So, having tats (and piercings) can lose you that dream job.
Um, well…
I’ve discussed dress codes here before. Although I can’t say that I am over impressed when employers decide upon certain dress codes, there is an important point to bear in mind. Their gaff, their rules.
The law, as it stands, allows employers – or potential employers – to discriminate on the grounds of dress. Allowing, even, different codes for men and women (Schmitt v Austicks Bookshops 1977). I’m mildly surprised this one hasn’t been overturned yet given that common law does eventually reflect changing public opinion and changing public opinion is more relaxed about clothing than it was when the case was fought. However, it stands and one reason that it stands is that the restrictions – even if different – must be equally restrictive for both sexes.
Which brings me to body art. Personally, tats put me off – I really, really don’t like them. Likewise facial piercings. I have my ears pierced and no one bothers about it as pierced ears – even for men – is perfectly normal. Besides, during working hours and when at clients I wear plain gold sleepers or studs, so they aren’t overt. I could take them out completely if I so chose and if the client insisted. It really wouldn’t be a problem.
Tats on the other hand are permanent. So there is a problem. If they can be covered, fine, and that would be the sensible approach. Simply wear long sleeves or trousers that cover the ink. Job done. An employer who still gets arsey when they are covered is being unreasonable, frankly.
But what about the person who has facial tats or on the hand or neck where they can’t be covered? Well, if they and the employer can’t come to an agreement, then it’s back to their gaff and all that. When I had a conflict some years back over the length of my hair, I won because the employer wasn’t being consistent and didn’t have a written dress code. Would I cut my hair for an employer? Fuck off. No one tells me how long I wear my hair. However, I make my choices and deal with the consequences.
An employer is inevitably going to think about how their business appears to the wider world – clients in particular. So they will tend to insist upon dress codes or uniforms for customer facing staff and if they think that tats will put off customers, then a no tats rule is their prerogative. It’s less reasonable to impose the same rule for the IT geek sitting in a back room coding, though, and likely as not a court would not find in the employer’s favour in such a situation.
But, is discriminating against tats a breach of human rights, which is the undercurrent of the BBC piece? Oh, do me a favour, please. No one is born with tats or piercings. They are a choice and as with all choices there are other factors to consider. If you get your body inked that’s up to you, but be prepared to accept that not everyone will like it and if that someone is an employer, well, you did it to yourself and you have no one else to blame. You may love your tats. That doesn’t and shouldn’t give you carte blanche to force others to accept them on their premises or to employ you, for that is their choice. No one has a right to a job. No employer is obliged to provide you with one. It’s an exchange. Life is full of compromises and sometimes those compromises come with a high cost. So if you decide to get yourself inked, it could cost you a job. It’s now up to you to decide, but the law should not be changed to accommodate your decision.
So, the question then:
It followed a Magazine article which asked whether discrimination against people with tattoos should be banned in the workplace.
Simple answer; “no”.
Tattoos say something about the person.
What levels of self-control does this person have? Does he think about the consequences of his actions?
Thay do save time at interviews, though. Another filter is funny names, if you get my drift.
“I turned up in a T shirt with Fuck You on the front
And the boss just one look at me and decided I’m a c…”
You can listen to the full glorious song here :
http://chascmusic.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/living-on-the-dole/
I think some tats can be discrete and even tasteful. Having ‘mom’ and ‘dad ‘ in Indian ink across your knuckles, not so much I used to know a bloke (don’t ask) who had a swastika planted in the middle of his forehead. As you can imagine this fella had some major issues, which luckily for his potential colleagues were never expressed during work hours, as strangely enough, he could never get a job.
Personally I am not a fan of Tattoos or body piercing, i didn’t even get my ears pierced till I was 18, but I especially dislike face tattoos I find it intensely intimidating and off putting, but that is my problem not the person who is tattooed.
My daughter has several tattoos all designed by her and 2 of the 3 are pretty and quite delicate the third is an ugly monstrosity on her thigh, she loves it and it is her choice, when she works she keeps them covered and to my mind that is as it should be.
Bit difficult to cover facial tattoos unless you wear a muslim dress and veil.
Some people with facial tattoos maybe very nice people but the ones I have encountered have always had a propensity to be aggressive and a massive ship on their shoulder.
When it comes to workplace ethos I agree their gaff their rules.
Kath G – I loved your – what I presume was a – typo! “a massive ship on their shoulder.” After all, it was “talk like a pirate” day last week.
oops my dyslexia is always an issue when I am in a hurry or should that be a Har har haruy jim lad.
Dress code and appearance are about standards, rules and consistency. So saying an employer is being reasonable not to accept, for example, tattos for customer contact staff, but may not be being reasonable for backroom staff, misses the point.
At school, in the workplace that oft heard refrain when someone is not allowed to do as they like: ‘But sir, you let so and so do/wear/etc such and such so its unfair (stamp foot) not to let me get away with this and that.´ And in this modern age that means an industrial tribunal or the police and/or a criminal trial.
The whole ishoo and sorry mess in the UK about Christian Crosses, Islo-wear, etc can be traced back to that ‘reasonable’ but fateful decision allowing Sikhs to be excused bike helmets or other headgear required for everyone else, because it interferred with their turnban without which the Cosmos will grind to a halt.
Once you make one exception, the exception becomes the rule… the ubiquitous ‘unforseen consequences’ at which the political and ‘liberal’ classes excel.
Dress codes can and do differ across a business. It depends on the business need. Providing it is clearly laid out and consistently applied, then there is no problem. I would not expect the same standards of dress to apply to back-room staff that apply to customer facing. I’ve been at both ends of this and have no problem with it. I do have and always will have a problem with the idea of blind obedience to an employer. The employment contract is a negotiated agreement (albeit lopsided) – it is not serfdom.
You are wrong about the reasoning as to why Sikhs were excused helmets when the ridiculous motorcycle helmet compulsion was introduced. The argument raised in parliament at the time was that the Sikhs had fought in WWII (and previous wars) for the UK without having to wear tin helmets and their courage and effort was considered to have been advantageous to us and so a reasonable exception was granted to them when it came to motorcycle helmets.
Yes, it is a made up belief system for the mentally ill as are all religions, but the reason for exception was honourable.
‘ made up belief system ‘ So how do you react to the latest research from Germany in which the scientists say after properly conducted empirical research, that life after death exists? They then go on to apologise for all the upset that this revalation will cause.
It’s a hoax?
No they don’t!
http://badsatiretoday.com/german-scientists-prove-life-after-death/
Human body tattoos and piercings are a form of decoration; and just as how a decorated room with colours and objects appear to me, I either like or dislike it. I have individual human right to avoid the disliked decoration. If you don’t like my decoration you have equal right to avoid it. It follows we all also have equal rights to avoid the decorated person or room we dislike. So if I dislike you or a room, I have a human right not to employ you as labour or employ the room for labour. It is NOT discrimination, it is FREEDOM of choice.
My son has a massive ship on his shoulder, it’s rather good. It’s a 3 masted sailing ship, easily covered up with a shirt and hasn’t prevented him from joining the police.