 |
| Style statement |
London, Dec. 15: The Swiss may have a reputation for being buttoned up, but now the country’s biggest bank — UBS — is trying to enshrine that in an official dress code.
UBS has issued branch staff in its home market with a 44-page document that contains an extensive list of edicts.
“An impeccable appearance can procure interior peace and a feeling of security,” says the guide, which is being tested with staff in five of the bank’s 300 Swiss branches. The elegant exterior is part of the effort to relaunch the UBS image for Swiss reliability after the bank received a $60-billion rescue, Europe’s biggest, in the 2008 financial crisis.
“A correct appearance is part of banking custom,” a spokesperson said. “People may smile at the precision of this code, but sometimes things work better when they are spelt out.”
The bank acknowledges that there is something very Swiss about the precision of its strictures and recommendations, but clients and staff have reacted well, the spokesperson said.
UBS leaves little to chance. Shirt-collars must be wide enough to pass a finger inside. Cuffs must show between 1.5 cm and 2.5 cm beyond the jacket sleeve. Of course, only lace-up shoes may be worn. And “only black socks with no pattern are authorised”.
Only suits of grey, black or navy blue may be worn by the men and women of UBS. Both are also told to keep them dry-cleaned and change them daily.
Women may wear seven items of jewellery, compared with only three for men, but skirts must descend to mid-knee and no more than 5cm below. She must wear a white blouse that “must neither be tight on the bosom, not gape open, because that gives a negligent appearance”.
Standard-style neckwear must be worn and the blouse collar must appear over the jacket lapel. Flesh-tinted bras are de rigueur to remain invisible under the blouse.
The code has drawn fire from some quarters as a breach of privacy. Jean Christophe Schwaab, who is in charge of labour law at the Swiss Federation of Trade Unions, said: “This code is both unreasonable and illegal.”
