How do you feel about tattooed people?

You can not hire someone for the way they part their hair or the look on their face too.
I don't hire based on the way someone is dressed and how they speak more than anything.
OH, and guess what. I am gainfully employed. Well paid and have many decades of experience in my chosen profession.

 

Sorry I am not burning up my Insurance leads, nor have my company represented in what I feel is a derogatory manner. My product is one that calls for professionalism, and the ability to solicit confidence from the client. A face looking like Bozo is not only unsettling to most but seriously damages ones credibility, thus the trust factor becomes a major problem...
A company can spend thousands, Millions projecting a certain image. Not many would let that go down the drain to a guy who should be wearing a Red nose and floppy feet... Not happening...

 

Mind explaining that hyperbolic non sense. Oh wait, you said you work in the insurance industry. Nuff said, don't bother.

 

Certain businesses have certain codes, for dress, hygiene, drug use, cell phone use etc. As an employee, you also may be ask that your conduct during your private time is such that does not draw negative attention to the business. Its up to the applicant to meet standards or seek employment elsewhere.
Just picture yourself as a patient. You are very ill, are sensitive to smells and here comes a nurse with dirty fingernails and body odor, not to mention looking like the party was a long and intense one the night before.

 

Hyperbole and straw man. We are not talking finger nails and partying. We are talking tattoos.

 

No straw and no horses in sight. Businesses have their standards, as it should be. Nothing wrong with that, whether we are talking tattoos or perfume.

 

You went on about finger nails and body odor. I looked at the OP and found none of that. You have a personal issue with tattooed persons. Fine.
I just wonder how many tattooed persons you have actually said face to face to what you have posted here. My bet is zero.

 

I have denied tattooed people employment if the tattoo was very obvious.

 

Too bad, you probably lost out on good people. But if it made you feel good about yourself, that's all that really counts right?

 

Not necessarily. Personally, I'm fine with tattoos. Whatever people want to put on or in their bodies, its their decision. But when my boss, per company policy, put me in charge of screening and/or training potential employees, my personal opinion does not matter.
Tattoos are a personal choice, but with that choice comes the responsibility to think ahead, to anticipate potential draw backs.

 

Let's cut to the chase here shall we.

The older you are the less tolerant you become regarding tattoos. Visible tattoos in the workplace will limit your employment options...for the moment.

Perhaps as each generation becomes more accepting of visibly inked skin, it will no longer limit a person's employment opportunities.

As I type this, visibly inked skin will limit your opportunities in most instances.

We can all talk about a World where we're having a Coca-Cola around the campfire singing Kumbaya and roasting marshmallows as a collective humanity of inked and non-inked...but I prefer a pragmatic approach to reality.

bottom line up front. BLUF.

Many of those in charge of the hiring in a company, are instructed to view visibly inked skin as inappropriate for a work environment. They hire accordingly.

Appearance matters.

 

The mere fact that there seems to be such lively and spirited interest in
Tattoo's is a Theatre of the Absurb.There was a reason,decades ago,Tattoo
Parlors were limited to red Light districts.Because they attract the underbelly
of society.Places where hookers and drunks hang out.
Places not safe for Families. Places usually not far from the Docks.
Or some waterfront.
Like I satated in one reply.There was a time McDonalds had a policy
where No employee serving food { cashiers of working the service area }
could work if they had any tattoo's on their hands,wrists or places
easily visible.Back then { 1980's } Most Tattoo people didn't even think
of face tattoos.
Good Golly Miss Molly how like yesterday fast as greased lightening it took
to degrade and defile the Everyman { a Jimmy Stewart }.
Like any basic rummy knows.It don't take much to demolish a building
like it does to build one.
Shame on Tattoo.Let them be Damned.

 

Funny, the older I get. The more tats I get. In fact I am working on a chest piece and a "traditional" pin up in a sailor uniform.
Eventually, and very soon. Tats will be almost non issue as we evolve. If we can turn a blind eye to skin color we will eventually turn a blind eye to skin "colors", birth tone or added later.

