<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 81 High heels</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/</link>
	<description>TUC Congress: Discussion, news and comment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:15:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christian Louboutin, Manolo Blahnik and the TUC &#124; STRONGER UNIONS</title>
		<link>http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/comment-page-3/#comment-79</link>
		<dc:creator>Christian Louboutin, Manolo Blahnik and the TUC &#124; STRONGER UNIONS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:34:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/#comment-79</guid>
		<description>[...] regard it as a call for women to be banned from wearing high heels anywhere and at anytime. See here if you don&#8217;t believe [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] regard it as a call for women to be banned from wearing high heels anywhere and at anytime. See here if you don&#8217;t believe [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: XpertHR's Employment Intelligence blog</title>
		<link>http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/comment-page-3/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>XpertHR's Employment Intelligence blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:02:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/#comment-51</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;High heels spark TUC debate...&lt;/strong&gt;

Why is it that women care so much about their shoes? This mystery deserves rigorous investigation and...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>High heels spark TUC debate&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Why is it that women care so much about their shoes? This mystery deserves rigorous investigation and&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gordon Jarvie</title>
		<link>http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/comment-page-2/#comment-40</link>
		<dc:creator>Gordon Jarvie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:43:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/#comment-40</guid>
		<description>As a registered podiatrist, I agree with the motion of my professional body.

I spend a signifcant portion of my working day dealing with the complications of inappropriate footwear, in particular excessive heel height.

What a number of people that argue aginst this sensible motion often do not realise, is that problems are not often immediate, indeed the number of people that suffer from severely debilitating foot conditions in older age, is as a direct result of inappropriate footwear during their working life. In addition the risk to persons with diabetes cannot be underestimated with risk of ulceration and infection from inappropriate footwear a very real and common risk.

Employers should remember that conditions such as diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis often require people to alter their footwear to prevent complications in the lower limb, and to continue to enforce dress codes and policies which act against medical advice would be viewed as a breach of the disability discrimation act which all chronic conditions now fall under.

Sensible, judicious and occassional use of high heels will cause little harm, but regular use for normal working activities does indeed have consequences in the short, medium and long term.

The SCP should be congratulated for bring this motion to congress, and the congress itself applauded for carrying this sensible and balanced motion, which is based on research evidence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a registered podiatrist, I agree with the motion of my professional body.</p>
<p>I spend a signifcant portion of my working day dealing with the complications of inappropriate footwear, in particular excessive heel height.</p>
<p>What a number of people that argue aginst this sensible motion often do not realise, is that problems are not often immediate, indeed the number of people that suffer from severely debilitating foot conditions in older age, is as a direct result of inappropriate footwear during their working life. In addition the risk to persons with diabetes cannot be underestimated with risk of ulceration and infection from inappropriate footwear a very real and common risk.</p>
<p>Employers should remember that conditions such as diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis often require people to alter their footwear to prevent complications in the lower limb, and to continue to enforce dress codes and policies which act against medical advice would be viewed as a breach of the disability discrimation act which all chronic conditions now fall under.</p>
<p>Sensible, judicious and occassional use of high heels will cause little harm, but regular use for normal working activities does indeed have consequences in the short, medium and long term.</p>
<p>The SCP should be congratulated for bring this motion to congress, and the congress itself applauded for carrying this sensible and balanced motion, which is based on research evidence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Plummer</title>
		<link>http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/comment-page-2/#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Plummer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:09:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/#comment-38</guid>
		<description>This motion seeks to stop employers imposing an unnecessary risk on employees. How can anybody have a problem with that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This motion seeks to stop employers imposing an unnecessary risk on employees. How can anybody have a problem with that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marjorie Standing</title>
		<link>http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/comment-page-1/#comment-37</link>
		<dc:creator>Marjorie Standing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:06:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/#comment-37</guid>
		<description>This is SUCH East European Claptrap.  

Women wearing high heels happens in the work place because the women involved know they can look good.  They are worn much less in retail in terms of those on their feet, but for plenty of female professionals, they are a natural choice.

Stop telling wimmin to wear dungarees and the like.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is SUCH East European Claptrap.  </p>
<p>Women wearing high heels happens in the work place because the women involved know they can look good.  They are worn much less in retail in terms of those on their feet, but for plenty of female professionals, they are a natural choice.</p>
<p>Stop telling wimmin to wear dungarees and the like.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Gray</title>
		<link>http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/comment-page-1/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>John Gray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:15:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/81-high-heels/#comment-13</guid>
		<description>Well done for putting forward this motion and showing the British press and media (with honourable exceptions) at its absolute worse when it comes to ‘elf &amp; safety”!  

What a load of complete rubbish and drivel has been published about this very sensible and informative motion.  How anyone can disagree with any single word of it is beyond me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well done for putting forward this motion and showing the British press and media (with honourable exceptions) at its absolute worse when it comes to ‘elf &amp; safety”!  </p>
<p>What a load of complete rubbish and drivel has been published about this very sensible and informative motion.  How anyone can disagree with any single word of it is beyond me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

