I’m not sure what you want from me here. As far as I can tell, you’re upset because I made an incorrect (but reasonable) assumption about your friend, and now you’re trying to school me on Holocaust history. I don’t think it’s germane to this thread. If I’m wrong about the numbers, I’m wrong, but it doesn’t change the tattoo argument and it doesn’t affect those who suffered the events of the twentieth century or their aftermath.
I want you to understand that guessing a WWII camp survivor is Jewish has a 50/50 chance of being wrong. Actually the odds of them being gentile are actually higher than that, as Jews were a smaller portion of the survivors than they were of total camp population due to systematic butchery of Jews. I understand why the Jews launched their PR campaign regarding their own victimization, but it really has completely overshadowed that millions of others were likewise abused.
How does it relate? Kneejerk assumptions about people based on one fact - like, for instance, they have a tattoo. That is at the heart of the OP’s problem, the assumption that a tattoo makes one undesirable.
Yes within reasonable limits. Some dress code statutes are for safety, for example. I don’t find it offensive to have employees wear a uniform either, or reasonable restrictions on clothing with profanity, hate speech, or other patently offensive imagery. Those are justifiable expectations and limitations on personal expression. Outside of those circumstances, dress codes are generally oppressive. I don’t think they really add anything at all to the workplace; you can find just as many exceptions to the rule and studies showing it has no effect as those that support them. I care about the service and performance of the person I deal with, not their personal appearance. Competency is not measured by superficial bullshit.
There’s no need to be rude. I made an incorrect assumption, true, but it was in the context of a discussion on tattoos, and it was hardly kneejerk. If you want to continue this, please start a Pit thread. OP, I apologize for derailing your thread a bit.
Sure, and in your company you get to set those rules based on your opinion, in someone else’s company, they get to set those rules based on their opinion.
So have I and, unlike some people here, I cannot believe anybody would get a tattoo on her neck or anywhere else where it is hard to hide, whether she works with the public or not. It is totally unprofessional and smacks of wishful thinking that any business operates as you want it to rather than how it does. I am not optimistic for the OP finding another job anywhere but a bar or a motorcycle shop. Most big bosses in my experience really hate tattoos because they associate them with bars and bikers, whether or not that is accurate, and it can be self-fulfilling. Me, I’m happy to find a person under 30 without paint. It’s such a change of pace!
As an aside, last night a friend admitted she has a tramp stamp and is a Scorpio. I told her I would have to rethink our friendship. It’s not about the tattoo, but she’s a Scorpio? Really? 
This is quite interesting.
Is it really your impression that most corporate bosses are so clueless, so uninformed and out of touch, that they actually and unironically associate tattoos with bars and bikers? Has the world so truly passed these people by that they are completely oblivious to the significant change in the tattooed demographic over the past decade or so? Do none of them have kids in high school or college? Have none of them opened a magazine or a website? Are they at all familiar with anyone under about 30 years of age?
I ask not because i think they should change their minds about the aesthetics of tattoos. When it comes to liking or not liking the look of something like this, i’m a firm believer that de gustibus non est disputandum. As i’ve already noted, i have no tattoos, i don’t want any, and i think some tattoos look ridiculous.
But i would seriously question the intelligence or, at the very least, the social and cultural awareness of anyone who thinks that tattoos are still largely confined to the “bar and biker” demographic. Someone that out of touch probably shouldn’t be allowed around sharp objects.
Yep.
You ARE familiar with the concept of “American conservatism,” aren’t you? As in “they don’t like styles that came after their own youths.” Hell, they didn’t like those then, either. High schoolers with a conservative stick up their ass were creepy weird in 1970, but common.
Yep. They complain about them, too, though they are more like their grandchildren.
I’m inclined to say no to both those questions.
Yet there they are, with control over SylverOne’s professional fate. They are out there in positions of authority and it’s stupid to ask for trouble with visible tattoos.
I’m well aware of American conservatism. But being conservative about a social practice does not mean being ignorant about it, which is what you were describing.
It is perfectly understandable that someone might say, “I don’t care how many people are getting tattoos these days. I still think they look ridiculous and i won’t hire anyone who has one.” This at least reflects an understanding that the demographics of tattooing have changed.
But to simply and simplistically associate tattooed people with “bars and bikers” demonstrates an actual ignorance of the historical changes we’re talking about here.
I have to agree with dropzone on this - that does sum up the opinion of the overwhelming majority of corporate CEO’s I’ve met, along with their upper management. OK, I lie - there is also a significant association of tattoos with gang members as well.
The elite of corporate America do not slum down here with the peasants. They have their own social circles and while they or their wives might sport a small and easily hidden tattoo somewhere on their bodies (though most likely not) they generally don’t want them on their minions.
Yeah, I think it is entirely reasonable to talk to your employer if they produce a policy you disagree with. Most reasonable employers won’t fire you if you do this professionally, as long as you follow whatever policy they ultimately decide to apply to you after you’ve made yourself heard.
In that regard I have no problem with Acid Lamp’s advice. What worried me is he threw it out there casually as though nothing bad could happen when following his advice. Most reasonable employers will have no problem with a reasonable criticism of a policy and a reasonable discussion in which you make your problems with the policy known. But not all employers are reasonable, and not all of them are above trumping up various minor infractions to get you terminated (even in the country’s sole non-at will state) after which you’ll have no job and have to decide whether you feel like spending a few years fighting a big company in court or find a new job.
