Do clothes make the employee? And how much sartorial solidarity is called for in the workplace today?

These are among the questions raised by a press release put out today by UniFirst, “a provider of uniform and work apparel programs to companies throughout North America.”

The headline of the release at first struck me as comical—“Uniforms Help Companies Gain Market Share During Economic Downturns; Improve Bottom Lines.” But this seemingly absurd claim has some intriguing support behind it:

• Companies that increase advertising during a recession can improve market share—and uniforms effectively make workers into walking billboards.

• Research by reputable organizations has found positive results from uniforms both in terms of customer and worker attitudes. UniFirst cites a study by the University of Nevada-Las Vegas of 200 hospitality employees finding that uniforms heightened wearer self-confidence and contributed to positive work attitudes.

UniFirst also argues that uniforms can help with employee retention once the economy picks up.

“When economies improve, conditions become more conducive for employees to seek out new jobs,” Robert Isaacson, director of marketing for UniFirst, said in a statement. “The ‘team-like’ atmosphere uniform programs create has been shown to be a positive influence in retaining good employees and improving overall turnover rates.”

I have a hard time buying this claim, though, and I wonder how much good really is possible from a one-style-fits-all approach. Yes, I can see how uniforms like the brown outfits worn by UPS drivers are tightly tied to the shipper’s overall brand, how uniforms could create a sense of pride for some workers, and how they can engender a helpful team spirit—something U.S. companies often undervalue.

But there are uncomfortable downsides to uniforms and rigid dress codes. The way they can feel stifling and silly is captured in the film Office Space, where Jennifer Aniston’s character chafes against having to decorate her waitress uniform with “flair”—buttons intended to pump up her workplace persona .

It’s also not clear how far the benefits of uniforms extend. About the only time white-collar workers wear uniforms is at industry trade shows, when button-down shirts with corporate logos abound on exposition floors. But I’ve always gotten a sense that people feel a little ridiculous in their company-wear. My editor, Carroll Lachnit, recounts hating having to wear a Workforce shirt at trade shows, because it got in the way of reporting.

“When I was walking around the show floor, trying to introduce myself or interview someone, people didn’t see me as a journalist (despite the press badge), but as some overly aggressive vendor,” she says.

That’s gets at the way uniforms are a tough fit for “information workers”—the discretion and autonomy invested in them is undermined by a company outfit that connotes a certain cog-in-the-wheel-ness.

Undoubtedly, a snob factor also goes along with office workers’ disdain for uniforms. They are seen as trappings of the working class. In the case of uniforms by UniFirst, there is another potentially unsettling aspect. The company not only provides work clothing but “facility services cleanliness products, such as restroom items and floor mats.” Even if I were wearing a well-made, comfortable UniFirst shirt, the fact that the vendor also made the office floor mat would lower my self-esteem a couple of notches.

Of course, “business formal” and “business casual,” and all the variations possible within them, still add up to a kind of uniform or costume. Working-class folks sum this up by sneering at “the suits.”

Hospital settings and pro sports are the only settings that immediately come to my mind where the uniform-class issue is turned on its head: Both highly paid doctors and sports players wear distinctive uniforms.

Have any “knowledge worker” companies experimented with uniforms on a regular basis? What do you think—could uniforms come into fashion beyond their traditional industries such as retail, health care and hospitality?