Should Anti-Tattoo Discrimination be Illegal?

[ozleicester]

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.

 

overlapping quotes, sorry.

 

Im not sure of the numbers, but amongst the young umm lets say 18-30, i would be interested to know the % of those who had some form of body modicfication.. im going to guess 60+%  is that normal?

[Captain...]

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.

 

If people chose to be black, then it is a valid comparison, but it isn't people should be judged on their actions not on their appearance right?

 

Well I am judging someone with some crappy stars on his wrist, or some flowers on their neck, not on how they look (normally like a chav) but on their actions, on their decision to get some god awful permanent visible tattoo regardless of how it may affect their job prospects and how it makes them appear.

 

If someone decides to wear jeans and a t-shirt to an interview it is not, their appearance I am judging, they may look awesome, it is the fact they chose not to wear a suit, to not dress appropriately for an interview for a job. It tells me about their attitude and their decision making skills.

[Captain...]

overlapping quotes, sorry.

 

Im not sure of the numbers, but amongst the young umm lets say 18-30, i would be interested to know the % of those who had some form of body modicfication.. im going to guess 60+%  is that normal?

 

If you take a subset of the population which is more prone to tattoos, and use that as the sample population, and then completely pull a figure out of your backside of 60% then you could say it is normal.  

 

But I would prefer to look at stats:

 

 

From 2012 so might be out of date:

 

http://www.luckypug.com/tattoo-stats/tattoo-stats-who-likes-tattoos-more-men-or-women-and-what-age-range/

 

Of course it may be different in Australia, but my point is that it still isn't the norm, and we are specifically talking about visible tattoos, which is probably about 1% of the population, rising to 5% on a hot day.

 

Anyway I'm not specifically talking about young 'uns though, if you are working in a young person's industry it may not be an issue, but if you are, say a flight attendant, you will be dealing with people of all ages. The issue is rarely the employers personal view on tattoos it is how they are perceived by the client base. If the client base doesn't view it as normal or acceptable then the employer will not employ someone with visible tattoos, and before you start going on about black people again, my issue is that people either know that when they get an inspirational song lyric inked on their neck and don't care, or they are that lacking in awareness that it didn't even cross their mind how others might view it.

 

Either way it is not a good impression to give to an employer.

[Strokes]

Harry redknapp has been going to work with a tattoo of an arse on his face for years.

[ozleicester]

If you take a subset of the population which is more prone to tattoos, and use that as the sample population, and then completely pull a figure out of your backside of 60% then you could say it is normal.  

 

But I would prefer to look at stats:

 

 

From 2012 so might be out of date:

 

http://www.luckypug.com/tattoo-stats/tattoo-stats-who-likes-tattoos-more-men-or-women-and-what-age-range/

 

Of course it may be different in Australia, but my point is that it still isn't the norm, and we are specifically talking about visible tattoos, which is probably about 1% of the population, rising to 5% on a hot day.

 

Anyway I'm not specifically talking about young 'uns though, if you are working in a young person's industry it may not be an issue, but if you are, say a flight attendant, you will be dealing with people of all ages. The issue is rarely the employers personal view on tattoos it is how they are perceived by the client base. If the client base doesn't view it as normal or acceptable then the employer will not employ someone with visible tattoos, and before you start going on about black people again, my issue is that people either know that when they get an inspirational song lyric inked on their neck and don't care, or they are that lacking in awareness that it didn't even cross their mind how others might view it.

 

Either way it is not a good impression to give to an employer.

 

First,... i said "some sort of body modification" and the reason i used a subset is that i was trying to suggest that times are changing.

Second... i said im going to "guess",

Third... i ASKED if that would make it normal.

 

Thanks for the graph, makes for interesting reading.

 

You are making assumptions on the persons appearance,you can suggest its about their ignorance etc but really  its just that those assumptions are based on your/our/the worlds  bias about tattoos/modifications.

 

Times change, even our "public school all england boys" admit to having a tattoo or modification and whilst it might not be visible... 25 years ago, just having the tattoo singled them out as the" type" you refer to now.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

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

 

Nope, but he inadvertently reinforced the main argument - the friend approached the tattooed employee as the last resort because no other staff were available. What happens next is irrelevant (there are plenty of lovely down-to-earth people who get tattoos), another person might not have even seen this employee as a last resort.

 

No staff available except bloke with pins in his face and tattoos up his neck - a nervous person may well leave the store and take their business elsewhere.

[Rincewind]

What if the employer has a tattoo? From the graph it seems there are a lot of mid range aged people with tattoos. 30-39. There was a time when it was a fad. A lot of those in the armed forces had them. I would it was fairly common during WW2. It is appearance though. If I went for a job in a coffee shop job I doubt even if I was wearing the finest looking smartest suit I would get it because if the place clientelle are 18-26 year olds they would not want a 60 old man serving them. I would look out of place. When i am talking to someone I rarely examine their body (well not men)  I have friends in their 70's who have tattoos. They were in their teens in the 50's. Not sure if there was a strict age limit then as they may have been under 18.

