On Tattoos

[RiverRunner]

@XJETGIRLX

I would never advise someone against getting a tattoo for fear of not being able to find a professional job. In most places these days, that is no longer a valid concern assuming you have the education, experience, and skills the employer is looking for.

Depends on the particular tattoo, the site, and the clientele. Most people in most places aren’t going to be torn up by a rose on an ankle, for instance, but a full-face tattoo will knock you right out of consideration for employment at many places, particularly in customer-facing jobs. I have also seen a few – only a couple come to mind, really – people with tattooed messages which would keep them from employment in some places.

RR

[Gfactor]

@XJETGIRLX

I would never advise someone against getting a tattoo for fear of not being able to find a professional job. In most places these days, that is no longer a valid concern assuming you have the education, experience, and skills the employer is looking for.

It’s, er . . . complicated: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_9-10_50/ai_n6123925/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

and see, e.g., Viren Swami & Adrian Furnham, “Unattractive, promiscuous and heavy drinkers: Perceptions of women with tattoos,” *Body Image *4 (2007) 343–352 (title says it all)

For a study on whether tattooed college women really are more promiscuous see, http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/jkoch/Research/Tatto%20Sex.pdf (nope, but tattooed men were, sort of).

Of course, most of us are familiar with Chris Rock’s research on tongue rings: http://www.asklyrics.com/display/Chris_Rock/No_Sex_(in_the_Champagne_Room)_Lyrics/128348.htm

[Irishman]

Una Persson said:

Although it usually invites a Pit thread to dare say it on this Board, professional people in a professional environment generally are ill-advised to have tattoos that are visible (with the rare exception of ex-military people, and then only if they happen to roll up their sleeves.)

Talked to a lawyer clerking for a judge. Wearing his suit and shirt, you wouldn’t know it, but roll up his sleeves and he had is arms covered. He was in his 20’s IIRC.

[XJETGIRLX]

@Gfactor

It’s, er . . . complicated: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_9-10_50/ai_n6123925/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

and see, e.g., Viren Swami & Adrian Furnham, “Unattractive, promiscuous and heavy drinkers: Perceptions of women with tattoos,” *Body Image *4 (2007) 343–352 (title says it all)

For a study on whether tattooed college women really are more promiscuous see, http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/jkoch/Research/Tatto%20Sex.pdf (nope, but tattooed men were, sort of).

Of course, most of us are familiar with Chris Rock’s research on tongue rings: http://www.asklyrics.com/display/Chris_Rock/No_Sex_(in_the_Champagne_Room)_Lyrics/128348.htm

Of all people, I certainly am quite familiar with what influences peoples’ perception of women with tattoos. I still stand behind the statement that I would not advise someone against it for fear of not finding a professional job.

It is not impossible (or even all that difficult) in this day and age, assuming you have the qualifications and skills necessary, for a visibly tattooed person to find a professional job. Sure, there may be places (like Una’s company) where you won’t get that call back, but there are plenty of other employers that will realize your value. It’s not 1950 anymore, and it’s just not this huge stumbling block that some people like to keep thinking it is. Besides, with products like Dermablend out there, you could be working with visibly tattooed people as we speak and not even know it.

[vetbridge]

@Una_Persson

professional people in a professional environment generally are ill-advised to have tattoos that are visible

Well, as a nearly 50 year old veterinarian with many dozens of hours of work covering arms, legs, and chest, I disagree. Then again, I am self employed and am more than happy to not interact with anyone who finds my hobby off-putting.

[Gfactor]

@XJETGIRLX

It is not impossible (or even all that difficult) in this day and age, assuming you have the qualifications and skills necessary, for a visibly tattooed person to find a professional job.

Of course it’s not impossible. Whether it is “*that *difficult” probably requires more than your single data point, though. College placement offices are still recommending covering them up because, “In a recent survey conducted by Vault.com, over half of the managers surveyed said they would be less likely to hire an applicant with visible tattoos and body piercings.” http://www.ns.msu.edu/acrc/quick_guides/tatoos.asp

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/articles/2004/03/24/news/20040324-archive6.txt (2004)

Of course, the survey also backs your argument–only half of the managers said they would be less likely to hire–that means the other half are fine with it. Therefore, it’s not impossible to get a job.

