Would You Hire Someone with Visible Tattoos?

[Ikari]

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.

That's all changing. I know quite a few people with tattoos who hold advanced degrees in science and engineering, doing quite well in fact. One of my buddies has tattoos relating to his time in the military and his tours of duty. He has a PhD in physics and currently works for NIST.

 

[Hard Truth]

A couple of our best employees have, or had, extensive tattoos and they do work requiring above average intelligence, knowledge and skills. A good interview will tell you much more about a prospective employee than their tattoos, piercings, hair color etc. I'm glad we didn't refuse to hire our tattooed, dyed etc. co-workers.

Exception: Facial tattoos would trigger my prejudices, since getting one seems like a commitment to never getting a semi-normal or normal job.

Where I live at least 50% of all people under 18-35 yrs old have tats, probably 30% of those older than 35 have them also. They no longer scare off potential clients, customers etc. in most businesses.

 

[Henrin]

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.

Ok, so what stereotype am I wanting to hold to?

 

[Ikari]

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

I do say that since your stance is childish and ignorant.

 

[Ikari]

Ok, so what stereotype am I wanting to hold to?

That tattoos are childish and stupid. You want to stereotype people with them without any knowledge or understanding as to why.

You are more than free to hold and express your ignorant opinion, but it's childish and ignorant.

 

[Henrin]

I do say that since your stance is childish and ignorant.

Yes, you already said that. What is childish and ignorant about my stance? That toddlers draw on themselves? That it's stupid to inject yourself with a foreign substance to have pretty pictures on you? Please, enlighten me on which part of my stance is childish and ignorant.

I could just draw the pretty picture on a piece of paper, but instead I will sit in this chair and have it injected into my skin. That's the smart thing to do. Really now..

 

[Ikari]

Yes, you already said that. What is childish and ignorant about my stance? That toddlers draw on themselves? That it's stupid to inject yourself with a foreign substance to have pretty pictures on you? Please, enlighten me on which part of my stance is childish and ignorant.

You've made assumptions and discriminations based on something you know nothing of. Just a form before function sort of guy. It's fine. People are free to take ignorant stances.

 

[logansrun]

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.

If it is a heart on a girl's ankle it is more acceptable than a dragon on somebody's neck that has a skull in its mouth on the side of their face. I cannot say it would or would not be a problem for me depending on the tat, where it is, and what kind of job the person would be doing. If I owned a parlor, I would not want to hire anyone who did not have ink showing.

 

[Captain America]

That's all changing. I know quite a few people with tattoos who hold advanced degrees in science and engineering, doing quite well in fact. One of my buddies has tattoos relating to his time in the military and his tours of duty. He has a PhD in physics and currently works for NIST.

I have no doubt. But, if you go back and read what I said, "I think there are stats on average incomes on people with tats vs. people without tats."

Do you challenge that thought?

 

[Paschendale]

It would depend on the job and depend on the tattoo. But barring something patently offensive or vulgar, I can't see much reason not to.

 

[Ikari]

I have no doubt. But, if you go back and read what I said, "I think there are stats on average incomes on people with tats vs. people without tats."

Do you challenge that thought?

Yes, because as tattoos become more socially acceptable, there are many professionals and educated individuals who get tattoos. As such, I'd expect that average to be shifting and that one can no longer assume an individual to be some uneducated dirt bag because they may have a tattoo.

 

[Henrin]

You've made assumptions and discriminations based on something you know nothing of. Just a form before function sort of guy. It's fine. People are free to take ignorant stances.

I don't frankly care about discrimations, so whatever there, but what are these assumptions I'm making?

 

[Ikari]

I don't frankly care about discrimations, so whatever there, but what are these assumptions I'm making?

That tattoos are childish and stupid. Jesus, how many times do we have to go over the same thing? Sounds lime you have a ton of tattoos. lol

 

[Henrin]

That tattoos are childish and stupid. Jesus, how many times do we have to go over the same thing? Sounds lime you have a ton of tattoos. lol

They are childish and stupid. Did you actually challenge my argument on that front? If so, where can I find it?

 

[Hard Truth]

Yes, you already said that. What is childish and ignorant about my stance? That toddlers draw on themselves? That it's stupid to inject yourself with a foreign substance to have pretty pictures on you? Please, enlighten me on which part of my stance is childish and ignorant.

I could just draw the pretty picture on a piece of paper, but instead I will sit in this chair and have it injected into my skin. That's the smart thing to do. Really now..

I don't like tattoos aesthetically, but I've known too many smart, educated, reliable, good people with tats to negatively judge people who have them.

