I’ve written about the high cost of red tape, and have cited crazy examples of regulation run amok.
- Special bathroom rules for “pee-shy” employees.
- Making banks put foreign law above U.S. law.
- The federal milk police.
- Banning light bulbs.
The list could go on forever, so let’s look at a new example of regulatory stupidity.
Back during the Clinton years, the pinheads at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission tried to coerce Hooters into ending its discriminatory hiring practices. These clueless bureaucrats thought it was unfair that fat, middle-aged men weren’t properly represented on the serving staff.
In a rare victory for common sense, the EEOC eventually backed down, in large part because Hooters launched a public “get a grip” campaign to embarrass the government which included newspaper ads and billboards showing how absurd it would be to change the company’s hiring practices.
Now, as Yogi Berra would say, it’s deja vu all over again. The EEOC is agitated because a Massachusetts coffee chain apparently has hired too many attractive young women. Here’s some of what the Boston Herald reported.
South Shore coffee chain Marylou’s is singing the blues over a federal employment-discrimination investigation, crying foul that the feds are going after its long-standing practice of hiring bubbly young bombshells to peddle the shop’s trademark joe. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been quietly probing Marylou’s’ hiring practices for nearly a year, the Herald has learned, with investigators pulling reams of job applications, interviewing company brass and grilling the 29-store chain’s pink-clad
clerks about their co-workers’ gender, age, race and body type, according to the company. …Katherine J. Michon, a Boston lawyer who specializes in discrimination cases, said the length and scope of the investigation indicates the feds are serious about cracking down on the company. …he company also complained about the probe to state Sen. Robert L. Hedlund, who blasted the EEOC as “a meddlesome, overblown, intrusive federal agency.” He said he plans to contact the local congressional delegation, and is dumbfounded the agency is probing the stalwart South Shore coffee shop. “Why, because they haven’t hired old overweight men who want to wear a pink T-shirt and serve coffee?” Hedlund said. “The federal government has better things to do with my tax dollars than to harass a legitimate business.”
What’s especially nauseating about this case is that nobody complained about discrimination. Instead, some moron bureaucrats got upset that the TV ads featured attractive young women. Here’s more from a follow-up story in the Herald.
She [the head of the EEOC] refused to answer general questions about the agency, which critics say has run amok by initiating investigations into businesses even if no one has complained about their hiring procedures. Marylou’s execs, for example, say the feds’ yearlong inquiry started when investigators saw the chain’s flirty TV commercials. Sandry said the groundswell of support for Marylou’s has remained strong since the Herald broke the news Wednesday of the yearlong EEOC inquiry, which company founder Marylou Sandry has called “a witch hunt.” “It’s been crazy, but everywhere I go people are cheering the girls,” Ronnie Sandry said. “Boy, people hate the government.”
I’m greatly encouraged by the last sentence in the excerpt. We should all be very upset that overpaid bureaucrats are harassing and pestering people in the productive sector of the economy. These leeches should be immediately terminated.
Even though I don’t like coffee, I wish Marylou’s had some branches in the DC area. I would find something to buy just to show my support.
P.S. In the interests of fairness, I should point out that the federal government is not the only entity to pursue idiotic regulations. California lawmakers, for instance, have considered rules to regulate babysitting. And since we’re on the topic of coffee, let’s not forget the Seattle campaign to ban scantily clad baristas. But the all-time record for strangest government regulation belongs to Japan, which actually has government rules on the application of coffee enemas.
[…] pinheads at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission going after Hooters for not having any male waiters in hot pants and tight […]
[…] pinheads at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission going after Hooters for not having any male waiters in hot pants and tight […]
[…] pinheads at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission going after Hooters for not having any male waiters in hot pants and tight […]
[…] with myopic enforcement of silly rules, I obviously think of the United States, especially the IRS, EEOC, FDA, and […]
[…] But the folks who work on regulatory policy may get exposed to the most inane government policies (Fannie-Freddie mandate, EEOC rulings). […]
[…] to our intelligence.” Those same words could be used to describe the welfare state, the EEOC, farm subsidies, the tax code, and just about everything else the government […]
[…] to our intelligence.” Those same words could be used to describe the welfare state, the EEOC, farm subsidies, the tax code, and just about everything else the government […]
[…] it’s also simple to highlight examples of foolish and preposterous […]
[…] EEOC telling a coffee shop it had too many attractive […]
[…] EEOC telling a coffee shop it had too many attractive […]
[…] EEOC telling a coffee shop it had too many attractive […]
Of course the Marylou’s affair is absurd, but my question is a more prosaic one: who is to say what is attractive? Is there a fixed standard?
[…] EEOC telling a coffee shop it had too many attractive […]
[…] focus primarily on the fecklessness of Washington, but I also can’t resist highlighting malfeasance and stupidity by local governments, state […]
You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be really something that
I think I would never understand. It seems too
complicated and very broad for me. I am looking forward for your next post, I will try to get the hang
of it!
[…] become famous for ridiculous examples of red tape. It first became famous many years ago when it went after Hooters for hiring attractive young women instead of fat old men to serve as waitresses (and now the bureaucrats are going after a business […]
[…] EEOC is investigating Marylou’s, a Massachusetts coffee house chain, for hiring only cute young ladies as […]
Ever seen or been to an EEOC office? All African-American women! Talk about discrimination and “over representation!”
The only place these kinds of jobs exist, the Federal government. That should tell you something. But, don’t worry, there is only about a three year backlog on the current cases, so be happy, no worries EEOC has your back!
Fifteen trillion in debt or whatever we’re up to, and our government is spending money to protect the people’s right to be served coffee by ugly old men. Yup, that’s a cause worth bankrupting the country for. Our econmy may collapse, but at least we’ll all starve to death knowing that the last bit of food was served by a properly gender-balanced staff.
After Hurricane Andrew destroyed the Doctors Office where my wife worked, she was allowed to collect umemployment. But she had to provide names of places where she had submitted applications. So my wife and all the 40ish and 50ish ladies she worked with, all applied at every Hooters location they could.
It worked like a charm. They knew they weren’t going to be hired and way before the unemployment ran out the Doctors Office re-opened.
If that’s what they think discrimination is, then they have a case against the entire hospitality industry who employ presentable people at front desk and at customer interface. If you carry their argument to logical extreme, then there’s a lot of discrimination going on worldwide where employers employ suitable candidates and reject those unsuitable for the job.
Why is their mind wandering on useless things? How many arbitrary ideas do they think they can impose on companies or other people in any respect?
Who someone hires, how much they are paid and the details of their contract should be a matter SOLELY for the two parties involved. But these days everyone seems obsessed with “equality”, “fairness”, and “social justice”.
And isn’t it funny? “Progressives” and liberals seem to reserve a special place in hell, one in which they wouldn’t even wish their political opponents, for anyone advocating the right of the individual to be free from government coercion…
The idea of ending “group rights” sends them absolutely APOPLECTIC.
Fat old guys on their cheerleading squards? What about fat old guys playing on the team. How many 50+ guys are there on the average NBA roster? Talk about age discrimination! Where’s the EEOC when you need them?
(BTW, in case anyone knows an NBA GM, I’m available–55, 5’7″, 200 lbs., and with a 44 vertical [that’s mm, not inches].)
This calls to mind the scene in Catch-22 with the soulless brothel replacing the formerly joyful one in Italy. Everything is clearly regulated and there are rules for everything.
Wise fools.
Waiting for them to tell the professional sports franchises that they are not hiring enough fat, old guys on their cheerleeding squads