This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8255909.stm

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
'Stiletto stand' urged on unions Unions take 'stand' on stilettos
(about 23 hours later)
Union members are to be urged to take a stand against the risks of wearing high heels in the workplace in favour of more "sensible shoes". Union members have voted to take a stand against the risks of wearing high heels in the workplace in favour of more "sensible shoes".
Delegates at the TUC congress will be asked to back a motion requiring some employers to carry out risk assessments about their workers' footwear. Delegates at the TUC congress in Liverpool backed a motion requiring some employers to carry out risk assessments about workers' footwear.
The Society of Chiropodists says two million working days are lost a year due to lower limb injuries. The Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists says lower limb injuries cost two million working days a year.
But some unions say individuals should be allowed to wear what they want.But some unions say individuals should be allowed to wear what they want.
'Inappropriate' TUC delegates heard some workers were forced to wear high heels as part of their dress code.
The motion to be debated in Liverpool argues that some workers are forced to wear high heels as part of their dress code. 'Glamming up'
As a result, they risk problems ranging from blisters and calluses to serious foot pain and damaged joints. Lorraine Jones, of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, said women shop workers, cabin crew and other employees had to wear high heels as part of a dress code, but this did not apply to men.
This is a serious issue for women in the workplace Eddie Saville, Society of Chiropodists She said such shoes put seven times as much pressure on the ball of the foot as flat-soled options.
While "high heels may look glamorous on the Hollywood catwalks," the motion says, "they are completely inappropriate for the day-to-day working environment". This well-meant motion will see the union movement portrayed in the media as the killjoy fashion police. Loraine MonkUniversity and College Union
It states that all firms which promote high heels should examine the risks that employees wearing them face and where this is found to be hazardous, they should be replaced with sensible and comfortable shoes. This could cause long-term knee injuries, she warned, adding: "We are not trying to ban high heels. They are good for glamming up but they are not good for the workplace.
"This is a serious issue for women in the workplace," says Eddie Saville, director of employment relations at the Society of Chiropodists. "Women should have a choice of wearing healthier, more comfortable shoes."
"We want to ensure women workers are never forced to wear high heels which we believe can lead to foot health problems in the short, medium and long term." But Loraine Monk, a University and College Union delegate, opposed the move, saying: "This well-meant motion will see the union movement portrayed in the media as the killjoy fashion police.
But the BBC's political correspondent Paul Rowley said some unions, including the University and College Union, would oppose the move. "Why is it only aimed at women? Hasn't anyone heard of Berlusconi?
"Who decides what is appropriate when it comes to dress codes? My union previously fought a successful campaign against a college that demanded women lecturers had to have their arms covered at all times. Who thought that one up? A man.
"We should list all inappropriate dress in the workplace, not pick on something that is symbolic of a much wider debate about gender roles and is something that many women have a particular view about - both for and against."
The motion stated that all firms which promote high heels should examine the risks that employees wearing them face and, where they are found to be hazardous, they should be replaced with sensible and comfortable shoes.