Should Anti-Tattoo Discrimination be Illegal?

[Houdini Logic]

I think you're sailing way wide of the point. As I've said repeatedly, my beef is with people who think they should be able to look like they want and be the face of a company. 

 

How is having a visible tattoo any different to having a ring hanging from your nose? Or doodling on your arm? It doesn't look what 90% of people perceive as smart, therefore companies do not want people not deemed as smart looking interacting with customers. I'm not going to write someone off for having a tattoo on their forearm. But some people will. And that can affect business and reputation.

 

Thank god you're perfect and would risk business for your morals. I'm not saying you're wrong but you need to hop down off your high horse because people have different opinions.

 

If we're going to make anti-tattoo discrimination illegal then shouldn't we also criminalise these gen y hipsters for discriminating against suits?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/08/dress-codes

My opinion is that employers should be free to discriminate based on any appearance factor that was the choice of the interviewee. So if you chchoose to turn up to a professional interview with shorts and t-shirt on and the employer doesn't like it, tough shit. Likewise tattoos, if someone doesn't want you fronting their business because you've chosen to get a tattoo in a visible area then tough shit. You knew you were permanently altering your appearance when you chose to have it done.

 

Do you agree with companies having a dress code? Or a policy on jewellery or make up?

Or do you think people should be free to wear what they want?

It is the company's right to have a policy on appearance businesses spend a lot of money developing the right image, and I'm sure some would actively encourage body art and expressing your individuality, I'm thinking Google or companies in the creative sector, but other companies like Waitrose or BA pride themselves on their image of being upmarket and tattoos don't conform to that image so they rightly have a policy on appearance which includes visible tattoos and I find it crazy anyone thinks it is any form of discrimination.

 

You're all making a similar point and I think it's more than acceptable for a company to have a dress code, but clothes are something people can change and an individual can decide when taking the job whether they're happy to adhere to the dress code or not take the job. Same with piercings, jewellery, etc - all temporary.

 

Tattoos are different in that they can't be changed so if I'm honest I'm not really sure why you're drawing comparisons. And on that basis I don't believe a person should be discounted from a job based on whether they have a visible tattoo or not. It could be small, it could have been done 30 years prior, but you're happy for an employer to legally be able to sack someone because of it?  How the fact I disagree with that puts me on my high horse I have no idea.

[Captain...]

You're all making a similar point and I think it's more than acceptable for a company to have a dress code, but clothes are something people can change and an individual can decide when taking the job whether they're happy to adhere to the dress code or not take the job. Same with piercings, jewellery, etc - all temporary.

Tattoos are different in that they can't be changed so if I'm honest I'm not really sure why you're drawing comparisons. And on that basis I don't believe a person should be discounted from a job based on whether they have a visible tattoo or not. It could be small, it could have been done 30 years prior, but you're happy for an employer to legally be able to sack someone because of it? How the fact I disagree with that puts me on my high horse I have no idea.

If they employ someone with a visible tattoo them change their policy and sack them, then I don't agree with that, but that hasn't been the case. What has happened is people employed by companies with a no visible tattoos policy have then got a visible tattoo and subsequently lost their job. Do you think that is wrong?

Or people not getting the job because they have visible tattoos. Which is an employers right, in my opinion, people often miss out on jobs by making a bad impression appearance wise. Do you think that is wrong?

Tattoos aren't permanent and can be removed, at cost, no idea how much, but if it was lose my job or pay to have a 30 year old tattoo removed I would probably get the tattoo removed. Obviously depends on cost, salary and job prospects.

[Charl91]

I'm in two minds here. On the one hand, in an ideal world, I would like to think that the customers of a business shouldn't be so ignorant to really care whether the employee serving them has a tattoo or not, as long as it doesn't affect the quality of the service, and if they really care that much, then the customer can "jog on".

 

On the other hand, that means the business is going to lose money, and I can appreciate the reality is that customers will hold these perceptions regardless, so why should the company suffer for it? Plus, I do secretly have an irrational hatred for facial tattoos, along with lip and nose piercings).

 

At the end of the day, if a strip club hires fat women, then no-one is going to want to go to their club. Appearance matters in a lot of jobs, whether we like it or not.

[Samilktray]

Truthfully I couldn't care less how many tattoos somebody has, or where they are. I certainly won't be judging them based on that either. Silly people.

[PAPA LAZAROU]

I'm more unsettled by his terrible hair, if I'm honest 

 

 

Before or after or both ? 