Some people might have the opinion if an employer is so unreasonable as to fire you over bringing a reasonable concern to them, that’s not a place you’d want to work in any case. But some people might feel like “I really freaking need my job, and reasonable or unreasonable I don’t want to lose it…can’t lose it right now.”
Further, the way Acid Lamp put forth his advice here was extremely confrontational and if he used the same tone while posting here in a meeting with an employer I think the chance of a positive outcome would be less. (I recognize how someone posts about something isn’t the same as how they handle it.) But going into a meeting with management with the attitude “No one bullies me mothafucka” is probably not the right place to have your head.
And being aware of it does not mean they approve of it, and their companies are their own playgrounds.
How did I not say that?
Historical changes? Dude, it’s a fashion, nothing more. And one that still is associated in the minds of many with bars and bikers because until the past few years tattoos were only worn by “low lifes,” veterans (their tattoos were made honorable and expected by the guys’ service, though), and people who got drunk in “the bad part of town” and made a permanent mistake, and you don’t want to hire someone so foolish and irresponsible to have that happen. And mistake or not it is permanent, and not permanently pretty, though some tattoo artists are getting more years out of their work before it starts to blur. So it is stylish, which is temporary, yet permanent. Tramp stamps are long out of fashion, but my friend will wear hers to the grave. Fortunately it is covered up by her clothes. Sleeves can be covered up but limit a guy’s choice of apparel on Casual Friday. And when the fashion changes and tattoos are seen as something that mom and dad have they will no longer be cool, though bosses by then will accept them more and will even admire the SpongeBob you have on your lower arm. And is that what you want, being thought of as “with it” by your boss? It’s a fate worse than death but easily avoided if you put SpongeBob up by your shoulder where it is covered by the golf shirt you were given before the company picnic.
I don’t have much hope for you and your inane opinion either.
I’ve worked in the IT departments of insurance companies, DOT consultants and financial institutions for the last 15 years. For a number of years before that I worked as a bookkeeper for hotels and casinos. This is the first time I’ve run into any issue with my my ink.
I am the one in control of my professional fate. I’ve done a fine job so far, and if I run into anyone in a position of authority who claims differently, they will learn the lesson the hard way.
I’m amazed at your ability to speak for the upper echelons of corporate America.
I give up. How did you not say it? Because you didn’t say it.
These two things are not mutually exclusive. It is a changing fashion, and it is a historical change in the culture. Changing fashions are a part of history, in case you weren’t aware of the fact. I’m not using “historical” here in the sense of “earth-shattering, significant change.” I’m using “historical” more prosaically, to mean a change over time in the way things are done. The fact that you can’t grasp that concept is not my problem.
Your simple-minded “argument” completely misses the point i was making. I’ve explained it to you twice, and the fact that you’ve chosen to miss the point twice in a row suggests that you’ll never get it. I’ll leave you and Spongebob to play; he’s clearly more in your intellectual ballpark.
I used to work for corporate elites as an assistant. While there were a few decent ones, most treated me like an appliance or part of the furniture. They view themselves as better than the masses, and I’d think the recent conduct of those on Wall Street should be proof enough of that.
You miss the point. Just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical. 50 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to sexually harass your female employees, discriminate against people of color, and homosexuals had to fear for their lives and livelihoods. Not too much more than 100 years ago you could own another human being if you happened to be the right sort of human. Times change, and we learn to be more tolerant and accepting of other lifestyle choices that do not affect our own. Currently we offer protections for things like religion, race and sexual orientation (sort of), and age (sort of). Of the big two, (race and religion), one is a lifestyle choice; no different than choosing to wear a tattoo or dress in corporate attire because one likes the look. Yet we protect religion because of the trouble cultural intolerance has caused on that number in the past. This isn’t any different at all, just in degree of numbers of people affected. The tattooed are not an oppressed minority like some religious sects have faced historically, but there is no real difference between the issues. It is a lifestyle choice that ideally affects nobody else, and thus should be tolerated within reasonable health and safety limits.
While I absolutely believe people have a right to do what they will with their own bodies, whether or not I agree with their decisions, the fact is right now tattooed people are not a protected class in the US.
I read the question in the OP as “what do I do on a practical level?” not “what is ethically the best course?” Yes, fighting bigotry is a good thing. Keeping a roof over one’s head and food on the table is also a good thing. Ultimately, it is up to the OP to decide which good is most important to her at this point in time.
I’ve been the victim of bigotry myself. Sometimes I fight the good fight. Other times I feel it is better to cut my losses and go elsewhere. I pick and choose my fights based on what’s best for me and my family. The OP must do the same. As the OP has stated, there are other employers who value her skills that are more tolerant of tattoos. It might be in her best interests to move to one of those more tolerant employers.
Sure, but to me the best course is always to at least try to fight the good fight. If the OP needs to go elsewhere then so be it, but I refuse to passively roll over. No offense, but “safe” advice isn’t always the best advice. When you fight you draw a line saying to yourself and others: “I am a person as equally valid as the rest of you. I demand to be seen for my skills and abilities rather than a superficial lifestyle feature. I will not be made to feel inferior, threatened, or intimidated for that choice.” If you have to leave, do so having tried to change things and with your head held high. If you don’t demand respect and fight ignorance then you will receive none and it will always win out.
I should clarify that most of my customers are civil servants in the AF. Suit-n-tie engineers. I know them *extremely *well, and they’re a very conservative bunch. They don’t like tattoos. Which means I do not allow anyone working for me to display a tattoo.