Who wears short shorts?
July 31, 2008
One of my coworkers recently attempted to break the workplace taboo against shorts. It was unsuccessful. (She asked me to note here that she believed the $60 price tag of the shorts would make them suitable for the office. So noted.)
And now she sends me a story from The New York Times, discussing whether the growing casualness of the workplace has finally opened the door for office shorts. The story gives some examples of the once-forbidden — sock-less loafers, tie-less necks and the entire concept of Casual Fridays — and a couple quotes from people who, I’m guessing, are painfully hip.
Then these few sentences bring us plunging back to reality:
“Yet none of the New York City banks, law firms, stock brokerages or hospitals contacted by a reporter last week considered shorts an acceptable part of a work uniform, and for reasons that varied from the need to preserve institutional decorum to hygiene (imagine a hairy leg in an O.R.)
Still, it is probably worth remembering that there was a time when politicians were seldom seen, even out of the office, without their decorous suit coats, and never in short pants (Nixon famously wore shoes on the beach). And it was only a short while ago that news anchors who ventured out on combat assignment did so in more protective khaki than a Victorian ornithologist braving the wilds of Borneo.”
So what do you think? Can you imagine a world where it will ever be appropriate to go to work at “banks, law firms, stock brokerages or hospitals” while wearing shorts?
JOE BACCHUS, Web Specialist
Sphere: Related ContentComments
Got something to say?
-
Business
Business posts- UnderArmour to supply apparel for SEC
- The next Great Depression: How ya like them apples?
- It’s all for the kids
- Will CEG shareholders support EDF’s bid?
- Battle of the Beltway
- Any price is too high if you’re broke
- Maryland: 10th-fastest internet speeds in nation
- Where the deals are
- Phelps named Sportsman of the Year
- Can SUV sales make a comeback?
Law
Law posts- Tis’ the season for layoffs
- A case of mistaken identity
- Beware of the blogging juror
- Inmate sought to intervene in Wells Fargo suit
- What’s behind that law firm’s headcount?
- Law blog round-up
- This week in Maryland Lawyer
- A history of football in Baltimore, courtesy of a lawsuit
- Baltimore crime stuck at 12th-worst in U.S.
- First a mongrel Mercedes, now a botched Bentley
Recent Posts
- Tis’ the season for layoffs
- UnderArmour to supply apparel for SEC
- The next Great Depression: How ya like them apples?
- A case of mistaken identity
- It’s all for the kids
Recent Comments
- Jacki Pearlman: Unfortunately, the game will not live up to it’s hype. I am a diehard Redskins fan after being...
- Isolde: Anybody remember GreedyAssociates.com? That’s basically a forum for ads and political weirdos now. Why?...
- Liz Farmer: Thanks for chiming in guys. Ed, you are exactly right. I did not include this in my original post but...
- Rick Rigini: Did you ever read the children’s book Norman the Doorman?
- Ed Waters Jr.: In many articles, it seems the writers tend to overlook the fact that some people need an SUV (or...
On Commenting
We ask that our readers follow a few guidelines, noted below.Please do not post any personal attacks, profanity, spam or other advertisements — they will be removed. Also, please post using only one name or pseudonym, as this consistency helps establish a sense of community. We will delete posts if they are signed with different names but originate from the same IP or email address. And if you’re going to comment using a proper name, please make it your own. Deliberate misrepresentations will be removed.