Tattoo discrimination to be illegal?

[Camoradi]

and there I was thinking it was going to be about.....



"de plane boss, de plane"

[StottyEvo]

Fittster said:

Lost soul said:

I think you should have the freedom to decide who you employ

So if you don't want to employee black people that's fair enough?

Bearing in mind you're born black, you aren't born with a face tattoo.

What amazes me is that when you made that comment, you must've known someone would pick up on the very obvious difference

[TwigtheWonderkid]

pork911 said:

if 'hasn't got any tattos' is the best someone can say about their 'skill set' they are already in trouble

In my experience, the chance of finding someone with no skills and no tattoos are very slim.

[julian64]

I have to admit I'd probably discriminate against visible tattoos.

I still see tattoos as the person choosing something they know will count against them in the majority of interview situations.

If anyone does something in an interview they know will count against them, then they are a bit thick. I realise this is a circular argument, but it is my honest opinion. I assume if more people get them and they become more accepted this will change. But its unlikely to change with me.

It doesn't help that when you read the threads regarding the reasons people get a lifelong tattoo, they all sound a bit live for the now 'child like' rather than an appreciation they will have a future. It also doesn't help that I get a regular stream of people wanting them removed, or unwilling to show them anymore in later life.

[whythem]

Lost soul said:

Fittster said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

Fittster said:

Lost soul said:

I think you should have the freedom to decide who you employ

So if you don't want to employee black people that's fair enough?

I personally don't have a problem with that. I'd rather work somewhere I'm wanted rather than be sat there getting evils from a manager who only hired me to fill his quota.

Would you happy to be unemployed if a less well qualified individual was given a job because of the colour of his skin?

But this will always happen if the employer is racist

I would imagine more white people lose employment opportunities than ethnic minorities in Britain due to positive discrimination laws.

[wolves_wanderer]

whythem said:

Lost soul said:

Fittster said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

Fittster said:

Lost soul said:

I think you should have the freedom to decide who you employ

So if you don't want to employee black people that's fair enough?

I personally don't have a problem with that. I'd rather work somewhere I'm wanted rather than be sat there getting evils from a manager who only hired me to fill his quota.

Would you happy to be unemployed if a less well qualified individual was given a job because of the colour of his skin?

But this will always happen if the employer is racist

I would imagine more white people lose employment opportunities than ethnic minorities in Britain due to positive discrimination laws.

What positive discrimination laws?

[mph1977]

wolves_wanderer said:

whythem said:

Lost soul said:

Fittster said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

Fittster said:

Lost soul said:

I think you should have the freedom to decide who you employ

So if you don't want to employee black people that's fair enough?

I personally don't have a problem with that. I'd rather work somewhere I'm wanted rather than be sat there getting evils from a manager who only hired me to fill his quota.

Would you happy to be unemployed if a less well qualified individual was given a job because of the colour of his skin?

But this will always happen if the employer is racist

I would imagine more white people lose employment opportunities than ethnic minorities in Britain due to positive discrimination laws.

What positive discrimination laws?

exactly there aren't ...

there have been targetted recruitment approaches by certain organisations at certain times and there's wholly optional ( and it appears ignored when they feel like it ) things like the '2 ticks' scheme which is supposed to give people with disabilities / long term conditions a slightly easier time in getting shoirtlisted/ interviewed (note shortlisted / interviewed; nothing more )

[bad company]

julian64 said:

I have to admit I'd probably discriminate against visible tattoos.

I still see tattoos as the person choosing something they know will count against them in the majority of interview situations.

So would I. I hate tattoo's, always have and would not employ anybody with a visible tattoo.

[Grumfutock]

So if this did become anti discrimination law would that mean that not discriminating against employing a smoker should be illegal?