Tattooed Model Men's Wearhouse

[instudiocity]

I think I must be missing some reference, some common cultural knowledge, because this makes no sense at all to me.

 

Gman

Holiday Inn Express commercial running now with the supposition that you wake up smarter when you stay in HIE.

[+ Gar1eth]

I'm thinking Mr. Zimmer just wants to make sure the goy boychiks shop at his joint.

 

They threw Zimmer out in 2013. And apparently they've been doing worse since then.

 

George Zimmer just lost $10 million on Men's Wearhouse and he's OK with it

December 16

NEW YORK

 

 

George Zimmer, the bearded founder of Men's Wearhouse, just lost $10 million ... and he's happy about it.

 

"It hurts me financially but it pleases me emotionally," he told CNNMoney's Christine Romans in his famously raspy voice.

 

Zimmer, known for his signature line, "You're gonna like the way you look, I guarantee it," was referring to the share price of his "baby" -- Men's Wearhouse(MW).

 

The stock of Men's Wearhouse has tanked 30% over the last month after the company ended the long-standing "buy 1 suit, get 3 free" deal offered by its recently acquired subsidiary Jos. A. Bank.

 

Zimmer still has a stake in the company he got fired from in 2013. So while the stock drop hurts his pocketbook, he admits to feeling some schadenfreude.

 

"It was vindication for what happened," he said.

 

Zimmer said he's been competing against Jos. A. Bank since 1973 and had considered buying them at various times "but it never really made sense," especially when the purchase price got up to $1.8 billion.

 

Also, he said they "destroyed their brand" with their ultra-cheap discounts, inspiring a Saturday Night Live skit where the comedians use Jos. A Bank suits to mop up kitchen spills because they're cheaper than paper towels. Zimmer says it's the "single funniest" skit he's ever seen.

[instudiocity]

That's funny because I thought about that...so good point by you. I don't think people who have visible ink is a protected class so I'm ok? EEOC lawyer anyone? Anyone stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

 

Is my memory correct that the US Supreme Court validated this as a hiring consideration along with hair length, facial hair, etc. on a case appealed by Disney many years ago? Maybe not ink specifically.

My intent was humor. Glad you laughed.

 

Presuppositions beyond whether or not the applicants can perform the task is a slippery slope, though.

[+ quoththeraven]

I sure hope the EEOC doesn't know who you are...

 

As far as I know, people with tattoos are not in an EEOC protected class unless tattoo-wearing closely correlates with one (national origin/race; gender; religion; age over 40, disability).

 

Courts have okayed grooming rules with caveats for health and religious concerns (some men have skin problems if they shave; others don't shave because of religious proscriptions). "Religious concerns" include hijabs; Abercrombie & Fitch (also known for its racism in hiring) got dinged for firing a hijab-wearing woman. Okaying grooming rules says nothing about their wisdom, and a court upholding an anti-tattoo rule comes really close to government regulation of speech even though the rule is a private company's. What if the tattoo were a memorial to a deceased loved one? Or was a religious emblem, making it similar to religious jewelry?

 

As for the ad, the amount of visible ink is no big deal and makes the clothing seem less stuffy. Yet I'm not a big fan of ink (mostly I only like black ink tattoos, not full color, and I hate full sleeves or full upper arm tattoos) and would never get tattooed myself after listening to an interview of an expert on the chemicals used in tattooing who pointed out how toxic the ingredients are, how little we know about their effects, and how likely the ink is to migrate throughout the body and cause problems.

[TruthBTold]

As far as I know, people with tattoos are not in an EEOC protected class unless tattoo-wearing closely correlates with one (national origin/race; gender; religion; age over 40, disability).

 

Courts have okayed grooming rules with caveats for health and religious concerns (some men have skin problems if they shave; others don't shave because of religious proscriptions). "Religious concerns" include hijabs; Abercrombie & Fitch (also known for its racism in hiring) got dinged for firing a hijab-wearing woman. Okaying grooming rules says nothing about their wisdom, and a court upholding an anti-tattoo rule comes really close to government regulation of speech even though the rule is a private company's. What if the tattoo were a memorial to a deceased loved one? Or was a religious emblem, making it similar to religious jewelry?

 

My three sisters all got tattoos to memorialize a loved one. The oldest is 68 and pretty mainstream so I guess the world is changing.