Anyway what has happened to the anti-establishment youth? All the teenagers now seem to be like old farts. Where is the revolutionary spirit?

I still think 18 is old enough to be an adult as in thinking 20 years ahead. A group of lads on a weekender in Amsterdam. Walk by a tattoo parlour when sloshed and all decide to get a tatto.o They will probably regret it in the morning but is it a reason to judge them based on the tattoo for the rest of their lives? Personally I have never been a fan of them. I just thought I was being old fashioned even when I was younger. Worts and moles may not be a choice but they may still put people off so the boss considers that in the same way as tattoos or being the wrong sex. The difference is they cannot advertise for 'young good looking female only' but they  have that in mind at interviews and when looking at CV's I do not think you have to say you have tattoos on CV's or applications.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

Ken - the point is "should an employer be able to turn down a job applicant because they have a skull tattooed on their face".

 

Not "what if the employer has a tattoo", "should I be applying for a job even though I am 40 years above the specified target age", "should teenagers go to Amsterdam"

 

 

 

Put it simply - you are advertising for a job for a receptionist at a respected hotel, and this applicant turns up

 

 

It doesn't matter how suitable his skills are for the job, you would not in a million years employ this man.

Should he have never gotten those tattoos or piercings, he might have as good a chance as any to get the job but through his own life choices he has massively reduced his employability. Surely it is fair as an employer to turn this man down because he himself has chosen to permanently look like this?

 

Please reply adding nothing about peer pressure, going to Amsterdam, trying to get in at the Wacky Warehouse despite being 6 foot tall or any other points that stray from the argument in point

[Guest MattP]

It's amazing how whatever the political point or situation Ken always manages to know a 'friend' that has been involved in the exact situation that showed an opinion completely against the grain.

And people are still missing the point. It's incomparable to race, warts, disabilities etc - People choose to look like that ridiculous guy above and if they do they deserve everything they get.

[Rincewind]

If I miss those things out I would agree with you. No I would not employ him because deep down I have the same perceptions as most people do. It is human nature. There may come a time when looking like that is ignored like the co;our of skin or height but until then the employer will think about his business first. I have walked out of places where I have made preconceived opinions about the sales staff whether because of the way they looked or acted, I'm just saying that it isn't necessary right to do so.

I am just trying to look at the broader picture because I know how it feels to be misjudged so I tend to defend the underdog.

 

He does look gruesome though. Would put me off my cupcakes in a quaint little tea room cafe.

[Captain...]

First,... i said "some sort of body modification" and the reason i used a subset is that i was trying to suggest that times are changing.

Second... i said im going to "guess",

Third... i ASKED if that would make it normal.

 

Thanks for the graph, makes for interesting reading.

 

You are making assumptions on the persons appearance,you can suggest its about their ignorance etc but really  its just that those assumptions are based on your/our/the worlds  bias about tattoos/modifications.

 

Times change, even our "public school all england boys" admit to having a tattoo or modification and whilst it might not be visible... 25 years ago, just having the tattoo singled them out as the" type" you refer to now.

 

You keep missing out the word visible, that is the issue here, not tattoos, but visible tattoos, and by visible I mean anything that cannot be covered up by work wear, if you have a full length sleeve tattoo on your arm and you can cover it with a long sleeved shirt, that isn't a visible tattoo for someone working in an office. If you are a lifeguard and spend all day in your speedos and have a tattoo on your back then it is.

 

But really it is about people getting tattoos on their hands face and neck, and the judgement, or lack there of it, that they showed in getting that tattoo. People with visible tattoos generally do it for one reason only, for attention, to be noticed for people to go "Oh wow, how cool and original the way you copied those rockstars you like."

 

They do it because it is frowned upon, it is seen as rebellious and cool, in a way that an arm or back or chest tattoo now isn't, likewise piercings and other body mods, in my eyes the more you have the more of an attention seeking dullard you are. They do it for a reaction and when it is a bad reaction they cry discrimination.

[Tommy G]

Would you want to be operated on by a consultant with 50 piercings and a facial tatt? probably not. Discrimination but they just look like proper knobs

[Rincewind]

Would you want to be operated on by a consultant with 50 piercings and a facial tatt? probably not. Discrimination but they just look like proper knobs

What about a witch doctor?

 Cant post the picture

 

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzD9FNnqosiRZQpmERFYU0phqnmJhqvdFuIdZ_5rOilmehhf79

[Captain...]

Would you want to be operated on by a consultant with 50 piercings and a facial tatt? probably not. Discrimination but they just look like proper knobs

 

If someone said this was the best surgeon in the world, and he (or she, I'm not a sexist, but probably a man, I mean realistically) was my best chance of surviving life threatening surgery I really wouldn't care what they looked like. As long as the piercings were sterile and posed no risk of infection.

