DEAR MISS MANNERS: The company I work for has a dress code policy that's quite casual as long as the dress is appropriate for the position and department of the employee. It can range from a polo shirt with company logo and khaki pants for executives to blue jeans and T-shirts for underlings.

They also have a policy of hiring the teenage or college-aged children of employees for summer part-time help, which is good. But I have seen a trend among them that crosses the line for "casual dress."

The teenage daughters of one key executive and a department manager were hired for the summer for clerical and receptionist backup. Both are nice girls, but it was a shock to see one of them, a college student, sitting at the receptionist's desk one morning with a new hairstyle drastically different from her usual light-brown long hair. She had it chopped off in different layers, dyed almost black, and streaked with neon blue streaks. (When asked how I liked her new hairstyle, I merely asked if it glowed in the dark.)

The other, a high-schooler with multiple body piercings and tattoos, sat up front in a crop top and hip-hugger blue jeans that defied gravity. Aside from full exposure of her navel, one notch less on her belt would have exposed the crack in her behind and her private areas. This was intentional, as it gave good exposure to the snake-like writhing tattoos she has around her hips.

I'm a firm believer that the initial impression a company gives to a potential customer or client is how the receptionist conveys herself to the general public. If full-time employees came to work like that, this would not be tolerated under any circumstances. They would be told to go home and change -- both their clothes and their hair. Fortunately, both full-time receptionists dress appropriately for their positions.

I was appalled at the appearance of both girls, but declined to openly criticize them due to the pecking order of their parents in the company.

I have also noticed similar casualness and outrageous attire when young women come for interviews into the company. They show up in blue jeans, T-shirts, sneakers or sandals, impossibly short skirts and crop tops, and 3-inch-long fake nails to apply for positions that in former days would have required a suit or at least a nicely tailored pair of trousers. Then they wonder why, in spite of impressive resumes, they don't get hired.

So, Miss Manners, how would you approach these parents about their children's appearances, regardless of their only being there for the summer, without telling them bluntly that one looks like a vampire-movie wannabe and the other looks like a slut?

GENTLE READER: They already know that. They may even have told their daughters so -- only to be cowed by the argument that this, and not their silly polo shirts, is what "casual" now means.

If such is the case, Miss Manners would imagine the parents to be grateful for some tactful support. You might ask them whether they want instruction in professional dress to be part of the young ladies' orientation, and if so, whether they need some help.

It will not be easy, Miss Manners warns you. The difference between professional and casual clothing is clear; the difference between one kind of casual and another is not. You will have to explain it as one of the mysteries of the modern working world, as indeed it is.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: If I haven't seen an old friend of the opposite sex in a year or two, is it proper to exchange hugs in front of others, or should a handshake be the best thing to do?

GENTLE READER: Were you on social hugging terms before?

If you were on handshaking terms then, Miss Manners fears that you will find your arms encircling a mass of confusion. Your old friend will be doing a memory search, on the chance of having forgotten how things got so warm.

However, if you were on more-than-social hugging terms in the past, it will be whoever is accompanying your friend who is doing the wondering.

So unless you are resuming an old greeting, it is best to start with a hearty handshake. It is easier to increase warmth than to explain it.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have a neighbor who is recently divorced. She relies on my husband to help her out a lot with fixing things in her house, lifting objects, etc. She also takes lengthy vacations, during which we water her plants daily, collect her mail, and sign for and keep her packages.

Three times now, I have asked her to reciprocate for much shorter amounts of times and she has said no!

She explains that she is in a phase of her life in which she needs to be selfish and she does not want to take on anything that would prohibit her from being "free" to up and leave at any moment.

While I can respect that, I am now a bit reluctant to continue these services for her. She just called to give me a "heads-up" that she'll be gone "most of the summer." What can I say to her when she calls and officially asks me to look after her things for over a month? I've decided I really don't want to if she is not willing to reciprocate. Is there a subtle way to convey this?

GENTLE READER: What a charming idea that is -- to declare oneself in a selfish period, sustained by depending on the unselfishness of others. The only part Miss Manners doesn't understand is how this would work if the idea were to spread.

You might test it by saying how intrigued you and your husband are with her notion, and explaining that you have decided to give it a try.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a child of the computer age and often send e-cards on various occasions. Last Wednesday, a fellow chorus member invited me over for dinner with a few friends of his. I enjoyed the evening and wanted to send him a thank-you note. I chose to use an e-card.

Yesterday I saw him again at a concert, but he seemed rather cold to me. As we have not had contact since and I got the confirmation that he had read my e-card, I think he disliked my thank-you note.

Are e-cards inappropriate, in your opinion? What role may new technologies play in societal life, and when should I trust paper and pen?

GENTLE READER: Was the meal canned? If not, why should the response be?

What you sent was doubly minimal. It was e-mail, which is the easiest form of written communication, and it was not even put in your own words. Did you imagine that this would delight your friend, as he waited for the card to finish downloading so that he could get back the use of his computer?

Miss Manners suspects that your thought was rather that you could discharge your obligation easily. You have not. Even if the food was canned, the host spent time and attention on you. E-mail is a wonderful convenience for casual messages and memos, but you still owe your host a letter of thanks.

: