Unless it is a landing spacecraft on comets company.
>He< is the person who just landed a spacecraft on a comet.
.
Fun with social mores. I don't get the whole anti-tattoo thing, but I am presently working somewhere where you're not allowed to have any visible.
It's all about social class warfare. Some classes have the power, others do not, and the ones that do bully the the ones that don't. I guess it's the natural order of things.
So would you care to give some more background about who he is and what agency/company does he work for? The Rosetta project was highly collaborative.
The biggest things I can think off the top of my head are:
- He interviewed in a long-sleeve shirt.
- He works for an indy firm that was hired that won the contract to design and operate some of the landing functions
- He got the tats after he got the job
- His job isn't customer facing so his bosses don't care about his looks, just about his skills
- He was lucky enough to be interviewed by hiring managers who didn't care
None of those things change the fact that having ink sleeves will reduce your employment options in general.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun with social mores. I don't get the whole anti-tattoo thing, but I am presently working somewhere where you're not allowed to have any visible.
You don't get the fact that you are a representative of the company while you are on the job.
You don't get the fact that the company just might have an "image" that they want to project to the world at large.
You don't get that some people's attitude towards tattoo's might be different that others?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun with social mores. I don't get the whole anti-tattoo thing, but I am presently working somewhere where you're not allowed to have any visible.You don't get the fact that you are a representative of the company while you are on the job.
You don't get the fact that the company just might have an "image" that they want to project to the world at large.
You don't get that some people's attitude towards tattoo's might be different that others?
Oh, I understand some people don't like tattoos and that businesses cater to them because business is business. I just don't like other people's attitudes indirectly affect ownership of my own body if I want to do things like pay rent.
Edit: if one don't like tattoos, fine, don't get them. But someone else's opinion shouldn't affect what I can do with my body so long as I'm not hurting anybody.
Then, >He< started crying about a shirt. I like his shirt.
.
|
|
Fun with social mores. I don't get the whole anti-tattoo thing, but I am presently working somewhere where you're not allowed to have any visible.You don't get the fact that you are a representative of the company while you are on the job.
You don't get the fact that the company just might have an "image" that they want to project to the world at large.
You don't get that some people's attitude towards tattoo's might be different that others?
Oh, I understand some people don't like tattoos and that businesses cater to them because business is business. I just don't like other people's attitudes indirectly affect ownership of my own body if I want to do things like pay rent.
Edit: if one don't like tattoos, fine, don't get them. But someone else's opinion shouldn't affect what I can do with my body so long as I'm not hurting anybody.
A few points:
1) If you want a job, you must realize that the business has rights as well. When two rights collide, who's must give way? The other person's rights because you feel they affect your rights?
2) There is a difference between no tattoos and no "visible" tattoos. I am a high school teacher, I have tattoos, I have them in places that are not visible to the students I teach in everyday life.
3) It doesn't impact your right to work. There are many jobs where tattos are allowed. You are free to express yourself on your body however you want, it is you that must balance you right to freedom to tattoo with a company's right to project an image. You are the one making the limiting choice.
edit:
4) If your tattoo's impact customer's perceptions of your employer's business, are you not hurting your employer?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was a time when tattoos were a bad-ass rejection of authority, and the domain of bikers, navy tough-guys, and Japanese mafia. But nowadays they are about as "tough" as most of the other things you get at the mall. I would say his tattoos are about as exciting as the fact that he isn't wearing a tie, and probably has Levi's on.
The thing I do have to snicker at, is that like most fashion, tattoos become dated very quickly. I see lots of tribal barbed wire, and it is like having a pair of Oakley Blades you can't remove.
|
|
A few points:1) If you want a job, you must realize that the business has rights as well. When two rights collide, who's must give way? The other person's rights because you feel they affect your rights?
2) There is a difference between no tattoos and no "visible" tattoos. I am a high school teacher, I have tattoos, I have them in places that are not visible to the students I teach in everyday life.
3) It doesn't impact your right to work. There are many jobs where tattos are allowed. You are free to express yourself on your body however you want, it is you that must balance you right to freedom to tattoo with a company's right to project an image. You are the one making the limiting choice.
edit:
4) If your tattoo's impact customer's perceptions of your employer's business, are you not hurting your employer?
1. What rights does "a business" have? And what right is it I'm supposedly trampling on by having hypothetical visible tattoos?
