One for the Main dealers on here
Discussion
Ok Guys, following on from the below thread, it has been suggested that i post a thread in General Gassing for the attention of Main dealers, particularly the recruiters of main dealers.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
My question is, if a person applied for a job as a car salesman with your company and had visible tattoos even when wearing a suit, would you consider them for the job or completely discount them from the role?? based on the fact that the job is customer facing and first impressions being so important, i'm of the opinion that that person would not stand a chance, is this the case, or have things moved on sufficiently for a tattooed person to attain a job in the above role as a car sales person??
Thanks in advance
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
My question is, if a person applied for a job as a car salesman with your company and had visible tattoos even when wearing a suit, would you consider them for the job or completely discount them from the role?? based on the fact that the job is customer facing and first impressions being so important, i'm of the opinion that that person would not stand a chance, is this the case, or have things moved on sufficiently for a tattooed person to attain a job in the above role as a car sales person??
Thanks in advance
Interesting thread. Policy here (large corporate) is that we don't employ people with visible tattoos. These aren't even customer facing roles for the most part.
Given that sales is about results I'll be amazed if 'main dealers' don't employ someone with a proven track record regardless of their inkings.
Given that sales is about results I'll be amazed if 'main dealers' don't employ someone with a proven track record regardless of their inkings.
Motorrad said:
Interesting thread. Policy here (large corporate) is that we don't employ people with visible tattoos. These aren't even customer facing roles for the most part.
Given that sales is about results I'll be amazed if 'main dealers' don't employ someone with a proven track record regardless of their inkings.
This is an issue I've had for many years with people being discounted because of tattoos. How do they differentiate between it being discrimination to not give a job to a black man because of the colour of his skin, but it not being discrimination to not give the job to someone because they have tattoos. Double standards!Given that sales is about results I'll be amazed if 'main dealers' don't employ someone with a proven track record regardless of their inkings.
I think it's one and the same, someone is being judged by their appearance even if they are the best for the job. Come on, non customer facing role and you still can't have tats? Could you explain to me the corporate justification for this if you know it? What is the problem with it?
I've never understood business that do it and can't wrap my head round it. I also can't wrap my head round how it isn't illegal to do it.
DottyMR2 said:
This is an issue I've had for many years with people being discounted because of tattoos. How do they differentiate between it being discrimination to not give a job to a black man because of the colour of his skin, but it not being discrimination to not give the job to someone because they have tattoos. Double standards!
I think it's one and the same, someone is being judged by their appearance even if they are the best for the job. Come on, non customer facing role and you still can't have tats? Could you explain to me the corporate justification for this if you know it? What is the problem with it?
I've never understood business that do it and can't wrap my head round it. I also can't wrap my head round how it isn't illegal to do it.
Me too. When the OP mentioned it in another thread I thought he was living in the past but it seems like maybe not.I think it's one and the same, someone is being judged by their appearance even if they are the best for the job. Come on, non customer facing role and you still can't have tats? Could you explain to me the corporate justification for this if you know it? What is the problem with it?
I've never understood business that do it and can't wrap my head round it. I also can't wrap my head round how it isn't illegal to do it.
Still haven't heard from any Main Dealers though
DocArbathnot said:
Why do anything that makes people hate you.
If someone doesn't care about this then why would I employ them.
Haha, shouldn't have posted that then because it's made me hate you.If someone doesn't care about this then why would I employ them.
Mind telling me what business you hire for? That way I can make sure to never support them in any way shape or form.
blindswelledrat said:
DocArbathnot said:
Why do anything that makes people hate you.
If someone doesn't care about this then why would I employ them.
Im sure the OP didn't get them done for the benefit of others.If someone doesn't care about this then why would I employ them.
To turn that around: Why post like a cock?
DottyMR2 said:
DocArbathnot said:
Why do anything that makes people hate you.
If someone doesn't care about this then why would I employ them.
Haha, shouldn't have posted that then because it's made me hate you.If someone doesn't care about this then why would I employ them.
Mind telling me what business you hire for? That way I can make sure to never support them in any way shape or form.
ETA It may depend on the tattoos and where. Hands, neck, face?
Edited by DocArbathnot on Wednesday 8th January 17:17
DottyMR2 said:
This is an issue I've had for many years with people being discounted because of tattoos. How do they differentiate between it being discrimination to not give a job to a black man because of the colour of his skin, but it not being discrimination to not give the job to someone because they have tattoos. Double standards!
I think it's one and the same, someone is being judged by their appearance even if they are the best for the job. Come on, non customer facing role and you still can't have tats? Could you explain to me the corporate justification for this if you know it? What is the problem with it?
