Uncovered Tattoos and work.

[BigLion]

Brads67 said:

PorkInsider said:

You seem to be confusing natural appearance - age, skin colour, etc. - with somone choosing to permanently modify their appearance in a way which not everyone will see as positive/well judged.

I hate religion, all of it. No body needs it and anyone who has it has poor judgement in my opinion and shouldn`t be trusted. It`s unnatural and unneeded .

I would never employ anyone who believed in any god.

I don't think anyone would want to work for you - small minded bosses are never a good thing...

[andy-xr]

MrOrange said:

AJB88 said:

I'm covered. All can be covered with a shirt/trousers.

My company has no issues with them being uncovered but I choose to cover them anyway.

I don't understand that. You chose, for whatever reason, to have tattoos. And then cover them up? Why?

Sometimes you just cant win. Like if you have a soft top, everyone expects you to then drive round all the time with the roof down.

I have a fk load of tattoos on my arms. It wasnt because they were socially acceptable places to have tattoos, it was because that's where I wanted to have them. I dont particularly dress to cover them up, I dress in a way that suits me (either warmth, style or other). If they happen to be on show from what I'm wearing, it's a happy accident.

We once went off on a jolly to a health club with work, basically a few crates of beer, hired out a decent hotel that had a spa and a pool. It wasnt til then that some of my bosses saw my tattoos. Before that they'd usually seen me in jeans/shirt/jumper so hitting the pool in swimming shorts was a new look. It took them about half an hour to bring it up, never a question about why I'd had them, they were interested in whether they meant anything specific to me, and then we moved on to a different conversation. Was actually treated differently after that but in a positive way.

I dont think really that a company or manager who has an issue with someone having a visible tattoo is going to work well with me. Because when it comes down to an accepted version of how attractive someone is if only they hadnt done that to themselves, it's a thought pattern that's not particularly nice in the person thinking it.

[rufusgti]

MrOrange said:

AJB88 said:

I'm covered. All can be covered with a shirt/trousers.

My company has no issues with them being uncovered but I choose to cover them anyway.

I don't understand that. You chose, for whatever reason, to have tattoos. And then cover them up? Why?

I'd guess because unlike a lot of tattood guys I come across, he is fully aware that not many people in life give two hoots about his "personal reasons" for plastering his body in ink. So feels in no way obligated to walk round in shorts and t-shirts in February.

I like tattoos. I like them on men and women, I don't have any myself however.

Edited by rufusgti on Sunday 25th September 07:28

[AJB88]

rufusgti said:

I'd guess because unlike a lot of tattood guys I come across, he is fully aware that not many people in life give two hoots about his "personal reasons" for plastering his body in ink. So feels in no way obligated to walk round in shorts and t-shirts in February.

I like tattoos. I like them on men and women, I don't have any myself however.

Edited by rufusgti on Sunday 25th September 07:28

it actually makes me cringe when you see people wearing shorts mid winter just to show off there little bit of tribal on their ankle etc.

[MrOrange]

Seems to me it boils down to ignorance: those that don't don't understand the reasons to have ink, and those that do not think it through in the long-term. And class, the perception that tattoos are in some way the mark of class rebellion, or an anti-establishment fashion statement that corrects itself in time, and age.

• Some folks elect to permanently modify their bodies, whether that is a sleeve, nose rings or an ear plug. Why they do something so dramatic and life-long is bewildering to the (larger?) mass of folks who cannot understand the reasons why and often attach a negative bias to the practice.
• In general, making these kinds of body modifications doesn't enhance your chances of success in a conventional, middle-class career. Ergo, it is more likely to damage it, so some folks just don't understand why you would choose to restrict your life. Maybe they see this as a lack of intelligence or wisdom?
• A percentage of tattoo recipients regret the decision in later life - perhaps when the brightly coloured and well defined (insert object/thing here) elegantly crafted on supple skin over young taut muscles turns into a greenish blog layered on wrinkled and flabby skin. That regret could be seen as a product of poor judgement, a lack of life skills, a short-term attitude - all traits that are not viewed positively in middle-class England.
• People follow fashion for lots of reasons, and the current trend is tattoos. Now, without digging into the psychology of modern life and competition, it seems that the "hipster generation" favours ink, piercings, beards and the like. Except this isn't a new movement - it's a fashion trend that will pass - the beard can be shaved off, the man-buns cut away. But it's a great deal harder to remove a square foot of ink from the body.

