Hey everyone - I was so pleased to see this site was still active. In fact I'm so happy to see it seems to be bigger and better than ever.
Not long after I became a member (4 years ago) I ended up having to take a boring conventional job that didn't lend itself to dreads...... but hey i was young and needed the money 
Fortunately for me the universe is a wonderfully, spirally place and I'm back to the place I was before - albeit a little older and wiser.
Good to see you all again!
Natty
xxx
welcome back! but read this https://www.dreadlockssite.com/dreadlocks-forums/forum/dreads-jobs-employment-issues/110594/dreadlocks-and-employement-laws-your-rights-to-wear-dreads-in-the-workplace-explained
there are no boring conventional jobs that don't lend themselves to dreads. theres no such thing
theres only a very small number of jobs that do not lend (is that the right word?) themselves to dreads and they are very far from boring. astronaut, fighter or test pilot, or firefighter. these jobs require airtight sealed masks that dreads might not alow the airtight seal
oh maybe also toxic waste disposal stuff like that
cdc uses isolation suites that have to be airtight but dreads would not interfere in that since its a full body suit
dreadlocks by law must be accepted in any job when they are part of "any sincerely held belief" which as worded in the law includes beliefs that are uncommon or even if you are the only person that holds that belief.
the only exceptions are when they present a clear safety hazard as listed above.
most countries that are not under religious law and have some religious freedoms should have something basicly like this but maybe a lil more strictly defined as in only applying to certain organized beliefs.
I may be mistaken but didn't I read a few articles (even on this site?) that said dreadlocks are not actually protected under that law?
There was several court rulings that determined dreadlocks were not protected under Title VII. It made me upset when I learned that but I think its important to mention.
depends on how you defend them under that law as a spiritual or religious expression they are protected, as are all things spiritual or religious.
but if you use the cultural or racial argument they are not protected.
i do not agree with that court ruling because as it was stated they say "dreadlocks are not protected as a cultural or racial expression because they can be changed" but by that definition so can hair txture, eye color, the shape of facial features and in fact the color of the skin through chemical and/or surgical methods
it only applies to companies that have a 'racially neutral' dress code clause
it has very limited power because of that
it is also very likely that if challenged in court 'racially neutral' clauses could be unconstitutional and a violation of 1st amendment rights at the very least
its on par with requiring gender neutral dress codes
that was 1 court ruling that if challenged i guarantee would be overturned by a higher court.
that court ruling although sets a precedent till overturned applied to a single case in a singe company that had that racially neutral clause
would you want to work in a company that requires a homogenized neutrality like that?
