Tattoos and uniform
Discussion
While I can't understand why people choose to self injure and pay to have tattoos permanently etched into their skins, I guess it is their bodies and they have the right to do so.
However went to a restaurant the other day and the staff were neatly dressed in uniforms, however the young lady who was serving us had the most horrid tattoos on her arms and hand. One of the tattoos looked like a monk or some sort of hooded figure without a face, it was haunting
Another waiter looked like he had wire pocking out from his nostrils.
Why have uniforms if you hire staff that have disfigured themselves?
However went to a restaurant the other day and the staff were neatly dressed in uniforms, however the young lady who was serving us had the most horrid tattoos on her arms and hand. One of the tattoos looked like a monk or some sort of hooded figure without a face, it was haunting
Another waiter looked like he had wire pocking out from his nostrils.
Why have uniforms if you hire staff that have disfigured themselves?
So that you can tell who is staff and who isn't? I'm not a fan of tattoos, but they're an inescapable fact of modern life. Saying that tattoos are incompatible with uniforms is like saying people who look different or who have birthmarks are incompatible with a uniform. Does it matter whether someone has a mark on their skin from birth versus had the mark applied after birth?
LunarOne said:
So that you can tell who is staff and who isn't? I'm not a fan of tattoos, but they're an inescapable fact of modern life. Saying that tattoos are incompatible with uniforms is like saying people who look different or who have birthmarks are incompatible with a uniform. Does it matter whether someone has a mark on their skin from birth versus had the mark applied after birth?
Well yes, a birth mark or skin scarring is natural and unavoidable. Getting a tattoo is a conscious act of vanity that serves no purpose except to
indicate the owner has issues of low self esteem.
Cantaloupe said:
Well yes, a birth mark or skin scarring is natural and unavoidable.
Getting a tattoo is a conscious act of vanity that serves no purpose except to
indicate the owner has issues of low self esteem.
Said with such authority whilst being a mere uninformed opinion or an unexamined belief. Getting a tattoo is a conscious act of vanity that serves no purpose except to
indicate the owner has issues of low self esteem.
People make statements like this sometimes as they have low self esteem issues.
OP - worrying about or letting such trivialities bother you is a waste of good rant time; did the waiter/ess do a good job? That's all that matters really.
Evanivitch said:
Macski said:
Why have uniforms if you hire staff that have disfigured themselves?
Why would you not hire someone based on their appearance? There's nothing offensive or unhygienic about tattoos.And then it's a judgement call.
Where do you draw the line (no pun) between a rose on lady's ankle and a swastika on somebody's forehead?
Where I work (airline), we have a uniform and no visible tattoos policy for cabin crew. I don’t think these policies usually apply to the pilots. The pilots that do have tattoos tend to have them so they can wear a short sleeve shirt and not see them.
The crew with loads of tattoos, have to wear long sleeve tops and trousers in the hot weather to cover them up. Then you meet at the hotel bar or pool and you think ‘woah where did that come from’. It’s often very interesting how people all look similar in uniform and then after a flight how different everyone looks when they’re in their own clothes and literally have their hair down.
The crew with loads of tattoos, have to wear long sleeve tops and trousers in the hot weather to cover them up. Then you meet at the hotel bar or pool and you think ‘woah where did that come from’. It’s often very interesting how people all look similar in uniform and then after a flight how different everyone looks when they’re in their own clothes and literally have their hair down.
Voldemort said:
Evanivitch said:
Macski said:
Why have uniforms if you hire staff that have disfigured themselves?
Why would you not hire someone based on their appearance? There's nothing offensive or unhygienic about tattoos.And then it's a judgement call.
Where do you draw the line (no pun) between a rose on lady's ankle and a swastika on somebody's forehead?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Because (as you can read above) some customers don’t like it and the employer might think it doesn’t look smart or professional or they’re worried about the tattoos sending a message or they think it conflicts with the image of the company or that the employee is making statements or whatever other reason they’re against it. Evanivitch said:
No, you're offended, that doesn't make it offensive.
Why am I willing to bet that most people offended by tattoos are 40+ and a bit melty?
But if those are a large percentage of your customers, why risk upsetting them?Why am I willing to bet that most people offended by tattoos are 40+ and a bit melty?
It’s up to the individual if they get tattoos or spacers in their ear or dye their hair blue or whatever but those choices you make that single you out won’t be acceptable to some employers in the workplace. It’s common sense isn’t it?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff