HE MALAY MAIL ran an interesting story yesterday.
In case you didn’t come across it, it was basically about a 47-year-old woman whose gym membership was terminated because of, according to her, her sexy gym clothes. A longtime member (she had been visiting the fitness centre thrice a week for the last seven years), she was asked to return her membership card because other patrons had complained about her two-piece attire.
In reply, the gym said it was more than that – it alleged the customer’s membership was terminated because she was "behaving inappropriately" toward other clients, in addition to her outfit being too revealing. It allegedly used words like "screaming", "obscene" and "moaning" when describing her.
Who was right? Was she sexy? Were her clothes appropriate? Was her behaviour acceptable?
I don’t know. I don’t have the full facts and it’s a grey area when it comes to what’s right or wrong here.
Naturally, there are an equal number of those who support the woman’s right to dress as she liked and those who felt it was within the gym management's right to take action. Each side of the fence had a case. She’s an independent woman who paid to work out at the premises and wore attire she considered appropriate while the gym has the right to govern the dressing and behaviour of those who use their facilities.
Considering they have to take care of all customers, balancing the rights of the individual and other clients, it’s understandable they had to act.
What this little conflict highlighted, however, was something more important: where does your right to dress as you wish end and the right of the premises owner to govern your dressing begin? When does your freedom of expression infringe the right of the business owner to police their premises?
Consider some government offices, for example. Some offices explicitly ban people wearing certain attire from conducting business. If you decide to jump out of bed, put on your flipflops, shorts and singlet and go as you are, expecting the people behind the counter to treat you well, you may just get disappointed.
Look around and you may find posters dictating how you should be dressed if you want to get served by these civil servants. No jeans, flip-flops, round neck tees and caps.
You can argue all you want, saying it’s within your right to wear whatever you want and that wearing a collared shirt, a tie and a pair of shoes that cover your toes doesn’t make you any more worthy of being helped by government servants than if you were wearing bermudas, tight fitting tees and your favourite pair of selipar Jepun. I mean, you pay taxes too, yes? Dressing does not make the man.
What about swimming pools and beaches? Surely sunsoakers and swimmers have the right to don the latest bikini trends and Speedos? It’s a free country, yes? And what of the other places? Surely you can wear anything you fancy, instead of being told like a juvenile what to wear and how to carry yourself?
But what about the rights of the premises owners? As owner, don’t they have the right to determine how those who patronise the place dress and behave?
It’s hard to say. In cases like these, it’s often subjective and depends of the perception of the one calling the shots. Some may find it counterproductive to humans rights, the women’s movement and so on. But perhaps, with no reference to the earlier case, uncomfortable situations could be averted with clearer policies, better human relations and mutual respect.
Places that welcome patrons, paying clients at that, must always endeavour to provide clear, specific and reasonable guidelines to their customers if they expect them to behave or dress a certain way. You can’t punish them arbitrarily based on casual observation or even abstract complaints by other patrons. That’s akin to the police telling motorists a vague “no speeding”, without giving an actual speed limit. "No short skirts" – how short? "No sexy attire" – how sexy?
When guidelines are clearly defined and expressed, establishments that want to enforce such policies must also practise restraint, professionalism and compassion when dealing with those that run counter to those policies. It’s not enough to tell them, "Sorry, we’ll need to kick you out now because of so-and-so", but there must be a respectful way to get them to comply. There must be proper procedures to communicate the situation, explain the options and if need be, take corrective action. It protects you from legal action and you leave your customer with their dignity intact.
And when we talk about respect, the patron, on the other hand, must realise that, yes, while he or she may have paid for the service or facilities, it is a place shared with other patrons.
Just like any other public place, you must practise restraint and good manners, respecting the rights of others while enjoying your rights. It’s like keeping quiet in a movie theatre – yes, you paid to watch the flick, but so did 200 other people, so making noise is not an option.
IRWAN ABDUL RAHMAN is the executive editor, lifestyle, entertainment and new media of The Malay Mail, in addition to being the paper’s resident cartoonist. He promises to dress appropriately in a gym — if he ever steps into one. He blogs at www.nose4news.wordpress.com, tweets @irwanargh and can be contacted at irwan@mmail.com.my.
Sexy Carol to flex muscles
Fitness freak plans to take matter to consumer tribunal over gym dismissal
Wednesday, May 25th, 2011 10:19:00
THE National Consumer Complaints Centre (NCCC) has offered to help gym enthusiast CAROL LOKE (pic) who was booted out of her fitness centre for allegedly wearing obscene exercise gear.
The 47-year-old mother-of-two is all for it and intends to clear her name which she claims has been smeared following her dismissal.
"She has a good case against Fitness First because she is a paying member of the gym," says NCCC chief executive officer, Muhamad Sha'ani Abdullah.
"LOKE can lodge a complaint with the consumer tribunal that she had been paying her monthly fee just like other consumers."
Muhamad Sha'ani says a complaint can be lodged if LOKE feels the termination was not done lawfully.
She also has the option to initiate a civil suit against the gym.
Yesterday, Hotline highlighted LOKE's plight after her membership at the Fitness First Cheras Leisure Mall outlet was terminated.
LOKE had claimed she was informed about the decision at a roadside food stall as she was heading for the gym on May 16.
She claims the termination was unlawful as she was expelled due to complaints received from other gym members.
