Out of curiosity I just looked at our Dress Code (this is a large retail/distribution company) and found that it’s somewhat ambiguous about tattoos:
“The following is not appropriate at any time in any [company] facility:
…
– Any visible tattoos, body art or clothing that displays nudity, obscenity or sexually suggestive wording or designs.”
At first I read that to say that tattoos and body art are okay as long as they aren’t obscene or suggestive. But after consideration I think they are putting all tattoos and body art in the same category as obscene/sexually suggestive clothing. So apparently no one here, even at our coporate HQ, are permitted to have visible tattoos. I don’t think I’ve ever noticed that policy before.
For some people attempting to meet with management and discuss the issue is the “good fight”. For others, nothing less than a lawsuit will do. The thing is, you don’t get decide how other people fight their battles.
The majority of corporate CEOs you’ve met? How many have you interviewed about whether or not tattoos should be permissible in the workplace, and from how many companies? No, talking to the higher-ups at Bob’s Ant Farm doesn’t count. I’ve spent nearly all of my working years at Ginormous Mega Conglomerates (there’s something in the area of a 100% chance you’ve heard of *and *done business with my last employer), and have never encountered a tattoo code outside of the obvious, that is, nothing obscene. But you’ve conducted a study or some shit, or are you just stretching your personal thoughts on the matter into some kind of global consensus?
Really? The word “that” seems to mean there’s no ban on all visible ink. Just the kind that displays nudity/obscenity.
Terrific, but the OP asked for advice, so participants of this thread are giving it, and there’s not a terrible lot advocating siccing an arsenal of attorneys on the bosses. In fact, several of the first few responses to this thread advised him to back off on the lawyer front.
My opinion remains the same as earlier: Speak with management about a more reasonable policy, and if they won’t budge, screw 'em. Update your resume, get a new gig, then leave them to do whatever the hell they want. All this noodle-armed wuss talk of accepting whatever shitty policy your employer wants to pull of their ass is bullshit.
First let me state that I like tattoos (on other people, don’t want one myself), and it generally wouldn’t influence whether I hired someone or not (unless I perceived the tattoo as inappropriate in some way).
But this is hardly a question of ethics. This is not the same as religious, racial or sexual discrimination.
It’s the same as a dress code or grooming rules, that’s all. You choose, are you ok with the dress code or not, if not choose a place to work where you are ok with it. In the case where the dress code changes after you’ve already been working there for years, well that sucks - but all you can do is “request” a meeting and see if there is some adjustment that can be made.
That was my first thought, but now I lean to the interpretation that the first two commas should be semi-colons for clarity: “[No] visible tattoos; body art; or clothing that displays nudity…” I could be wrong. Maybe I’ll ask our HR Director next time I see her.
ETA: After all, elsewhere the policy states that visible piercings are allowed “in the ears only.”
Ooh! After reading your above post, I see how you were reading the second interpretation. Yeah, I still think the ban is on obscenity, and not ink (forbidden item one), body art (item two), and offensive clothing (three), but I suppose someone could interpret it that way.
From past research I know Washington DC has as a protection as follows, based on apperance as the OP is suggesting? I know he lives in FL though.
Human Rights Act:
“Personal appearance” means the outward appearance of any person, irrespective of sex, with regard to bodily condition or characteristics, manner or style of dress, and manner style of personal grooming, including, but not limited to, hair style and beards. It shall not relate, however, to the requirement of cleanliness, uniforms, or prescribed standards, when uniformly applied for admittance to a public accommodation, or when uniformly applied to a class of employees for a reasonable business purpose; or when such bodily conditions or characteristics, style or manner of dress or personal grooming presents a danger to the health, welfare or safety of any individual.
FL does not even recognize a PP exception to employment as he eluded to, even if it did, if state PP or even the city he lives in does not have such a protction as DC does, then no PP would be violated for termination.
Even in DC’s defintion, would this cover tattoos? Maybe, maybe not?
