Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No tattoo please

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No tattoo please

    The tattoo in parts of the body that can be seen is not okay with some companies. It is part of the unwritten rule like the age limit that is illegal or can be charged as discriminatory. But big companies here wouldn't hire applicants with visible tattoo. Especially the banks which are very strict with their dress code because it reflects the corporate image, they have a prejudice on the tattoo. Do you think this is a form of discrimination or do those companies have valid reasons for not hiring applicants with tattoo?

  • #2
    Re: No tattoo please

    Originally posted by Corzhens View Post
    The tattoo in parts of the body that can be seen is not okay with some companies. It is part of the unwritten rule like the age limit that is illegal or can be charged as discriminatory. But big companies here wouldn't hire applicants with visible tattoo. Especially the banks which are very strict with their dress code because it reflects the corporate image, they have a prejudice on the tattoo. Do you think this is a form of discrimination or do those companies have valid reasons for not hiring applicants with tattoo?
    Always a tricky situation. On the one hand this type of thing is discriminatory, but if you own a business such as a food outlet do you want staff with Tattoos and/or facial piercings dealing with your customers?

    Then do you avoid hiring staff who smoke? Tattoos, piercings, smoking are all things people have or do through personal choice.

    To a certain degree, shouldn't we allow employers to select the staff they best think suit their business?
    Regards

    Top Link - Site Founder

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: No tattoo please

      I think businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want because it's their money on the line. I don't believe it is discriminatory as it is not personal, and even if it was technically considered discriminatory then I still don't think it matters because ultimately like I said it is their money and survival on the line and I doubt any individual with or without tattoos or even the government will be that concerned if the business fails so on the same note their ability to meddle with the desired terms of the company should also be minimized as they have no stake in it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: No tattoo please

        Originally posted by hades_leae
        I have never been through this but it seems like it would be discriminatory because tattoos are a an expression. Companies can get around this by just never calling you back for the job. They are not going to call and say that they won't hire because of your tattoos because that's asking for a lawsuit in a way. I believe that there are some jobs that it would be reasonable where it would be accepted to not hire people with so many visible tattoos.

        I wouldn't want my kids to have a teacher that has many gangster tattoos from their past, etc. That was just an example.
        You are right on that - the hiring officer will not tell you that you have been rejected because of your tattoo. That's called the unwritten rule that they will never admit to anyone because it is clearly discriminatory and the company may be sued for that. One industry that wouldn't accept applicants with tattoo is the medical field that is for doctors and nurses. I don't know in the US but here hospitals are very strict with that. Even in fast foods, they only accept workers if the tattoo is not obviously displayed like a tattoo in the arm can be covered by a long sleeved shirt. As HR officials would say, that tattoo has a stigma because they are in fashion in penitentiary and in the olden times only convicted criminals have tattoo.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: No tattoo please

          In my country, there are many services where one will not be accepted for a job if they have visible tattoos. I am not against this rule because some of these tattoos are hideous. The would-be employee will have to make the choice of whether it's the job or the tattoo. It's no use crying discrimination because for the government services such as police, army, correctional services, it's and advertised rule and for the private sector you will be excluded without being told that it's because of the tattoo and they don't have to tell you. Therefore it's up to the job seekers to decide which is best for them.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: No tattoo please

            I believe that any company with an image to preserve, will want to have presentable employees. People who represent the company's image.

            Now, can you imagine walking into a bank and being met by a teller with visible tatoos? You will no doubt wonder if everything is alright.

            While having tatoos on any part of the body one wishes is a personal freedom of choice, I would say a person should consider their career prospect.

            I wouldn't really refer as discrimination to not hire a person with visible tatoos. I would call it preserving the company's image according to their etiquette.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: No tattoo please

              It depends on the culture of the company but I wouldn't say you're screwed if you have tattoos, after all so many companies in prosperous locations like Silicon Valley don't care too much. I interned at Facebook for a while and even the team leader had visible tattoos on his neck and hand fingers, it's not the worst thing in the world. I guess in the corporate world it's more frowned upon.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: No tattoo please

                Well I think that you could spend all day hearing arguments for both sides of this debate, but the one thing I always go back to is can you really blame a company for not wanting to hire someone with a neck tattoo? I can't. I suppose it is discrimination to a degree, and that is bad, but if I were an owner of a private company I would pass on them. I know it is hard to hear for some people, but your appearance matters. There is a reason why people wear suits and ties and other people have uniforms. It is always an interesting debate to have, though, I will say that.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: No tattoo please

