Should anti-tattoo discrimination be illegal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cartus

Cartus

Messages
1,874
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
I think this is just the sort of topic that the BBC should allow comments on. Given that having tattoos is a choice the individual makes, should employers discriminate when selecting candidates to employ? I work in an industry where it would be 'frowned upon' to display visible tattoos but would I employ somebody myself with a tattoo on their neck? Possibly not.

I would be very interested to hear other's thoughts on the subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28758900
 
This'll open a can of worms.
Is it a form of discrimination? A lot of people find them repulsive, me included. I don't think I'd employ someone with a visible tattoo, no. That's irrespective of their ability.
 
Can of worms indeed....:eek:

Personally i love them and have no issue with them... would i employ someone with them? yep i would... doesn't change who they are as a person..

But it will never change....
 
Cg_Girl said:
Can of worms indeed....:eek:

Personally i love them and have no issue with them... would i employ someone with them? yep i would... doesn't change who they are as a person..
Click to expand...

Might not change who they are as a person but certainly gives an indication of who they are as a person if they've decided to get their face tatood.
 
WelshNoob said:
Might not change who they are as a person but certainly gives an indication of who they are as a person if they've decided to get their face tatood.
Click to expand...


And who might that be then?
 
I think the point is though - it will change over the next 10 years or more. The article indicates that tattoos have reached something like 'critical mass', i.e. are very popular and to not employ very capable people based on appearance will be counter-productive.
 
Discrimination my arse.

A tattoo may be the choice of the person wearing it, but as an employer I also have a choice of employing a professional looking person to represent my business.

Have a tattoo wherever you like but don't pull the discrimination card when you can't get a respectable job.
 
neil_g said:
surely that depends on the company/role etc.

most of our building has had shorts and flipflops on for the last few weeks.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. The point I'm making is that it's not discrimination. It's my choice and right as an employer to be able to employ somebody that will represent my company in good light.

There's nothing wrong with a shorts and t-shirt policy for non customer facing staff, but that doesn't mean they can be scruffy.
 
ecoleman said:
I agree with that. The point I'm making is that it's not discrimination. It's my choice and right as an employer to be able to employ somebody that will represent my company in good light.
Click to expand...

i respectfully disagree but i see where you are coming from. out of interest would you employ a transvestite or transgender?

There's nothing wrong with a shorts and t-shirt policy for non customer facing staff, but that doesn't mean they can be scruffy.
Click to expand...
there is no real dress code here for any staff (providing not competitor branded), even the reps/directors (i.e. customer facing) were in full summer dress down :D
 
ecoleman said:
I agree with that. The point I'm making is that it's not discrimination. It's my choice and right as an employer to be able to employ somebody that will represent my company in good light.

There's nothing wrong with a shorts and t-shirt policy for non customer facing staff, but that doesn't mean they can be scruffy.
Click to expand...
I think by definition it is discrimination - "the recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing or another". The question is whether it is appropriate to use an individuals choice to tattoo themselves to decide to employ them or not.

There are appropriate reasons for employers to discriminate, I wouldn't expect to be employed as a pianist not playing the piano - that's still discrimination.
 
neil_g said:
i respectfully disagree but i see where you are coming from. out of interest would you employ a transvestite or transgender?
Click to expand...

Providing they represent my business professionally, then yes.
The point is though that if my answer was no, then that should be my choice and not twisted to become discrimination.
 
Personally, chances are I would not employ someone with tattoos on their neck, face or hands. Unfortunately a great proportion of the population, therefore my customers, still have a negative view of tattoos. I have a tattoo, but it's certainly not visible - if you have them in a visible place you need to be aware that peoples first impressions will be massively affected by this. Often this will be the only impression that you get to make, and lets face it, why would an employer take a chance?
 
ecoleman said:
Providing they represent my business professionally, then yes.
The point is though that if my answer was no, then that should be my choice and not twisted to become discrimination.
Click to expand...
im struggling to see the difference if a tattoo'd person can represent your business professionally compared to someone cross dressing etc?

(serious question by the way, not baiting)
 
I'm not going to get into what would sway me one way or the other. At the end of the day it should be my choice to employ who I want and if I don't think somebody it right for my business for reasons of tattoos, clothing, hair colour etc, then that should be my choice to choose an alternative candidate.

It doesn't necessarily mean I am discrimination against the person. I'm just doing what's right for my business.

I'd love to see how they would police this anyway.
Are employers going to have discrimination case brought against them for every person with a tattoo being declined for a job?

I've seen this all before in South Africa, except over there it's the race card and it's getting the country nowhere because blacks are being employed for jobs they are incapable of doing because employers are being forced to adhere to affirmative action.
 
I'm not into Tattoos but if the person has a good cv/interview I don't see why they'd struggle with employment unless it's a job that requires a conservative looking appearance (stockbroker, IFA, etc)

Tattoos rightly or wrongly are seen as signs of someone either with a free spirit, party animal, rock and roll, drugs etc. in an industry where conservatism is key and where clients interests are golf, tennis, cricket it may be a turn off as people who tend to enjoy these pass times tend not be be interested in ink

People reserve to employ those that not only will do a good job but will be seen to do a good job by a potential client - if a tattoo is seen to detract from that or give a bad appearance they probably won't offer them a job.