Its a cultural thing. In your culture its stupid. In other cultures and subcultures it is a much appreciated way to express yourself and it can give one status. The TV stereotype is that applies only to criminal/gang cultures, but that is wrong. Tats are popular with artists, writers, musicians, motorcyclists, college students, low income urban people, and many others.

 

[Ikari]

They are childish and stupid. Did you actually challenge my argument on that front? If so, where can I find it?

Yes, because you do not know the reasons behind it. You just assume it to be childish and then close off to anything else. It's OK to have ignorant stances, it's not against the law.

 

[Nursmate]

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.

I fight this battle constantly with my healthcare students...and tell them day one..that piercing and tattoos could reduce their opportunities in hospitals..some listen and others don't. Many of the major hospitals have policies that tattoos must be covered while working with patients. Elderly patients have perceptions of folks who have them and do not understand the "body art" reason and feel uncomfortable with nurses who have visible tattoos. The younger ones have a problem with "free expression" of themselves...and do not consider the feelings of those they who are paying their salary. They just want to "be real" My response, you have the freedom to be as real as you want...you just will not get the opportunity to "be real" at the Cleveland Clinic..earning 50K right out the gate. Is your tattoo really worth it? Me, personally I would rather eat. LOL

 

[Henrin]

Yes, because you do not know the reasons behind it. You just assume it to be childish and then close off to anything else. It's OK to have ignorant stances, it's not against the law.

Ok, so why don't you tell me why someones reason would challenge my argument.

 

[Captain America]

Yes, because as tattoos become more socially acceptable, there are many professionals and educated individuals who get tattoos. As such, I'd expect that average to be shifting and that one can no longer assume an individual to be some uneducated dirt bag because they may have a tattoo.

Perhaps you are right. I certainly hope so. But it's only speculation.

I did take a moment to do a quick google search on the subject and, the way things stand right now, it appears that I was right.

 

[Ikari]

Ok, so why don't you tell me why someones reason would challenge my argument.

Someone commemorating an fellow infantryman who died in combat with him, for instance, would not be "childish doodles".

 

[Joe Steel]

If it is a heart on a girl's ankle it is more acceptable than a dragon on somebody's neck that has a skull in its mouth on the side of their face. I cannot say it would or would not be a problem for me depending on the tat, where it is, and what kind of job the person would be doing. If I owned a parlor, I would not want to hire anyone who did not have ink showing.

A little heart on an ankle probably would be acceptable. It could be covered. Face and neck tattoos would be a problem in most places.

 

[Ikari]

Perhaps you are right. I certainly hope so. But it's only speculation.

I did take a moment to do a quick google search on the subject and, the way things stand right now, it appears that I was right.

I'm sure an average exists. Though without seeing the studies or how the data was collected, it's hard to say if it's a complete set. At the same accord, tattoos are becoming quite prevalent and many who, back in the 30's, wouldn't consider it now will. It's not just the statistical average that you should examine, but also the Full Width Half Max and 3 sigma confidence lines.

 

[logansrun]

A little heart on an ankle probably would be acceptable. It could be covered. Face and neck tattoos would be a problem in most places.

I agree, but if I needed someone to wash dishes, I wouldn't care about their face as long as it was always toward the sink or dishwasher.

 

[Henrin]

I don't like tattoos aesthetically, but I've known too many smart, educated, reliable, good people with tats to negatively judge people who have them.

Its a cultural thing. In your culture its stupid. In other cultures and subcultures it is a much appreciated way to express yourself and it can give one status. The TV stereotype is that applies only to criminal/gang cultures, but that is wrong. Tats are popular with artists, writers, musicians, motorcyclists, college students, low income urban people, and many others.

I don't follow anyone else's culture and I don't care what the culture around me may or may not be. It makes no difference to me. I was never one to care if I fit in or was cool and I was never one that needed other peoples approval. I was also never one to just agree with something because people wanted me too for whatever reason they might have. No one can tell me how it's not stupid to sit in a chair and subject yourself to pain so that you can have pretty picture injected in your skin. Smart people can do dumb things just fine, so why would it even begin to matter if some of them have advanced degrees? I don't care what they do for living or how high their IQ's may be because at the end of the day they are still capable of doing dumb crap and their tattoos are proof of that.

 

[Captain America]

I'm sure an average exists. Though without seeing the studies or how the data was collected, it's hard to say if it's a complete set. At the same accord, tattoos are becoming quite prevalent and many who, back in the 30's, wouldn't consider it now will. It's not just the statistical average that you should examine, but also the Full Width Half Max and 3 sigma confidence lines.

True dat. The Googling I did did reveal that an alarming number of young people these days now have tattoo's. Somewhere around 30% if I remember correctly.