2. OK?
3. It does impact my right to work if my choices that should affect only me restrict my job opportunities because the prejudices held by employers.
4. If I were a minority (racial, religious, etc.), would my status impact my employer's perception by racist/whatever customers? (I know having tattoos isn't as serous or a legally-protected class, but it's the exact same logic)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1.) The right to employ the people they choose to employ, for one. Affirmative action notwithstanding, of course. Like it or not, you not being hired because of your CHOICE to tattoo yourself or get big stupid holes in your earlobes is not of the same importance as someone's right to work for something out of their control (race, sex, certain disabilities).
As an aside, the reason tattoos are discriminated against (besides being simply viewed as unprofessional) is because they were originally (and continue to be in some circles) an anti-establishment statement. They brand you (correctly or not) as a non-conformist who doesn't respect authority. And who wants someone with that label working for them?
3.) This is a good life lesson that your "choices that affect only you" do not, in fact, entitle you to some special dispensation. You made a choice, live with the consequences. The consequence in this case being more limited employment options. You can always pay to get them removed if you prefer, though the process looks incredibly painful for a reasonably long period of time (my step-dad got his removed while I was in high school. Looked uncomfortable.).
4.) No, it's not. Context matters here. You CHOSE to make this statement, either consciously or out of ignorance is irrelevant once you've made it. A black man did not choose to be black. A woman (in most cases) did not choose to be a woman. They are entitled to rights equal to people of every other race or gender.
This is not the same logic at all.
|
|
1a. So a choice to get visible requires others to overlook the tattooed person in employment consideration? Or is this just a subjective judgement?
1b. Actually, tattoos were originally a declaration of faith or accomplishment. But that reason, as well as the old non-conformist reason, are pretty much moot nowadays. Who wants someone with outdated social understanding working for them?
3. These consequences are not absolute. Each one is a conscious decision made by a person. People can grow up and decide tattoos aren't scary or counter-cultural or anti-business.
4. Ugh, yes it is. A prejudice is a prejudice is a prejudice. Whether or not it's a choice doesn't matter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^
|
|
|
This
So This
Very well said rinjin.As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations.
Well if the business is a corporation, it has most of the same rights as a person.
And that's pretty much garbage and I can't wait until we get rid of that ruling. The decision is always made by a person, an actual living sentient person, not a legal fiction.
|
|
There was a time when tattoos were a bad-ass rejection of authority, and the domain of bikers, navy tough-guys, and Japanese mafia. But nowadays they are about as "tough" as most of the other things you get at the mall. I would say his tattoos are about as exciting as the fact that he isn't wearing a tie, and probably has Levi's on.
The thing I do have to snicker at, is that like most fashion, tattoos become dated very quickly. I see lots of tribal barbed wire, and it is like having a pair of Oakley Blades you can't remove.
That's why my tattoo is a memorial to my dad, 30 year Navy man, 21 active, 9 reserves.
Anchor and rope, not the globes, I was never in the Navy, never earned those......
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that's pretty much garbage and I can't wait until we get rid of that ruling. The decision is always made by a person, an actual living sentient person, not a legal fiction.
^
|
|
|
This
So This
Very well said rinjin.As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations.
Well if the business is a corporation, it has most of the same rights as a person.
Whatever your personal opinion, it is the law, and they do have rights under the law.
Something tangential -- the US Army put out a memorandum way back when to suspend (but not eliminate) it's tattoo policies so it could find/keep enough people for our recent activities.
Now things are drawing down the policy was reinstated with those already in getting grandfathered in with their tattoos. I had to create memorandums for record and enclose the pictures of everyone's tattoos in my company so they could be recorded in their records. Also if you aren't already commissioned and you have tattoos in the 'no show' locations (below the knee, below the elbow or on the neck or head) you supposedly will not be joining the commissioned ranks (I only say supposedly because I don't know anyone denied due to tattoos or allowed with tattoos since the policy has been reinstated).
A lot of people got upset over this but it was pointed out that they knew this policy existed when they came in and that they also knew that the suspension of it was only temporary and they were allowed to continue/finish their service without it affecting their records beyond the commission thing.
Whatever your personal opinion, it is the law, and they do have rights under the law.