Where appearance doesn't really matter in non customer facing jobs or shouldn't be a factor or in any manual outdoor job it wouldn't matter . Indeed a girl at my place is covered in tattoos, she's good at her job and that's it - but I suspect if she was out doing field sales or working in an upscale business with a business like appearance matters, she'd sadly fare not so well.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure people wouldn't be so judgmental though if said tattooed person saved their life or some such situation....
 
ST4 said:
Probably not - but 1st impressions count. I've worked in a snooty stock brokers office and my heavily tattood mate showed up - the looks from the stockbrokers said it all
Click to expand...

Exactly and whilst those that hate them continue to look down their nose in contempt at the ones that choose to have them the situation will never change
 
As I see it if the person has a choice in the way they look or behave then I should have a choice in whether or not to employ them. So race, disability, etc should not be a factor assuming they were capable of doing the job. But tattoos, style of dress, etc then the choice should be left to me as the person paying them.
I have a tattoo myself that can easily be covered when necessary so have nothing against them in general but my customers might and that is what counts.
 
neil_g said:
i respectfully disagree but i see where you are coming from. out of interest would you employ a transvestite or transgender?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with people choosing to ink themselves.
 
Companies have dress codes which include jewellery in most cases tattoos are just permanent jewellery so depending on the role (i.e. customer facing) then it's quite ok to insist on no tats on show. Not sure if Maori tattoos or similar would be classed differently though.
 
mid_gen said:
I'm not sure what sexual orientation has to do with people choosing to ink themselves.
Click to expand...
im just wondering on the comparison between people changing their appearance based on their personal feelings etc.

i.e. a person with tattoo has made pretty much the same decision to change themselves as a cross dressing person and/or a transgender (pre/mid/post op).

at least in my mind thats a valid comparison :)
 
Not fussed one way or the other, however playing devils advocate...

Those in positions to hire, either for a company or for your own businee - "who have said I wn't employ someone with a tattoo" what would you do in this situation.
You recruit, interview and employee a person for a role. This person has no tattoos.
A while later, they are doing great in their role but over, say, the weekend this person goes and gets a tattoo.
They them come to work on Monday with a tattoo.
 
I think that a company should be able to set dress standards which includes hair and tattoos which are at the end of the day selected by the person. They make a choice.
 
Last edited:
Lynton said:
Not fussed one way or the other, however playing devils advocate...

Those in positions to hire, either for a company or for your own businee - "who have said I wn't employ someone with a tattoo" what would you do in this situation.
You recruit, interview and employee a person for a role. This person has no tattoos.
A while later, they are doing great in their role but over, say, the weekend this person goes and gets a tattoo.
They them come to work on Monday with a tattoo.
Click to expand...

TBH unless it's in their terms of employment that tattoos breach a dress / appearance code, they can't do anything about it.
 
ecoleman said:
Discrimination my arse.

A tattoo may be the choice of the person wearing it, but as an employer I also have a choice of employing a professional looking person to represent my business.

Have a tattoo wherever you like but don't pull the discrimination card when you can't get a respectable job.
Click to expand...
it goes agains freedom of expression.

I'm not interested in getting a tattoo but it doesn't cloud my judgement of a person because they have one. I shave my head it doesn't make me a skin head thug.
 
POAH said:
it goes agains freedom of expression.

I'm not interested in getting a tattoo but it doesn't cloud my judgement of a person because they have one. I shave my head it doesn't make me a skin head thug.
Click to expand...

Oh but it does.............. according to some!
 
POAH said:
it goes agains freedom of expression.

I'm not interested in getting a tattoo but it doesn't cloud my judgement of a person because they have one. I shave my head it doesn't make me a skin head thug.
Click to expand...

Cg_Girl said:
Oh but it does.............. according to some!
Click to expand...


Waiting.....waiting.....waiting.....:cautious: :cautious: :LOL:
 
Of course its not discrimination - you need to dress according to what is expected. I don't think anyone has an issue with the odd tattoo discreetly placed, but something like a facial tattoo is totally different. Remember the Carlsberg (I think) ad when there were just 2 seats spare in a cinema full of hells angels and not many people chose to sit down?

Depends on the job. If I was interviewing for an assistant in a record shop or guitar shop, it would probably not bother me, but can you imagine a vicar or doctor with 'love & hate' on their knuckles? Same way that if I interview someone and they don't turn up on time or in a suit then they will be unlikely to get anywhere.
 
Lynton said:
Not fussed one way or the other, however playing devils advocate...

Those in positions to hire, either for a company or for your own businee - "who have said I wn't employ someone with a tattoo" what would you do in this situation.
You recruit, interview and employee a person for a role. This person has no tattoos.
A while later, they are doing great in their role but over, say, the weekend this person goes and gets a tattoo.
They them come to work on Monday with a tattoo.
Click to expand...

If they are employed and are expected to adhere to a dress code according to their terms and conditions then I should be in my right to dismiss them.
 
POAH said:
it goes agains freedom of expression.

I'm not interested in getting a tattoo but it doesn't cloud my judgement of a person because they have one. I shave my head it doesn't make me a skin head thug.
Click to expand...

And where's my right to employ whom I choose regardless or race, appearance, qualification or experience.

If somebody with a tattooed face does not fit with my business image, I should retain the freedom not to employ them.

Isn't it funny that when rights are discussed, it only ever seems to be a one way street.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top