[Brads67]

BigLion said:

I don't think anyone would want to work for you - small minded bosses are never a good thing...

You`ve not really read the last few pages have you ?

Maybe I should have put "this is sarcasm" under it.

[WD39]

wolf1 said:

WD39 said:

It does not fill one with confidence when approached bt a tattood assistant, waiter, or even manager.

Edited by WD39 on Saturday 24th September 18:36

Why? Will the tattooed waiter be more likely to spit in your food or just mug you at the table? Would you feel the same about a tattooed paramedic who's just saved your life purely because they have tattoos (a lot of my former military colleagues are now paramedics and virtually all of them have a good portion of ink)

Sorry but a lot of you are basing your assumptions about others purely from a snobbish standpoint of appearance. I take everyone on their merits be they tattooed, old, young, black, white, brown, green, pink, orange or even growing mushrooms from the crack of their arse. People are people and judging on appearance without knowing the person just makes you an arse.

All of your comparisons are fatuous in the context of this discussion.

Most of the posts on this thread juxtaposing tattoos with skin colour, being old, being young, religious persuasion, etc are not factors of anyones choosing.

Tattoos are.

As stated by others on this thread, tattoos are allied with beng thuggish and an irrational life choice.

It matters not if a person is educated, good to their mother or an all round good guy/gal. In a customer facing stuation, especially catering, tattoos put out the worst possible message and image to the customer.

Edited by WD39 on Sunday 25th September 18:20

[Countdown]

I think it depends on your job/role....

Tattoos would look odd on a senior partner in a an accountancy firm and possibly cost the firm business. It just doesnt fit the image. That's why they dress in smart clothes/shoes/ties/watches/cuff links. they need to create an impression. OTOH if you work in a role where you don't necessarily need to impress other people I'm sure tattoss are fine.

I await the "I've just negotiated a $25m M&A deal and turned up in jeans/vest/dockers and nobody blinked an eyelid" comments....

[Countdown]

Brads67 said:

I hate religion, all of it. No body needs it and anyone who has it has poor judgement in my opinion and shouldn`t be trusted. It`s unnatural and unneeded .

I would never employ anyone who believed in any god.

I'm not saying this just to be contrary however 3 of the best staff I have ever had have been devoutly religious. Two were RC and one was a buddhist. The reason I remember it is each of them were my deputies in 3 consecutive jobs I had and i wondered whether there was any connection between their religion and how good they were at their job.

It may well have just been a co-incidence.

[wolf1]

WD39 said:

tattoos put out the worst possible message and image to the customer.

Edited by WD39 on Sunday 25th September 18:20

In your opinion and the other small minded people out there maybe, the rest of us take people as they are and couldn't care less what people what do to their bodies as we are open minded enough to accept everyone as they are and not purely on how they appear.

[oddman]

wolf1 said:

In your opinion and the other small minded people out there

In business all customers matter. Depending on the type of business there will be a different ratio of customers bothered or not bothered by tattoos.

In the businesses where the ratio of 'bothered' customers is highest then surely it makes sense to appoint 'straight' looking staff in customer facing roles.

Why would I choose to lose customers because I consider them to have the wrong opinion about a relatively trivial matter?

[Robertj21a]

Perhaps if someone could explain WHY they felt the need to have large tattoos over their face/neck it might be easier to understand the logic behind it.

[ChasW]

Robertj21a said:

Perhaps if someone could explain WHY they felt the need to have large tattoos over their face/neck it might be easier to understand the logic behind it.