It's also not a new development. The idea that corporations have the right of freedom of speech is new, but the idea that corporations have the right to choose their own employees based on their criteria and not the wannabe-employee's goes back to the very beginnings of employment law.
Even if "the decision is made by a person," that person is the representative of the owners of the business and has a fiduciary duty to those owners not to make decisions that are bad for business unless otherwise compelled by law. If hiring a person would actually be bad for business, that person will not be hired. If the employment manager reasonably believes that hiring a person will be bad for business, that person will not be hired. And, in every jurisdiction with which I'm familiar, the manager's belief does not even have to be reasonable.
People can grow up and decide tattoos aren't scary or counter-cultural or anti-business.
People can also grow up and decide having tats isn't as cool or as fun as eating regularly. (See, I can be dismissive and pejorative, too.)
If you're going to phrase this as as a battle of your freedom-to-ink against their freedom-to-hire-someone-else, you're going to lose.
Not hiring someone because of highly visible tattoos or other body modifications is no more "discrimination" or "prejudice" than choosing not to hire someone who hasn't bathed in a week and comes into the interview wearing hotpants.
Companies want to present a certain image. Slovenly and unprofessional is not an image most want to present.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People can grow up and decide tattoos aren't scary or counter-cultural or anti-business.People can also grow up and decide having tats isn't as cool or as fun as eating regularly. (See, I can be dismissive and pejorative, too.)
If you're going to phrase this as as a battle of your freedom-to-ink against their freedom-to-hire-someone-else, you're going to lose.
Better to phrase it as what it is: the final days of a passing trend. In 20 - 30 years, most hiring managers will have grown up in a time when tattoos were trendy rather than scary, and many will have at least one of their own. Another 20 years after that, the old guard of 50's nostalgic executives will be quite gone, and the "tattoos are normal" generations will be running the asylum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slovenly and unprofessional is not an image most want to present.
Yes, but it's not clear that tattoos are in fact, a sign of slovenliness or unprofessionalism. That's why "no tats" is, in fact, a stupid policy.
But there's no law against stupid policies, and stupid people who run up against stupid policies tend to lose.
Slovenly and unprofessional is not an image most want to present.Yes, but it's not clear that tattoos are in fact, a sign of slovenliness or unprofessionalism. That's why "no tats" is, in fact, a stupid policy.
But there's no law against stupid policies, and stupid people who run up against stupid policies tend to lose.
Ehhh, po-tay-to po-tah-to, really.
What is considered unprofessional varies from company to company and person to person. What it all boils down to is whether or not YOU consider tattoos unprofessional, if your EMPLOYER does, you're s@*~ out of luck.
What is considered unprofessional varies from company to company and person to person. What it all boils down to is whether or not YOU consider tattoos unprofessional, if your EMPLOYER does, you're s%@+ out of luck.
Yes.
I used to have my own, personal, policy that, because I hated working for people who promulgated and enforced stupid policies, that I would never work for anyone stupider than I was.
The problem with that is, because (like most teenagers) I was the smartest illithid in the world, this meant that I couldn't work for anyone and was thereby condemned to perpetual unemployment. Fortunately, I was smart enough to identify and solve that problem, and I stopped perpetuating that stupid personal policy.
|
|
Another aspect of business tattoo policies isn't so much they don't want people to have tattoos but rather don't want to have a policy to regulate said tattoos. A blanket 'no visible tattoos' is easy to handle. But what if the tattoos are offensive in nature? And how is this defined? Who makes up these guidelines? And what if a customer finds a tattoo offensive but is acceptable per these guidelines? Do they fire the employee, make him cover it up, lose the business? Speaking from a managerial viewpoint I'd much rather enforce 'no visible tattoos' then try to explain to someone why a half-naked woman on their forearm isn't acceptable for a server to display because I just dealt with a customer ranting for an hour about it.
|
|
Not hiring someone because of highly visible tattoos or other body modifications is no more "discrimination" or "prejudice" than choosing not to hire someone who hasn't bathed in a week and comes into the interview wearing hotpants.
Companies want to present a certain image. Slovenly and unprofessional is not an image most want to present.
Man that's wrong on like every count.
