When was the last time you walked into a government building in the summer and was not hit with a mass of cold air?
Some of us live in air conditioning 9 months of the years, 76-78º is the comfort zone for sleeping or for a person dressed for the weather.
Now take the government building.
The thermostat set at 68, women freezing, forced to wear sweaters indoors, why?
Because the dress code demands a suit and tie for men. With a suit and tie 68-70º is a comfort zone, but on the other hand the dress code prefers women in a dress.
If one were to reverse this view, would it make sense to adjust the thermostat to accommodate people wearing shorts in Chicago, in January? Would you crank your furnace up to 80º in the winter so visitors wearing a bathing suit in a blizzard could be comfortable in your home?
This oddity struck at a gathering of local officials where we were informed that the city of Tampa would be purchasing new hybrid vehicles for the Mayor and staff while seated in a building that was 10º cooler than it needed to be for the women in the room. The Hybrid gesture was nothing more than symbolic, the truth is in the hundreds of government building managed by the City of Tampa.
Now consider corporate buildings, and you’ll find similar dress code requirements. Extend the foolish dress code to the whole State of Florida, to every building south of the Mason Dixon line where temperature and humidity can hover close to 90º for 6 mouths of the year.
Just one small adjustment in the way we dress our professionals and huge differences in energy consumption and pollution could be realized.
If you wouldn’t set your thermostat to 68º in summer at home, why would you pay taxes so someone else could? Why would you expect that these same people could create environmental and energy policy when they can’t even make the small sacrifice of adjusting the suit & tie dress code? What is the dress code after all but a symbolism to conformity that has out lived its usefulness in a climate that needs flexibility?
Could changes in design and material of the professional’s attire satisfy the demand for conformity while balancing the need to keep those power brokers cool? Would they accept a flexible code so we could move past the symbolic and into the substantive? We can see that it has happened in the past, the Wigs have moved on.