NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5079470.stm

so this girl is complaining that she is made to cover up her tatoos at her job. i could understand that if she was working a front-of-house customer services or sales type job then it might be reasonable to make her cover up (despite her tatoos looking pretty awesome) but she's working in an office that is closed to the public. how will her tatoos possibly impact on her performance in her job? there just doesn't seem to be a valid argument against it. how are they 'unprofessional'? and there's one woman saying they're 'vulgar'. what kind of bullshit is that, they're not offensive in any way, if anything they're quite pretty as tatoos go.

what do you think of tattoos? in the workplace or generally. i for one don't find them that attractive, at least not the extent this girl has them, but i do think it's unreasonable she's made to cover up.

Unreasonable, absolutely. It doesn't have any effect on her job performance.

Why do people care about this bullshit?

Noone has ever complained about any of my 6 piercings. Why? Because it doesnt mean shit.

Unless they are offensive, they should be fine.

I think people still have some really bizarre hangups about piercing and tattoos. If somebody is going to be the public face for your company, I might be persuaded to agree that you get to screen candidates for a particular image, but if we're talking about somebody in a non-public position then it's pretty stupid to discriminate against those with tats.

I'm not going to try to justify the employers logic for banning tatoos in the workplace, which I feel is generally quite flawed but I'm going to side with the employer. They've obviously got a dress code in the office. I know there's a dress code where I work, and I stick to it and I don't have any problems.

Why do people care about this bullshit?

Noone has ever complained about any of my 6 piercings. Why? Because it doesnt mean shit.

It's just dipshit managers who have nothing better to bitch about so they like to assert their authority.

I was forced to cut my hair or lose my job a few months ago. (it wasn't even shoulder length)

I could understand if she had a tattoo that read " Fuck all you co-workers....I'll kill you if you touch my turkey sandwich."

What are the tattoos of?

I could understand if she had a tattoo that read " Fuck all you co-workers....I'll kill you if you touch my turkey sandwich."

What are the tattoos of?

this is the girl

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41775000/jpg/_41775212_r_holdcroft_bbc_203_5.jpg

I could understand if she had a tattoo that read " Fuck all you co-workers....I'll kill you if you touch my turkey sandwich."

What are the tattoos of?

they're quite nice actually. across her back there's a design with cherry blossom and ribbons. then she's got wings and a heart on her chest, something i can't see on her neck and she's got a design with a girl and some playing cards all over one arm and a swirly sort of ribbon pattern down the other arm.

this is the girl

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41775000/jpg/_41775212_r_holdcroft_bbc_203_5.jpg

wow check her out. I like the yellow and blue on her left arm.

Just piping up to say that that's a very fabulous last poll option. I approve.

wow check her out. I like the yellow and blue on her left arm.


and check out her chest.....the tattoo on it that is ;)

I don't care what you dress like, or have as a body piercing or tattoo if you're just working in the office. But if you're facing customers, I know that the wrong appearance can put the company out of business.

It's all well and good to say, "everyone should have their freedom". Well, customers are free to not engage in business with you if they find your appearance offensive to them. So you have to temper the appearance thing when facing customers.

I don't care what you dress like, or have as a body piercing or tattoo if you're just working in the office. But if you're facing customers, I know that the wrong appearance can put the company out of business.

It's all well and good to say, "everyone should have their freedom". Well, customers are free to not engage in business with you if they find your appearance offensive to them. So you have to temper the appearance thing when facing customers.
absolutely, i think freedom of expression is all well and good, but as with any freedom it comes with responsibility.

absolutely, i think freedom of expression is all well and good, but as with any freedom it comes with responsibility.
On the other hand, if you're running a tattoo shop, it probably pays to be tattooed.

I've had to quit a couple of jobs because of the way I look. I'd never allow anyone to fire me becauuse of my look though.
That would imply I needed the prejudiced wankers more than they needed me.

Still, it's my experience that diplomacy goes a long way most of the time. I have tatoos on my head, hands, neck & so on (only a few visible piercings though), so when someone hires me, it's understood that a uniform will only go so far.

One ex-employer once wanted me to get rid of my mohawk. Perfectly fine by me, under the circumstances. Only, it wasn't good enough for him that I went to work the next day with a blue ponytail. After a nice little two-day struggle over whether or not he should decide my actual haircolour & haircut, I quit.

I'll say this though; unions are immensely helpfull if an employer's being unreasonable. They've always backed my right to look however I please, as long as it didn't impact safety & efficiency.

Another thing; it's useless to attempt to mislead an employer. Don't change your look to get a job & then have a fit when he fires you for not looking how he expected.

I've had to quit a couple of jobs because of the way I look. I'd never allow anyone to fire me becauuse of my look though.
That would imply I needed the prejudiced wankers more than they needed me.

Still, it's my experience that diplomacy goes a long way most of the time. I have tatoos on my head, hands, neck & so on (only a few visible piercings though), so when someone hires me, it's understood that a uniform will only go so far.

