That’s better. We guys have to stick together because those women are crazy.
That attitude is precisely why I formed VinylCo, an all-inlcusive art gallery for the self-adorned. Experience my warehouse and display your art! Reasonable rates, plastic lawn chairs and refreshments provided.
Granted, you’re paying me, but isn’t it a start?
the companies I’ve worked for had pretty limited clothing options. I wore a long sleeve shirt, tie, dress pants and dress shoes. Choices withing that narrow dress code were expected to be pretty muted.
The level of popularity has some part to play but at the end of the day it’s still ink on skin that is limited by color and talent.
Yep.
People can be amazing pieces of shit, can’t they?
Oh, and you missed the issue I’ve had with the pierced ears crowd, too - I figure that if I haven’t bothered getting 'em pierced by age 40 it just isn’t for me but you’d be amazed how many people think this is a problem that needs correcting. So please, do make sure your checklist of “Amazingly Stupid Things Clueless Assholes Have Said to Broomstick” is complete and up to date. K?thx
That’s pretty darn screaming funny - Dropzone and I have met in real life, but then, maybe that’s why he’s inclined to believe me and you’re not. He’s actually met the amazing me and you haven’t. (Your loss)
If you ever work for me, I think I’ll require you to shave your head–I am not interested in facilitating your display of plumage.
–Z, has never worked at a company with a dress code, routinely out-dresses the CEO here by two steps because I can be bothered to wear khakis and a polo, and thinks the idea of dress codes or disliking tattoos in general is frankly ridiculous.
Well that’s fine in the traditional “anything goes” social construct of a commune. And that’s hardly anything new given the centuries of existence of such organizations. But in reality we set standards for just about everything and personal appearance is one of them. That’s just the world we live in. You yourself judged yourself as having “out-dressed” the CEO of the company. You recognize a standard that you believe others will recognize.
I think you’re confusing the idea of personal freedom to express oneself with the reality that people naturally react to and understand social codes which in this case involves personal appearance. Even within the social codes of personal appearance we set standards based on the social setting. What is appropriate for the beach is not appropriate for most places of business, weddings or funerals. Different social settings have their own expected standards of appearance.
hair is a natural function of the human condition. To the extent it is modified by cutting, styling or coloring is a matter of degree and therein-lies a variety of social standards that evolve over time.
Acceptance of shaved heads is within the bounds of those standards particularly since men go bald as a natural occurrence. Making it a mandatory change to the human condition would be an unusual job requirement. I realize you said this in jest to prove a point but it’s not the best example of something within the gray lines of standards.
I also recognize that, at 6’0", I’m taller than most people. That objective fact doesn’t attach any value judgement about whether being taller is better except in the very limited contexts where it matters.
I’m not confusing anything. I’m disagreeing with expected standards of appearance being a measure of job performance, pretty much full stop. The bare fact of the matter is this: Some ink under your skin doesn’t change anything about your competency.
Granted, I learned this from my father, who manages to make six figures (as of this year, anyway, and go him) running a general store in a town of 200, despite the fact that anyone who has anything bad to say about non-work aspects of his employees is abruptly shown the door without the opportunity to actually purchase anything. It’s a matter of ethics, when it boils down to it, and ethics says that I suck up the loss when it comes to rejecting a customer who won’t treat with a cashier who is unmarried-with-kid, or black, or visibly tattooed.
My own IT department, which I hire for, has only three lines on the dress code:
- all art (clothing or tattoos) must be no worse than PG-13, with no swearing or nudity.
- closed toe shoes are required, preferably steel-toes
- if you’re expecting to be on a ladder, don’t wear a skirt/kilt.
We haven’t offended any clients or co-workers yet, and we run in similar defense-contracting circles to Crafter_Man–lots of older civvie engineers, none of whom have ever said word one about tattoos or hair colors or anything. Presumably someday I’ll actually have someone come in wearing something unacceptably dirty or smelly and I’ll have to revise that, but to this point treating professionals as professionals capable of good judgement has resulted in a very nice environment.
–
Incidentally, I do have one peripheral gripe about something that was hinted at upthread (but not by Magiver)–I don’t care if you don’t see any customers, ever, your dress code should be the same as everyone else at the company (modified by work requirements, naturally). IT does not and should not mean “sequestered away from the other employees 24/7”, and as an IT director I should be able to parade you in front of guests without you looking out of place by comparison to the rest of the engineers.
this makes no sense at all in the form of either opinion or debate.
