As reported by the beeb there are some who call for anti-tattoo discrimination in employer-employee relations to be illegal. Let’s take an example from the article. There’s a lady working as a consultant, has all the skills etc. She’s terminated on the basis that she has 4cm butterfly inked on her ankle.
Do you think this is bullshit or is fair enough? Should it be illegal to fire someone for getting a tattoo - or not hire them on that basis - is they are otherwise fine for the job (assuming they haven’t got “FUCK YOU” in block capitals across their forehead, might be awkward in kindergarten).
If you are hired and agree to terms and conditions of your employment, then you have to abide by those terms and conditions, even if that means you can’t get your favorite butterfly tattoo.
If they didn’t say specifically that tats weren’t allowed, then that’s weasely and sucks, and I think that firing people for superficial things is stupid. But then, I have tatttoos, so I’m biased.
If judgmental people want to proscribe tattoos, then finding good help is on them.
I won’t say “disfigure” but I agree that getting tattooed shouldn’t make you a protected class. You did it voluntarily, got to pick how visible it would be and the content, etc.
Should this apply to cultural mores; for instance the Maori? Mind you it would be a brave employer who would deny one of those lads a job based on his tā moko.
She is in violation of the dress code. That said, I manage a professional office and there is no issue with ink - until we go out to the customers. Then I expect it to be covered up when possible - since I have no idea what biases the potential client might have.
An ankle tattoo of a butterfly? I wouldn’t concern myself.
I think that companies ought to be free to exercise some choice concerning tattoos on employees. She violated a policy, apparently, and she did have a choice: she could have hidden it.
I think it is interesting that the story (and the OP) refer to the tattoo as 4 centimeters (1.57 inches). It’s largest dimension is obviously several times that, unless the woman has feet that are 3 inches long.
Then she had three options:
[ol][li]Not get a tattoo[/li][li]Get a tattoo and look stupid[/li][li]Get a tattoo, and look stupid whining about gettting fired.[/ol]She chose what was behind Door Number Three. Sic transit gloria mundi.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
Gee–why bother to get all upset blaming the evil boss and his rules of employment?
Let’s just use her own reasoning:
She admits in her own words that it is a good idea to avoid stupidity.
She agrees that, in order to avoid stupidity, sometimes a businesswoman will choose to wear smart dresses.
She agrees that, in order to avoid stupidity, sometimes she may choose to remove her socks…
So… by her own logic: in order to avoid stupidity, she should sometimes choose to remove her tattoo.
Simple, no?
If I were the boss…yes, I’d fire her, and not just for violating her contract: For stupidity.
If somebody is too stupid to realize that decisions have consequences, then I don’t want them working for me. What looks attractive on you today in the clothing store–such as socks-- just might look stupid tomorrow in the office.
And what looks attractive on you today in the tattoo parlor just might look stupid tomorrow in the office.
But you can always change your socks. Unless you’re really stupid.
I’m not familiar with Maori practices/beliefs to know why they tattoo themselves but, generally speaking, if I wouldn’t hire a white dude with that tattoo then I wouldn’t hire a native guy with it either.
On the other hand, if I lived somewhere with a bunch of Maori and everyone saw it all the time, maybe I wouldn’t care anyway.
It’s called a Moko - and it is very much a practice amongst Polynesian populations.
It may not be common to see Moko on a professional - but at the same time, it wouldn’t neccessarily be out of place either.
The delineation between “native” and “white” in New Zealand is rather fluid - so the “white guy” distinction you’re drawing would not be clear.
As to the OP - a small ankle tat? Nah, not fireable offense. Something on the neck that couldn’t be covered? Probably
What about if I have an upper arm / shoulder tat, in normal business attire it’s covered, but during a sports day, or bbq it was seen - should I also be fired?
Yep. Employers can, but shouldn’t, do stupid things. I have employees with tattoos. I can’t imagine having a policy against them. I’m sure some would cross the line for certain positions, but I’ve got no objection generally.
Shrug I’m in Illinois, USA so the chance of a tattooed Maori applying for a job and throwing my (hypothetical) tattoo policy into disarray is miniscule enough that I could afford to ignore it until it happens.
My only problem with people that have visible (in a professional setting) tattoos is that, given society’s (outdated) aversion to them, having a visible tattoo does show poor judgment. I wouldn’t reject a candidate out of hand because they had a tattoo, but the tattoo would be a factor.
(Unless the position was for a bike messenger, then I’m fairly sure having a tattoo of a tribal pattern or barbed wire around a bicep is a prerequisite. )
I’m an employer and I have dozens of hours of artwork on me. Over the years I’ve shown preference (unintentional) in hiring of modded people. Everyone who currently works for/with me is tattooed, and they are all great workers.
ETA:I chose the option that her employer should be able to enforce their contract.