I've never understood business that do it and can't wrap my head round it. I also can't wrap my head round how it isn't illegal to do it.
Absurd comparison. Beyond idiotic. I think it's one and the same, someone is being judged by their appearance even if they are the best for the job. Come on, non customer facing role and you still can't have tats? Could you explain to me the corporate justification for this if you know it? What is the problem with it?
I've never understood business that do it and can't wrap my head round it. I also can't wrap my head round how it isn't illegal to do it.
The only way one could possibly liken the 2 things would be to say you would be equally unlikely to hire someone with a tattoo as you would someone that turned up to an interview blacked up and singing 'Danny Boy'.
DottyMR2 said:
This is an issue I've had for many years with people being discounted because of tattoos. How do they differentiate between it being discrimination to not give a job to a black man because of the colour of his skin, but it not being discrimination to not give the job to someone because they have tattoos. Double standards!
You cannot choose to be black. You can however choose to either have your body permanently scared with ink and furthermore, you can also make the decision that if you want to get ink, you can put it on a piece of your body that can be easily hidden.Justayellowbadge said:
Absurd comparison. Beyond idiotic.
The only way one could possibly liken the 2 things would be to say you would be equally unlikely to hire someone with a tattoo as you would someone that turned up to an interview blacked up and singing 'Danny Boy'.
The only way one could possibly liken the 2 things would be to say you would be equally unlikely to hire someone with a tattoo as you would someone that turned up to an interview blacked up and singing 'Danny Boy'.
It's not that bad a comparison, for crying out loud.THe gist is the same i.e. shouldn't their ability to do the job come before appearance?
Also - there is a jolly good reason not to employ disableds and the blacks but I cant see the same for tattoods.
That bit was all a joke btw.
On a more positive note, a main dealer will respond better to a track record. Maybe try to get a job at an indie 1st to prove your worth, or a non customer facing position at a main dealer. If everyone likes and trusts you, your life will be easier than relying on 1st impressions at an interview.
blindswelledrat said:
:
THe gist is the same i.e. shouldn't their ability to do the job come before appearance?
.
I'm not sure it would be entirely unreasonable to suspect that someone who, following one too many Bacardi Breezers during a weekend in Skegness, decided it would be just ace to permanently mark themselves with a childlike drawing of Spongebob Squarepants fellating Hong Kong Phooey with the word 'Mum' scrawled underneath might be prone to the odd lapse of judgement. THe gist is the same i.e. shouldn't their ability to do the job come before appearance?
.
DottyMR2 said:
This is an issue I've had for many years with people being discounted because of tattoos. How do they differentiate between it being discrimination to not give a job to a black man because of the colour of his skin, but it not being discrimination to not give the job to someone because they have tattoos. Double standards!
I think it's one and the same, someone is being judged by their appearance even if they are the best for the job. Come on, non customer facing role and you still can't have tats? Could you explain to me the corporate justification for this if you know it? What is the problem with it?
I've never understood business that do it and can't wrap my head round it. I also can't wrap my head round how it isn't illegal to do it.
Because one can't choose the colour of one's skin when born, but can choose to make a visual statement about themselves by getting a tattoo is the answer. By the same token, would it be unfair to hire someone who attended an interview for a job demanding a professional approach wearing a suit versus someone who appears on paper to be equally qualified but who attended the interview wearing shorts and flip-flops? Isn't that discriminatory on their style of dressing? I think it's one and the same, someone is being judged by their appearance even if they are the best for the job. Come on, non customer facing role and you still can't have tats? Could you explain to me the corporate justification for this if you know it? What is the problem with it?
I've never understood business that do it and can't wrap my head round it. I also can't wrap my head round how it isn't illegal to do it.
Like it or not, life is discriminatory. We like to think that we have evolved enough to not discriminate in a modern society not on basis of age, or gender, or race where those issues are irrelevant to the task at hand. But inevitably discrimination of one sort or another is inherent to any human's ability to make a decision. Visual appearance is obviously a key way in which we make judgements (i.e. discriminations - rightly or wrongly) about other people. For many people, a tattoo on the neck or face creates a negative impression. Possibly they might be brilliant salespeople, but hey ho, they'll have to work harder to convince an interviewer.
DocArbathnot said:
jimbop1 said:
DocArbathnot said:
Why do anything that makes people hate you.
If someone doesn't care about this then why would I employ them.
Why would anyone hate him for having a visible tattoo?! If someone doesn't care about this then why would I employ them.
ked up to actually 'hate' someone for having a visible tattoo!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff