> -----Original Message----- > From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:53 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Man wins tie sex ruling > > > "Miller, Jeffrey" wrote: > > > > > (Of course, in the case of 2), some females might have > gotten away > > > with not conforming to that one when the boss was out....) > > > > Not here. We have a strict, company-wide rule that's > actually printed > > in the Employee Handbook: "Proper undergarmets must be worn at all > > times" > > > > -jeffrey- > > The point was, underwear was not supposed to be *seen*. > (Nobody really cared if you were wearing it or not, as long > as they couldn't tell you > weren't.) So pants ripped too close to the waistband were > out. Pants ripped around the knees were OK. Pants ripped > around the knees due to a dirt-bike spill were badges of honor. :) > > But if a female wore an outfit that allowed underwear to be > seen once in awhile, the guys weren't going to report her. A > guy's pants ripped in the wrong place would elicit complaints > pretty promptly.
When the anthrax scares were happening last year, our Reno, NV warehouse was evacuated and everyone exposed to the mysterious, white powder hosed down by the hazmat/firedepartment team in the parking lot. -j- _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
