0
   

L'Oreal - You're Worth It...If you're white

 
 
snood
 
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 09:46 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2120789,00.html#article_continue


In July 2000, a fax detailing the profile of hostesses sought by L'Oréal stipulated women should be 18 to 22, size 38-42 (UK size 10-14) and "BBR", the initials for bleu, blanc, rouge, the colours of the French flag. Prosecutors argued that BBR, a shorthand used by the far right, was also a well-known code among employers to mean "white" French people and not those of north African, African and Asian backgrounds.

Christine Cassan, a former employee at Districom, a communications firm acting for Garnier, told the court her clients demanded white hostesses. She said that when she had gone ahead and presented candidates "of colour" a superior in her own company had said she had "had enough of Christine and her Arabs".

One woman working in the recruitment firm involved said foreign-sounding names or photos showing a candidate was of Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian or other African origin would ensure candidates were eliminated. Another said: "I once had a good woman candidate but she was non-white. I had to ask someone to pretend that our list was full. It was hard."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,217 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 09:49 am
nice.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 10:32 am
What is a "hostess" for a cosmetic company? Is that someone who works as a cosmetics counter or appears in ads or what?

Sounds like they have their discrimination bases covered: sex, age, weight and race.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 10:37 am
Quote:
In July 2000, a fax detailing the profile of hostesses sought by L'Oréal stipulated women should be 18 to 22, size 38-42 (UK size 10-14)


I can understand your pique against the apparent prejudice against black women. I think that it stinks. But there were two other incidents of prejudice that you did not even mention, age and size discrimination.

I can remember when stewardesses (that was the earlier term for "flight attendants") all looked like Barbie dolls. There was not an ethnic face amongst them, and they all resembled model wannabees. Men did not need to apply for those positions. There WERE no male flight attendants.

I believe that, at the time, you were expected to leave your job when you reached (I don't remember the exact number) the venerable age of about 28.

I can remember when I once applied for a job in a well known company (this was in the late 1950's) and I was told that they were seeking a certain "look", the implication being that I did not have the look that they wanted.

We have come a long way over the years. I think that if black women are upset about the hiring practices at L'Oreal, they need to protest, by writing letters, refusing to buy the product, signing petitions, even marching with picket signs.

The way to create change, IMO is to hit this company where it hurts..................in their bottom line.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 10:37 am
I wonder if/how things have changed in the past 7 years.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 10:39 am
That's Neece, I believe..

and, yes, broad discrimiation.

(I seem to be kidding, but geez.)
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 10:58 am
The court of appeal says it was discrimination, therefore condemning all the companies involved.

I didn't find a link in English : Discrimination l'Oréal

It seems l'Oréal implemented a plan to prevent new discriminations...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 11:10 am
From Friday's 'Daily Mail':

Quote:
L'Oreal and Adecco were fined £20,000 each and told to give £7,000 each to an anti-racism charity.

Adecco employee Therese Coulange was given a three-month suspended prison sentence.

Both companies denied the charges and vowed to appeal.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 01:25 pm
Phoenix:
Quote:
I can understand your pique against the apparent prejudice against black women. I think that it stinks. But there were two other incidents of prejudice that you did not even mention, age and size discrimination.


I didn't particularly "mention" anything, so I wasn't excluding anybody elses' discrimination- just copied the title of the article, and C&P'd a couple of paragraphs. Those incidents of age and size would've been found by anyone who read the article - to which I included a link.
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 01:10 pm
Nestlé owns a part of L'Oreal
Another good reason to avoid its products
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 01:21 pm
Damage Control



I'll tell you what though, L'Oreal makes some damn fine products.
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 02:06 pm
Yeah, I know what you mean

When my favorite sweet company Rowntrees
got brought out by Nestlé - i was gutted - lost a few pounds though
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 02:11 pm
I'm sorry, I'm ignorant.

What is the reason to boycott Nestle?




oh...never mind...looked it up.

I looked at their list of products, and don't buy any of them anyway.



Now, as far as L'oreal...Snood, your report is from 2000....what is the status now?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 03:21 pm
If you use the link, you see the article was written July 7 of this year. They were just now found guilty of discriminating.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 03:29 pm
okey doke
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 02:01 am
Chai wrote:


What is the reason to boycott Nestle?

oh...never mind...looked it up.
I looked at their list of products, and don't buy any of them anyway.


Apart from L'Oreal, of course :wink:
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 04:00 am
Well, they make such FABulous products...
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 06:00 am
thankfully I don't use their products. I'm naturally beautiful. I knew that would come in handy some day.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2007 03:06 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:


Quote:
...........
Both companies denied the charges and vowed to appeal.


Any women here? Have the men never bought cosmetics for ladies??

The charges are absurd on the face of them: if they hold on appeal, then all make-up for black women >
http://www.imanbeauty.com/cheeks/index.htm
> must automatically be outlawed as racially discriminatory; so must the hundreds of creams for black women exclusively:
http://www.floriroberts.com/emblica/index.html

I hope the companies bring it to the attention of the appelate court's judges that their courtroom will get mobbed by women of color if they uphold the original idiotic decision Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » L'Oreal - You're Worth It...If you're white
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 08:12:29