Remember, it’s just a job. I’m not saying it’s easy to get another one, just saying that it’s not your primary reason for being. You are expendable to your employer, and unless this job at this company is Your Lifelong Dream, this fight just isn’t worth the stress to you. And I say this as someone with a tattoo who is currently planning the next one.
Cover up your tatts with makeup and start job hunting. In the interviews just say that the culture is no longer a good fit for you.
^^This. Nobody’s going to take the right to bear tattoos to the Supreme Court, and you won’t get anywhere in a workplace that doesn’t want them. You’ll have 8 years of experience under your belt, and that will be pretty tasty to a lot of employers, especially if the only reason you’re moving on is because your employer doesn’t like your face anymore. <figuratively speaking>.
It absolutely staggers my imagination that anyone would care whether their bank teller or loan officer or whatever has a tattoo. I’m even more dumbfounded that the bank itself would pay any attention to people who do care about this sort of thing. And it’s even weirder that this policy is being instituted at a time when (it seems that) every second person under the age of 30 had a tattoo.
I guess, though, that this really is this biggest concern that people have about their banks these days. I mean, all i ever hear when the subject of banks comes up is how awful the tattoos are on the employees at the local branch. No-one cares about interest rates, sub-prime lending, shitty mortgage policies, overdraft fees, account fees, nonworking ATMs, or slow service. It’s the tattoos that have the American people up in arms about the banking industry.
I don’t have a tattoo; i don’t want a tattoo; and i also think that the growing ubiquity of tattoos over the last decade or so is, in some ways, rather lame. But the idea that someone would be denied a job that they were fully qualified to carry out, based on some ink under their skin, is so fucking retarded that i can barely comprehend it. It’s even worse when, as in the OP’s case, that same person has actually been in the position and performing the job for almost a decade.
Unfortunately, OP, the others in this thread are right: if these stupid assholes want to fire you for your tattoos, it’s pretty likely that they can. I’d be looking for another job right about now if i were you.
I’m sorry – am I missing something? They made an offensive tattoo exception for a starburst on your neck? As in that could potentially be offensive? Juh?
Anyway, I am certain I would make efforts to change this, and if nothing happens, would promptly find a better company and quit. So what happens to all the tattooed people who have been merrily plugging away for god-knows-how-long in light of this new and ridiculous policy? They’re all canned if they can’t mock up some way to keep their tattoos covered at all times? Epic bullshit.
Sure, it’s possible that you won’t find yourself in the good graces of whatever higher ups came up with this asinine policy if you speak up about it, but if that’s the case, so what? Your voice will either be heard, or readily ignored with a high chance of stern glances by senior management being cast in your direction. If your voice is heard, confetti will be thrown, and all will be right in the world. If not, they’re fuckers and fuck them. I worked for a ginormous company for many years, and had no qualms whatsoever speaking up about completely ridiculous practices or guidelines. In many circles I was somewhat of a tiny hero for this, and in many others I was a nuisance asshole who didn’t think the rules applied to her. Didn’t win everyone over, but I was trying to make rules that make sense, and not even for me, but for everyone. Fuck the haters.
I don’t know what your personal style is, but I can’t function with unreasonable and inflexible rules. If we’re doing something stupid, I try to change it. If the company has a rule against change, then fuck that place; I’m gone. If I were you, I’d make noise, and if noise will not be tolerated, I’d peace out just like (snaps fingers) that.
Yeah, but that’s such bullshit, though, isn’t it? “We can treat employees however we want and make up capricious rules as we go along, because we have them by the balls! [nefarious laughter here]” and the employees are supposed to kowtow to it because they’re in no position to ask for something better?
I quit a good job at a ginormous bank in the middle of this recession, because I’ll be fucked before I’m bulldozed by complete lunacy. Yes, the bank will continue bullying its staff around, and no my leaving hasn’t crippled the company (yet), but it was going to cripple me if I stayed there any longer.
Life’s short. Fuck the bullshit.
I was going to let this go, but I feel compelled to express my annoyance. The very first sentence of the very first reply was some finger-wagging douchery about your personal feelings toward tattoos. Good job.
Thank you all for the responses - Can’t get to the site from work, so I’ll read through everything and post my thoughts and some clarifications this evening.
I don’t give a damn about tattooing (well, I have opinions about good and bad ink work) but I’ve worked in corporate America.
If the OP fights this he/she might win in the end, but short term they’re going to lose their job. Likely, the official reason for termination won’t even be “tattoing” but something else - such as giving them more and more duties until he/she can’t possibly keep up, or contradictory instructions then saying they didn’t do his/her job. Corporations are expert at covering their butts and screwing over those they view as troublemakers.
Hence, I said long-term the best choice is a tattoo-tolerant employer, and short term cover them up. Advising to fight the policy tooth, nail, and lawyer is, IMHO, a recipe for a quick pink slip. Your opinion may differ, then you give different advice.
Again, thanks to all that responded. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to have a job, and I’m not the type to quit one without having something else lined up. I’m looking for solid reasoning to back up my argument that employees in non-public areas of the bank should not have to cover tattoos. I’m not asking our management to completely do a 180 and reverse the decision. I’d just like a little flexibility.
See, this is what I don’t get. Yes, tattoos traditionally were worn by those more on the fringe of polite society. That stereotype is so outdated, people need to get over themselves.
