Tattoo discrimination?

[Woodsey]

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.

[Woodsey]

"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

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 

[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

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 

clearly a goatist ITT

[kinboshi]

"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

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 

clearly a goatist ITT

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

[baldock92]

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.

[DaveShoelace]

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.

[kinboshi]

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?

[Kmac84]

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.

[DaveShoelace]

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?

That's how we got together yo

[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

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 

clearly a goatist ITT

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

Too good 

[DungBeetle]

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.

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

[teamonkey]

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.

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

[DaveShoelace]

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.

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.

[DungBeetle]

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.

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

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.

[teamonkey]

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.