blonde poker forum

What's are people thoughts on this? The company I work for actually does have a policy of no visible tattoos that I agree with actually. I guess it depends what the job is as to whether a visible tattoo is acceptable or not.

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

All depends on the job of course.  Customer facing jobs may have this policy, an example would be when we were at Butlins with the kids and the fairground peeps had plasters, bandages and items of clothing covering them up.  To be fair, they would have looked smarter leaving the tattoo's uncovered, but I guess some customers are just awkward and like to cause bother by complaining about nothing.

I don't think there should be a policy at all.....if a waitress for example was covered head to toe in scary tattoos, I'd be more inclined to have an interesting conversation about them, and I'd judge her on her customer service as a waitress, not on her appearance.

For the record, I don't have a tattoo myself.

You are representing your company's image when you work for them.  Having a spider tattoo on your face is a personal choice, but don't complain when I don't hire you.  It's no different to someone refusing to wear a suit and turning up to work in shorts and flip-flops.

I personally have a tattoo but I made sure it was somewhere I could cover it up.

Seems just another one of those ridiculous things that people have had forced into their heads that tattoos are incredibly unprofessional. They aren't unprofessional at all. Crossing the line is when someone has some kind of sadistic or racist tattoo on view. That is obviously unprofessional.

I personally don't like tattoos and will never have one, so I think it's a pretty unbiased opinion I have shared.

They are unprofessional though if constantly on display (eg a football club badge on your neck).  It shows you value your personal individualism over projecting a corporate, clean cut image on behalf of your company.  If you want to work for a financial firm then you will put clients off by having a tattoo on your neck so you probably won't get offered a job.

It's a lifestyle choice.  You can always get them removed these days.

As someone with a tattoo (single one, but am seriously thinking of having it expanded into a larger"piece"), and married to a woman who has 9, one of which runs from her left foot upper to mid way up her thigh, i can see both sides of this.

One the one hand, as our culture becomes more open and understanding, more and more people are seeing tattoos as a form of art, as opposed things that used to be associated with prisoners, ne'er to wells, thugs and heavy metal fans (bit tongue in cheek there but you get the idea), so it is becoming an accepted thing to have, our celebrities have them, David Beckham is a prime example, our national sportsmen have them, football, rugby, cricket, athletes etc, and the tattooing inks themselves have improved so that the body art no longer turns into a faded grey mush as it used to. If i was in a shop or department store, perhaps even a restaurant, i'm fairly sure i'd not be put off buying something if the sales person was covered in reptilian scales tattooed on his/her face, i'd e very likely to ask them about it.

BUT.........

My parents most definitely would be. They are from a generation that does not see things as my generation does, and bear in mind i'm in my 40s (just), and having worked with people in their 20s i can pretty safely say that their generation are almost at the point where anyone in their 20s who doesnt have a tattoo is the odd one out.

I do fully agree that anything racist or hate-themed will always be an issue to the general public, but for me, in my very easy going way, i'm not that bothered about what a person decides they want to do with their own body, be it tattoos or piercings/modifications, their sexuality or religious beliefs. If i like someone for the person inside that they are, they can do what ever they please to themselves (just dont expect me to do the same)

If people want to have tattoos it's up to them. But I think it's wrong for government to poke their noses in and start telling people they should or should not do. Each business should have the right to decline people with visible tattoos if they deem that isn't the image they want for their company. Any legislation on this issue wold probably be a waste of time anyway, employers would just do what they are gonna do anyway, as they do in other areas where they are not supposed to discriminate and keep tight lipped about it. They just do what is best for their business irrespective of anything else.

I manage a high end leisure facility and allow all my staff to have tattoos on display, I battled the company to get that through as well. My view is that if your tattoo is the overall impression the customer has of you then your level of service is in the toilet. I say don't be defined by your tattoo, rise above your body art to offer a level of attention and care that truly defines the character you are.

I figure if your service captures the attention of the customer rather than some tattoo then you are good enough to work for me. What's more the image of tattoos is changing and loads of icons and role models have them these days. I do draw the line at religious & offensive tho, prob footy as well.

I had several done while I was in the Navy, and I think their 'nothing above the collar, or below the cuff' policy is pretty sensible.

Like it or not, people who bowl around with tattoos on their grids, or all over their hands, are going to be subject to discrimination.

It's not something I'd worry about too much were I hiring, but I can see why some employers do, and I can't see anything changing in that respect whatever the government do.

Unless they invoke a new policy 'Every firm must have a token painted up member of staff' :)

Ha - and we can welcome our first parliamentary candidate from an "all tattooed shortlist".

Quite simple really. If you value your ability to work in a certain profession more than your need to get visible ink, don't get it done.

but isnt that what this thread is about?

why should someone suffer discrimination because of a tattoo or tattoos?

we, as a race, are becoming more and more accepting of what people decide to do to themselves, providing it is not harming others. Of course there are boundries, raceism/hatred as has been mentioned, but why should it matter if someone has a visible tattoo in this day and age?

i watched a film yesterday called "divergent", it's an ok film, aimed at the young adult/teenage market, but it's sci-fi, and i like sci-fi, and in that film there is a scene that involves the lead actor getting a visible tattoo, and many of the supporting actors have visible tattoos also. So if we are exposing or even encouraging a generation to this sort of thing, then why should the older generation have an issue with it?

of course with a visible, acceptable tattoo the offence is always taken, not given.

would a 3 star michelin meal taste any different if the chef involved was tattooed over 100% of his skin??

"would a 3 star michelin meal taste any different if the chef involved was tattooed over 100% of his skin??"

No -   but that isn't the point.  People that go to a 3 star restaurant generally want an experience as well as the food.  That experience includes immaculately turned out servers and staff.  A heavily tattooed waiter would ruin the image.  I'd daresay that in this scenario a heavily tattooed chef would be neither here nor there, but the service side is a different story.

Personally I think talking about tattoos (where it's a matter of personal choice) in terms of discrimination is an insult to people who suffer genuine discrimination on grounds of race or sexual orientation.  And as mentioned I have a tattoo myself.

(http://socialmediasatisfied.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/pauly-unstoppable-meme.jpg)

Back to what i said earlier, offence is taken, not given

It might be fun to revisit this thread in 50 years or so, and see what the next few generations have to think about tattoos.

It's a personal choice to ave them, display them, or dislike them

I do like Dave's picture though

lol Dave.

With these sorts of discussions its always thrown out there that people need to change their attitudes and be more accepting blah blah, but why should they? IMO it's up to the people potentially getting tattoos to consider the downsides fully before getting them rather than others having to change their opinions on them.

If I don't give you a job, it's not because I don't like tattoos (which I don't), it's mainly because I'm thinking about the customers who you will go and see of which a proportion of them will take a negative view of you because of the tattoos. Likeability is everything and first impressions really, really do matter I'm afraid. When you are competing with 3 or 4 other companies who are offering similar things customers will more often than not buy from people they like, so it could well affect the bottom line.

With all that said why should I take a chance by giving the person with the tattoo the job? Quite simply I won't, and I can't think of a single person I've ever seen in my industry with a visible tattoo, I suspect a large proportion of the corporate world is like that too. Young people getting inked up should think about this stuff before jumping in at the deep end.

lol I dread to think what will be acceptable in 50 years, people will probably bitching because they can't get married to their pet goat  :D

clearly a goatist ITT

He's only kidding about the nanny state - don't be gruff.

It's a ridiculously outdated problem, if someone were refused work for being a woman or of a certain racial descent it would cause uproar, but for tattoo's it almost seems the norm.

Obviously if it's an obscene tattoo which is very visible it's understandable.

Basically this debate is around whether you see the world how it is, or how it should be.

The world shouldn't discriminate against someone based on how they choose to look, but it does. The guy I posted in the funny gif knows what the world is like, and by getting such an extreme look purposely took himself out of the running to get 90% of the jobs. I'd love to spend every waking hour dressed like Spiderman, but I choose not to because I value the benefits of not looking like a complete nutter over the feeling of self expression I would enjoy. Some people think that is unfair, I think just it's Darwinism.

I have zero sympathy for the extreme cases. The tricky part is where the line is, because it's always changing.

If you want to dress like spiderman all the time, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Is Mrs Carter aware of your fantasy?

Its hardly discrimination, in order for there to be discrimination it has to breach one of the protected characteristics being tatooed all over and looking like an arsehole doesn't fit the bill. 

As Marky said the nothing above the neck or below the cuff is a reasonable guideline. 

I'm a Union Rep and I see all sorts of issues raised and this is certainly becoming more prevalent but its really just about common sense.  We have one guy who was explicitly told no more tatoos as his last one resulted in him being off for 2 weeks due to a reaction he took.  He came to me for advice I pointed out to him that he has a duty to keep himself fit and healthy and that if there was an issue before perhaps getting more ink done was a bad idea, I explained that given previious circumstances/absenc record the company would be fuly within their rights not to pay sick pay and could take disciplinary action. He went and got inked anyway.  Worked out well for him. 

Also have issues with people pushing the dres code to extremes and people thinking its ok to dye their hair 4 and 5 different colours.  People have to understand there is a corporate image to protect.  There are many things worth fighting employers over but employees suffering from arseholeism isn't one of them.

That's how we got together yo

(http://media0.giphy.com/media/rV8rBr3fl4Fs4/200_s.gif)

Too good  ;kneelsucker;

Surely the difference between someone not getting a job due to race verses due to having a Chelsea tattoo on your face is obvious?

again, isnt that what we are talking about.

there shouldnt be a difference!!!! Neither should stop someone getting a job, the fact that is does stop people being employed doesnt make it right

Somebodies race does not tell you anything about what they are probably like as an employee. A football tattoo on one's face tells you a lot.

Race shouldn't stop someone getting a job.  But if somebody makes a decision that they want to make a statement to the world by inking their face, then an employer should be able to make a judgement on that behaviour in terms of whether that person is someone they would like to employ.

If I insisted on turning up for an interview just in my undercrackers because it was the statement I wanted to make,  then the employer should be entitled to take a view on my behaviour in terms of whether I would be a good employee compared to others, and whether I would be a good representative of their company.

And these circular arguments are a prime example of why we should always be allowed to be individuals.

one man's meat etc

no point carrying on here, people's views will always be different, what some accept, others do not.

If I go to a restaurant, I expect basic levels of cleanliness and hygiene etc. to then be greeted by someone with a cobweb on their neck sort of puts me off, if you get my drift.

If you get a tat, you know what society expects, and if you can't get a job because you decided to makes your own rules, tough.

Far better to get the job and then approach your employer. It's his money at the end of the day and you have no god given right to anything.

I have no issue with tats, I have no issue with Pat Butcher earrings either, but I don't want to go into the bank and be greeted by a bloke wearing them either.

Next stop and this country will look like a scene from Mad Max...

I have decided we are missing the big question on this issue...

(from Yahoo)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvjHvVrIQAAVP1T.jpg)

I think the point KMac made was a good one. I agree tattoos are a fashion statement like a hairstyle is, many wouldn't employ a person with a hairstyle that didn't suit the image they want to project, a visible tattoo is no different really.

Which makes me think. There have been assumptions made in here that times will change and maybe it will become more acceptable in the future. In all honestly nobody knows whether tattoos will even be fashionable in 10 years, there's no reason why it might not go the other way if they go out of fashion.

For those saying that would not employ someone with a facial tat, would it make a difference if they were Samoan? 

If I was employing for a customer facing role and some one had CFC tattooed on their face I would not employ them, in much the same way if they fail the nail and teeth test, or had 20 visible piercings or bad body odour or turned up for interview in their pants.

Non customer facing best man for the job, every time, tats or not.  Maybe that makes me more tolerant, maybe I just struggle to get good educated candidates in my geographical area so I can be less fussy.

I think as the youth become the decision makers you will see far more tolerance in regard to this kind of thing, be it tattoo's, hairstyles, piercings, clothing or whatever.  I was bought up by a generation who believed any person with a tat is/was a drunken sailor, any man with a beard was an alcoholic etc etc thankfully these views are disappearing from the mainstream.

Well we aren't allowed to, visible tattoos are against company policy, but I still wouldn't anyway policy or not. I think Samoans mostly have them on legs and body, the few I've either met or seen on the rugby pitch anyway...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28831106

They refuse to let him in, so his stance is to proclaim that he will never return :D

Ha, I thought that!

Don't blame them to be honest lol

This is the reason I have to keep knocking back Cheryl Cole - I just can't take the chance our kids will be born with rose tattoos all over their backsides.

If you were really unlucky she might open her gob and start speaking too  :D

I can only feel pity for those who get to spend their time with Cheryl.  Poor sods.

Can safely say I have been lucky enough to avoid Mila Kunis and her pointy elbows too.

Makes me feel a whole lot better about doing my nuts at York.

...then there is always the nut job...why oh why...seriously...why????

Its cool innit (http://www.4smileys.com/smileys/smoking-smileys/smoking_28.gif) (http://www.4smileys.com)

I agree largely with earlier posters. Getting tattoos doesn't make anyone unprofessional. Expecting not to be judged by some and discriminated against by others is unrealistic though. I'm currently trying to educate my 16 year old about this basic premise. He and his peer group are in the rock music culture and body modifications including tattoos are practically compulsory membership badges. I was in exactly his position at his age and, I believe, fortunately I managed to resist getting ink ( or maybe it was parental advice prevailing). The fact that tattoos are far more mainstream today makes this a much harder task though as its much easier to convince yourself that its more widely accepted, when in reality it isn't.

Making my task even harder is the hypocracy that I did eventually get ink. I got it in my early 40's once I had an established career and held a senior position. Having said that, although its a substantial piece, it isn't visible in work clothes. I wouldn't expect my employer or his clients to have to consider whether my tattoo influences their view of my professionalism.

Bet he won't get laughed at today following the 4-0 defeat!

auch...


(http://www.webinapage.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ear-lock-hipster.jpg)

Been away from here for a while but i had this done around March....

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10606060_1533897463519664_733369065028666815_n.jpg?oh=4cb37678c800994f17b0745cdfbe29f6&oe=54ED2207&__gda__=1423780205_5d3c63e342351a6902497758b3739f80)

Really happy with it.

I don't like tattoos on hands or face but i wouldn't discriminate against a person if i was offering them a job if they had tattoos.

Which leg is that Girgy?

Doh its my left arm  :P

Getting my leg done this saturday at the Sheffield Tattoo show, will post a pic when its done.

:D

(Nice sleeve by the way Girgles)

I can tell why u got mixed up tho....my guns are bigger than greekys des and troy xx

How do you go about designing something like that Girgy? Do they do it flat on paper? If so how do they know how it will look wrapped around?
Or, do you just talk about different images you want and then let the artist do his thing?

Ah - not just me then.  Nearly bought a spidey suit online.  The $30 looks awful.  The $60+ ones were better.  Than I found one for around $1k I think which was awesome.  Then I saw the actual moive suit which I think was in double k figures.  Now I can't go back to even the $60 ones.

Incredible Hulk is cheaper.

My original idea was to have the pocket watch and roses on the inside of my arm, the watch has got my daughters time of birth on :) and ive got her name too. I went into my local shop with a picture id seen on they advised me how it would fit better so i let him get on with it.

Whilst having it done i said i liked poker etc and came up with a gambling theme so i booked in for the next day to have the cards done so we just googled some images and came up with the royal flush which wrapped around perfectly and completed pretty much my lower arm in 5 hours.

The rest just flowed from there i booked slots and just went in with several ideas and let the artist fit it to my arm.