And courts have rejected challenges to employer tattoo policies: Latest News - ABA Journal

[XJETGIRLX]

@Gfactor

Of course, the survey also backs your argument–only half of the managers said they would be less likely to hire–that means the other half are fine with it.

Exactly, and the more of us that make it into management (thanks to the half that are fine with it), the more that scale will tip. So, I encourage people to go ahead with their decision to get a tattoo, and not be frightened off by the myth of getting stuck in an unprofessional job.

[MOIDALIZE]

Only a drunken harlot would believe such a thing

[Una_Persson]

I gave my perspective as a person who actually interviews and recruits new employees as a regular part of my job. While the other comments in here are of course valid, they are not presented from the same standpoint as mine. And I made no comments at all about being stuck in an unprofessional job. Gfactor’s cite verifies my point. And consider this: in the piss-poor economy and job market we have today, who that is looking for a career wants to potentially reduce their chances of being hired?

Note that I said that it didn’t impact my decision to hire. In fact, I typically find most tattoos on women to be either interesting or attractive.

[XJETGIRLX]

@Una_Persson

I gave my perspective as a person who actually interviews and recruits new employees as a regular part of my job. While the other comments in here are of course valid, they are not presented from the same standpoint as mine.

I also have (and do) interview, recruit, and hire employees as part of my job also. I was actually specifically offered a position as the primary recruiter for my company, but I turned it down to continue on as a consultant (a position I enjoy). I am called in to conduct interviews when we hire other consultants, and in my marketing capacities I am responsible for recruiting to fill specific needs. While I do not currently have staff of my own, I have been in a personnel management position several times, and have been solely responsible for hiring, managing, and supervising staff.

So, if you were referring to my comments I’m afraid you are a bit mistaken as to my standpoint.

[Una_Persson]

@XJETGIRLX

So, if you were referring to my comments I’m afraid you are a bit mistaken as to my standpoint.

Since you omitted having that specific job experience in your original post, I’m afraid I’ll have to be forgiven for being mistaken. None of which addresses the point that my real-world experience seems to reflect the cite that Gfactor posted more than yours does. Which is, it is indeed possible that a large number of people in a position to hire may not in fact hire based on their own ignorance and prejudices. How well that survey backs up real life, however, is certainly a very good question.

[XJETGIRLX]

@Una_Persson

Since you omitted having that specific job experience in your original post, I’m afraid I’ll have to be forgiven for being mistaken.

Does it really matter? My opinion about how difficult it is to get a job while tattooed is only valid if I myself have been a hiring manager? Please forgive me for thinking that the only criteria I needed to share my experience were a) being visibly tattooed (and pierced, but that’s another thread) and b) having a professional job.

None of which addresses the point that my real-world experience seems to reflect the cite that Gfactor posted more than yours does. Which is, it is indeed possible that a large number of people in a position to hire may not in fact hire based on their own ignorance and prejudices. How well that survey backs up real life, however, is certainly a very good question.

And every time an election rolls around we see the difference between what people say they will do when polled, and what they actually do. It’s been my experience that a lot of people are opposed to tattooed employees in theory, but when they meet you and realize that you’re smart, professional, and a good fit for the position … suddenly something superficial like a little ink is just a little bit less important.

Again, I would not advise someone against getting a tattoo if the only reason they are hesitating is because they are worried about getting a professional job.

[Una_Persson]

@XJETGIRLX

Does it really matter? My opinion about how difficult it is to get a job while tattooed is only valid if I myself have been a hiring manager?

How unfortunate, that’s not what I said above:

While the other comments in here are of course valid, they are not presented from the same standpoint as mine.

