Tattoo discrimination to be illegal?

[julian64]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28758900

So the question is, will tattoo get protection under discrimination laws?

[Lost soul]

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

[Fittster]

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?

[Rude-boy]

Lost soul said:

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

The problem is that if you took this to the extreme you would have businesses where the only employees were from one religious grouping. People doing the "No dogs, No Blacks, No Irish" thing and so on.

I see tattoos as a totally different thing though. 99.999% of people who have ink have chosen to be inked. They have made a conscious decision to have this done. You do not chose to be born white or black, gay or hetro. The religion one is a little more difficult to call but this one is not.

I know that doing the job I do it is not going to be a good career move for me to have any tattoos that are visible. I have a choice.

[Miguel Alvarez]

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.

[Lost soul]

Rude-boy said:

Lost soul said:

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

The problem is that if you took this to the extreme you would have businesses where the only employees were from one religious grouping. .

But you see that anyway don't you

[Fittster]

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?

[Miguel Alvarez]

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?

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?!?!?

[Lost soul]

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

[Miguel Alvarez]

And lets be realistic I'm only ever really going to know for sure if the reason I was passed over was due to my skin is if they tell me at the end of the interview "I ain't employing you ya b###k b#####d". Most people have the common sense/decency to keep their views to themselves in such situations. It's only skinheads and people hiding on the computer who are brave enough to say what they really want to.

[Some Gump]

IMO it's all bks. That lass in the article wasn't fired for having a st picture on her foot; she was fired for not adhering to the uniform policy regarding st drawings anywhere visible.

I don't see it as anything like racism or whatnot - you can not choose your race or gender, your religion and sexuality are probably set in stone way before employment age etc - so all of these need to be protected. However, if you choose to have a tattoo, then it's also your choice whether to cover it up or not when asked. If you choose not to, your employer should be able to choose to dismiss you for it. The appearance of people is important for corporate image and like it or loath it, humans judge a lot on first impressions visually.

If you let this go on, where do you draw the line? Should Barclays Bank have a separate clothing policy for goths? Maybe we should let traffic wardens do their thing in skinny jeans, deck shoes and an ironic hat?

[Rude-boy]

Lost soul said:

Rude-boy said:

Lost soul said:

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

The problem is that if you took this to the extreme you would have businesses where the only employees were from one religious grouping. .

But you see that anyway don't you

Do you? Surely if this was going on then there would some sort of claim brought against those who were discriminating against others?

I mean there can't be a business in the land where those in control have said that they have no idea who would be suitable for X role other than that they will not be a female of child bearing age, or indeed a male of any age.

As for the real topic in hand here, as opposed to my slight stirring, I think that if you have any tattoos that are not covered by your usual work attire then you have to face the fact that your personal choice should not fetter that of others. That means that if their choice is not to hire a bloke with a spiders web tattooed over their face then they should be allowed that choice.

[crankedup]

Modelling agencies recommend people for employment because they have certain looks / physical attributes that work for specific 'jobs'.

[Lost soul]

Rude-boy said:

if their choice is not to hire a bloke with a spiders web tattooed over their face then they should be allowed that choice.

But that shouldn't that also go for anything else they do not want , after all they are paying the wages

[Rude-boy]

Miguel Alvarez said:

And lets be realistic I'm only ever really going to know for sure if the reason I was passed over was due to my skin is if they tell me at the end of the interview "I ain't employing you ya b###k b#####d".

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...

[turbobloke]

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?

The point is that businesses want the best person for the job and there is no reason not to achieve this within the rules.

Miguel Alvarez said:

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?!?!?

By jove, steady on there

[Miguel Alvarez]

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.

[julian64]

Should the freedom to express yourself with tattoos be on the same footing as the freedom to express your religious identity?

[Moonhawk]

julian64 said:

Should the freedom to express yourself with tattoos be on the same footing as the freedom to express your religious identity?

If freedom of expression is protected from 'discrimination' - where do you draw the line?

No Clothes (don't naturists have rights too).
Language (i'm just exercising my freedom of expression when I tell a customer to f#ck off).
Personal Hygiene (cavemen didn't have shower gel or soap - why should somebody be expected to use it).

[PorkInsider]

Purity14 said:

Lost soul said:

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

I think the choice should be removed, the employer simply wants an employee, and he should be given someone from the job centre.

Hopefully he will have the correct intellect to perform in his new job role as an aerospace engineer, because otherwise you'd be a bit qualificationist in bringing that matter up.

And of course don't forget that one can't now specify how much experience the candidate should have...