Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments” (Ex. 20:4-6).
Be well. Your body is the temple to your sole. You have to take good care of it, as you taking good care of your sole. Though that taint that body with graven images, taint thy temples and thy soles.
Oh great, bibble thumping.
And it's soul, not the bottom of a shoe.
I'm not going to hire someone with a spider web on their face.
I do deal with customers as does my staff.
If you were so dumb as to not having the foresight to think of having to work for a living, do I want you to work for me, probably not. If you don't use proper English, then you're toast.
Do I care about tatts in general, absolutely not.
But really, on your face and hands?
It is unprofessional.
Have sleeves, have your entire leg or back or whatever, but you're not a Maori and face tattos don't do much for me thinking that you're anything but an idiot.
If I have 100 resumes in front of me, I'm looking for reasons to eliminate candidates. If you want to give me one, fine.
As one who hires, I am not going to take the time (that I don't have because I have a job) to discern between your choice to be offensive or unprofessional.
I agree with this post. I was only responding to a poster who compared an applicant with tats to a black or gay applicant and seemed to link being offensive with being unprofessional.
I agree with this post. I was only responding to a poster who compared an applicant with tats to a black or gay applicant and seemed to link being offensive with being unprofessional.
My comment was more in general.
I don't see how people can't see the difference between how we're born and what we do to those bodies afterwards.
I even get a little ticked when I see babies with pierced ears because it's not their choice to make.
Being "offensive" and being "unprofessional" are not the same thing.
I agree, however I am just pointing out that 'offensive' and 'unprofessional' are very, very situational concepts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ryu
Are you a newbie to the corporate world? That type of discrimination still exists in America. Also, those people are called racist and homophobic. There are laws to prevent such discrimination but it can still be a deciding factor in the hiring process. Remember, the person hiring is a human that has stereotypes/beliefs about other humans. So a person might not hire someone due to their race, sexual orientation, or physical attributes.
Again, since you seem to have not read my other posts in this thread, I will repeat myself. I have been in the corporate world for a long time. I wear a full suit and tie to work every day. Hell, my co-workers make fun of each other if our shoes aren't polished enough, so I do understand what the professional world is like.
That doesn't deny the idea that I think it is very, very stupid to not hire someone for a non-client facing role just because they have a visible tattoo. How is that hard to understand?
A tattoo is not a NATURAL physical attribute; it's a body modification.
Would you take someone who has tattoos all over their face seriously? Or would you be distracted by the face paint? My advise would be not to get tattoos all over your body if you want to have a corporate job later on in life.
I never indicated how I felt about someone having tattoos all over their face. Yes--most places will not hire someone with lizard scale tattoos all over their kisser. My point was simply: a physical attribute (natural or otherwise<<<key word for the slow readers) does not constitute professionalism. I have hired literally hundreds of people in my 25+ management career in the corporate world, and I had to adhere to the corporate policy of no visible tattoos. And, it was not because of the applicant's "professionalism"--it was because they (the corp.) were branding a certain image. Do you understand this? This is why the statement on their interview letter should be worded differently.
You could split hairs and say those with a funky, non-conforming corporate-y haircut will not be hired. (Example: Miley Cyrus's new hairdo, or Rod Stewart's.) Afterall, one decides to cut it into that funky style---it's not a naturally occurring style, is it? The silly tattoos at work argument has nothing to do with professionalism, and has everything to do with wanting people to conform to some company's idea of "normal." Kinda makes me sick. And---I have no tattoos or piercings by the way. It's not something I am drawn to. But to each their own, I say!
I agree, however I am just pointing out that 'offensive' and 'unprofessional' are very, very situational concepts.
Again, since you seem to have not read my other posts in this thread, I will repeat myself. I have been in the corporate world for a long time. I wear a full suit and tie to work every day. Hell, my co-workers make fun of each other if our shoes aren't polished enough, so I do understand what the professional world is like.
That doesn't deny the idea that I think it is very, very stupid to not hire someone for a non-client facing role just because they have a visible tattoo. How is that hard to understand?
If you have been in the corporate world a long time, you would know that a person can discriminate you for any reason; race, gender, age, sexual orientation, physical attributes. A tattoo is a voluntary reason for HR to discriminate you. Why would someone give them another reason?
So you're ok with not hiring someone with visible tattoos for a client facing role? Why is that?
I never indicated how I felt about someone having tattoos all over their face. Yes--most places will not hire someone with lizard scale tattoos all over their kisser. My point was simply: a physical attribute (natural or otherwise<<<key word for the slow readers) does not constitute professionalism. I have hired literally hundreds of people in my 25+ management career in the corporate world, and I had to adhere to the corporate policy of no visible tattoos. And, it was not because of the applicant's "professionalism"--it was because they (the corp.) were branding a certain image. Do you understand this? This is why the statement on their interview letter should be worded differently.
You could split hairs and say those with a funky, non-conforming corporate-y haircut will not be hired. (Example: Miley Cyrus's new hairdo, or Rod Stewart's.) Afterall, one decides to cut it into that funky style---it's not a naturally occurring style, is it? The silly tattoos at work argument has nothing to do with professionalism, and has everything to do with wanting people to conform to some company's idea of "normal." Kinda makes me sick. And---I have no tattoos or piercings by the way. It's not something I am drawn to. But to each their own, I say!
Otherwise is too general since it can include disabilities, dis-figuration, accident scars, etc. Body modification is more appropriate.
A corporation will create its own corporate culture. Every employee will have to adhere to it. This will include how you communicate, how you dress, how you present yourself, etc. This is similar to the rules that schools and universities have with their student body. Who cares how this company made the statement at least they were upfront. Other companies will BS you.
Corporate culture is different with every industry. The fashion and entertainment industry might be more lenient when it comes to tattoos and hairstyles.
MTV would hire someone with arm-sleeves, hand, and/or neck tattoos but might not hire someone with face tattoos. MTV would hire someone with a mohawk.
Goldman Sachs might not hire someone with neck, face and hand tattoos. GS might not hire someone with a Mohawk.
If you have been in the corporate world a long time, you would know that a person can discriminate you for any reason; race, gender, age, sexual orientation, physical attributes. A tattoo is a voluntary reason for HR to discriminate you. Why would someone give them another reason?
The legal right to discriminate based on whether or not a person has a tattoo isn't what this conversation is about. It is about what makes sense. You know, common sense vs. following the letter of the law?
Quote:
So you're ok with not hiring someone with visible tattoos for a client facing role? Why is that?
If someone is going to sit down in front of a $2 million client, they should be presented in such a way as to offend/upset as few people as possible, given we do not know a client's personal prejudices or biases. In an ideal society no one would be judgmental of something as arbitrary as a tattoo, but given I live in reality, I know some people are classless enough as to judge based on physical appearances, and given the client pays the bills, I will play to that.
Let me first say I have a few tattoos. None of them visible in a normal business setting. I also don't have a job where I would see clients, although working in a corporate office it is certainly possible you could run in to anyone in the hallway or lobby.
There is zero chance I would hire someone with a tattoo that I can see during an interview in a business suit. To me it has nothing to do with how well that person could do the job as I see no correlation between a tattoo and performance. To me it just shows a lack of judgement that would worry me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
