Tattoo policies in the workplace - advice sought

In My Humble Opinion
1

Let me begin by stating that I’m going to ask a simple question in regards to tattoos. I’m am not soliciting opinions about the lifestyle choices of those who have elected to get a tattoo. Though, this being my beloved Dope, I won’t take offense when the inevitable happens.

I have 6 of them currently. I like them, and I plan on getting more. But that’s neither here nor there… on to the question.

If your place of employment institutes a zero tolerance tattoo policy, after 4 years of no policy followed by an additional 3 years of a policy that allows certain visible tattoos, and that you’ve adhered to completely – what would you do?

Background: I am employed by a bank, and have been here going on 8 years. During my initial interview, I wore a short sleeved shirt with the tribal tattoo on my wrist in plain sight. The running joke with my supervisor and coworkers was that I got hired because of my tattoos, as I didn’t have any previous banking experience to recommend me. At that time, there was no official tattoo policy. My supervisors both have tattoos on their ankles that were in plain sight whenever they wore skirts or capris, and not much was ever said on the subject.

Initially, I worked in Proof, so other than trips to pick up work in the various branches, I didn’t have any customer contact. About 5 years ago, I took a position in the IT dept. Again, other than trips to the branches to work on hardware, I had very little face to face customer contact, though I do speak with customers on the phone on a regular basis, providing support for our website and a few other technology based products.

In 2009, I came back from vacation with a new tattoo. It is a Celtic design on the inside of my wrist, about 3 in long and about 2 in wide. Something got said and the next thing I know, HR is asking questions because they’ve decided a tattoo policy needs to be put into effect. I worked with them and helped create the policy, which became any tattoos below the elbow and below the knee are allowable, with the exception of those that could be considered offensive, otherwise they would need to be covered. The exception to the rule is the starburst tattoo I have on the lower part of my neck. HR and my supervisor agreed that I didn’t have to bother covering it completely. Same exception was made for a coworker. All in all, nothing changed greatly. While quite a few employees have tattoos, many of them are hidden with everyday office wear, and not a peep has been heard.

I came back from vacation this week to a huge sh*t storm. Based on the finding of some mystery shoppers, (none of which specifically mention tattoos to my knowledge) the bank has decided that the corporate image needs polishing. Cosmetic work to some of the buildings has begun, the dress code will be strictly enforced, no food at your desk, and the biggest shocker…

No Tattoos. Period. Full Stop. No Arguments.

They are not interested in making exceptions for those of us with no customer contact. In the interest of the policy being legally defensible, they are going with the ‘everyone across the board’ option.

Naturally, I’m a little pissed about this. The committee that was formed to make the decisions lacked a tattooed freak to speak for the rest of us tattooed freaks. Not that I think it would have mattered. The final decision was up to senior staff. So, while I’ve made my general lack of enthusiasm for the new policy known to my direct supervisor and the officer above him, something tells me I’m not going to get far there.

In response to management’s worries about my reaction, I’ve already stated that I wasn’t going to go all Norma Rae and rile up the employees. That’s not who I am and it would do more harm that good. The policy goes into effect tomorrow, as does the stricter adherence to the dress code and the no eating at your desk. (Neither of which I have an issue with… though sandals and the occasional dept food day will be greatly missed.)

I do not have a closet full of long sleeved shirts, nor am I going to rush out any buy any. I will for the immediate future, kind of play by the rules. If I venture out of my office, I have a cuff bracelet that will cover the tattoo around my wrist and most of the one on the inside of my wrist. I’ve been told that this will be adequate, though I could still be sent home by an officer who wants to follow the hardline, should they wander into my office while the bracelet is not being worn. In which case, I either cover the tattoo to their specifications, or I don’t come back to work.

I’m not soliciting legal advice - I’ve already contacted a lawyer just to see what choices I have, she will be getting back to me after she’s done some research. I won’t be suing if things don’t go my way. I’ll play the game ‘til I find a new job, and they will have lost an employee.

Research I’ve done on my own goes both ways, not to mention, one of the big news sites was reporting today that tattoo removal is on the upswing among those in search of jobs.

Your thoughts? Experience? Completely unrelated anecdote?

My thanks~

2

Personally I don’t like tattoos but you asked for opinions. I agree with the new policy (and you can extend that to piecing also). My personal feelings aside, most tattoos are a distraction at least and show disregard for others to see an unpleasant or offensive pics in one’s own eyes at worst. You can’t undo what has been seen. It cast a bad image to others. If you are competing on the business world, image is most important. When it’s your money and your business on the line then you do as you please. But consider what your competition will be doing to get the same customers. You will want every advantage available, image is everything.
Let use an example. You need plumbing work done and you need a lawyer. Assume you know nothing about either profession. And you dont’ have the time to learn the good, bad or ugly of either profession. Two people show up. One wears a suit with briefcase and the other coveralls with a tool box. What are your assumptions as to who is who? Would you hire a plumber in a suit and a lawyer in coveralls? Remember, you don’t have time to figure out each individual. Since your house is flooded and your going to jail for a crime you did not commit.
You made a life decision and now you must live with the consequences. It’s not fair but life is life.
Cover the ink and be glad you have a job and a boss who knows you can do the job regardless of the ink. You’re luckier than many others with tats.

3

I work at an insurance company in Chicagoland, and there are visible tattoos on several of my co-workers. But that rule could change tomorrow and we’d all have to play along. So, cover up every inch of tattoo with clothing. Use a lot of concealer on your neck tattoo. And start xeroxing your resume.

You already contacted a lawyer, so you’ve got that one covered. I don’t know on what grounds you would take them to task, though. The ability to show one’s tattoos is not a civil right, and tattooed people are not a protected class. So there’s nothing for it, but to play along until you find a new job.

