Since 1868 the trade unions of Britain have met in congress and fought for Britain’s downtrodden workers. They have made great strides, but battles remain. After the fight for equal pay comes the struggle for equal shoes.

Yesterday the TUC turned its attention to the terrible threat to the workers that is posed by high heels.

Shortly before Gordon Brown addressed union members on the need to cut costs in public services, the unions spoke with one voice, demanding that women be allowed to wear sensible shoes in the workplace. It fell to two female delegates to make the stand for lower footwear. They warned that Britain was tottering on the brink of a podiatric catastrophe.

Much as workers who climb ladders now have the job risk assessed, they urged employers to carry out assessments of the risks of wearing Manolo Blahniks in the workplace.

First came Lorraine Jones, of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, stepping up to speak in a pair of flat shoes. She claimed that some women, including shopworkers and air stewardesses, were required to wear high heels as part of their professional dress code.

If the boot were on the other foot, or at least a foot belonging to a man, this would not be tolerated. She pointed out that such requirements were not made of the other half of the workforce. About a thousand delagates considered the truth of this statement. With the exceptions of pantomime dames, and Eddie Izzard, very few men are obliged to wear high heels.

“This is not a trivial problem,” she said. “Two million working days are lost every year through lower limb and foot-related problems.” Two million working days equates to a £300 million contribution to the economy.

The women who were forced into the bondage of arched heels risked long-term health problems such as knee damage, corns and bunions, she said. “We are not trying to ban high heels,” she said. “They are good for glamming up, but they are not good for the workplace.”

Delegates approved a motion that read: “High heels may look glamorous on the Hollywood catwalks but are completely inappropriate for the day-to-day working environment.”

The bête noire in the fight against high heels is, apparently, the Tory MP Nadine Dorries. Ms Dorries has betrayed her sisters by declaring that she wears high heels because she is small and needs to be able to stand up to her male colleagues.

Mary Turner, the national president of the GMB union, who seconded the motion, stamped her flat-heeled mark on the debate by lambasting the high- heeled Tory. “If you need to wear expensive high heels to stand up to your colleagues then I feel very sorry for you,” she said. “We stand on our own two feet.”

It was clear that these two feet should be no more than an inch or so from the ground. Delegates applauded. She added: “Wearing heels for a long period of time can cause health problems and we do not need any lessons from Tory MPs who set women’s rights back decades.”

Ms Dorries said that Ms Turner was “trying to cut me down to size”. She added: “My job [in the Commons] is male-dominated, and the men I work with have killer instincts,” she said. Heels were necessary in the political jungle. “I am 5ft 3in and need to wear high heels,” she said.

“I am not speaking as a Tory, but like millions of women, I like high heels. If I took my heels off, you wouldn’t be able to find me. Podiatrists have a duty to educate and inform us of the dangers of wearing high heels, but it is down to us to choose. For the TUC to table a motion to ban high heels in the workplace is frankly ridiculous.”

Airlines denied that stewardesses had to wear high heels. A spokesman for Virgin Atlantic said: “Some wear heels to and from the plane but change into flat shoes on board for health and safety reasons. You can’t run in a heel, and you’re not permitted to go down the emergency slides in a heel either.”

The high heel is the limb-lengthening, foot- destroyer fashion can’t live without. But are some shoes more treacherous than others? Tread carefully when wearing any of these 4in-plus styles for any length of time, says the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists.

Mind how you tread

The stiletto The classic culprit. “Stilettos are quite dangerous, simply because the narrow base where the weight goes is not supportive,” says Lorraine Jones, a spokeswoman for the the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists. Instead, weight is thrown on to the ball of the foot, which may lead to callus, painful bunions, corns and deformity.

Stilettos push the centre of mass in the body forwards, causing the spine to bend backwards to compensate, which can lead to back problems. Unfortunately, they also increase height and attractiveness.

Kitten heels Save these backless high-heeled shoes for evening glamour, says Ms Jones. Backless shoes force your toes to claw, straining the muscles if worn over a long period.

The wedge Summer favourite, the wedge increases instability. “Depending on the difference in height between heel and ball of the foot, you can sprain your ankles in these,” warns Ms Jones. “They can lead to shortening of the Achilles tendon. This is what is happening when you hear women who have worn high heels all their life, say, ‘Oh, I can’t wear flats — it’s too painful. They are the ones you see in surgery in excruciating pain, when they come back from holiday having worn flip flops for two weeks.”

The classic court shoe As soon as they break through the 4cm barrier, the court shoe presents problems, as weight remains distributed unevenly.

The fetishistic fantasy shoe The platform ankle boots, designed by Oliver Theyskenshave, elevate the wearer a vertiginous 8in off the ground. A style best saved for the day walking goes out of fashion.

Rollasole ballet flats The £5 ballet flats — handily dispensed from vending machines in pubs and bars — lack the strap/lace over the instep, advised by the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, but are a godsend for any girl lacking a boyfriend to carry her home.

Times Recommends

• Please help: maimed children of war want their lives back
• Unlocking the cruellest prison
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle