Tattoo discrimination?

[Woodsey]

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

[Matt.NFFC.]

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.

[DungBeetle]

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.

[lucky_scrote]

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.

[DungBeetle]

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.

[teamonkey]

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)

[Woodsey]

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.

[MANTIS01]

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.

[Marky147]

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'

[DungBeetle]

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

[Mohican]

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.

[teamonkey]

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??

[DungBeetle]

"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.

[DaveShoelace]

Click to see full-size image.

[teamonkey]

"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.

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