 

But that isn't really the point, the point is not the perception of one individual by another, it is about the overall perception of people who get visible tattoos, and the attitude of someone who knows how they will be perceived getting the tattoo anyway, and then bitching that they are being perceived in the way that everyone knows people with visible tattoos are perceived.

[James.]

But that isn't really the point, the point is not the perception of one individual by another, it is about the overall perception of people who get visible tattoos, and the attitude of someone who knows how they will be perceived getting the tattoo anyway, and then bitching that they are being perceived in the way that everyone knows people with visible tattoos are perceived.

 

I think you should distinguish between what YOU think of people with visible tattoos and what EVERYONE thinks of people with visible tattoos because for the record I don't have the same prejudice that you do.

[Alexikokopops]

I think you should distinguish between what YOU think of people with visible tattoos and what EVERYONE thinks of people with visible tattoos because for the record I don't have the same prejudice that you do.

I'd only employ you if you got the following tattooed on your face:

 

  

[Strokes]

Bum fights

[fuchsntf]

You know me - just an ordinary guy, with a spider's web tattooed on my face and Michael Jackson Thriller eyes inked on to my eyelids, but given how into tattoos hip young things seem to be these days, is this sort of thing considered a problem?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28758900

I must admit, I often see people with a new tattoo in a really obvious place, and although it doesn't bother me much personally, I think, 'cripes, you must have really wanted that, because that pretty much rules you out from ever working in an office, or possibly even indoors'.

Would you employ someone with visible tattoos? I think I probably would (unless it was anything particularly distasteful, like an EDL emblem or a Kardashian), but would almost certainly then be overruled by my senior management

depends where/how the guys cross the 'Ts' and dot the 'i's. and what type of picture they present.

A crossed out swaztika, with an halfmoon cresent could go down well at office parties.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

It depends what employment you're after. A lot of work relies on customer relationships and opinions so if you have tattoos on your neck or face then I doubt you're going to have many opportunities in certain careers.

 

I think discrimination laws like this are ridiculous. I'm in no way against tattoos but if you want to effectively draw on your body and want a job where you need to come off as professional then tough tits. I don't drink or swear at work, you shouldn't expose your slightly odd tattoo choices, however much it's 'a reflection of you'.

I would go along with this post. Personally, I don't like tattoos, but that is merely my opinion. The above post really sums it up.

[Captain...]

I think you should distinguish between what YOU think of people with visible tattoos and what EVERYONE thinks of people with visible tattoos because for the record I don't have the same prejudice that you do.

It is not a prejudice. It is being judgemental, there is a difference.

Ok do you have a visible tattoo? If not would you ever get one? If no why not?

If you do have a visible tattoo, did you know that it could count against you in the job market when you chose to get it?

My opinion of people with visible tattoos is irrelevant what is relevant is that visible tattoos can harm your chances of getting certain jobs. That is fact. Rightly or wrongly in your opinion, that is a fact and one that most people know. So choosing to get a visible tattoo is choosing to be permanently marked as someone who prioritises image over getting a good job.

[James.]

It is not a prejudice. It is being judgemental, there is a difference.

Ok do you have a visible tattoo? If not would you ever get one? If no why not?

If you do have a visible tattoo, did you know that it could count against you in the job market when you chose to get it?

My opinion of people with visible tattoos is irrelevant what is relevant is that visible tattoos can harm your chances of getting certain jobs. That is fact. Rightly or wrongly in your opinion, that is a fact and one that most people know. So choosing to get a visible tattoo is choosing to be permanently marked as someone who prioritises image over getting a good job.

I understand the difference and maintain my view. Regardless you're missing my point somewhat as I'm not taking about job interviews. You have repeatedly referred to people with visible tattoos as lacking personality, attention seeking, etc. You also seem to think that everyone perceives their tattoos in the same way you do. That's not the case.

[Rincewind]

I wonder if I am given bad service then notice a tattoo would I think 'Well he has a tattoo so its only to be expected' Or if I was iven good service would I notice the tattoo? If it was obvious then i may think about that rather than the service given which would result in lower satisfaction score I doubt though anyone with body markings like in the posted picture would want to work in an office or as a hotel receptionist. More likely a garage or motor bike shop or part of a team on a race track.

I know that when I took a security job we were told we could not wear earrings or bracelets. This was partly due to the safety aspect. Not sure about tattoos though but I expect if it was hidden they would not know.

[Captain...]

I understand the difference and maintain my view. Regardless you're missing my point somewhat as I'm not taking about job interviews. You have repeatedly referred to people with visible tattoos as lacking personality, attention seeking, etc. You also seem to think that everyone perceives their tattoos in the same way you do. That's not the case.

That is partly tongue in cheek, partly generalisations based on experience, and partly because I've been a bad mood today and bored at work, part of the reason for my bad mood.

I know not everyone thinks like me, but that was not my point when I was talking about the perception of people with visible tattoos. As I have said above it will harm your chances of getting a job everyone knows that, so you can't complain when it happens.

[ozleicester]

Wait til ROOFOX gets here

 

[MooseBreath]

Melbowine