I specifically said the other viewpoints in here were valid. My only mistake was in not knowing that among your seemingly myriad job duties is in fact a similar experience with hiring - in short, the same standpoint. You told me I was mistaken and I explained why I was mistaken.

I’m on your side on this subject from a moral standpoint. It’s just that I and the cites posted in here disagree with you about the realities of the hiring situation. And despite your claim about election polls being inaccurate, the margin of error in the mainstream ones is still so small that your analogy does not support your position. Even a +/- 10% error still supports my point of there being a significant risk (and what’s an insignificant risk when getting a good job is at play? Who wants to roll those loaded dice?)

[Una_Persson]

Let’s take a look at some more cites and what they say, rather than relying on anecdotes.

Dale, Larry R. et al. “To Tattoo or not Tattoo is the Question” Proceedings of the Academy for Economics and Economic Education, Volume 10, Number 2 Reno, 2007.

Students had a mixed opinion as to whether “body art” should be forbidden or not by 36% favoring such a policy and 37% opposing such a policy. They were alos evenly divided over if they would hiore someone with such adornmanets. Oddly enough most students reported that only 20% of their company employers formal policy restrictions on such adornment with 43% saying there was no such policy and the rest admitting that they did not know if their was a policy. It is also interesting that of those reporting body adorments 64% planned to keep them well covered when going for an interview imply some concern over the reaction to their adornments.

However, this was not a poll of employers, only students.
Resenhoeft, Annette, et al. “Tattoos Can Harm Perceptions: A Study and Suggestions” JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH, VOL. 56, NO. 5.

Our overall results show that having a tattoo hinders interpersonal perceptions. This study appears to be the first to demonstrate this while combining the following 3 features: use of an experimental procedure, an exclusively college student sample, and photographs (rather than a written description) of a model. This study provides experimental evidence that, in certain circumstances, obtaining a tattoo may lead to one being judged less positively than would be the case without a tattoo. More generally, these findings add tattooing to a list of behaviors identified by psychologists as stemming from self-presentational motives that yield potential adverse health or social effects.

This study is somewhat interesting, but limited in that it focused on a single school, and did not levelize for dress.

There is also a tiny bit about negative effect on employers on page 207 of “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” by Leslie Baumann (2002), but as far as I can tell it’s largely based on the other cites in here and elsewhere in the thread. Another book, “Body Piercing and Tattooing” seems to say the opposite, however, but it is not based on studies, just interviews with a couple of managers.

This reference does not address polls of employers on tattooing specifically, but does discuss some legal issues and speaks very briefly on tattoo restrictions, much more on personal appearance (including body piercing), which I think is very extensible: King, Roger G. et al. “You (Don’t) Look Marvelous: Considerations for Employers Regulating Employee Appearance” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly; Nov 2006; 47, 4.

So I can find a couple additional cites that support my assertion, but not nearly as many as I’d like to see, personally, but then I like a lot of backing. However, thus far I’ve seen no cites that support the assertion that visible tattoos are not a concern. Since I no longer want to bicker about personal experiences, let’s see if we can find some cites that support the opposing viewpoint to mine, and weigh their pluses and minuses against each other.

Edited: fixed line breaks.

[Una_Persson]

See also: Bekhor, Philip S. et al. “Employer attitudes toward persons with visible tattoos.” Australasian Journal of Dermatology Volume 36 Issue 2, Pages 75 - 77, where:

A total of 242 employers were surveyed over the telephone to assess their attitudes toward prospective employees with visible tattooing. Employers were divided into eight categories according to type of industry. Responses to the survey were tabulated and confidence intervals produced. It would appear that significant bias exists against the employment of persons with visible tattoos in the hospitality, beauty, retail and office sectors where less than 30% of those surveyed would employ a person with a tattoo. All industries except building and the public service admitted that they would be influenced by a visible tattoo in over 40% of cases.

Possible criticisms: it is a 13 year old study, and it’s not in the US.

So let’s go newer.