One ex-employer once wanted me to get rid of my mohawk. Perfectly fine by me, under the circumstances. Only, it wasn't good enough for him that I went to work the next day with a blue ponytail. After a nice little two-day struggle over whether or not he should decide my actual haircolour & haircut, I quit.

I'll say this though; unions are immensely helpfull if an employer's being unreasonable. They've always backed my right to look however I please, as long as it didn't impact safety & efficiency.

Another thing; it's useless to attempt to mislead an employer. Don't change your look to get a job & then have a fit when he fires you for not looking how he expected.


If you're a programmer, for instance, who is never going to leave the office or see customers, you can dress like the Tooth Fairy for all I care, and it will not affect your performance review.

I DO draw the line on people who do not bathe daily. This is more often a problem with young men than anyone else, but is easily rectified.

The company has its image to protect. As much as we would like people to be open minded and not judge according to our dress or appearance, it does happen and it won't change anytime soon. If you want to work in a mainstream profession that deals with the general public, you're going to have to conform to what the mainstream deems acceptable, and tattoos all over your body is just not deemed acceptable.

It seems unfair, and probably is, but that is just the way life is. A lot of people aren't going to take a person with all kinds of tattoos seriously, and that will hurt the company image and cost them money; it's not discrimination or prejudice, it's just sound business sense. A company's image of professionalism, whether real or imagined, is one of the most important parts of its business model and can be the difference between bankruptcy and booming.

When you make the decision to do something like this, you have to take in to account the fact that you will likely be judged negatively by many people; the company is doing nothing wrong in catering to the whim of the majority because they stand to lose a lot more from a poor image than you stand to lose by covering up your tattoos at work. It's their company and their right to determine what is appropriate dress and appearance for their employees.

I've no problems with tatoos on other people, mind you. None whatsoever.

I'd personally never get one, because I really don't see them as being cost effective for self expression. Espescially because of the pain that is involved, and when I get old, the damn thing would look silly. I don't see it as an effective way to express myself.

I've no problems with tatoos on other people, mind you. None whatsoever.

I'd personally never get one, because I really don't see them as being cost effective for self expression. Espescially because of the pain that is involved, and when I get old, the damn thing would look silly. I don't see it as an effective way to express myself.

Yeah, just imagine that lower back tattoo on an 80-year old fat woman.

Yeah, just imagine that lower back tattoo on an 80-year old fat woman.


or a smiley face tattoo on her ass would sure be frowning by that age.

did she get them all after she started at work or how did she get past the interview i bet she covered up most of them then

did she get them all after she started at work or how did she get past the interview i bet she covered up most of them then

She says some tattoos were visible at her job interview, but it was not until her second day in the office that she was told they looked "unprofessional" and she should cover up.

i would the fact that this was mentioned implies that more tatoos were visible than she is currently allowed to show.

What I'd like to know is why does she say she has to wear a cardigan?
Why can't she wear a long-sleeved blouse, dress shirt or even a long sleeved T?
I think she's just trying to make an issue of it.
I notice she said that her tatts were hidden when she went for the interview and she obviously didn't mention them to the employer at the interview, which implies she's well aware that having them may put ppl off employing her. In which case, she should also be well aware that they might have second thoughts about her when they do notice them.

She's working in a business centre. Obviously it's going to be pretty damn conservative work place. ppl have definite ideas about what they expect from such businesses, and a heavily tattooed chick isn't one of them.
I see no problem with them asking her to cover up when she leaves her desk. She might run into a potential client on her travels, and how would an average person think if they thought she might be dealing with their case?

Right or wrong, there's a definite negative public perception about heavily tattooed ppl and this isn't something a pretty conservative business would want to be associated with.

Yeah, just imagine that lower back tattoo on an 80-year old fat woman.
To be fair, do you really think an 80 year old woman is going to be more attractive to you without the tattoo? Personally, I think it would be an improvement to have some color and design going on.

To be fair, do you really think an 80 year old woman is going to be more attractive to you without the tattoo? Personally, I think it would be an improvement to have some color and design going on.
Considering that at that age, my scrotum will hang down to my kneecaps, I won't be in a position to complain.

To be fair, do you really think an 80 year old woman is going to be more attractive to you without the tattoo? Personally, I think it would be an improvement to have some color and design going on.


Haha! As usual, excellent point from Bottle.

If you're a programmer, for instance, who is never going to leave the office or see customers, you can dress like the Tooth Fairy for all I care, and it will not affect your performance review.Couldn't agree more, but it's still up to the employer whether he feels you look acceptable for the job/company - regardless of how potential employees may feel about it. It's illegal to discriminate against black people, but it's perfectly legit to discriminate against people with tatoos or blue hair.I DO draw the line on people who do not bathe daily. This is more often a problem with young men than anyone else, but is easily rectified.Heh, I know just what you mean.