You might consider moving to a more liberal area if you live in a more classically conservative region, as well. In places like Chicago and other large cities on the east/west coasts, visible tattoos are so common as to be unworthy of notice. I sympathize with your situation, truly, and I’m very pro-tattoo (despite having none myself). But you *must *be aware that this was a risk you voluntarily took when you decided to make permanent alterations to your body. It sucks, but if you don’t like it, you need to find a new job or become your own employer.

4

There’s no way to convince them to add a “grandfather clause”?

5

I find it interesting that your employer is becoming less tolerant of tattoos, instead of more. I work for a very conservative old-school mega corp that has gone completely the other way (to my surprise). In my time there, we’ve gone from “ranks of middle-aged guys in white shirts” to everybody’s welcome. They even cover all lifestyles on our insurance benefits now. Same-sex, transgendered, you name it, they’re welcome here, and you get to define what a “family” is, not us. You can have a multitude of tattoos, piercings and electric blue hair if you want; and making a snide remark about someone’s choices is a quick way to the unemployment line. (I’ve seen it happen)

Sorry about the long post, but I’m astonished that some companies are headed the other direction on this.

FTR: The majority of us don’t come in contact with the general public.

6

I’m not really sure what you want us to tell you. Your lawyer can tell you if you have a legal basis for a descrimination lawsuit, given the policy was created after your employment. However unless they are religeous tattoos, I doubt you have much of a case.

I can tell you that you aren’t going to get far by making a big stink about it. And stating “you aren’t going to go all Norma Rae…” can be taken as a veiled threat that you will, in fact, go all Norma Rae.

I recommend getting some long sleve shirts.

7

Is it possible to share the actual policy wording with us?

8

Lucky you found out about the policy BEFORE getting “Fuck You All” tattooed on your forehead.

9

Hey, that’d be a fine way to quit if things don’t work out. :slight_smile:

10

I think perhaps you should invest in some good concealer make up to cover those tattoos. My understanding is that they have some highly effective ones out there. That way you won’t have to change your wardrobe, you can keep your tattoos, and (presumably) keep your current job until you decide to go elsewhere.

Yes, on the whole society is becoming more accepting of tattoos but there are still many, many people out there who hate them no matter how tastefully they are done or how pretty or whatever.

Long term, your best option (in my opinion) is an employer that’s cool about tattoos, but so long as you work for one that is anti-tattoo you’ll have to cover them up somehow if you want to keep the job.

11

What a bunch of milque-toasts.

I’ll be the first one to say you need to take this policy to task; legally if necessary. At the minimum you should be grandfathered in, with the company providing a one time “allowance” to those employees concerned to help defray the cost of long sleeve business attire that is now required for some but not for others because of their decision. Given that you and others predate this policy, you should make it extremely clear that you will vigorously pursue a wrongful termination suit should you be censured or terminated due to a wardrobe malfunction rather than anything regarding your job performance, which I will assume has be exemplary. Being tattooed is not a protected class, but neither is it an impermanent fashion choice like dying one’s hair. (ftr I would support the same allowance for a trip to the salon should they have employees with odd color hair and suddenly reversed policy) In most states businesses have to provide a record of reason for termination that has to do with the work being performed, or demonstrate that you were simply flouting company policies rather than an occasional slip.

12

I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed. In lieu of a written contract employees in the US are at will employees and thus the only reason a business needs for termination is, “We don’t feel like signing his paycheck anymore.” There are of course various exceptions but these are usually very narrow such as some but not all states not allowing an employee to be terminated for filing a worker’s compensation claim. Successful claims of wrongful termination are the rare exception, not the rule.

13

I guess this is your opinion, posted here in IMHO, because it’s not factual in the slightest.

What you’ve said is accurate only with respect to unemployment benefits. That is, an employer can fire you, but if they wish to contest your unemployment benefits and show you were fired for cause, THEN they need to “provide a record of reason for termination that has to do with the work being performed, or demonstrate that you were simply flouting company policies rather than an occasional slip.”

But as for employment itself – in the vast majority of states, if they simply want to fire you, they can. This is what is meant by “employment at will.” (Obviously if the employment is by contract, then the terms of the contract apply, but the OP has not mentioned he has a contract, either personal or union.)

I welcome any cites to the contrary.

14

Who said anything about being fired for an occasional slip? You need to take some deep breaths.

I personally think that the policy is ridiculous but getting lawyers involved is going to lead to heartbreak. For now, I’m pretty sure that it’s not illegal particularly in an at will State.

15

I think I have confused public policy exceptions with at will. Sorry.

As to fighting, I stand by my opinion. The only way idiotic policies like this one become reasonable restrictions is when someone stands up and fights them. Rolling over and waiting to be terminated by the first person with an axe to grind isn’t the way to go through life. Neither should a good employee with a proven record be placed at a financial disadvantage by the company due to the company’s own policy changes. This is no different than if the company decided that fat people were bad for business and mandated that anyone with a BMI over 20 had to take cover up fully.

16

Which they probably could.

I don’t think fighting the policy would be legally effective. It might be effective from a PR point of view; I have no opinion on that conjecture.

17

Sure, but don’t you think the outcry on this board would be far harsher were that the case rather than tattooing? Fat people with a medical condition would be like a person tattooed for religious reasons and protected. The rest of the lot is a lifestyle choice.

18

Probably. How is that relevant to the OP’s dilemma?

19

Simple. Both are widespread lifestyle choices. It’s not as if the OP wants to have a cannibal lunch or insisting that he should be able to dress as a cupcake. If the policy would be ethically unacceptable in one case then it should be the same in this one. If it would be right to fight the cover up the fat policy, then it is right in this case to fight the tattoo one.

20

I’m sure it would. But the OP’s challenge does not lie in convincing the population of this board.