[PAPA LAZAROU]

you can pass legislation all day long but if an employer thinks Tattoos are a reflection of your IQ and it's bad for business they are not going to employ you.  They would not be stupid enough to say it's because of those sheep markings , they don't have to they would simply say it's for another reason.

 

Mass tattooing is a modern day phenomenon , but give it ten to twenty years no one will be seen dead in one as it will be seen as only something old farts did years ago . The real money to be made in the future is Tattoo removals because it labels people and tells their true age and no one want's that when they are in their forties or fifties.

[Rincewind]

Some good points for and against/ To the  90% of employers would think its bad for business (misquote?) How do you know they are right? I agree that a customer can be put off by a tattoo and the employer has to take this into consideration/ But is that not giving in to discrimination? In a perfect world people would be  judged on their abilities. A question. How do you feel about worts or moles? would you refuse to hire someone because they did not look perfect? Maybe someone with a twitch are they unsuitable?

I do not like tattoos myself and may feel the same way and have the same prejudices myself if employing someone but does it make me right? It is human nature to avoid people different to themselves.

Not sure if i gree with 18 being mature enough. How many students 18 plus have had tattoos done while at uni because all their friends have or when going to some gig?

Like I said I am not really for them but a LCFC one would not affect my futre prospects and only get a telling off from my mum. That alone puts me off.

 

Why are they a reflection on your IQ? That is your personal opinion. I would guess there are some very highly intellegent and high ranked professionals that have had tattoos whether it be in their youth or in latter years.

[FoxesAreBlue]

Worts and moles are not a choice Rincewind.

[FoxyPV]

Truthfully I couldn't care less how many tattoos somebody has, or where they are. I certainly won't be judging them based on that either. Silly people.

Unless it's a swastika / C18 / HH on their forehead, then I'll judge them.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I'm thinking of having this as one:

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/made-it-with-my-bum.jpg

[Beliall]

[Guest MattP]

I put 'Meh' because I had already answered your question in the first answer in that post and I took the piss because you were saying it's not art and then your example of what was art, you didn't even know how to spell it. Pretty funny really.

 

By all means let me know your questions and I'll 'happily' give you my opinions.

 

And the last line of your post is exactly what I have an issue with in this thread. I too have standards regarding appearance but if someone turned up for a job with me it wouldn't be their tattoos I was judging them on when it came to appearance. That clearly isn't the case with everyone else in this thread - rather than accept people have different views, opinions and styles and that they should be judged on who they are and the work they can do, you say we should instead allow employers to discriminate against people for having even small visible tattoos and that's acceptable because it's the persons own fault for being so stupid and they may as well turned up with dirt all over them.

It's so backwards it's unbelievable.

 

Each to their own I suppose, I don't see where anyone has suggested employers will discriminate against people who have 'small visible tattoos' - but people who have them on neck, face etc or look as ridiculous as that guy in the link deserve what they get.

 

Would you want to sit down in a public meeting with a guy with a tattoo on his face? I certainly wouldn't and Imagine most people would feel the same.

 

Why are they a reflection on your IQ? That is your personal opinion. I would guess there are some very highly intellegent and high ranked professionals that have had tattoos whether it be in their youth or in latter years.

 

They aren't a refelction on IQ, but they are certainly a reflection on someone's decision making and attitude towards their own appearance if they are prepared to stamp something on thier face for life.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

Anyone defending the tattooed here - go into work tomorrow, but get a Sharpie marker and scribble all over your face. Then go and see your boss. They'll almost certainly ask you to wash your face. When you tell them it won't wash off, chances are they'll send you home. Why should it be any different if you've paid someone else to do it, and it really is permanent?

Just because you consider it art or meaningful to you, don't expect others to feel the same.

[Jordan]

Remember when men that got inked on blatantly visible body parts were pretty much all:

-in a biker gang,

-punks,

-sailors,

-bouncers,

-street fighters, or

-guys that had absolutely zero inhibitions or social filter when they were drunk?

I'm not sure those guys ever complained about job discrimination because they couldn't have given two ****s about getting a job that required them to project a professional appearance, much less get any sort of job where they got paid on the books.

Discrimination? Today's tattooed don't even know how good they have it. Any man with a neck tattoo that wants to get a good job at a reputable company needs to take a moment to think of all the chaps that made it possible for future generations to get neck tats without getting the clap in Tijuana, killing prostitutes, getting shanked in prison, and/or dying from overdosing on what they had either thought or hoped was heroin.

[Mark_w]

Not sure if i gree with 18 being mature enough. How many students 18 plus have had tattoos done while at uni because all their friends have or when going to some gig?

