Tattoo discrimination to be illegal?

[GarryDK]

I have tattoos, I have 3/4 sleeve on one arm, but I always make an effort to look professional in the work place by covering them up. If I was to employ someone who had face tattoos for instance it would make me think. Tattoos are a choice and some people like them some people don’t, if you want to be seen as professional you wouldn’t go to work in jeans and a t shirt in an environment where everyone wears suits. IMO the same applies to tattoos. Cover them in a professional work place. It’s not a difficult situation, if you have a tattoo where it cannot be covered you should expect limitations, rightly or wrongly it maybe but it was the persons choice to be tattooed.

All this talk about skin colour/race/gender/sexuality is pointless, they are not a choice. (Gender is obviously a choice with surgery but you get my point.)

[Greg_D]

paranoid airbag said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

I wouldn't want to work anywhere where I am just there to fill a quota. I can't really make it any clearer than that. If a company wants to employ someone because they prefer their look for whatever reason then I hold no malice towards them and wish them luck as by the sounds of it they are going to need it. They'll probably be out of business if they make choices like that. I'm not shy of hard work I went to school, passed my exams and consider myself to be reasonably intelligent so I won't be out of work long if a situation arises.

It also may shock you but there ARE white people in positions of power who ARE NOT racist.

I know right. Zany isn't it.

What's the world coming to?!?!?

So, to reiterate, you'd rather be on welfare? Not only does this mean that, outside of a Mail reader's mind, you won't have money for anything more than survival - it'll mean most people will think you're a lazy who deserves that life as well.

If so, fair enough - that's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.

Then again, my experience of people who like the phrase "what's the world coming to" says there's not that much point listening to the rest.

You do realise that Miguel has a year round tan, don't you?

[Einion Yrth]

Greg_D said:

paranoid airbag said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

I wouldn't want to work anywhere where I am just there to fill a quota. I can't really make it any clearer than that. If a company wants to employ someone because they prefer their look for whatever reason then I hold no malice towards them and wish them luck as by the sounds of it they are going to need it. They'll probably be out of business if they make choices like that. I'm not shy of hard work I went to school, passed my exams and consider myself to be reasonably intelligent so I won't be out of work long if a situation arises.

It also may shock you but there ARE white people in positions of power who ARE NOT racist.

I know right. Zany isn't it.

What's the world coming to?!?!?

So, to reiterate, you'd rather be on welfare? Not only does this mean that, outside of a Mail reader's mind, you won't have money for anything more than survival - it'll mean most people will think you're a lazy who deserves that life as well.

If so, fair enough - that's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.

Then again, my experience of people who like the phrase "what's the world coming to" says there's not that much point listening to the rest.

You do realise that Miguel has a year round tan, don't you?

Yes, nature gave him a perfectly good "race card" and the bounder refuses to use it.

[oyster]

Miguel Alvarez said:

Rude-boy said:

Sorry but that did make me laugh! That said it would have been a much bigger laugh if there were still some trogglidites out there who would genuinely be saying that inside their head as they serve you platitudes about how strong a candidate you were and how you only just missed out...

Not so much in interviews but there are plenty of times I've walked away from a setting 99% certain the person didn't like me because of my skin/look but what can you do about it. I take my skills/business elsewhere its no big deal.

You can only take your skills/business elsewhere because most employers are decent enough not to be racist.

I think you're missing the point of all people debating with you.

[Miguel Alvarez]

Clearly. Why don't you explain it to me.

ETA

I'm actually being serious. I'm a bit lost here as by the sounds of things I should be playing the race card a lot more than I am.

[FredClogs]

Tattooing is a personal choice, people know when they choose to have a tattoo how society at large judges them (same as peircings) and how perception of them is, that said it's changing all the time.

You can't choose you race, gender or sexuality - the two discussions are not comparable.

FWIW is I was an employer I'd have no problem working with or employing some one with tattoos if I liked them and I liked the tattoos or didn't find them offensive at least. But if you have lots of obvious a bad tattoos I will question your decision making ability, I mean if you had FTP tattooed across your forehead I might think twice about throwing you the keys to my family business, and that is why the law could never be forced in this area, tattoos come in too many shapes and sizes to be able to frame legislation.

[herewego]

I thought tattooing someone's face was illegal?

