. It should be allowed and is not in the same realm as blue or pink.

There are many unnatural dyed shades of blonde around, yet no one questions that.

I know many red heads best friend included - I don’t know anyone with that shade - bright red like that is not natural. Neither would bright silver, gold etc the clue Is in the name

I colour my hair a lot, though I don't use bold colours anymore (have been platinum blonde for some time now) and while the box is very bright, unless you are bleaching hair to a light blonde it will not be that red or unnatural.

If you google reviews some people have it come out very bright but also on some people it looks like a natural if not vivid auburn.

Who has brought this up OP?

Not an entirely natural red but nothing offensive.