If discrimination is wrong, should employers have the right to discriminate against an employee because he or she has a tattoo? I saw this article where this young man had 80 tattoos on his body and had to cover it with make-up.
In my conservative opinion, he looks weird, so now, he wants to make a big fuss about having to cover up his tattoo art. If that's the case and people keep complaining about discrimination, then employers will just stop hiring people who don't fit the norm.
It is interesting to discuss because my daughter who is 17 wants to get a tattoo. I told her she could when she is 18, but she needs to put it were she can cover it up. Then, I saw this article. Many Americans seem to want to complain about discrimination, but I believe they make themselves targets when they color their hair purple, spike it, or wear odd clothes and tattoos, what do you think?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 22
The employer should be able to make any conditions for employment and continued employment she likes. It's her money.
The problem is there is no way in our culture given the nature of our money for reconciliation of these two "shoulds". Whether a person has a tattoo or not isn't a problem with my system so I know it must be a problem produced by the nature our money. People don't work for each other, they work with each other in my system. It's all up to them. But discrimination based on anything but performance costs those who discriminate and those who support them money in my system. Therefore there is a constant and pervasive pressure to discriminate only on the basis of performance.
That is part of the fun of being an owner. You should get to do it your way.
I think there is some tolerance down here but I really think if you are greeting the public and representing the place... it would be a problem getting a job if you had tattoos that were frightening... and it's up to the owner.
I remember the signs back in the 70's that said, "Help wanted - No Long haired men" Because of the establishment preferring crew cuts... owners didn't want to hire men without them.
There should not be any laws for discrimination in the workplace for having a visible tattoo, those who choose to ink themselves already know the possible consequences......
YES, You're tagged!
(That tear drop was in bad taste!)
There are many kinds of discrimination. You discriminate against meat if you're a vegetarian so it's not that discrimination is wrong, but it's the type of discrmination that can be wrong. An employer who discriminates against prospective employees for their race, religion, nationality, or age is against the law. Otherwise, they're going to discriminate. I've seen employers make decisions on men based on their looks when the skills and experience were about equal because they had to represent the company's firm at client sites. They don't tell you that, but you can tell by whom they choose when that kind of option is before them.
This is why recruiters used to spend a good deal of time prepping a candidate for an interview. Now they have plenty of good online advice for how to dress, what to say and not to say in an interview. They're not going to tell you that they didn't hire you because they didn't like your tattoos; they just won't hire you if they don't like them.
Ditto!!!! I was about to point this out.