1. Someone who doesn't bathe can affect the work of people around them.
2. Having unusual fashion sense shouldn't affect one's work either.
3. Again, maybe people should grow up and not consider things like tattoos as slovenly or unprofessional.
|
|
Another aspect of business tattoo policies isn't so much they don't want people to have tattoos but rather don't want to have a policy to regulate said tattoos. A blanket 'no visible tattoos' is easy to handle. But what if the tattoos are offensive in nature? And how is this defined? Who makes up these guidelines? And what if a customer finds a tattoo offensive but is acceptable per these guidelines? Do they fire the employee, make him cover it up, lose the business? Speaking from a managerial viewpoint I'd much rather enforce 'no visible tattoos' then try to explain to someone why a half-naked woman on their forearm isn't acceptable for a server to display because I just dealt with a customer ranting for an hour about it.
Same as any other offensive clothing/etc rule that workplaces also have? Tattoos don't need to be ruled differently.
I have very long hair. In fact I have the longest hair at my company. I don't think that having long (well kept) hair has been an issue at interviews, but I do suspect that it -would- be an issue if I didn't have the resume and prior work experience and publications that I have.
Having long hair, piercings, tattoos I suspect is less of an issue once you're already -in- a professional field, but I don't doubt for a second that for entry level jobs yes, it would impact things negatively.
It's not just about work. It's about image.
I can be a good sales rep dressed in a clown suit, theoretically, but nobody in their right mind is going to let me do it.
The sooner YOU grow up and realize your "unique" fashion sense is less important than your ability to hold a job, the happier you'll be.
Or, at least recognize that it's your own choices holding you back, not someone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To all the long-haired, tatted, pierced and god only knows what else people out there without a job: UPS is hiring and they don't give a shiznit what you look like as long as you can pick up boxes and put them down elsewhere.
|
|
Another aspect of business tattoo policies isn't so much they don't want people to have tattoos but rather don't want to have a policy to regulate said tattoos. A blanket 'no visible tattoos' is easy to handle. But what if the tattoos are offensive in nature? And how is this defined? Who makes up these guidelines? And what if a customer finds a tattoo offensive but is acceptable per these guidelines? Do they fire the employee, make him cover it up, lose the business? Speaking from a managerial viewpoint I'd much rather enforce 'no visible tattoos' then try to explain to someone why a half-naked woman on their forearm isn't acceptable for a server to display because I just dealt with a customer ranting for an hour about it.Same as any other offensive clothing/etc rule that workplaces also have? Tattoos don't need to be ruled differently.
My current place of employment simply rules no logos of any kind unless corporate shirt, offensive or not. So right in line with no visible tattoos then. Which is for the same reason. It's easier to simply ban logos rather than decide if this shirt is offensive or not.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been a government contractor in the aerospace/defense industry for almost 20 years now. For the most part, no one cares what's under your clothes when you show up for an interview. We generally care about what's on your resume, how you carry yourself in the interview, and what's in your background checks. If your tats don't poke out from under a collared shirt, that's fine with us. If they should become a problem somehow, we'd definitely have a conversation about it, but that's never happened at my (small) company as far as I know. We did once tell a guy that, as a condition of his employment, he had to remove the very large diamond-stud earrings he wore to the interview. Most people getting into this industry know the rules and play accordingly, so there usually aren't issues.
Looking at a picture of that guy, if worked with us, I'd say that he must be very good at his job. The amount of slack you get cut tends to be linearly proportional to how good you are at your job. If he hasn't been asked to cover his arms, and not wear that shirt (which is a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen), he must be awesome at what he does.
and not wear that shirt (which is a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen), he must be awesome at what he does.
Btw, that's the angle I've been seeing discussed elsewhere on the web. Only on Paizo have I seen people talking about his tats.
To all the long-haired, tatted, pierced and god only knows what else people out there without a job: UPS is hiring and they don't give a shiznit what you look like as long as you can pick up boxes and put them down elsewhere.
Target likewise doesn't care.
You may have problems getting your damn paychecks from them though, but that's the price you pay for diversity I guess.
I don't know if my blessed employers are doing it nationwide, but in my building they are giving out weekly bonuses of $100 to new hires if they come to work every day on time. A little late in the season, but if your tats are preventing you from being employed, you can probably still get in over at upsjobs.com.
Also, and I don't mean to stereotype about people who have tattoos, but in case any unemployed tatted-up rpg-players are wondering, they don't drug test.
Heh... It's kinda funny seeing this debate about tattoos.