[mph1977]

FredClogs said:

Tattooing is a personal choice, people know when they choose to have a tattoo how society at large judges them (same as peircings) and how perception of them is, that said it's changing all the time.

You can't choose you race, gender or sexuality - the two discussions are not comparable.

FWIW is I was an employer I'd have no problem working with or employing some one with tattoos if I liked them and I liked the tattoos or didn't find them offensive at least. But if you have lots of obvious a bad tattoos I will question your decision making ability, I mean if you had FTP tattooed across your forehead I might think twice about throwing you the keys to my family business, and that is why the law could never be forced in this area, tattoos come in too many shapes and sizes to be able to frame legislation.

I think fred sums it up

No tattos is arguably a pointless rule as in most work place settings elbow upawrds , neck downwards and legs are not on show ( or don't have to be on show even if female staff are wearing skirts / dresses - if the dress policy allows leggings / opaque tights )

no visible tattoos is far more enforcable and practicable , although it can cause issues for those with 'sleeve' tattoes or second career people where a look that was perfectly acceptable on a building site in the JR mess isn;t so acceptable in an Office or teaching scenario or increasingly pointedly for Health care staff for example (such as the imposition of Baare below the elnbows in Ambulance settings) -

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Chlamydia said:

I have tattoos on my hands. They aren't offensive but they are clearly visible even if I wear a suit that covers up my (many) other tattoos. As an ex-rugby player I've also got slightly cauliflowered ears and a broken nose - a face maybe best described as 'lived in'. I'm also a high-ranking and extremely qualified electronics engineer and am frequently in meetings with clients to discuss multi-million pound projects. Admittedly I wouldn't be the ideal candidate to model bikinis, but the way I look has no effect on my ability to do my job and while I have on occasion noticed new clients glance at my tattoos they have all ended up concentrating on what I had to say.
If I had a swastika or offensive word tattooed in plain sight then fair enough I doubt anyone would be able to look past that, but a 'normal' tattoo shouldn't be a hindrance.

That's fine. But if you were in competition for the work with another equally well qualified person then I would give them the job. Permanently visible tattoos indicate to me a severe lack of judgment in my opinion, and seeing as I would be paying, my opinion, right or wrong, is the only one that counts.

[JensenA]

oyster said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

Rude-boy said:

Sorry but that did make me laugh! That said it would have been a much bigger laugh if there were still some trogglidites out there who would genuinely be saying that inside their head as they serve you platitudes about how strong a candidate you were and how you only just missed out...

Not so much in interviews but there are plenty of times I've walked away from a setting 99% certain the person didn't like me because of my skin/look but what can you do about it. I take my skills/business elsewhere its no big deal.

You can only take your skills/business elsewhere because most employers are decent enough not to be racist.

I think you're missing the point of all people debating with you.

I think you are missing the point. Plenty of candidates will apply for a job, They will be selected for interview based on the their written application and CV. The whole point of an interview is for the employee to meet you face to face to see if they like you, and feel you would fit in with their company. Basically If you don't get a job it is because they liked the other person better than you - live with it.

[TTwiggy]

herewego said:

I thought tattooing someone's face was illegal?

Nope, but like hands and the neck, any decent tattooist should encourage the client to have a very long hard think about it before going ahead (unless the client is already heavily tattooed).

[paranoid airbag]

Miguel Alvarez said:

The what is the world comment was a joking throw away remark at the end of a semi serious post.

Perhaps you should read the rest of the thread see my reply and then comment. If you still can't see my clear answer then I don't really know what else to say on the matter We will probably never agree.

I don't really know what to say - how can we "not agree" when I haven't really posted an opinion, other than "life on the dole is utter st"?

I'm afraid I can't, and that's all I want. For the third time:

If the choice is really between life on the dole and a job where you are generally unwanted, which would you choose? You are not "supposed" to choose either answer, I'm not asking rhetorically.

But I would like the answer to be given seriously, with the knowledge that the former doesn't mean cutting out every other cappucino. It means cutting out damn nearly everything you value save sleeping and wking.

[Brother D]

Erm seriously is it even possible to find someone under the age of 50 who doesn't have a tattoo???
I think my convent raised 70+ year old mother is literally the only person I know (apart from myself) who doesn't have a tattoo and the only reason I don't have a tattoo is my rebellious nature in not wanting to be the same as everyone else.