 

I only pray that someone tries that line with me face to face. Really, I do. I would teach them a thing or three about what demolishment really is.
If not for millions of tattooed men and women in our armed forces for the last 6 generations, you would not have the freedoms to spew such vile, cowardly drivel outside the confines of your moms basement.

 

Do I need to get the limburger cheese?

 

To go with the anti tattoo whine? And that's what they are, whiners.

 

23% of women have a tattoo

19% of men have a tattoo

36% of current military and veterans have at least 1 tattoo.

It is still the minority, even in the service. In the military it is really quite simple: a tattoo is not a part of an Officer's uniform and never has been. If the enlisted want to get inked and it is within the particular service branch appearance reg/policy; well more power to them...but the officer corps should avoid them whether they are visible or not. This new breed of officer, is not something I particularly approve of; claiming ink as military tradition....absolute bunk, not in the officer corps, tattoos have never been a tradition.

I still believe visible tattoos and piercings detract from a professional appearance.

This is a competitive job market, I can't think of any situation wherein a visible tattoo will give you an advantage other than rock/rap stars, strippers and artists. In those circumstances looking "edgy" is probably advantageous; but for the rest of us a visible tattoo will not give you a leg up on the competition for a job.

 

They do have tattoo removal technology. Its a laser that burns it off. Hurts a lot more than getting the tattoo

 

True, but if someone as rich as Angelina Jolie still has to resort to a "coverup" tattoo, it's not that effective. Imagine having to remove a sleeve tattoo.

 

adjust your stats to account for demographics, its ancient people with one foot in the grave that have issues with tattoos, your stats show that 23% of women have tattoos, if you take into account age 47% of women under the age of 35 have tattoos, including nearly dead grannie baby boomers into your stats is misleading....tattoos have become mainstream and don't have the same impact on younger generations than the nearly dead more judgmental boomer generation...this isn't any different than when I was a young adult, we had few issue with racial differences whereas the nearly dead generations of my youth had huge hangups with people of colour...

 

Wow, I don't even know why this is a matter of debate. It's a tattoo! It's a piece of artwork needled into somebodies skin, and unless it's of pertinence to a theology or ideology that you disagree with, I can't see how it's a problem. I mean, perhaps in the past they would be affiliated with miscreants, but culture is becoming more progressive, hell, a few months after I turned 18 I got one. I know a lot of really quite decent people that have them, really don't think that a stigma should exist. I'm guessing that gradually the connotation between the word "tattoo" and negativity will decrease over time.

 

This is an article dated only a year ago.

Tattoos Still Reduce Chances Of Getting Hired, Study Finds

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/tattoos-hired-job-chances-study_n_3873425.html

From 2011

I have to laugh when I'm referred to as a "dinosaur"...I'm only 49. I'll be in the work force at least another 10 - 15 years.

Sure eventually, as the younger generations who have grown up with a more normative view of visible tattoos begins to establish themselves professionally...tattoos may not matter one iota.

They do matter now however. They will never help you get a job, but they may hinder you.

Why handicap yourself in a competitive job market voluntarily. Why ink up, visibly in business attire...when it will never be a positive but may be a negative.

If you keep it hidden under normal attire, the hiring manager would never know now would they?

I'm therefore limiting my discussion on visible tattoos...and they remain a hindrance in the job market..and probably will remain so for at least another 10 - 15 years.

Only 32% of people between 30 - 45 years of age have at least 1 tattoo. This means 68% do not. It's not as socially acceptable to have one as you may think...and when it comes down to making a hiring decision all things equal...the inked will have no advantage and may certainly have a disadvantage. This won't be changing for at least another 10 - 15 years.

There remains no compelling reason to get a tattoo.

 

Who is doing the hiring? Almost dead people like you...my mother at 102 was more open minded than you are...Im 60 and I dont let prejudices influence my hiring, competence, trust/honesty and respect is all that really matter...no client has ever objected to a tattooed employee but ive let people go for dishonesty incompetence and lack of respect...

 

Agreed and well said. Furthermore, many regret their tattoos.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...tattoos-50-believe-ink-makes-look-common.html

 

Frankly My Dear I don't Give a Tattoo.
Ugh ... Ugh ..... Tattoo should belong to themself.