Marks and Spencer support new Hooters in Bristol, #2

[sethstarkaddersmum]

I went to post on the first thread but it was full so here is a new one.

I'm reposting Jessinavalon's OP from 10th September since it explains what is going on, for anyone who is new to the issue:

'Dear all
This is my first post on here so I hope I am doing this right!

I live in Bristol and, last week, 'Hooters' was granted a licence to open in the city centre. The site is virtually opposite 3 apartment blocks, the lower floors of which are social housing and children are living in them.

What's most disappointing is that Marks and Spencer are leasing the site to 'Hooters'. They have been e-mailed by many concerned people to ask if they will reconsider leasing the building but they have just replied saying it is a "commercial decision" (as if that makes it ok!). In Sheffield, a 'Hooters' didn't even make it to application stage because the developer (Ask Pizza) realised that it would be better not to be associated with a company like 'Hooters'.

Marks and Spencer don't seem that concerned, however. Although they have signed up to the "Let Girls Be Girls" Mumsnet campaign they are not concerned about a company which sells merchandise including babygros which say "Future Hooters Girl" and "Does my butt look big in this?"

I have written to Marks and Spencer telling them that I won't be shopping in their stores again. If you feel strongly about this, please e-mail:

[email protected].

'Hooters' tries to sell itself as a family friendly restaurant but it is anything but. The Hooters in Nottingham attracts mainly stag parties and football fans. Hooters Girls take part in bikini contests and iced wet t-shirt competitions (the t-shirts are put in the freezers before the girls wear them). 'Hooters' has links to Playboy magazine....I could go on.....

I think Marks and Spencer should be shamed for facilitating this company's expansion into Bristol. They are selling women and girls down the river by leasing to this company and all just to make a "quick buck".

Thanks everyone.'

[sethstarkaddersmum]

'I know something you don't' - it's playground stuff isn't it

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

I think it's fair to say that nothing David could say would interest me much.

Why would you want "help" from someone who has repeatedly said that he is in favour of Hooters opening because of the glorious freee market? (And refused to answer questions about how our boycott is somehow naughty and against the free market)

It's not likely to be very helpful help, is it?

[MumofRachel]

Just ignore him.

[DavidStHubbins]

You could ask mumsnet to install some forum software that includes an ignore function. See, I can be helpful.

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Message posted by poster you are ignoring

[AliceWorld]

I'm pretty sure the source of the speculation that they would employ 'hooters girls' as entertainers was David. It was his response to the discussion of how it was legal/illegal to only employ women. Personally I'm not convinced and its not something we can rely on. Unless anyone else knows different?

In terms of the delightful A3 planning, these people can help if you need planning advice.

www.rtpi.org.uk/planningaid/

[sethstarkaddersmum]

In the sex discrimination case they are defending in the US, where they threatened to sack some Hooters girls for putting on weight, they argued their weight was relevant because they are entertainers not waitresses.

[AliceWorld]

That's USA legislation though. Maybe its the same but maybe its not. I just think its important to keep that one open. Thb I can believe it in the USA, but here I wouldn't be so sure that the legislation is loophole ridden.

[anastaisia]

is this any use?

Is being female with a certain body shape is a 'genuine occupational requirement'?

[JessinAvalon]

I would say not for Hooters. The only reason why they could claim that they might need a female with a particular body shape is if there's an element of sexual entertainment involved. And if they claim that, they can't also claim that their restaurant is family friendly and wholesome!

They want it both ways, as do Marks and Spencer!

[JessinAvalon]

Have been in touch with MNHQ re: M&S commitment to the LGBG campaign.

I think M&S should reaffirm their commitment or honourably withdraw from it altogether. Their commitment to it does seem hollow now given that they are willing to go against the principles of the campaign when it suits.

Obviously I do not want companies to withdraw from the campaign but I would like a company that has signed up to it to be held accountable if it doesn't uphold the standards and principles that it has signed up to.

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Hey Jess - started thread in Campaigns Section to hopefully attract attention from HQ

[RamblingRosa]

They definitely couldn't claim that they're employing "entertainers". They're advertising for waitresses right? You can't discriminate in favour of one gender for that type of thing. There are very few exceptions where you can (eg. woman working in a refuge for women fleeing domestic violence, actress for a female role in a play or film etc).