[JensenA]

Brother D said:

Erm seriously is it even possible to find someone under the age of 50 who doesn't have a tattoo???
I think my convent raised 70+ year old mother is literally the only person I know (apart from myself) who doesn't have a tattoo and the only reason I don't have a tattoo is my rebellious nature in not wanting to be the same as everyone else.

You'll regret it later you know. :

[HenryJM]

Brother D said:

Erm seriously is it even possible to find someone under the age of 50 who doesn't have a tattoo???
I think my convent raised 70+ year old mother is literally the only person I know (apart from myself) who doesn't have a tattoo and the only reason I don't have a tattoo is my rebellious nature in not wanting to be the same as everyone else.

The survey I saw had the highest percentage for an age group to be 35% or 25-40 year olds having a tattoo, other age groups were mainly a lot less.

No idea how accurate that may be though.

[jeff m2]

HenryJM said:

Brother D said:

Erm seriously is it even possible to find someone under the age of 50 who doesn't have a tattoo???
I think my convent raised 70+ year old mother is literally the only person I know (apart from myself) who doesn't have a tattoo and the only reason I don't have a tattoo is my rebellious nature in not wanting to be the same as everyone else.

The survey I saw had the highest percentage for an age group to be 35% or 25-40 year olds having a tattoo, other age groups were mainly a lot less.

No idea how accurate that may be though.

I wonder if there are percentages out there for the employed/unemployed.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Brother D said:

Erm seriously is it even possible to find someone under the age of 50 who doesn't have a tattoo???
I think my convent raised 70+ year old mother is literally the only person I know (apart from myself) who doesn't have a tattoo and the only reason I don't have a tattoo is my rebellious nature in not wanting to be the same as everyone else.

My 18 y/o son says he is looking forward to being around the pool on holiday in about 20 yrs time and people pointing at him in amazement at his lack of tattoos. He thinks all tattoos are st. It's one of the few things we agree on!

[Miguel Alvarez]

paranoid airbag said:

I don't really know what to say - how can we "not agree" when I haven't really posted an opinion, other than "life on the dole is utter st"?

I'm afraid I can't, and that's all I want. For the third time:

If the choice is really between life on the dole and a job where you are generally unwanted, which would you choose? You are not "supposed" to choose either answer, I'm not asking rhetorically.

But I would like the answer to be given seriously, with the knowledge that the former doesn't mean cutting out every other cappucino. It means cutting out damn nearly everything you value save sleeping and wking.

I really have no idea what you are talking about or the point you are trying to make. You're either trying to wind me up (and succeeding. Well done) or you're in some bubble world which isn't a reflection on real life.

There are currently 1018 jobs advertised on the Reed website for the Basingstoke area. Are you trying to tell me that everyone of those jobs has a racist/tattoo hating employer? Even if that was the case which is utter bks I can hop on the train and go to Reading and Farnborough and apply for something.

This is not some one chance only montage from a Disney film. There are plenty of opportunities to find work if someone wants to work.

[paranoid airbag]

Miguel Alvarez said:

I really have no idea what you are talking about or the point you are trying to make. You're either trying to wind me up (and succeeding. Well done) or you're in some bubble world which isn't a reflection on real life.

There are currently 1018 jobs advertised on the Reed website for the Basingstoke area. Are you trying to tell me that everyone of those jobs has a racist/tattoo hating employer? Even if that was the case which is utter bks I can hop on the train and go to Reading and Farnborough and apply for something.

This is not some one chance only montage from a Disney film. There are plenty of opportunities to find work if someone wants to work.

I am asking exactly the question I am asking. No more and no less. I am not trying to sucker you into agreeing with me on anything. I would like to know:

If the choice was between life on the dole, meaning major lifestyle choices, and a job for which you weren't wanted, which would you choose?

Why does this need explaining so many times?

[Einion Yrth]

paranoid airbag said:

I am asking exactly the question I am asking. No more and no less. I am not trying to sucker you into agreeing with me on anything. I would like to know:

If the choice was between life on the dole, meaning major lifestyle choices, and a job for which you weren't wanted, which would you choose?

Why does this need explaining so many times?

Why does it need asking at all?