I won’t be suing… Not worth the time or trouble. Just more ammunition to have on my side, if there is any to be found. If not, I will cover them up, and find another job that won’t have an issue with them.
[QUOTE=rachelellogram;15121441But you *must *be aware that this was a risk you voluntarily took when you decided to make permanent alterations to your body.[/QUOTE]
Yep. Starting with the first one I got in high school. Most of mine are in places that are naturally hidden by clothing. Would I have gotten the one on my wrist if I had known what it would lead to? Yes.
I like my job, but honestly, in IT, you can go into just about any industry. Banking is traditionally more conservative, but they aren’t the only show in town.
There’s a difference between being hired with tats, knowing the company does not allow them, then showing up for work exposing them and SylverOne’s situation. It sounds like they want to change their culture, damn whoever they currently employ. Sadly, they can do that.
I’ve told TheKid that until she can own her own business or she that understands she may not find employment in some companies, all tattoos must be coverable. She knows tattoos are disliked by many - doesn’t understand why (neither do I) - but that’s the way it is.
My workplace doesn’t have written policy regarding tattoos, and more than a few of us have them; however, it has been made clear that if you want to move up in the food chain they must be covered.
While tattoos can be artistically interesting they are not an entitlement. Bank tellers are the bank’s face to the public and a teller with a lot of visible tats may not be the way they wish to go.
Having said this being a bank teller is typically a job undertaken by middle class females with high school or associate degrees. The cohort of younger adult females in this class is one of the more heavily tatted groups in society. It will be interesting to see how bank policies go as they try to find young people willing to work as tellers without visible tattoos.
And yet, as the OP made very clear, this bank’s policy is also being applied to people who have no customer contact, and who are not, in fact, “the bank’s face to the public.”
I get that, but in implementation terms having a unitary appearance policy for the professional staff is a lot easier to administer than one making distinctions between the front and back office personnel.
Another point that has not (IIRC) been discussed so far is that the majority of people who will using person to person teller services are (I’m guessing here) older people who are not doing online banking or using direct deposit, and they may be fairly judgemental and disapproving re teller tattoos. The customers who would be most accepting of tats are probably the least likely to ever see a teller face to face inside the bank.
Tellers and other bank staff who have face-to-face dealings with customers may not have visible tattoos.
Bank employees who do not deal with customers may have tattoos.
I’m sure that there might be a few more nuances to incorporate, but that’s about what they need to do. If a bank isn’t competent enough to work out the logistics of a policy like this, are they competent enough to trust with our money?.
I’m sure that this is what some of the douchebags who run the bank are thinking. To be honest, though, i’ll bet that if you asked most elderly people whether they’d prefer shorter wait times or tattoo-free tellers, they’d take the former any day.
And if they wouldn’t, then fuck them and their backwards-ass notions of respectability.
Honestly, this is kind of what I’m shooting for, but I’d be happy to meet in the middle somewhere.
Exactly. In this day and age, a zero tolerance tattoo policy seems ridiculous to me, especially when the bank I work for is known for the casual laid back attitude that has been a popular approach with our customer base.
Don’t want to make a big stink. I want to make a well reasoned argument as it applies to my position on the subject.
Wow. You must be Kreskin to read that far into that statement. It was an assurance to my managers that I wasn’t going to be unreasonable. That wouldn’t do much to further my cause, but give them a valid reason to terminate me.
I checked the policy we have online and it hasn’t been published yet. There was supposed to be an official memo sent out today, but we haven’t seen anything yet. The HR Officer has been out of the office, so I’m guessing they are waiting on him. I’m going by what we were told in our department meeting on Wednesday.
Maybe I’ll get the bank logo tattooed on my cheek. Then I could pass it off as advertising… ha!
Montana is not an ‘at will’ state, there must be a valid reason to terminate someone. My previous reviews have all been positive. Exemplary might be pushing it… but there would be nothing in my work history to give them any reason to let me go. If I were terminated as a direct result of this new policy, then I may reconsider my legal options. I don’t think it will come to that. At this point, I’m not sure how far I’d be willing to fight this, but I feel strongly enough about the situation to push back.
As I stated above, in Montana, you must be given a valid reason for your termination. As far as I know, we are the only state that is not considered ‘at will.’
From this website: “In every state but Montana (which protects employees who have completed an initial “probationary period” from being fired without cause)”
Sadly, the HR officer that was at the bank at the time of the initial policy being written is no longer there, nor is the manager I had at that time. The two previous supervisors that also have tattoos have completely bowed down and have agreed to abide by the new policy.
I’m only working 'til I win the lottery. Then I’m going to tattoo every inch of my body and start my own bank. Only tattooed freaks will be able to open checking accounts, and the more tats you have the better interest rate you get.
But you’re right, antagonizing them is not going to get me anywhere. And even in a city of 50,000 - it’s still a small town at heart, and my name will be mud. That is the last thing I want.
Sorry for the confusion… the exception was in that it was located in a place other than below my elbow and below my knee, which was what the policy at the time stated.
And if I were a teller, I’d completely agree with you. But I’m not. I’m hidden away in the server room, and I barely see the light of day, much less customers. That being said, I do have occasion to visit with the customers, or travel through public areas in the bank. In these cases, I actually don’t have an issue with the policy. I just don’t see the purpose of keeping my wrist covered the other 99% of the time. This is what I’d like to change.
