Tattoos/Piercings and employment

[StonehamPark]

Tattoos always look unprofessional or common, there is no escaping that. It's obvious why some employers would prefer their staff not to have them. Not saying it's right, but we live in a superficial society.

Is it?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Not to be picky but :"Unless you work with children" does not tally up with "As an employee you should be judged on the quality of your work not on how you look."

What if the tats say C***, or depict images of sex and bestiality?

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Not to be picky but :"Unless you work with children" does not tally up with "As an employee you should be judged on the quality of your work not on how you look."

Working with suggestable and easily influenced kids is a bit different to working in an office or a shop. Being someone who works with kids and has tattoos I have no problem with covering them up if I have to.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Tattoos always look unprofessional or common, there is no escaping that. It's obvious why some employers would prefer their staff not to have them. Not saying it's right, but we live in a superficial society.

That's too sweeping. SOME tats look common, for sure. I wouldn't employ anyone with 'Love' and 'Hate' across their knuckles, or a big ugly spider's web all up their neck. Simple fact is that SOME tats look AGRESSIVE, which is not the image we really want our staff to be potraying to our customers.

If its hidden, or subtle - no issue.

 

[BBassic]

Working with suggestable and easily influenced kids is a bit different to working in an office or a shop. Being someone who works with kids and has tattoos I have no problem with covering them up if I have to.

Entirely fair. But someone who works with children should still be judged on their work and not their appearance, with the below exceptions taken into account!

What if the tats say C***, or depict images of sex and bestiality?

 

[Rugrat]

It is perfectly easy to have a tattoo in a place that is non-visible at work

Not if you work at Spearmint Rhino's!

 

[Buzzer]

I think the OP is incredibly ignorant. Unless you work with children what does it matter that you have a tattoo(s)? Not having tattoos doesn't make you any better at your job. As an employee you should be judged on the quality of your work not on how you look.

As far as I can see it's no different from agreeing to go to work in a shirt and tie, trousers and shoes. It's a corporate image that you buy into when you go to work for certain employers. Turning up for work in shorts and flip-flops doesn't impede your ability to work either but a lot of employers would take a very dim view of affairs if you did.

If you really want to work in flip-flops and shorts find a job that it's okay to do so, likewise visible tattoos. But the onus surely must be on the employee to be flexible here about appearances and not the employer?

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Entirely fair. But someone who works with children should still be judged on their work and not their appearance, with the below exceptions taken into account!

Of course they should. I don't think my tattoos make me any worse or better at my job but I have to accept that children look up to me and I have a duty to make sure I am the best role model I can be. I make no excuses, I don't hide the fact I have them, the kids in my class know I have them and often ask about them (what they are, did they hurt etc) but I don't flaunt them about.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

As far as I can see it's no different from agreeing to go to work in a shirt and tie, trousers and shoes. It's a corporate image that you buy into when you go to work for certain employers. Turning up for work in shorts and flip-flops doesn't impede your ability to work either but a lot of employers would take a very dim view of affairs if you did.

If you really want to work in flip-flops and shorts find a job that it's okay to do so, likewise visible tattoos. But the onus surely must be on the employee to be flexible here about appearances and not the employer?

I see where you're coming from but the scale of flip flops to tattoos is completely different IMO. It'd be like me saying discriminating against people with tattoos is like discriminating against people based on race beacuase it's both are only skin deep (just to clarify I don't think that). You can still be smartly dressed with tattoos on show. At the end of the day surely an employer should hire the best person for the job regardless of how they look.

 

[BBassic]

Of course they should. I don't think my tattoos make me any worse or better at my job but I have to accept that children look up to me and I have a duty to make sure I am the best role model I can be. I make no excuses, I don't hide the fact I have them, the kids in my class know I have them and often ask about them (what they are, did they hurt etc) but I don't flaunt them about.

It's an admirable way of handling it

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

It's an admirable way of handling it

Very kind of you

 

[gregbrighton]

I dislike tattoos but it doesn't make me think any different to a person if I meet any with tem.

I find it more difficult for people with multiple piercings. I just find them ugly and a bit repulsive to be honest.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

You can still be smartly dressed with tattoos on show. At the end of the day surely an employer should hire the best person for the job regardless of how they look.

Ultimately, whether you like it or not, in many, many roles, how you look is very much part of what makes you the best person for the job. Or not.

 

[crabface]

My opinion is that you should never judge a book by its cover.

People shouldnt be discriminated on because they have Tattoo's it doesnt make them a different person inside, they could be the best employess the company have had.

 

[Fat Langers]

What about if your job is a Pirate

Then you have to have one just to get an interview! Being a pirate is tough these days....

 

[Billy the Fish]

Ultimately, whether you like it or not, in many, many roles, how you look is very much part of what makes you the best person for the job. Or not.

Is it any different from turning someone down because they looked too BLACK?

 

[ditchy]

Unfortunately when looking to employ people first impressions count , thats not being racist bigotist or whatever its a plain fact of life .

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Tattoos are like clothes, in that they are a fashion and people choose to wear them. In no way can they be compared to race for those reasons.

In many jobs it is important to dress professionally, if someone has chosen to "permanently" wear a tattoo, I don't think employer can be accused of discrimination, because that person will always dress unprofessionally by wearing them.

I completely disagree with your first statement. Tattoos go far beyond fashion statements and you are very ignorant if you believe that is all they are/ can be. But moving on, the principal is exactly the same it is just the scale that is different. All the things mentioned are, in principal, superficial. That is where my comparison ends. Tattoos are, of course, a choice where as race is not, obviously.

You're entitled to your own opinion in regards to what makes someone professional but I disagree entirely.

 

[BBassic]

Is it any different from turning someone down because they looked too BLACK?

Absolutely. One is making a judgement call based on a personal choice to sport tattoos and the other is downright racism.

 

[herecomesaregular]

I'm sure some people get very prominent visible tattoos in order to be unemployable and live forever on housing benefit, jsa etc etc. For that reason, I think it should become law for an employer not to be able to discriminate under any circumstances!