Tattoo's and employment opportunities

I have one tattoo that would just be visible in a long sleeved shirt/jacket, but it isn't that visible, and it's small enough to be hidden with a watch. I would be concerned otherwise. And obviously it's unfair to discriminate against the tattooed.

 

I think anti tattoo discrimination in the workplace should be illegal. Obviously if you have a tattoo with something obscene on it you would cover it up, but the work force's seeming hatred for those of us who are inked is disturbing. I'm planning on getting a tattoo, and I'm not sure where to get it yet because of this.

 

I know one organization, the US Military, bans all tattoos visible while in dress uniform. That is a long sleeve dress jacket and long pants. They also now require that your records document any tattoos visible while wearing just physical training shorts. The latter was added after some gang related activity on military bases. I think inventorying tattoos is excessive and shouldn't be done. However any time that you are the public face of the company, ie sales clerk, cashier, customer service, or any other position that interfaces with the public the hiring manager should make a judgement as to how it would affect his companies business to have you in that position. Unlike race tattoos are a choice.

Another issue I would have hiring someone with tattoos, is as a photographer, I generally own the rights to my photographs. The rights to a tattoo however are owned by the tattoo artist. I could therefore run in to legal trouble if I published photographs with tattoos on them unless I had permission from the original tattoo artist. How many of you that have tattoos can go get permission like that from the original artist that inked your tattoo?

 

I think that it's unfair and should be considered illegal. One of my buddies on campus, graduated with a 3.99 GPA, full honors, bilingual, is in China doing an internship, and president of a huge organization on campus, has a tattoo on his right arm. Oh yeah, he served in the military for two years. I don't think his tattoo correlates to his job performance and work ethic :dry:.

 

It doesn't correlate to his performance, or ethics. It correlates to the public's perception of the company based on the first person they see when they walk in. There are many who might be intimidated by someone with tattoos when they walk in and the business would loose customers. I can see requiring it to be covered at work.

 

This. ^^



I have two tattoos, one on each forearm, but I've never been discriminated against because of them.

 

I think it depends on a number of factors to be honest:
-where is the tattoo located?
-would it widely be considered inoffensive? (of course nothing is completely inoffensive!)
-what sort of job role are we talking about?

For example, I'd imagine a law firm would be reluctant to hire a solicitor with a full face tattoo as it may put off potential clients - regardless of whether you find those clients views to be prejudiced or not, if the tattoo is genuinely going to put off clients it is sensible in this case for the firm to avoid hiring the person. Tattoos are voluntary at the end of the day so it is not really the same as rejecting someone for a physical disability or disfigurement.

However, for someone who just cleans an empty office at night - less of a problem. Although I might be a little startled if I stayed behind doing overtime! There was an article of a woman being turned down a cleaning job at Iceland for a small tattoo on her hand - if that was true that would be a completely ludicrous decision.

I really don't mind tattoos however do find face tattoos (the likes of Czech politician Vladimir Franz) to be a bit of a barrier to communication. It becomes quite a distraction and makes it more difficult to judge expression. I have similar thoughts on the burqa - you have to balance freedom of expression with the need for clear two-way communication.

 

Unless the people you photograph are famous and ever in the public eye the likelihood of you getting into any sort of legal trouble is basically none. It's my understanding that this has only been a problem when a famous person's tattoo is recreated on someone else for movies and multimillion dollar video games--because they've recreated that tattoo--not because they took a picture of it.

The rights could be owned by the artist to ever recreate that exact tattoo. The tattoo itself is owned by the person whose body it is and can be photographed without express permission of that artist.

____________

That being said, tattoo discrimination is stupid and unless your tattoo is offensive (and I mean like hate speech offensive not like "shows boobs" "offensive") then everyone should just calm down about it. 1 in 5 US adults have a tattoo. (I would go on and wager that among those 1 in 5, many have many tattoos)

 

If the tattoo would harm the company image then I am 100% behind the company's right to discriminate. Where the line is drawn, however, should be considered. An un-offensive tattoo on the wrist, for example, shouldn't be a bar to employment. However I think it is fair to turn down the application of someone with a neck tattoo.

---------- Post added 18th Aug 2014 at 07:21 PM ----------

Personally, I may consider a tattoo at some point, but I would never get one that would be visible in casual clothing.

 

Why would it be okay to turn down someone with a neck tattoo?
What is it about that part of someone's skin that makes it not okay?
Or is it more about people's assumptions about what kind of people have neck tattoos?

 

This is absolutely the case, but a business' only aim is to make money, and if customers will get the wrong impression of a company when the first person they see has a neck tattoo (this was just an example) then business could potentially be damaged - and therefore the business should keep the right to discriminate against those with tattoos.
Tattoos are a choice, it's not like discriminating against a skin colour.

If you want to go out and change the stereotypes against people with tattoos, good on you and my opinion will change, but until then businesses should keep the right to discriminate against those who make a decision to look a way that could damage their business.


So to sum up my opinion, businesses should be able to discriminate against those with tattoos ONLY if that tattoo would be damaging to the company's image, I feel neck tattoos in general are a good example of something that could be discriminated against.



---------- Post added 18th Aug 2014 at 08:31 PM ----------

Just actually read the tattoo.... but even before I had I thought it looked unprofessional

 

Thedreamwatch, the tattoo artist owns the copyright to the tattoo, just as any artist does. the only time it comes up of course is if a photograph is published, and the original artist sees it. Since many photographers, as well as the models they shoot are looking to get published it becomes a problem. Here is an article discussing it: Whose tattoo is it anyway? - LA Times

 

Such a shame, he's a handsome chap otherwise! Somebody get him a scarf!

 

You can always use body make up to hide it but I really think it's silly to not hire someone just because they have tattoos.:dry:

 

Photography is just like other art forms, it is totally an appearance thing. You hire models based on what your vision of your art is, or what you have been hired to produce. For example if you are shooting for a magazine that shows nude or mostly nude twinks, you would probably be fired if you gave them pictures of a nude Rosanne Barr. Is that discrimination, you bet, but it is totally necessary in photography and other art forms. I'm sure if you were in the market for that twink magazine, you wouldn't buy it because instead of twinks it had Rosanne, would you?

 

I know I'm going to get poop poop for this, but people should know when they get a viable tattoo what they are getting them self into. People whine so much on facebook i can't get a job because of my tattoo why do you really need that neck tattoo? or that tear drop tattoo? or a sleeve? They may make a law about it but all the job is going to do is throw away the applicant application with any explanation.


People get in that young and dumb tattoo phase and get everything possible tattooed on their body and regret it when they are older.

 

I can understand why people would be reluctant to hire a person who is excessively tattooed or has obscene tattoos - it might reflect negatively on a company's image, especially if that company has a certain reputation to uphold (for example, I can't imagine a department store like John Lewis hiring a tattooed person, if the tattoos are really conspicuous - because John Lewis has a certain brand image to maintain - one that appeals to the dour suburban middle classes). Plus, certain tattoos might scream 'irresponsible' or 'impulsive' to employers.

I still think it's unfair though - a person's abilities are not at all impeded by them having a tattoo.

 

Where I work now we are not allowed to have visible tattoos or piercings (other than our ears). Since I don't have any tattoos I'm not concerned that I would be passed over for a job opportunity. If I was running a business I wouldn't want visible tattoos or piercings because it doesn't look professional which is usually the image a business tries to pull off.