Your use of “historical” is nonstandard. It generally is used to describe things that will eventually make it into history books. Today’s use of tattoos may make it into history books on popular culture, but it’s hardly the Beatles or Elvis, and those guys grow less significant every day. It’s a footnote, a bump in pop culture history. It’s the Dave Clark Five. It’s '80s pop music from those A Flock of Haircuts bands, and tattoos may soon be as much a source of mirth for the trendsetters of tomorrow as pants with muffin tops are today.. It is simply not important and, especially in an employment buyer’s market, as good a reason as any to reject an applicant.
I do not agree. While is is true some states have what are known as “Service Letter” laws, and IMO, ALL states should have them. They only mandate when an employee makes a request, per statute, of the reason for thier termination, the employer must respond.
Spoken as one who hasn’t looked for a job for seven years. And an IT person, which explains the misplaced feeling of invincibility.
No, you are NOT the only one in control of your professional fate. As you are experiencing, and should be learning from, you are a mere cog in the machine and can be replaced with any of thousands of workers with your skills simply because, as someone here put it, “they are tired of signing your checks.” Tattoos, and that rule that did not grandfather you in, make it easy for them to decide you aren’t “a team player” and toss you aside like a soiled glove.
Face it: They lulled you into a false sense of security with their earlier permissiveness, but even you noticed they were becoming stricter. You should not be surprised that this shoe dropped.
And yes, some of us here have been on a first name basis with CEOs and know how they think (though they don’t very often). It might help you to listen to others with decades of playing corporate politics rather than telling us we’re wrong and that you are the most valuable employee ever and they won’t get by without you. I used to think like that but though I look at the corporate carnage that is my resume I remind myself that my leaving was only a symptom and those many, many companies would have gone under even if I had stayed. And yes, it’s a blow to my ego to look at the few that survived.
Please, by all means, point out the post that I stated that I was the most valuable employee ever and that they wouldn’t get by without me. Do me a favor and get off your high horse and stop spouting your condescending nonsense.
I respect the knowledge-base on this website. I never would have asked for advice here otherwise. I know where to mine the nuggets of valuable information and when to ignore the morons. I appreciate the conservative advice, and I wish I was brave enough to give voice to some of the more aggressive suggestions given in this thread. Ultimately, how to proceed will be my decision.
It was asked for earlier, so here’s the exact wording of the new personal appearance and dress code policy.
Ya’ know, I really got to stop clicking on tatto threads.
I understand where the company is coming from, they don’t want to scare away customers. But still, how awesome would it be if said companies would just give the big middle finger towards all those jack asses who think they are superior simply because they don’t have any body ink?
But I’m so GOOD at being condescending because I’m ever so much BETTER a human being than you! Consider yourself lucky I deigned to address your petty little problems. (BIG as in, “That was intended as a joke at my own expense because I do get that way sometimes.”)
Yep, you are condemned to a career there wearing high collars and turtlenecks year round, so start shopping for them or a new job. That’s a bog-standard dress code and it is to be enforced by supervisors who need to cover their own asses no matter how valuable you actually are.
I’ve worked for a major employer that, once you add up all the subsidiaries, has over 100 million customers so it was considerably more than “Bob’s Ant Farm”. Sorry it’s so inconceivable to you that I might have worked as an underling to high level executives but in fact I did. And being that I was an underling they treated me much as the paint on the wall or carpet on the floor and happily discussed amongst themselves their opinions on all manner of things while I dispensed coffee and donuts and got the slide show working properly.
What they’ll say in a publication or in a formal survey is not necessarily what they actually believe. I’ve met several dozen (at least) CEO’s and in my experience absolutely none of them ever wanted to see a visible tattoo on an employee at any level. Now, maybe at Bubba’s Tattoo Parlor or some ultra-hip recording company or high tech start up that’s not a problem, but in major companies established for decades the view at the top tends to be rather more conservative on these matters.
I have no trouble believing you were treated as an unworthy underling by higher-ups; I have trouble believing that 1) there’s a consensus among the corporate CEO community at large on tattoos, and 2) that you’re in well with a large enough swath of them to know what they generally believe.
Wow. A Doper might have had a good job at a big company. Don’t that just beat all! :rolleyes:
A rule of thumb is that, if you want to get along with the higher ups, follow their lead. For instance, if the CEO doesn’t have visible tattoos, don’t get visible tattoos.
