Is it wrong for employers to have a policy against visible tattoos?

  • Yes and No-But Mainly Yes

    I always make sure my tattoos are covered when I'm working, not because people tell me to, but because I want to.

    I believe in a balance of professionalism and individualism.

    By this, I mean I like the idea of covering up our body markings and pretending to be "normal" and then revealing to others that we were no different.

    Until people realize that tattoos are not unprofessional, I would like to have that balance to prove the judgmental people a point.

    I would actually like to hire an applicant even more if they qualify and refuse to cover up their tattoos in abhorrence of the thought of tattoos being "unprofessional." It shows they refuse to conform when they aren't hurting anyone, and that's the type of employee I want.

  • Yes it is

    Just because someone has a tattoo doesn't change how they can work, people can have poor judgment towards someone with tattoos. Colleen Harris is a librarian who has tattoos cascading from her arms to her ankles. She has multiple masters degrees and works at the university of Kentucky as a librarian

  • Yes, it is wrong

    Tattoo discrimination is wrong. I think people with tattoos should be able to have the same job as someone who doesn't have tattoos. If someone wanted to be a doctor or a nurse and had tattoos, they wouldn't be able too. Tattoos are just a way of self expression not a sign or rebellion or being in a gang.

  • Yes, it's discrimination.

    Tattoos are a form of self expression and employers should not have the right to force people to cover them up. Some tattoos also have religious meaning behind them, or are a part of a religion. It is unfair to discriminate against people with tattoos, especially people with tattoos that are a part of their religion. Having tattoos does not make someone a bad person, or make them bad at their job.

  • Yes it is wrong and totally unfounded.

    Tattoos have always been around, since ancient times, it used to be a right of passage, at time even religious. More and more people are getting tattoos these days and it is becoming more and more common. To not hire based on looks is despicable when that person could be the most qualified. A company will lose out on some of the best workers when doing this. Give it up already and get with the times.

  • Having policies against tattoos is discrimination.

    While there are definitely jobs where visible tattoos might not belong, having a policy against employees with tattoos is discrimination. Choosing a non-tattooed individual instead of a tattooed worker with the same qualifications is no different than choosing a Caucasian applicant over an African-American one. It would be no different than choosing a man instead of an equally qualified woman. After years of pushing for equality women and non-Caucasians are just now overcoming workplace discrimination and it does not make sense to repeat the same battle with tattooed workers.

  • Yes it is wrong for employers to have a policy against visible tattoos.

    I do not think visible tattoos cause any harm to anyone in a workplace setting. Employers should not try to stifle employees and make them feel like they can not be themselves. I think if employers want employees to be the best at what they are doing, they should allow a little more freedom in the workplace.

  • Yes it is wrong

    Having tattoos does not change the person, does not change their qualifications and does not effect them what so ever. If others are 'offended'' by it who cares. I'm offended by their face when people say they are offended by tattoos on my body, but you don't see me covering their face up do ya.

  • Unless they work with the public

    I see no reason to discriminate unless the person works with the public. A member of the public coming into a business may be put off by a skull tattoo, for instance. It does no harm for a cubicle worker to have tattoos if he types on the computer all day and then goes home.

    Posted by: Jora
  • No, tattoos are a choice.

    No, many employers are trying to maintain a certain image for their business. If that image does not include people with visible tattoos, that is their right. People make a choice about getting a tattoo. It's not like gender, sexual orientation, or race, none of which are a choice, and therefore should be protected.

  • No, it is not wrong for employers to have a policy against visible tattooes.

    Nobody wants to see your tattoos. Employers put these rules in place so that you don't scare off their customers. Don't blame the employer because at least they are nice enough to hire you. A visible tattoo is just asking to not get hired. All employers should have this policy, even tattoo parlors.

  • Businesses have dress codes, tattoos should go along with that.

    One is not born with a tattoo. It's not discriminatory because it's not something a person cannot help. Job opportunities should be considered when choosing to get a tattoo. It is your own decision and you may meet with repercussions later as you will with many choices in your life. You made your bed, you lie in it.

  • No it isn't wrong.

    For a employer to not hire some based on a tattoo is within their right. Just like it is with in a businesses right to deny service or ask some one to leave their business. While a tattoo is a form of self expression ( I myself have 5) there are limits. If a employee has a job the deals with customers then have a going face tattoo may drive potential customers away from that business. A person with a full sleeve or jail inspired tattoos may come off as intimidating to some people. Yes tattoos are becoming more commonplace, but are still not as widely accepted as people think they are. I for one would have serious second thoughts about trusting say a doctor that was telling me I was sick if they had a face full of tattoos and piercing. I don't think all tattoos are bad nor should a tattoo that can be mostly covered be a automatic dismissal from being hired. However common sense needs to put into play some where. And as an employer I would have to questions a persons judgement if they were to have a tattoo on their face or neck.

  • No it isn't.

    An employer has a certain kind of image they wish to portray to their customers. Their employees are an extension of that - probably the most impactful aspect of their business that people will remember.

    If someone wants to make themselves less competitive in the job market by having a hand, neck, or face tattoo, that was their own choice.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.