Well now you’re really confusing the issue. I never made any argument regarding appearance as an indication of job performance or skills.
Now you’re getting back to my original point regarding social expectations of appearance. There are standards regarding how people look and it’s different based on the social setting. It’s not an argument to think it doesn’t matter how you present yourself in a business environment.
it’s a matter of ethics regarding race or marital status but that’s a different argument which makes it a strawman argument here. Good on your father for sticking up for employees but that’s different than acknowledging the expectations customers have regarding appropriate appearances.
you’re making an assumption about how your group is perceived professionally based on a lack of feedback. If you maintain a steady flow of business then it’s not affecting you but that doesn’t mean your clients don’t have expectations of professional appearances. Not all jobs carry the same standard but most jobs carry some kind of standard.
As I stated before, these standards change. It does not happen in a vacuum. More and more people are getting tattoos and that will mirror how it’s perceived in the workforce. But if you’re going to tell me that you don’t think a pg-13 tattoo on one of your employee’s forehead doesn’t affect how they and your company is perceived by your clients I am not going to believe you without a stack of affidavits from your clients.
I’m saying, it makes me a better person to not give a shit what that client thinks. I care more about my own moral values (one of which is “I don’t judge on aesthetics that are not offensive in other contexts”–and no, I’m not perfect either) than I do about any given sale.
The anecdote’s purpose: it isn’t necessarily a death sentence for a business.
The anecdote’s second purpose: I put “clients who don’t like tattoos” in the same moral bucket as “clients who don’t like black people” and “clients who don’t like unwed mothers”.
If someone is perceiving my group as anything other than highly competent and getting the job done under budget and on time, they are using the wrong criteria.
Because people keep buying jeans that are too small, and are too stupid to admit it.
uh huh. That’s another attempt at injecting race into a debate about personal appearance. This debate was never about race so your insistence at reintroducing the same strawman is a pointless argument.
I don’t believe that you would accept any dress or pg rated tattoo (a standard in itself) that an employee decides to wear.
Excuse me? I said I perceive it as equivalently useless/stupid discrimination. You are free to not agree, and I am free to hire the better-qualified people you’d reject because it might impinge on your “professional image”.
Hasn’t yet been a problem. I’m sure you’re going to build a lovely strawman, after accusing me of same (which I didn’t, by the by) about some perfectly qualified dude with a Darth Maul tattoo and fifteen safety pins through his eyeballs, but don’t bother, I’d hire him too. It’s a hill I’m willing to die on, but I haven’t yet found someone who’s competent AND has so outlandish an appearance that it has caused an issue with the people whom I report to.
Regardless, it’s a self-selecting phenomenon. There will be poor decision-makers who don’t give a fuck (who are usually unsuitable for reasons totally orthogonal to personal grooming choices), there will be good fully-conservative decision-makers who will never deviate from contemporary professional standards (many of whom might do)–it’s simply the case when I find that person who is pushing the envelope of “professionalism” in the service of aesthetics, they tend to also have many other driven go-getter qualities that I’d rather have working for me than my competitor.
But what do I know, I only have a decade-long track record of turning around badly-managed IT shops and setting them running smoothly for lower costs. 
which has nothing to do with the thread. You continue to duck my supposition that you would not accept a pg-13 tattoo on one of your employee’s forehead. If you don’t want to admit there are standards of appearance based on the social setting then we really have nothing to discuss.
Or you could actually take the dude at his word that he doesn’t care about tattoos et al, and that he takes care to select employees based on factors other than personal appearance. I grant you that isn’t standard in any industry, but is it that hard to believe that one single individual in a position to be tolerant, with an admittedly eccentric and supportive father and industry base which is at least supportive enough to not cause immediate noticeable business damage would be actually as tolerant of diverse personal appearance as he states? What benefit would it be for him to be lying?
No, I’m not taking him at his word. I don’t believe he would accept my premise. It’s as simple as that. It has very little to do with tolerance. It’s a matter of accepting the idea that everybody has some standard of acceptable appearance within a given social sphere and I posited a simple test of his standards based on the thread subject.
Mags, thanks for taking the pressure off me to stay the grumpy old man in this thread. I was mellowing so much that I was about to tell about a woman I know with a quite lovely floral arrangement across her upper back. Looks like it was airbrushed; I don’t know how they do it, though I could look it up if I cared. And she’s a bit of a bikerette (and a valkyrie) so it probably isn’t limiting.
Zeriel,
How about this first guy, would you hire him if he had the skills?