Dublin dole office bans those in pyjamas

Fuck sake...PUT SOME FUCKING CLOTHES ON!

I'd feel insulted if I was addressed by someone in pajamas when they have perfectly good clothes at home...



BBC

A social welfare office in Dublin has banned interviewees from wearing pyjamas.

A notice has appeared at Damastown social welfare office which warns claimants that "pyjamas are not regarded as appropriate attire when attending Community Welfare Service at these offices".

It is believed the decision was made after a number of people complained.

Read More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16740199

Going shopping in Tesco's in PJ's
Dropping off/collecting??? Their children from School in Pyjamas.
Now this.

Sane people like this have no respect for themselves or others, but this is also a sign of mental illness in some people.

mickeymay1968 said:
Going shopping in Tesco's in PJ's
Dropping off/collecting??? Their children from School in Pyjamas.
Now this.

Sane people like this have no respect for themselves or others, but this is also a sign of mental illness in some people.
Why does this even matter? I don't really go outside in my pj's (in some extreme cases I do) but what is with all this hate towards probably a small minority of people that choose to do this. They aren't harming anyone.

I can understand why this office did it and it is wrong that people should have been allowed to it in the first place, although I have gone to work before in pj's though, under my jumpsuit.

The kind of slobs that people are complaining about are probably going to be unsightly and unclean regardless of what they're wearing. It's probably unfair to blame the pyjamas.

Bare feet are popular in the city where I was born, but frowned upon the city where I live now. It's quite a surprising difference.

The second woman's pj's would pass for an acceptable outfit for a night out in many a Belfast club!

sgath92 said:
The state of Louisiana has considered banning pjs in public.

How are you supposed to define what is pyjamas and what isn't though? It can be ambiguous.

yellowcarpet said:
mickeymay1968 said:
Going shopping in Tesco's in PJ's
Dropping off/collecting??? Their children from School in Pyjamas.
Now this.

Sane people like this have no respect for themselves or others, but this is also a sign of mental illness in some people.
Why does this even matter? I don't really go outside in my pj's (in some extreme cases I do) but what is with all this hate towards probably a small minority of people that choose to do this. They aren't harming anyone.

I can understand why this office did it and it is wrong that people should have been allowed to it in the first place, although I have gone to work before in pj's though, under my jumpsuit.If an interviewer was wearing pyjamas I'd be insulted.

They should have the common decency to wear clothes out, expected of people on these islands.

I don't hate them but they don't do our communities any favours by showing their slovenliness.

yellowcarpet said:
DaddyPobbin said:
If an interviewer was wearing pyjamas I'd be insulted.

They should have the common decency to wear clothes out, expected of people on these islands.

I don't hate them but they don't do our communities any favours by showing their slovenliness.
Yeah like an interviewer should have to dress properly. But why is it others peoples business to care about people wearing pj''s outside, why should we care what people wear when they are shopping?

Depends on what the business is.

If I were running a "fancy" restaurant, I might have a dresscode for the customers in order to preserve the decorum & atmosphere of the establishment. If too many people off the street were being admitted under-dressed it could negatively impact the business by making the place seem more casual than what my clientele wants.

You see the same things with some high end boutiques. If they start letting flagrantly under-dressed in off the streets the regulars who want the fancier atmosphere would start going someplace else. I know of some goth clubs that have dresscodes to try to keep the 'tourists' from coming in droves to qawk. I don't know about in Europe but over here even mcdonalds has "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs on their doors. Is it fair? If someone doesn't like it, they can always choose to go somewhere else.

That option doesn't really work when we're talking about government services instead of private businesses so let me pose a question for you: When you have to go to court over there do they expect you to look presentable or are pj's tolerated?

You can be charged for contempt of court showing up in pj's in the US. How "dressy" they want you to be depends on the court [some are pretty lax but others want you dressed in business attire as if you were working in a corporate office setting]. It's a matter of respect for yourself, the process, and everyone around you. It really doesn't seem that extreme to me to expect people dealing with government services to "bother getting dressed" first.

yellowcarpet said:
sgath92 said:
The state of Louisiana has considered banning pjs in public.

How are you supposed to define what is pyjamas and what isn't though? It can be ambiguous.

No it can't. Pyjamas were decided to be worn in bed, and therefore look slightly different to any "normal" form of clothing that you would wear out in public. Plus I think there's quite a wide consensus as to what Pj's are.

FWBTS said:
yellowcarpet said:
sgath92 said:
The state of Louisiana has considered banning pjs in public.

How are you supposed to define what is pyjamas and what isn't though? It can be ambiguous.

No it can't. Pyjamas were decided to be worn in bed, and therefore look slightly different to any "normal" form of clothing that you would wear out in public. Plus I think there's quite a wide consensus as to what Pj's are. Exactly, and yes sgath, turning up in court unkempt or in a tracksuit can find you of contempt of court. At least here there are instances of that.

I think yellowcarpet is being contrary to be honest. The article is about people showing up to a dole office to sign on. The specific nature of that is to get you used to showing up on time, dressed suitably, like going to an interview and showing your wiliness to work.

I'm surprised that they haven't done something before now about the dresscode. Surely pyjamas shows a lack of work ethic (this can expand into whether your an employee, employer or self-employed) and that you're not worthy of benefits.

If a plumber turned up at my house in pyjamas (again with the examples) would you be referring them on to friends? Your business would be a joke, you'd get no clients. Just because people on the dole don't have jobs currently doesn't mean they shouldn't take things a bit more seriously.

It's only pyjamas they have a problem with. It's not like they're telling people to show up in ties and trousers.

DaddyPobbin said:
I think yellowcarpet is being contrary to be honest. The article is about people showing up to a dole office to sign on. The specific nature of that is to get you used to showing up on time, dressed suitably, like going to an interview and showing your wiliness to work.

Since you are clearly criticizing me, I feel I should clarify me views on this subject. First of all I misread the article thinking that is talking the people that work at the office that wore pj's not the interviewees, my mistake.

Seconding I was criticizing the fact that people take such offence at people wearing pj's through opinions, such as this:

mickeymay1968 said:
Going shopping in Tesco's in PJ's
Dropping off/collecting??? Their children from School in Pyjamas.
Now this.

Sane people like this have no respect for themselves or others, but this is also a sign of mental illness in some people.
Why do people feel it so morally awful that others choose to where pyjamas outside.

I mean, private businesses can make whatever rules they want on what to they allow their customers to wear and what do not allow. But why should be bothered with this and be so hateful about it.

FWBTS said:
yellowcarpet said:
sgath92 said:
The state of Louisiana has considered banning pjs in public.

How are you supposed to define what is pyjamas and what isn't though? It can be ambiguous.

No it can't. Pyjamas were decided to be worn in bed, and therefore look slightly different to any "normal" form of clothing that you would wear out in public. Plus I think there's quite a wide consensus as to what Pj's are.
And by this one I mean, while it may be obvious to us, I could be quite difficult to actually come up with a legal position, when banning pj's.

I don't see what's wrong with specifying a shirt and tie; plenty of business environments do just that. People seem to have no respect for themselves any more - everyone used to own a suit and it was something to be proud of.

Let me just clarify about what my original post said about mental health problems What I meant was, people who have mental health issues ie:

Dementia,depression, etc, etc, can be easily spotted when it affects a persons dress sense in this way.
If it becomes a regular, mundane habit because people are lazy it, will confuse this symptom.
.
People with mental issues may also be put into that category, and any alarm bells will be ignored, just as car alarms are today.