 

I can't help but think that any 18 year old who lets a stranger doodle on them, purely because of peer pressure, deserves everything they get. Your average 18 year old (in my experience) is mature enough to avoid doing anything that stupid and shouldn't be punished because others aren't.

 

 

And the last line of your post is exactly what I have an issue with in this thread. I too have standards regarding appearance but if someone turned up for a job with me it wouldn't be their tattoos I was judging them on when it came to appearance. That clearly isn't the case with everyone else in this thread - rather than accept people have different views, opinions and styles and that they should be judged on who they are and the work they can do, you say we should instead allow employers to discriminate against people for having even small visible tattoos and that's acceptable because it's the persons own fault for being so stupid and they may as well turned up with dirt all over them.

It's so backwards it's unbelievable.

 

Can't believe that you're incapable of accepting the different view, opinions and styles of people who choose to go to an interview covered in dirt.

 

People choose to get tattoos, it's not like we're talking about race/gender/sexuality here. If you're going to say it's fair to discriminate based on appearance (and you are pretty much saying that) then that should be it. You might not agree with someone who chooses not to employ someone because they have a visible tattoo, but they've got every right to. Just as you'd have every right to turn away someone who turns up with dirt all over them. Now personally if I had a tattoo, I wouldn't particularly want to work for someone who dislikes me for that reason.

[Rincewind]

A friend was saying he used to go in B&Q a lot and there was a bloke that worked there who had Tattoos and rings in his nose. He avoided him when wanting help but one day he could not find another assistant so had to ask the tattooed bloke. He said he was the friendliest and most helpful of all the staff. Called him sir and showed him where stuff was.

So even though I agree in general they can look unsightly it is just a misconception that people have about others. In a perfect world we would not bat an eyelid. How would a blind customer judge the tattooed man?

Worts and pimples may not be a choice but they are still a blemish that can deter people. I know. It has happened to me.

I can understand a boss not wanting to hire someone with a tattoo but it doesn't mean he is completely right. Only in the business.

The bosses at B&Q must have had confidence in the bloke with the earring and tattoo to take him on regardless of what customers would think.

Either that or it was the bosses son.

I wonder how the tribes in South America go on? Would they turn down an applicant for wearing a suit and not having body piecing and tattoos?

[Haydos]

A friend was saying he used to go in B&Q a lot and there was a bloke that worked there who had Tattoos and rings in his nose. He avoided him when wanting help but one day he could not find another assistant so had to ask the tattooed bloke. He said he was the friendliest and most helpful of all the staff. Called him sir and showed him where stuff was.

So even though I agree in general they can look unsightly it is just a misconception that people have about others. In a perfect world we would not bat an eyelid. How would a blind customer judge the tattooed man?

Worts and pimples may not be a choice but they are still a blemish that can deter people. I know. It has happened to me.

I can understand a boss not wanting to hire someone with a tattoo but it doesn't mean he is completely right. Only in the business.

The bosses at B&Q must have had confidence in the bloke with the earring and tattoo to take him on regardless of what customers would think.

Either that or it was the bosses son.

I wonder how the tribes in South America go on? Would they turn down an applicant for wearing a suit and not having body piecing and tattoos?

Nice story Ken but I think you're missing the point again. Nobody here is saying that people with tattoos are bad people.

[ozleicester]

But why?

 

A tattoo is a choice. If I was an employer with a company that dealt with the public, there is no way I would employ someone with facial/neck tattoos because it would almost certainly negatively affect business (unless the business involves tattoos). 

 

Come on. Let's say you own a dental practice and are looking for a new receptionist. You have interviewed several people, then this guy shows up (on the right)

 

 

He gives the best speech ever, has all the qualifications, blah blah blah. You're not going to employ him (law or not) because it would harm your business - some people wouldn't feel comfortable approaching him, no matter how he is as a person

 

 

I think people have to take responsibility for their actions. I'm also dead against the new obesity benefits, seems the same thing to me. 

 

 

I am ABSOLUTELY NOT having a go at you... but this was a similar opinion held in years gone by.

 

I would also be somewhat taken aback... but we really shouldnt be deciding what people are like by their appearance.  

[Guest ttfn]

I am ABSOLUTELY NOT having a go at you... but this was a similar opinion held in years gone by.

I would also be somewhat taken aback... but we really shouldnt be deciding what people are like by their appearance.

But it's definitely not the same.

Being black/female/gay isn't a choice and is not an attempt to define or individualise yourself. Discrimination in those cases is abhorrent.

