Would You Hire Someone with Visible Tattoos?

[Joe Steel]

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.

The woman in the article ended-up with a cleaning job. I guess the tattoos aren't a problem if she's in an empty space after hours.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Depends on the tattoo.

 

[Slartibartfast]

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.

A body isn't meant for anything, except what the mind powering it intends it for. If that mind desires tattoos, then that's the purpose of the body.

 

[Henrin]

A body isn't meant for anything, except what the mind powering it intends it for. If that mind desires tattoos, then that's the purpose of the body.

And I don't agree with that, so yeah.

 

[justabubba]

why would i hire someone with visible tattoos if those tats were going to negatively influence my buying customers?


it amazes me that some people refuse to recognize that visible tattoos are career limiting
it does not surprise me that this did not register as a concern to those same people when they acquired the ink

 

[Thrilla]

as I'm an employer with visible tattoos who has employees with visible tattoos... the answer is yes, of course i'd hire them....

 

[Thrilla]

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.

whoa.. a libertarian telling others what their body is for... interesting.

Tattoos have been around for about 8,000 years, maybe longer..... you've had plenty of time to grow accustomed to them

 

[Henrin]

whoa.. a libertarian telling others what their body is for... interesting.

Tattoos have been around for about 8,000 years, maybe longer..... you've had plenty of time to grow accustomed to them

I didn't say they couldn't be stupid. :2razz: I just said that I consider it stupid and I won't hire them.

 

[Thrilla]

A body isn't meant for anything, except what the mind powering it intends it for. If that mind desires tattoos, then that's the purpose of the body.

solid point.... one that libertarians should invariably support.

 

[Thrilla]

I didn't say they couldn't be stupid. :2razz: I just said that I consider it stupid and I won't hire them.

fair enough... it's your prerogative to disqualify talent based on irrelevancies...I'd simply advise you to make business decisions based on business concerns, not your own personal concerns.

 

[GottaGo]

We hire people with tattoos, and they deal directly with the public. We do not discriminate, however, and require that all tattoos be covered while in uniform.

We don't care what the tattoo is, or stands for, or where it is on the body, it must be covered. Since people will find offense wherever they want, and without the customer our business doesn't exist, covering tattoos solves both the staffing, discrimination and offense issues in one easy step.

 

[Ikari]

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.

Visible tattoos? Depends on the tattoos and the job.

 

[Henrin]

fair enough... it's your prerogative to disqualify talent based on irrelevancies...I'd simply advise you to make business decisions based on business concerns, not your own personal concerns.

Well I'm not just going to ignore that I find them distasteful and don't want them around me. :shrug:

 

[Ikari]

I didn't say they couldn't be stupid. :2razz: I just said that I consider it stupid and I won't hire them.

Quite the ignorant stance, but whatever.

 

[Thrilla]

Their ability to do the job far outweighs what ink they have.

exactly.... even the ultraconservative corporate world is coming around nicely to this notion.

they won't entertain Swastikas on a forehead, but the country is slowing riding itself of it's bias against ink..... once my fellow Boomers are dead, the issue will be pretty much dead.

 

[Henrin]

Quite the ignorant stance, but whatever.

Why is that again? How is injecting your body with a foreign substance to make little pictures on yourself not stupid? We have paper and other canvas for pretty pictures. Use them.

 

[Ikari]

Why is that again? How does injecting your body with a foreign substance to make little pictures on yourself not stupid? We have paper and other canvas for pretty pictures. Use them.

Yeah, I mean because you're the alpha and omega of art and human reason, yes? There are many reasons one may want a tattoo, no one must be forced to your standards. If you don't want to hire them, fine, but it's an ignorant stance.

 

[Henrin]

Yeah, I mean because you're the alpha and omega of art and human reason, yes? There are many reasons one may want a tattoo, no one must be forced to your standards. If you don't want to hire them, fine, but it's an ignorant stance.

I don't care what their reasons are. Again, how is injecting your body with a foreign substance to draw on yourself like you're a toddler not stupid?

 

[Ikari]

I don't care what their reasons are. Again, how is injecting your body with a foreign substance to draw on yourself like you're a toddler not stupid?

How do you know all cases are stupid? It's just an ignorant stance you take, nothing more. You are free to hold it, and free to not hire people with tattoos. But it's a juvenile and ignorant stance, that's all.

 

[Thrilla]

Well I'm not just going to ignore that I find them distasteful and don't want them around me. :shrug:

that's fine, they're better off elsewhere

 

[Henrin]

How do you know all cases are stupid? It's just an ignorant stance you take, nothing more.

I don't see why their reasons would matter.

 

[Captain America]

I probably would not, in my line of work.

Live and let live, I say. To each their own.

But I see some people, and all their tattoo's, and my first impression of them is that they are not the sharpest tack in the pack. I would probably pass on hiring them.

Not sure but I think there are stats on average incomes on people with tats vs. people without tats. That speaks volumes.

 

[Ikari]

I don't see why their reasons would matter.

Of course you don't. You don't want to know it because you want to hold your stereotype. That's fine. It's still a childish and ignorant stance.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

As a general policy ? Sure.

With specific limits? Of course.

 

[Henrin]

You are free to hold it, and free to not hire people with tattoos. But it's a juvenile and ignorant stance, that's all.

You say this when defending people that drew on themselves like a toddler.