Swanger, Nancy. “Visible body modification (VBM): evidence from human resource managers and recruiters and the effects on employment.” International Journal of Hospitality Management Volume 25, Issue 1, March 2006, Pages 154-158.

The purpose of this study was to measure the perceptions of hospitality industry human resource managers and recruiters of interviewees with visible tattoos and body piercings. A questionnaire was sent via e-mail to 37 human resource managers and college recruiters, which contained a single open-ended question regarding tattoos and piercing, for the purpose of obtaining some baseline data on their impact on employment. Thirty (81.08%) of the human resource managers and recruiters responded with the majority (86.67%) saying that visible tattoos and body piercings on an interviewee would be viewed negatively by their organization.

Those are some pretty damning numbers. From the study above, they quote some other studies, which I’m sure folks can read for themselves, but I’ll pick some quotes:

…inked and pierced workers who responded to the survey reported a decided lack of equal opportunity: some 18% of employees and nearly a quarter of the managers surveyed said such body modifications have hindered their careers and dulled their prospects.’’

…

In a Sales and Marketing Management survey of 651 executives, an overwhelming majority said they would avoid hiring sales representatives who were sloppily or unfashionably dressed, or those who had visible body piercings or tattoos’’ (Ligos, 2001).

Huh, even “sales and marketing management.” Imagine.

And in terms of the tattoos being viewed positively:

Of the 30 responses, 26 (86.67%) conveyed a negative feeling toward the appearance of tattoos and piercing on interviewees, 3 (10.00%) responses were neutral, and 1 (3.33%) response was positive regarding tattoos/piercing.

Here’s a somewhat interesting university paper which I think does speculate a bit too much:
Foster, Gary S. and Hummel, Richard L. “The Commodification of Body Modification: Tattoos and Piercings from Counterculture to Campus.”, (a version of this paper was presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Sociological Society, Chicago, Illinois, April 21, 2000.)

After majors were assessed, collapsing, following conventions of higher education, yielded seven categories. Proportions of majors having tattoos and/or piercings were fine arts, 46.4%; applied sciences, 42.9%; social sciences, 42.1%; undeclared, 41.9%; education, 40.9%; sciences, 37.0%; and business, 26.2%. Education majors were most likely (22.7%) to have piercings (virtually all torso piercings, and thus concealable) and least likely (9.1%) to have tattoos (all of which were concealable). Visible body modification would likely reduce chances of employment in many school systems. Concealable modification would not impede employment, while still allowing self-expression. Business had the smallest proportion with any body modification (26.2%), the smallest proportion with piercings (7.1%) and the smallest proportion with both tattoos and piercings (2.4%), consistent with the perspective that those entering this major are aware of the conservative business climate. Moreover, these tattoos and piercings were concealable. Fine arts majors were most likely to have modifications (46.4%) and most likely to have both tattoos and piercings (17.9%), reflecting an assumed, free-spirited nature of those selecting that major. Science majors were most likely to have tattoos (22.2%). Distributions of body modification across majors exhibited patterns that sometimes defied prediction, failing to support the hypothesis. However, this is consistent with our suggestion that tattoos and piercings are becoming more a part of a cultural inventory and less a part of an ideological or class inventory.

I think the only conclusion one can draw from the paper is that visible body modification is at least a concern for employment.

So again, we come back to finding cites that back up my stated concern in this thread. I did honestly look for cites which backed up the opposing viewpoint, that it shouldn’t be a concern, but I really didn’t find them. Of course again, I have to ask in general, how much additional risk do you want to carry coming into a job interview? Perhaps if we set the goalposts to “no more than a 1/3 sandbagging” I could find a paper or two, but doggone it, I for one think a 33% lower chance of getting a job is just too serious to ignore. But what do I know?

Edited: stupid line breaks

[Siam_Sam]

@XJETGIRLX

Exactly, and the more of us that make it into management (thanks to the half that are fine with it), the more that scale will tip. So, I encourage people to go ahead with their decision to get a tattoo, and not be frightened off by the myth of getting stuck in an unprofessional job.