I wanted a roulette wheel, a vegas sign, the lucky 7 cos i was taxi driver number 7, i wanted a joker but the idea i had was stolen so i went with a skull but we put a jester hat on it, he then filled any gaps with chips and spades/diamonds/clubs and a smokey effect.

I think it came out better cos i just let the artist do his thing. I just trusted that he would do a good job from his reputation and the fact that hes booked up 6 months in advance.

My latest addition done yesterday at the Sheffield Tattoo Show....

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1610822_10152792496515310_8204042047536285662_n.jpg?oh=cbf748428209267efaad7a33b51ff3fa&oe=551D2746&__gda__=1427748630_df86facf244a1c1a8fdbf6fa386a2af4)

Took around 5 1/2 hours.

What's it supposed to be?

Really don't get tattoos at all....

Its ripped skin with muscle showing, and metal rods...

Idea came from when i broke my leg ive got a metal plate holding my bone together.

Nice work Girgles.

5 1/2 hours is a tough session , fair play to you lad.

Hurts like hell this morning :( had to phone in sick at work cos i can hardly walk!

and thus proving that tattoo discrimination amongst employers is justified.

:P

I work when i want, i work when i want, im self employed, i work when i want :P

Thanks for replying.
Seems like you have to have a lot of faith in the tattoo artist, don't think I could do that, I won't even let my hairdresser have free reign, although your tattooist obv knew his stuff.
Still, I'm always suprised by the queue of people outside the tattoo parlour at the seaside patiently waiting for some random to permanently mark their skin apparently on a whim. As another thread says, I just don't get it!

Liking the arm anyway, but your leg is a bit scary  :)

.

What was the cost  ? If you don't mind me asking !

...an arm and a leg.

;marks;

Very good !!

A*

Sleeve was around £1100 and leg cost me £325

always wanted one but don't do needles.  I wish you could get a stick on permanent one ;-)

Good grief!

Would never be for me but that seems perfectly reasonable for the level of detail and time taken

Emla numbing cream takes the edge off it :)

My artist charges £60ph and gets a lot done in that time and its quality work.

Others drag out tattoos and charge way over £60 an hour too.

60 an hour?!! Effing hell I wish I could draw lol

This made me lol.

(http://i726.photobucket.com/albums/ww270/bobalike/5061a399d26ed3b79918d9bc4b472d66_zps8d7d5415.jpg)

My Grandson willing to show his tat but wanting to remain anonymous :)

(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w497/steveswift1/Tat_zpse3d9b5d2.jpg) (http://s1078.photobucket.com/user/steveswift1/media/Tat_zpse3d9b5d2.jpg.html)

To be honest, i think that level of detail is amazing and great value for money,if you like that sort of thing.

Who's first then? lol

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30750361

Ha , was just about to post that link.

Needles in the eye ?  No Sir, never going to happen.

One of my most daunting childhood memories was when I somehow managed to get 2 thorns stuck in one of my eyes. As this followed a recent hospital stay where a protractor was thrown across the school field at the precise moment I was looking up and hit me in the eye, my parents decided I needed to see my eye consultant. He sat me on a chair stuck a needle in my eye to anesthetise it while he used a pair of tweezers to remove the thorns. The thought of seeing that needle approaching my eye left an imprint that I will never forget.

That makes me feel all squeemish!  I don't like things in eyes.

"It feels like somebody is poking at your eye, then it feels like strange pressure and then it feels you have a bit of sand in your eye, but there's no pain."

Yeah ok mate....

Booking my next tattoo today and caught up with a few pages of this thread. Mine cost £80 an hour and everywhere in town is generally around the same.

I don't know if anyone caught the first episode of the new series of Bodyshockers last week but it was on tattooing and they came up to Dundee to do a segment with my tattoo artist. Worth a small watch for his Dundonian accent alone.

I have an eye condition that means there's about a 20% chance I'll need corneal transplants at some point. They cut off the front of your eye and sew a donor one in place. Under a local anaesthetic.