The company has its image to protect. As much as we would like people to be open minded and not judge according to our dress or appearance, it does happen and it won't change anytime soon. If you want to work in a mainstream profession that deals with the general public, you're going to have to conform to what the mainstream deems acceptable, and tattoos all over your body is just not deemed acceptable.Actually, most employers aren't as prejudiced as you make them sound. But you're absolutely right. It isn't illegal to discriminate against people who breaks the norm, and it is in the interest of most companies to discriminate.

For example, last year I was doing some renovation work on a building with a lot of old residents. I think we'd been at it for about a week when I needed to get into an old lady's flat. She refused to open the door for me, and it took two co-workers & a call to my employer, before she finally allowed any of us in. All because she didn't like the way I look.

Innocent as that sound, it probably cost my employer something in the neighbourhopod of my entire day's pay, because the work got stalled & 5 people had to get involved. To an employer, such incidents are a perfectly legitimate concern.

Then again, some people refuse to get into a taxi with a non-white driver, even if they ordered it. And yet, it'd be illegal for the taxi company to discriminate against non-white drivers, regardless of legitimate business concerns.

In the end, the laws are what the laws are. If you & I want the situation to change, it's the laws we need to deal with - not individual employers.

Just piping up to say that that's a very fabulous last poll option. I approve.

yay! thanks :D

Haha! As usual, excellent point from Bottle.
*Shrug* I just happen to know an elderly woman who's got a ton of tats, and I think they take years off her appearance. She looks so colorful and lively that you'd probably guess her age at around 55 or so, even though she's pushing 70.

I don't think being 80 years old or fat is necessarily a horrible thing, but even if we assume that they are, how would having a tattoo make the person WORSE? I'd think it would at least be a small plus, since they'd be an 80-year-old fat person who was badass enough to get inked. :)

I could see it being an issue for someone like a lawyer or a salesperson or someone who deals with the public, but not if you're sitting in an office only interacting with coworkers in a face-to-face way.

It doesn't always look the most professional, which is why it's often not a good idea to get tattoos in places that can't be covered easily, but she should only be asked to cover up for meetings and the like if you ask me.

The whole thing comes down to nonverbal artifactual communications. Why does it matter? Because people react to things around them and react to the people around them. It's the same reason that you have to have a nice car to get promoted. You have to look the part. But why does that matter? Because everyone a person comes in contact with makes judgements and takes actions based on the artifacts of the person they meet and that includes coworkers. (Don't even try to lie and say you don't. You react to a suit differently than riped jeans and a tee shirt.) By getting multiple piercings or tatoos a person is communicating with those around them about their attitude toward the norms of society. Society in turn communicates back to that person based on those artifacts. The thing to remember is the "Golden Rule"---He who has the gold makes the rules. Get the gold and you can make the rules. That is why "stars" and sports figures can freely get tatoos. They make gold. They can't simply be replaced by someone with a better image like the ordinary worker.

Now what these artifacts mean does change over time. When I was young only immigrants and prostitutes had pierced ears. It locked them out of certain jobs. Even today the number and placement of piercings brand a person and lock them into certain positions. Today more people are getting tatoos. That could mean in the future they will become acceptable in the business place but today is not that day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5079470.stm

so this girl is complaining that she is made to cover up her tatoos at her job. i could understand that if she was working a front-of-house customer services or sales type job then it might be reasonable to make her cover up (despite her tatoos looking pretty awesome) but she's working in an office that is closed to the public. how will her tatoos possibly impact on her performance in her job? there just doesn't seem to be a valid argument against it. how are they 'unprofessional'? and there's one woman saying they're 'vulgar'. what kind of bullshit is that, they're not offensive in any way, if anything they're quite pretty as tatoos go.

what do you think of tattoos? in the workplace or generally. i for one don't find them that attractive, at least not the extent this girl has them, but i do think it's unreasonable she's made to cover up.
If I owned a business where my employees had to deal with the public, I would write into the dress code that no one who had a visible tatoo would be hired, and that anyone who subsequently got one that was visibile after being hired would be summarily dismissed. If I owned a business where emplyess didn't interface with clients or the general public, I wouldn't give a damn how many tatoos they had.

I believe it is a legitimate form of discrimination. In a professional business environment, the employee is a representative of the company they work for and should be able to conform to an appearance that reflects the company's values and ideas. If someone has already made the decision about what their appearance is and cannot conform to the company's desires for appearance, then it is perfectly reasonable to fire them.

I can see how scenarios like this happen though: human resource departments are not always connected to the workplace that they are supplying employees for and as a result, can provide people that fill the qualifications of the job without taking other factors into account.

This is not someone that was disfigured in an accident. That kind of appearance is expected to be ignored and could definitely be worthy of a lawsuit should someone find themselves to be the recipient of such discrimination. This was a consious decision to create an appearance that would not blend in in a conservative environment.

Bottom line: if you reject the establishment, then you are in no position to complain when the establishment rejects you.