When Managers Attack

[jamesq]

I'm in Weight Watchers. While I think this behavior is abhorrent, it's not going to stop me from sticking around (Losing 65 pounds does wonders for your loyalty).

Having heard several group leaders discuss their employment, it does seem fairly draconian. They have to have been a WW member, they have to have reached their goal weight, they have to weigh-in at least once a month and not be more then two pounds over their goal weight. I didn't realize their was a dress code beyond "business casual".

Having said all that, I can see why WW's management cares about these things. As a member, you want to see proof that the program works and isn't just a reason to soak you for merchandise like some other weight loss plans. The group leader is your primary contact with the organization and they should be profesional about it.

Here's what I do have a problem with - and it's a problem with management in general, not something endemic to Weight Watchers:

Buddy Victor, co-director of Weight Watchers in Alberta, said the dress code is part of the employee's contract. He planned to meet with Moger on Friday to discuss the issue.

Do you see the problem here? There's two:

First, it's the way "the contract" is held up as the final arbiter. Now most times this is necessary (as in any contract selling things). But this isn't that kind of contract - it's about employment. A manager should have the discretion to look at the situation and say "yes the contract is clear, but the intent is to present a professional look to our clients. As your pantsuit is preferable to people seeing a medical device strapped to your leg, I'll let the skirt requirement slide. Carry on".

This blind adherence to policy (as opposed to an intelligent look at what the policy is trying to accomplish) has always irritated me. It's the primary reason why I'm glad I don't work retail anymore.

The second problem is that the manager is talking to Ms. Moger now, after the media shit storm has erupted. If you had discussed it beforehand, maybe you wouldn't be getting this bad publicity.

WW group leaders have a difficult job. They have to be supportive to a large group of people, they have to have a wide knowledge of diet and nutrition. The best ones are charismatic enough to keep their clients coming back week after week (my own group leader is on vacation this month and her replacement is awful, so I feel for Ms. Moger's clients). if Ms. Moger is like that, then there was never a reason to dismiss her.

*** Late Edit ***

I sent a slightly editted copy of this post to WW Alberta's customer service. We'll see if I get a reply or not.

Comments

[petranef.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that such a dress code is SEXIST CRAP.

[hislittlekitty.livejournal.com]

I actually would not be surprised if it were simply a matter of wanting WW's people to show off more of their 'trimmer' bodies.

People who cover up a lot tend to look larger, and sub-consciencely you'd be less motivated to trim down by someone your lizard brain says is heavy.

[petranef.livejournal.com]

Therefore all the men should wear skirts too - to show off their trimmer bodies?

Can pantsuits not be flattering? If I recall, Scully from the X-Files always wore pantsuits, and never looked "large."

I wonder if this dress code is an Alberta WW thing exclusively? What does the national body have to say about it? Because it smacks of conservative fundamentalist sexism to me.

[jamesq]

I've worn my kilt to a WW meeting. I was accused of wanting to show off my legs, which was of course true.

[jamesq]

I suspect they are a bit sexist. I say this not because of the dress code, but because of the weird-ass way the company is organized.

1) The vast number of employees are women. To the point where, despite being a client for over a year, I have never seen a male employee.

2) According to the original article, the co-director is a man.

I suspect if I dug into it that pattern would hold. Women doing the day-to-day work, but the men are in charge.

Of course, the vast majority of clients are women. I see this every week, where there are 1-5 men per meeting and 20-50 women. I've often been the only male present at a meeting. This would explain why the rank and file are all women (it's their hiring pool). As for management, they're probably picked from outside WW for their ability to manage, rather then because they lost a bunch of weight. Thus it's not so much that WW is sexist, as society is sexist, else there'd be more female managers everywhere.

Of course, nobody trains anymore because that (gasp) would cost money. A simple change of policy to "WW promotes from within" would improve things.

I'm assuming a lot without any research whatsoever, so please take this comment with a HUGE grain of salt.

[wendy-licious.livejournal.com]

I actually went to the training to work for them. WW is a franchise type arrangement. The WW in AB and SK are owned by the same partnership of two men.
This is THEIR policy. Each WW francise has their own hiring practices except that employees must be lifetime members. Here, the 2 lb. limit and dresses are in place as well.
In some places in the States for example, leaders can be 20, 30 lbs or more overweight. All it means is that at some point, they were at goal.

The dress thing is just dumb. Apparently the two owners are a bit old and think that professional wear for women is dresses - period (that's what I was told anyway).