Getting a tattoo is a choice. If you want to stick two fingers up to society by getting a tattoo on your face don't be surprised when society sticks two fingers back up at you.

[ozleicester]

But it's definitely not the same.

Being black/female/gay isn't a choice and is not an attempt to define or individualise yourself. Discrimination in those cases is abhorrent.

Getting a tattoo is a choice. If you want to stick two fingers up to society by getting a tattoo on your face don't be surprised when society sticks two fingers back up at you.

 

 

 

i Shouldve highlighted this bit of text....

He gives the best speech ever, has all the qualifications, blah blah blah. You're not going to employ him (law or not) because it would harm your business - some people wouldn't feel comfortable approaching him, no matter how he is as a person

 

I see your point, i guess i was suggesting that the concept that being judged by appearance is the issue (edit)... and that 70 years ago, people held that opinion about anyone other than white.

[Haydos]

i Shouldve highlighted this bit of text....

He gives the best speech ever, has all the qualifications, blah blah blah. You're not going to employ him (law or not) because it would harm your business - some people wouldn't feel comfortable approaching him, no matter how he is as a person

 

I see your point, i guess i was suggesting that the concept that being judged by appearance is the issue (edit)... and that 70 years ago, people held that opinion about anyone other than white.

 

If everyone was as perfect as you then this wouldn't be an issue. The fact of the matter is customers and clients will judge people based on appearance. Some will be justified, some won't. If this guy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121516/I-wear-make-cover-body-art--Salesman-22-claims-Next-forced-shop-floor-stock-room-80-tattoos.html is interviewed by a bank or a supermarket and comes up against someone equally qualified and who gives pretty much the same interview then guess whos going to get the job? I'll give you a clue, it's the one who doesn't look like a pleb.

[Captain...]

I am ABSOLUTELY NOT having a go at you... but this was a similar opinion held in years gone by.

 

I would also be somewhat taken aback... but we really shouldnt be deciding what people are like by their appearance.  

 

We shouldn't be deciding what people's abilities are by their appearance, but we do decide their suitability for role. You could be the best damn shop assistant in the world, but if your appearance intimidates people or puts them off then you are not suitable for the job.

 

Suitability for a role is more than just ability, but a huge number of factors that include appearance as well as things like attitude, age, physical condition etc.

[ozleicester]

If everyone was as perfect as you then this wouldn't be an issue. The fact of the matter is customers and clients will judge people based on appearance. Some will be justified, some won't. If this guy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121516/I-wear-make-cover-body-art--Salesman-22-claims-Next-forced-shop-floor-stock-room-80-tattoos.html is interviewed by a bank or a supermarket and comes up against someone equally qualified and who gives pretty much the same interview then guess whos going to get the job? I'll give you a clue, it's the one who doesn't look like a pleb.

 

Perfect as me? Have i said i wouldnt judge?

 

Im not having a go, jeebus.

 

Yes people will judge, they shouldnt and its a simple fact that tattoos and body modification are now normal and in the future people wont judge because it will be commonplace and normal, the same way that going into a shop or bank and seeing a person other than white serving. It wasnt normal once and people were uncomfortable.

 

Edit - we have already seen people in this thread say they accept arm tatts or barely visible tatts and i can tell you 30 years ago... just having a tatt was enough to say you werent sutiable for a bank job or and "white collar" role. In fact.. an ear piercing was unacceptable for a male in an office.

 

Times change and visible tatts will become accepted

[Captain...]

Perfect as me? Have i said i wouldnt judge?

 

Im not having a go, jeebus.

 

Yes people will judge, they shouldnt and its a simple fact that tattoos and body modification are now normal and in the future people wont judge because it will be commonplace and normal, the same way that going into a shop or bank and seeing a person other than white serving. It wasnt normal once and people were uncomfortable.

 

They are not normal, it is still the vast majority that don't have them, and an even greater number that have no visible tattoos or body mods.

 

I don't see how you can say we shouldn't judge them when the whole purpose of them is to be judged on them, people choose to get visible tattoos so people can see them and know how cool and individual they are, it is for those people who need to paint their personality on their bodies, because their actual personality is just too weak to get them any attention.

[ozleicester]

We shouldn't be deciding what people's abilities are by their appearance, but we do decide their suitability for role. You could be the best damn shop assistant in the world, but if your appearance intimidates people or puts them off then you are not suitable for the job.

 

Suitability for a role is more than just ability, but a huge number of factors that include appearance as well as things like attitude, age, physical condition etc.

 

This is my point, there was a time when being non white put people off.

 

Times change as more people become tattoed, more will see it as normal and not be put off.