I agree with you up to a point. But the example I used above, the lead singer in the punk-rock band, was almost literally covered with them. I’m sure most people with tattoos are not going to go to that extreme, but he really did seem to be one of these people on a quest to cover every inch of his body with art, and I think that would have handicapped his chances when applying to, say, a bank.

[XJETGIRLX]

@Una_Persson

I think the only conclusion one can draw from the paper is that visible body modification is at least a concern for employment.

As I’ve said before, the difference between what people say they will do in a poll, and how they actually behave in real life is a vast gulf of difference. Sorry I don’t have any cites to back that up but I think we’ve all seen the results of it, well, anytime a poll comes out. And you know what they say about 85% of statistics …

But hey, if it makes you feel better about your own irrational prejudice, go ahead and bask in it

[SeanArenas]

I think a lot also depends on the company and the specific professional environment.

I’ve worked for companies that have varying levels of professionalism.

Ralph M. Parsons requires men to wear a shirt and tie, and anyone who has a tattoo has it in a place that’s covered. (When people show them off, they have to roll up a sleeve or lift a pant leg to show an ankle)
Price Waterhouse requires a full suit, and I never saw a tattoo. (People wouldn’t show them off, so I don’t know if people had them or not)
At Phoenix Technologies, the environment was business casual, and people in working positions might have visible tattoos, but no one in management did (that I noticed).
At Hewlett Packard, we wore shirt and tie, and no visible tattoos.
The place I work at now is pretty lax. We wear collared shirts and shorts M-T, and t-shirts and shorts on Friday. Many people have visible tattoos. My job is still professional (I was a trainer for a couple of years, and now do writing and creative work), but we see a lot of tatts. Some people have many visible tattoos. Supervisors will show off their new ink to employees.

So, people’s experience with tattoos in the workplace is going to be based on their job experience.

I’d say that if you’re going to apply for a job in any capacity at Disney or Price Waterhouse or another strictly professional company, don’t get ink in a visible place. If you already have ink done, don’t bother applying at a place like those companies, and focus your job search on places that don’t have such strict dress and hiring codes.

[RiverRunner]

@XJETGIRLX

As I’ve said before, the difference between what people say they will do in a poll, and how they actually behave in real life is a vast gulf of difference. Sorry I don’t have any cites to back that up but I think we’ve all seen the results of it, well, anytime a poll comes out. And you know what they say about 85% of statistics …

So, although Una has actual data, including the responses of people who have no incentive to lie, somehow you know that they don’t really feel that way?

@XJETGIRLX

But hey, if it makes you feel better about your own irrational prejudice, go ahead and bask in it

Again, she has data, you don’t. So she is being irrational? You have the cites she provided, you have hiring managers saying it’s a minus, you have inked people themselves saying it’s a minus, you have other people in this thread saying it’s a minus, but somehow it’s really not, because . . . well, because you say so. Hmmmm.

RR

[XJETGIRLX]

@RiverRunner

So, although Una has actual data, including the responses of people who have no incentive to lie, somehow you know that they don’t really feel that way?

Again, she has data, you don’t. So she is being irrational? You have the cites she provided, you have hiring managers saying it’s a minus, you have inked people themselves saying it’s a minus, you have other people in this thread saying it’s a minus, but somehow it’s really not, because . . . well, because you say so. Hmmmm.

RR

I’m sure HR managers say they don’t discriminate against people based on race either, but I’m willing to bet you’ll find plenty of people whose experience claims otherwise. Polls don’t accurately reflect reality, period.

I’m not saying that there aren’t people out there (like Una) who have this prejudice. Clearly there are. My point is, and always has been, that it is not as pervasive a problem as (non-tattooed) people want to make it out to be. It’s not enough of an issue to discourage people from getting a tattoo if they really want one. There are plenty of opportunities for visibly tattooed people in professional environments, as I and other posters in this thread have stated.

We are out here and we are getting by in the professional world just fine. Obviously the polls cited don’t quite match up with reality.