• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Would You Hire Someone with Visible Tattoos?

Joe Steel

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
560
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It depends.

If that person is interacting with the customer, then no.

If that person is not, then it depends on their behavior.
 
I wouldn't work for a company with a no visible tattoo policy.
It stupid. It would be like making all male employees get the same hair cut.
 
I don't have tats nor do I plan to get one. However, unless the tats were blatently racists or contained words not normally used in a workplace - then I would have no problem hiring a person who had them.

I don't think tats necessarily indicate that a person is irresponsible; but the perception that they do indicate that character flaw would make it harder for a person to be hired for a higher end job.

Let's be realistic here - an ex-felon is going to be associated with irresponsiblity, tats or no tats.
 
I wouldn't work for a company with a no visible tattoo policy.
It stupid. It would be like making all male employees get the same hair cut.

That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard.
 
... I don't think tats necessarily indicate that a person is irresponsible ...

What about the guy who had "Romney Ryan" tattooed on his face? Forget about the partisanship. Don't you thing getting a campaign slogan tattooed on your face is a bad idea?
 
That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard.

Why, banning tats at a job is trying to make every one the same in some respect.
Its a stupid policy thought up and enforced by narrow minded people. An increasingly smaller and smaller group I would add.
 
If you were an employer, would you hire someone with visible tattoos?

Here's an article about a woman who recently was released from prison: Barbra Scrivner thought winning clemency was the hard part. Then she got out.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/barbra-scrivner-thought-winning-clemency-was-the-120128031516.html

I'm not bothered as much by her record as I am by the tattoos on her arm. To me, tattoos say "poor judgment." I'm not sure that's a quality I want in an employee.

Is the person front office or back office? What is the culture of the client base?

If customers don't care, then I wouldn't care. If they are in an environment where they see the same other office folks from day to day, then they can put on long sleeves when some muckity muck comes through that day, no big deal.
 
Why, banning tats at a job is trying to make every one the same in some respect.
Its a stupid policy thought up and enforced by narrow minded people. An increasingly smaller and smaller group I would add.

Those same folks who have an arbitrary bias are the same reason I have to keep my tats in a work friendly areas of my body. It sucks, but my choice right now is for more money. Its the same reason I took my piercings out and all that other stuff.
 
Last edited:
Why, banning tats at a job is trying to make every one the same in some respect.
Its a stupid policy thought up and enforced by narrow minded people. An increasingly smaller and smaller group I would add.

For one thing, employers do have dress codes and other rules that act to make everyone somewhat the same that can be anything from how someone is to have their hair to tattoos. Second, the term narrow minded means nothing more than not being open to what I want to do. Third, and most importantly, risk management is part of employment, so if a group of people are a higher risk I will be less likely to hire them.
 
For one thing, employers do have dress codes and other rules that act to make everyone somewhat the same that can be anything from how someone is to have their hair to tattoos. Second, the term narrow minded means nothing more than not being open to what I want to do. Third, and most importantly, risk management is part of employment, so if a group of people are a higher risk I will be less likely to hire them.

Please explain how tattoo = risk.
 
If you were an employer, would you hire someone with visible tattoos?

Here's an article about a woman who recently was released from prison: Barbra Scrivner thought winning clemency was the hard part. Then she got out.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/barbra-scrivner-thought-winning-clemency-was-the-120128031516.html

I'm not bothered as much by her record as I am by the tattoos on her arm. To me, tattoos say "poor judgment." I'm not sure that's a quality I want in an employee.


for some jobs, yes

for other jobs, no

for some of my 155 positions, it wouldnt matter

for probably 20-30 of them, it would definitely matter

i have one guy who has tats up both arms, on his neck, and i am sure other unseen places

he is in the back taking photo's of cars, and never sees the public

so no big deal

same for piercings, weird hair coloring, and other assorted ways of self expression

in some jobs....doesnt matter

in others...you bet it does
 
Yeah.

Tattoos wouldn't be a consideration at all.

Y'all realize this is the 21st century, right?

They're not "the mark of Satan" or something.

For the record, I don't have any tattoos.
 
I wouldn't work for a company with a no visible tattoo policy.
It stupid.
It would be like making all male employees get the same hair cut.



One thing that I noticed when I was in the U.S. Army was that everyone had a hair cut exactly like mine. :roll:

:lol:
 
For one thing, employers do have dress codes and other rules that act to make everyone somewhat the same that can be anything from how someone is to have their hair to tattoos. Second, the term narrow minded means nothing more than not being open to what I want to do. Third, and most importantly, risk management is part of employment, so if a group of people are a higher risk I will be less likely to hire them.

Tattoos are a risk? Hmmmm, I should be dead then.
 
What about the guy who had "Romney Ryan" tattooed on his face? Forget about the partisanship. Don't you thing getting a campaign slogan tattooed on your face is a bad idea?
Sometimes I work in the call center. What does tattoos on the face have to do with someone answering phones?
 
I already have an employee with visible tattoos, so I suppose I'd say yes.
 
Tattoos are a risk? Hmmmm, I should be dead then.

That again makes no sense. To a third of the population tattoos are associated with deviant behavior and I'm not just going to ignore that when I hire people.
 
I will say however I won't hire them because I think the decision making behind it is ****ing retarded. Your body is not a piece of canvas and it's not meant to have a bunch of ink injected into it.
 
What about the guy who had "Romney Ryan" tattooed on his face? Forget about the partisanship. Don't you thing getting a campaign slogan tattooed on your face is a bad idea?

I already indicated that a tat does not necessarily indicate irresponsibility.
As far as the campaign slogan on a face - obviously a bad idea. Wait until he tries to get that removed by laser. :shock:

The point I'm trying to make is that assuming a person with a tat - not a racist tat, not a political campaign tat, not a tat with obvious off color words, not a gang affiliation tat, etc. - makes them an irresponsible person is judging a book by its cover, so to speak.

What specifically is the problem with tats? Some are very intricate works of art; some are very simple; some are downright ugly.
It's all in the perception - a person's character is defined by actions and words more than by a tat unless it belongs in one of the categories I listed above.

I also think that people still have the misconception that only men should have tats if any at all and that a women with a tat indicates a low life.

The woman in this article unfortunately is the very example of a person who made poor choices from the start and still blames her ex husband for her own incarceration. The tats are just secondary to this story; her criminal record held her back. The tats only verify, to some, that she is not a person worthy of a second chance.
 
Back
Top Bottom