In many, underlying self-image issues I guess.

[jonby]

daddy cool said:

egor110 said:

I don't know anyone who's had a tattoo because they think it's going to make them appear individual or stand out from the crowd.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24296713
"A 2012 study found that personality differences between tattooed and non-tattooed individuals were "generally small" although those with tattoos tended to be more extroverted and display a greater "need for uniqueness". "It seems to be predominantly about the idea that you feel unique as an individual," says Swami. "People get tattoos for all sorts of reasons but that's the underlying one."

In other words: LOOK AT ME!

From an employer's perspective, surely of equal importance to whether tattoos do indeed provide an indicator of specific personality traits or ability (which is what the study above is about), is whether the company's customers & staff will perceive certain traits as a result of a member of staff being heavily & visibly tattooed ?

For instance, here is an article suggesting men perceive women with tattoos as being easier to get into bed and more approachable
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2330259/...

Now the important point here is surely not whether women with tattoos are indeed easier, but the fact that members of the public assume certain traits solely because of someone having a tattoo. It's not fair, but it is what it is

I do have a tattoo incidentally, quite large, but deliberately on my upper thigh so it cannot possibly ever be seen in a work context, as I work in a pretty conservative industry where my clients would be upset that I might visit people on their behalf with visible tattoos - spending time trying to 'educate' those clients would IMO be counter productive and is simply not something I am overly concerned about. If I worked in a creative industry, I would probably have a few tattoos in more visible areas such as my arms

[bad company]

wolf1 said:

WD39 said:

tattoos put out the worst possible message and image to the customer.

Edited by WD39 on Sunday 25th September 18:20

In your opinion and the other small minded people out there maybe, the rest of us take people as they are and couldn't care less what people what do to their bodies as we are open minded enough to accept everyone as they are and not purely on how they appear.

You can put me down as a small minded person then. There are millions of us.

[Brads67]

WD39 said:

All of your comparisons are fatuous in the context of this discussion.

Most of the posts on this thread juxtaposing tattoos with skin colour, being old, being young, religious persuasion, etc are not factors of anyones choosing.

Tattoos are.

As stated by others on this thread, tattoos are allied with beng thuggish and an irrational life choice.

It matters not if a person is educated, good to their mother or an all round good guy/gal. In a customer facing stuation, especially catering, tattoos put out the worst possible message and image to the customer.

Edited by WD39 on Sunday 25th September 18:20

Since when was someones religious persuasion not a choice ?

Being religious shows a very weak mind in my opinion but I would`nt hold it against them if they can do their job well.

Would never fully understand their choice mind , but hey ho.

[deckster]

Brads67 said:

Since when was someones religious persuasion not a choice ?

It's somewhat off-topic, but since you ask - studies have shown that worldwide there is an almost total correlation between a person's religion, and that of their parents. That is to say, to a very high degree of certainty, you will throughout your life believe what you were told to believe as a child.

That is a long way from being a 'choice'.

[Issi]

wolf1 said:

WD39 said:

tattoos put out the worst possible message and image to the customer.

Edited by WD39 on Sunday 25th September 18:20

In your opinion and the other small minded people out there maybe, the rest of us take people as they are and couldn't care less what people what do to their bodies as we are open minded enough to accept everyone as they are and not purely on how they appear.

Can you remember how many of your officers (not LE ones) had fully visible tats on their forearms?




Anyway, here's a snap of my accountant.

[InductionRoar]

I think it depends on the scenario.

I often pop into my local Brewdog where a lot of the bar staff are tattooed and pierced to the point of it seeming to be a requirement. Doesn't bother me in the slightest because I am paying Brewdog prices and having a few beers in a casual environment and it somehow adds to the vibe they are trying to create.

If, I was served by Brewdog staff at The Ritz I would not feel the same and I suspect that I would not be alone.

Does it make me wrong? Quite possibly.

[SystemParanoia]

are these so bad as to prevent all future employment ?