My brother-in-law is not only a tatto artist, but also the owner of a tattoo studio. Both him and my sister have lots of tattoos... We joke saying that they look like human-sized comic books...
My brother and my other sister have a few tattoos each, but nothing that attracts too much attention. I'm the only one of the bunch who never got tattooed (and don't plan to).
I have nothing against tattoos... I think they can be pretty cool, but I've never seen an image that I thought I'd like during all my life. So I never made any.
Just a few days ago, someone asked my Brother-in-Law: "Do you work?". He laughed and answered that yes, he does work. Still, apparently some people do think that tattooed. So yes, there are people who still see tattoos as thing for those who are lazy, irresponsible or downright criminal. It's and outdated view, IMO, but it still exists.
While it's everyone's right to change their appearance however they want, they must be aware that your appearance is literally the first thing the person sees about you, so it's a great part of how you'll be judged. It might be unfair, but it's true nonetheless... And companies are aware of that. And since most clients won't stick around for weeks just to better know your tattooed employee, companies avoid hiring people with visible tattoos, even if they don't share the outdated view on tattoos.
Years ago, I had a hard time finding my first job due to having long hair. The very same principle applies. Many people still see a long-haired guy and think he's a demon-worshiping drug addict or something equally undesirable, and companies understandably avoid hiring people who can negatively affect their images...
I didn't think less of any of the companies. Growing long hair, much like getting a tattoo, is a choice, not a random accident of birth. And we're all aware those aesthetic choices are not very well seen in many professional fields, so at very least, those who have tattoos, long hair or any other "unorthodox" choice of personal style can and will be more-or-less fairly seen as someone who is willing to sacrifice a chance of employment in favor of aesthetics... And that is usually not a good message to send when you're looking for a job.
tl;dr: Maybe not hiring someone because of their tattoos (or any other "unorthodox" choice of personal style) is due to prejudice, but it can also be due to to very reasonable assumptions. Even if they are not completely accurate. Don't be so quick to call someone a bigot because they don't agree with your view on a particular choice of personal aesthetics.
I don't know if my blessed employers are doing it nationwide, but in my building they are giving out weekly bonuses of $100 to new hires if they come to work every day on time. A little late in the season, but if your tats are preventing you from being employed, you can probably still get in over at upsjobs.com.
Also, and I don't mean to stereotype about people who have tattoos, but in case any unemployed tatted-up rpg-players are wondering, they don't drug test.
I wished they were doing that when I was a new hire...:(
I think it is just your building as I have not heard any new hires getting at my building.
I have no visible tattoos, at least partially because I don't want to hurt my employment prospects. Sometimes you just have to be pragmatic.
Is it worth losing your job to stand up to racism? I believe it is.
Is it worth losing your job to stand up for your right to have tattoos? Not so much.
I have seven tattoos. I want to get more. I very much want "POISONED" tattooed across my knuckles.
Most of my current tats are non-visible. One, a religious icon, tends to peek out from underneath a long-sleeved dress shirt. I don't believe any of my tats would be considered "offensive" in the traditional sense of the word (though I accept that someone may find one or more offensive, as is their right).
I say all that because I absolutely support any employer's right not to hire me because of the choice I made to get inked. It is fear of not being able to find a job that pays me a decent wage that prevents me from getting said tattoo across my knuckles.
Do I like it? No. Is it fair? Yes. I had the choice not to get tattoos so I could wear a short-sleeved shirt with impunity. I have the choice to get my knuckles done and accept that many professional organizations will not hire me as a result.
All employees are extensions of the companies they work for; that's why a company can be held liable for certain bad acts committed by their employees. If I am expected to represent the company, and get paid accordingly, they have the right to dictate certain things about me.
But let's take it a step further. I also happen to be overweight. And I'm not what you'd call "attractive." Can a company choose not to hire me because of those things?
I don't know the right answer. I just know that, as a tattooed person, I don't find restrictions/bans on tattoos unreasonable.
But let's take it a step further. I also happen to be overweight. And I'm not what you'd call "attractive." Can a company choose not to hire me because of those things?
IANAL, but I suspect it depends on the job. If there is a bona fide occupational qualification which requires you to be thin or handsome (model, say), then I suspect the answer is yes. Otherwise, probably not. However, in practice it doesn't matter, since companies don't have to tell you why those chose not to hire you.