Fitness First had in a response to Hotline said they terminated LOKE's membership primarily because of her 'obscene' gym attire which exposes certain private parts of the body.
They also said the decision was made because over the last one year, LOKE had misbehaved during group exercise classes by screaming, shouting and moaning. The behaviour was deemed disturbing to both the instructor and the members.
When contacted yesterday, LOKE says she plans to bring the matter to the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
"The explanation from Fitness First is based on hearsay and not on solid evidence. Taking words from other members should not be sufficient to penalise me, as that could be considered hearsay or mere accusations."
She says allegations that she exposes her private parts are totally baseless as there are no CCTV recordings to prove that. She feels the fitness centre has been one-sided and has handled the matter unprofessionally.
LOKE also informs Hotline she has since started a free trial at another fitness centre in the city and the management has informed her they do not have any problems with her gym attire.
'Too sexy for my shirt'
Gym ends woman's membership for 'obscene' attire
Tuesday, May 24th, 2011 10:30:00
HAVING your gym membership terminated because of your exercise gear is probably the last thing you would expect to happen.
As ludicrous as it may sound, this was the exact bombshell that landed on a 47-year-old administrator by one of the largest privately-owned health clubs in the world.
CAROL LOKE from Cheras was given this 'rude awakening' by Fitness First Cheras Leisure Mall outlet earlier this month.
Even more outrageous was the fact she was informed about the decision at a roadside food stall by the management of the gym.
The mother of two who goes to the gym at least three times a week was stopped by three of the gym staff outside the outlet as she was heading there for her regular workouts on May 16.
"The staff, one of whom is the manager of the gym known as Maggie, stopped me and told me that they wanted to have a talk with me immediately. They then took me to a tea stall nearby where she bluntly told me I was no longer allowed into the gym as they have terminated my membership."
LOKE says when she asked for the reason, the staff replied they have been receiving numerous complaints from other gym members regarding her 'skimpy clothes' and the way she screams during class. No document was shown to support these allegations at this juncture.
LOKE claims the manager later showed her a complaint letter sent to Fitness First management with several signatures on it but she was not given a chance to go through the letter.
"The manager also insisted I return the access card to her, but I refused because the termination was verbal, she did not issue anything in writing."
"I've been a member of this gym for seven years but I was not given prior warning before my roadside termination.
"They also said they would rather lose one customer than all the others."
LOKE says when she asked for an explanation again, the manager was only able to say there were complaints by the other members. She then quoted Clause 14 of the terms and conditions of the Fitness First membership.
"I was not satisfied as I felt it was unfair and I lodged a police report the following day at the Taman Connaught police station."
LOKE says that prior to the May 16 incident, the manager did call her for a meeting on April 10 and told her that members have been complaining about her attire and her behaviour during class.
"I brought two witnesses along but when the management commented about my attire, I asked for their attire guidelines and they didn't have any. The meeting ended with no outcome."
Two years ago, she was called up by the then manager of the gym for the same reason.
LOKE says if her dressing is considered indecent, the fitness centre should have a dress code so that members know what they should or should not wear.
"I also would like to know which clause states that we must be silent during classes? In fact, the instructors encourage us to be more participative. I did not cause anyone any problems. It is very unfair for a loyal member to be treated in this manner."
● IN a statement to Hotline, a spokesperson for Fitness First Malaysia says they terminated LOKE's membership primarily because of her obscene gym attire which exposes certain private parts of the body.
However, the decision was also made because of the following incidents over the last one year:
- Misbehavior during group exercise classes where she screams, shouts and moans which is deemed disturbing to both the instructor and the members.
- Verbally abusing members in the changing room on a one-to-one basis and in general such as yelling out that all members in the centre were stupid.
- Damaging the centre's property by throwing equipment such as bars and plates during class and smashing the front desk phone after using it.
"Fitness First had taken earlier steps in handling the matter, such as holding a meeting on April 24 between LOKE and the branch manager as witnessed by a staff and two other members," said the statement.
"Maggie had addressed the seriousness of the complaints received from members and instructors with regards to LOKE'S obscene gym attire and her misbehavior during the group exercise classes.
"Maggie had highlighted that the recurrence of these incidents of misconduct will lead to the termination of LOKE'S membership with reference to the Fitness First terms and conditions stated in the contract."
After the April 24 meeting, more complaints were received with hard copies dated May 12. There were also members who preferred to complain verbally.
"On May 16, Maggie met up with LOKE witnessed by two other staff and informed LOKE that the complaints have escalated from the last meeting due to her action of verbally abusing members in the changing room and on online social networks. Therefore the management had no choice but to terminate her membership with immediate effect as highlighted to her a month ago during the meeting," the spokesperson says.
The statement also states they informed LOKE that the termination letter would be ready on Wednesday May 18.
"We tried to call LOKE to pick up her termination letter on May 18 but she did not answer our calls."
The termination was based on clause 14 of Fitness First contract signed between LOKE and Fitness First Management on 27th December 2004 which states:
The management may terminate the membership of any member without notice and with immediate effect if a member’s conduct, whether or not such conduct is subject of complaint by another member or members, is such that in the reasonable opinion of the management, it is harmful to the character and/or interests of the club.
Warm Regard, Sara Pandian
No comments:
Post a Comment