But the ads don't say men can't apply do they?

All it would take would be for a bloke (preferably with waitering experience) to apply for the job and then take them to tribunal for direct sex discrimination when they don't offer him the job.

I tried to persuade my DP but he wasn't up for it!

[AliceWorld]

From looking at the site they don't advertise for 'Hooters girls' or waiting staff. Its general workers or some such vagueness. So my guess is they recruit both sexes, then allocate tasks on the basis of sex, and who is going to risk their job and challenge them? So no employment case so they get away with it. This is my theory.

[Treats]

Just looked at the Nottingham site and they are very explicit about hiring for 'Hooters girls' and that they should have an 'American cheerleader' look.

I took a quick look at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission website to see if there was anyone obvious that we could contact about this, but amidst lots of biographies of commissioners and minutes of committee meetings, I couldn't find a specific contact, but I'll have another look when I have more time. There is general advice on bringing a sex discrimination case, but that has to be by the person who believes they're the victim.

[JessinAvalon]

Thanks all.

A few men have tried this in the US and all the cases have been settled our of court. It just needs one person to claim sex discrimination and they will have to admit that their policy is discriminatory. They've only got away with it so far because they've been able to offer money to buy people off, it seems.

I don't care if it's some man who just wants a bit of cash! It would be great to have someone test this out.

I do wonder how they manage with hygiene requirements with all the loose hair flying around!

[JessinAvalon]

Oh, and thanks to Elephants for posting something in the campaigns section too!

[JessinAvalon]

I think it's pretty clear that Marks and Spencer don't give a stuff about the Let Girls Be Girls campaign now.

Or their customers.

[MumofRachel]

I emailed M&S (yet again) earlier today to complain about them being linked to LGBG.

I also emailed @Bristol to complain about a council-owned building renting space to a Hooters event, especially when the building was full of young children at the time.

[Sakura]

What I don't understand is why mumsnet doesn'T get rid of M & S from the campaign. Are they afraid to upset M & S? I thought the campaign was run by mumsnet, so it's us who get to decide who can be on it.
BUt it turns out it's the companies in the campaign that rule mumsnet. Otherwise what on earth is M & S still doing on the list? It's not up to them to withdraw surely; it's up to us to let them remain.

[JessinAvalon]

Good point, Sakura. I don't want to see a company chucked off the campaign but companies do need to realise that, if they sign up, it's got to mean something otherwise it's just an empty gesture. The impression I get from M&S from my conversation with them and from their response to the emails they've received is that they won't care if they are chucked off it anyway. If they did care about it, they wouldn't have entered into the agreement with Gallus.

[RamblingRosa]

Back to the discrimination thing, US law is totally different to UK law so it doesn't matter that the cases never went anywhere in the US.
They can't advertise for "hooters girls". And I'm not sure where "a cheerleader look" stands in law but it sounds pretty and to me!
I think someone may have linked to this already.

Here's the EHRC helpline 0845 604 6610 and helpline email address [email protected]

[Treats]

I have just sent the following email to the address you posted Rosa

Dear EHRC

I wanted to draw your attention to this employment advertisement from a restaurant in Nottingham called Hooters. It specifically advertises for 'girls' which I believe to be in breach of sex discrimination laws. The restaurant is part of a US chain whose marketing pitch is based around attractive women in tight clothing. The chain is trying to expand here, and has just received permission for a new restaurant in Bristol (in the face of considerable local opposition).

www.hooters.to/nottingham/employment.php

I hope you will investigate Hooters and ensure that they are compliant with UK employment law.

[JessinAvalon]

Excellent - thanks Treats!

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

If they employed men as waiters too, and they dressed in, say, skimpy vests and orange shorts, or topless with a bowtie and black trousers, I wonder how differently I'd feel about it.

TBH I would still find it skeevy (and not family friendly FFS), but the whole atmosphere would be different. It's the purely female waiting staff, the mainly male clientele that is so redolent of stripclubs etc.