                  It's not really discrimination to me. People also don't like to hire fat and/or ugly people as much as skinny beautiful people. If two people were equally qualified and one was covered in tattoos and one wasn't, the tattooed person will lose virtually every time. It is just a matter of company image. Squeaky clean is always better.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: No tattoo please

                    Originally posted by hades_leae
                    I have never been through this but it seems like it would be discriminatory because tattoos are a an expression. Companies can get around this by just never calling you back for the job. They are not going to call and say that they won't hire because of your tattoos because that's asking for a lawsuit in a way. I believe that there are some jobs that it would be reasonable where it would be accepted to not hire people with so many visible tattoos.

                    I wouldn't want my kids to have a teacher that has many gangster tattoos from their past, etc. That was just an example.
                    Agreed. I think these days it has become a lot more acceptable and part of the norm so it's at least a big step forward for self expression, but we must never forget that business is not about self expression and it is only concerned with what is necessary to keep a good image and to make money so people with tattoos should not take it personally as they have made their choice and instead they could just set up a business of their own where others like them are welcome.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: No tattoo please

                      Personally I think tattoos won't really affect work performance because if a person delivers and is capable, then there's no point in judging his or her appearance since it has nothing to do with the work at hand. However... image and reputation are really important for many companies. They have strict rules and policies that may put operations at risk if not respected and applied. So, if you apply for a particular company and they have rules against tattoos, then abide by them. It's not nice to sow trouble by rebelling and forcing the company to adjust to you because that's not how it works.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: No tattoo please

                        You start off by saying it isn't discrimination but then go on to describe the fact that it actually IS discrimination. Companies are discriminating against the fact that a person has tattoos or in your words that they're fat and ugly, haha! and that's something that shouldn't be happening in this day and age.

                        I DO agree with you though that it does happen but speaking from my perspective, I managed the internal logistics for the NHS in one of the biggest hospitals in the UK and while it was an unwritten rule for the NHS not to employ people with visible tattoos, it was a rule I ignored when it came to hiring my staff. If a person has a tattoo or not as no impact on the way they perform at their job, and as far as I was concerned if they was capable and had the right credentials that I, and more importantly the team was looking for, then a tattoo can be overlooked.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: No tattoo please

                          Originally posted by pwarbi View Post
                          You start off by saying it isn't discrimination but then go on to describe the fact that it actually IS discrimination. Companies are discriminating against the fact that a person has tattoos or in your words that they're fat and ugly, haha! and that's something that shouldn't be happening in this day and age.

                          I DO agree with you though that it does happen but speaking from my perspective, I managed the internal logistics for the NHS in one of the biggest hospitals in the UK and while it was an unwritten rule for the NHS not to employ people with visible tattoos, it was a rule I ignored when it came to hiring my staff. If a person has a tattoo or not as no impact on the way they perform at their job, and as far as I was concerned if they was capable and had the right credentials that I, and more importantly the team was looking for, then a tattoo can be overlooked.
                          There are several types of discrimination going on in the business industry regarding hiring of people. For the tattoo, it is understandable for some corporations to protect their image because a person with a tattoo doesn't look decent enough. You cannot erase that stigma in our culture. Another discrimination is the gender of the person. There is an unwritten rule in big corporations not to hire homosexuals or gay applicants. Again, it is the call of the company and you cannot quarrel with that particularly so that there is no proof. And even if the HR people would claim I don't think it will hold water. And would you believe that there are corporations not hiring married women? Or maybe just prejudiced because married women can get pregnant and avail of the 2 months maternity leave. Makes sense to me.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: No tattoo please

                            There are various types of discrimination in the workplace all over the world. I am pleased to say that in my country the gender bias is not such a big issue because we see where the females have been making great strides in previously male-dominated areas. The problem here at the moment seems to be age bias where there is the tendency to mostly refuse to employ persons of both genders once they are over forty years old.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: No tattoo please

                              Twenty years ago it may have been acceptable to bar people with tattoos from employment, but not now. In a professional environment certain types of tattoos may be deemed in appropriate, but tatoos on the arms hands chest, back and legs shouldn't become a problem. If it isn't something across the face or something deemed inappropriate by the community being worked in a business shouldn't turn a person with tatoos away. There will always be judgmental people that feel tattoos are not appropriate, that needs to be their problem, not the company's.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X