The Perils of Beauty’s Burden

I’ve never been told I am too attractive to work, but one woman in the UK says she is. This is nothing new. Several years ago a woman claimed she was fired from her $70,000 a year job because she was “too sexy”. (See: I’m Too Hot for this Blog, June, 2010) Recently, a woman in Iowa was dismissed after 10 years of service because she was “a distraction” to her boss. Another thought her boss fired her because her breasts were “too large” and inappropriate in a lingerie store. (?) Can a person be too attractive to work?

UK writer Samantha Brick thought so. She lamented that throughout her professional career men kept buying her drinks and sending her flowers because she was so stunningly gorgeous. She started to feel the natural attractiveness she was burdened with became an obstacle. Samantha lamented and languished her plight; her good looks stood between normal relationships with men and women. The attention and jealousy was apparently caused by her being “too beautiful”. But it didn’t keep her from being employed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124246/Samantha-Brick-downsides-looking-pretty-Why-women-hate-beautiful.html

Dental assistant Melissa Nelson worked in the same office for ten years. She was married with children and had a great working relationship with her boss, co-workers and the clientele of the clinic. But after her employer’s wife discovered e-mails between Melissa and Dr. James Knight that she felt were inappropriate, Melissa was canned (though nothing of a sexual nature was even hinted at). Dr. Knight declared Melissa was a “distraction” and because she was so attractive, he had to fire her to preserve his marriage. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed. Melissa wanted to work but was denied the privilege because of her appearance.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/melissa-nelson-dental-assistant-fired-for-being-irresistible-is-devastated/

Recently Laura Fernee has come forth to declare that the reason she has been unemployed for the last two years is because of her beauty. The 33 year old woman, who declares “she is not a bimbo”, lives in an apartment paid for by her parents and is writing a book that she hopes will shed more light on this increasingly perplexing problem in our society. Beautiful people can’t work with commoners!

Here is an excerpt of her logic:

After discussing how she felt with her -wealthy retired -parents Catherine, 65, and Alan, 70, Laura quit and, apart from occasional modelling, has not worked since. Her mum and dad, who inherited -money from Laura’s grandfather, pay £2,000 rent and bills for her flat in -Notting Hill, London, and pick up her credit card bills.
During the day she works out at her £80-a-month gym to maintain her size six figure and spends £1,500 a month on -designer clothes, shoes and handbags, plus £700 a month on blow dries.
In the evenings she eats out with friends or her boyfriend, spending £1,000 a month on socialising.
Laura, who earned around £30,000 when she worked, also loves to travel, saying: “I’ve visited Tokyo, New York, Paris and Germany in the past 12 months. I’ve spent more than £6,000.”
She adds: “I know people will judge me for choosing not to work but they are underestimating just what a curse good looks can be in the workplace.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/im-pretty-work-graduate-says-1897010

We all need understanding parents like Laura’s, don’t we?

http://www.news.com.au/business/worklife/london-woman-laura-fernee-says-shes-too-attractive-to-work/story-e6frfm9r-1226647294922

Have we become so enamored with beauty that the work force grinds to a halt when an attractive person passes by? Are the beautiful people to be pitied, perched high upon the popularity pedestal? Or does an employer have the right to say, “Your appearance is not conducive to a good working environment” ? There are all kinds of distractions in the workplace and employers who want peak productivity have to be aware of them.

When Debrahlee Lorenzana went for several breast enhancement procedures, she declared she wanted to attract a wealthy husband by being “tits on a stick”. Her goal was to appear like a Playboy Playmate. After accomplishing this, she decries the attention she was receiving and her subsequent firing as “unfair”?

But sometimes the courts see it differently, as in this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213397/Prison-guard-forced-job-sexy-wins-unfair-dismissal-case.html

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?
Apparently not your average working class, which John Lennon always declared he was.

It is something to be… and be proud of, no matter how great you think you look.
~
Peace.

Don’t Hate Me ‘Cause I’m Rich

~

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

http://music.msn.com/michael-jackson-the-wrap-pt2/story/feature/?gt1=28102