When she says put a “plaster” over it, I think that’s the UK equivalent of saying put a “Band-Aid” over it. UKers confirm?
Or theater makeup. That’s what one of my former co-workers did, 15+ years ago when visible tattoos in a professional workplace were much rarer than they are now.
I’m going to presume that older people have had more time to add tats to themselves, while the younger folk have maybe just gotten their first art done.
No, the fact you stated was misleading and ought to be called out for what it is.
Older people tend to have more of everything than younger people, for no other reason than they have had more time to accumulate said things. Older people have more sex partners than younger people, but that doesn’t mean sex is out of style.
It isn’t that hard. I can wear dress pants to work, I cannot wear hot pants. I can dye my hair copper red, I cannot dye my hair neon green. These judgement calls happen every single day.
You’d be right -
But please do note, it’s never right to go to a professional office “plastered” -
Yep. I had 300% more ink when I was 30 than when I was 20. More time for accumulation.
Sharing some different views…
In Singapore, the law is pretty similar to the “at will” status of the US, you don’t have to give a reason for firing, and having a visible tattoo, in most instances, is going to be frowned upon (not least of which for still prevalent attitudes about triads)
In New Zealand, where the law is a bit different, you have to have a “good reason” to dismiss people (and also to not hire them in the first place). You could fire someone for visible tattoos - but you would also need to be able to defend your decision rationally, and with logic in a “reasonable man” test.
Would firing a non-public staff for a small, inoffensive tattoo on the ankle pass the test? Probably not (regardless of what the staff handbook said). On the other hand, would a skull over half the face for a car salesman pass the test? Most likely (IMHO).
Yes, but if your employer doesnt like your hot pants, you can change them. No judgement needed–just follow instructions.
If you can’t follow the instructions, then you have to live with the consequences of your choice to get a tattoo.
Upholding a blanket policy against visible tattoos so you don’t have to argue over whether any given tattoo is “inoffensive” would likely pass the test.
I hope other employers are stupid enough to fire good people for reasons like this. More talent for me.
Dunno, seem like pertinent words to me.
tattooed professional?
Isn’t that an oxymoron, like military intelligence?
What could be more unprofessional than a visible tattoo?
How about mohawked professional, or mulleted professional do those sound reasonable?
If you want to be taken seriously (and be employed) in any profession you have to make personal grooming choices that are conservative. If it is so important to you personally to look like a sideshow freak choose a career other than the law, business management or investment banking.
Or “well-informed internet commenter who turns up on page 2?”
Not a word of that is true. As noted, about 20% of U.S. adults have tattoos, and I don’t think any of them need your wrongheaded advice.
But what percentage of those with MBAs, law degrees or banking jobs have them?
The law firm where I work just hired an attorney who has large tattoos up and down both arms and legs. When she sees clients, she wears long pants and long-sleeved blouses (or a cardigan or jacket). But she was understandably a tad nervous about showing her extensive ink in the office when she first started. I was doing some IT training for her during her first week, and it was hot in her office, so she fessed up to me - luckily for her, i assured her, this is a more open-minded law firm than the vast majority, and nobody would care (at least nobody who mattered for her purposes) as long as she covered up when appearing in court, before government agencies, or with clients.
She knows this firm is the exception, though. And we do immigration law, not real estate or M&A or something with a more conservative clientele.
Almost 9% of US adults have a criminal conviction. So that must be a pretty professional thing to have as well.
The most senior partner at my firm has two, that I know of. They are not visible when he’s dressed for court. Almost all of our paralegals have tattoos. Some more obvious than others.
So far I haven’t found any statistics. Based on your stereotyping I’ll say it’s obviously more than you think; look at how many people over 30 and over 40 have tattoos.
As others have mentioned, that is most definitely not a 4cm tattoo. Even so, she could have easily covered it by wearing opaque stockings or boots, allowing her to continue wearing her “smart dresses” while avoiding looking stupid. According to the article, she knew for several weeks that her tattoo was an issue but made no effort to comply with company policy, stating that wearing socks or a plaster would look stupid. There was no mention made of wearing boots, tights, or dress pants, all of which would have covered her tattoo and complied with the company policy. IMO flouting the company policy for fear of looking stupid actually requires a great deal of stupidity.