Amazon.com Widgets

Should people with tattoos be required for every job?

Asked by: Sydney-Jans
  • Just because you have ink doesn't mean your not qualified

    Most policies of company's are that tattoos must be covered. I simply disagree, why would you want to hide perfectly good art now I understand some people might get "offended" by the art work but why is it any of there concern? We as people should have equal rights. We shouldn't be characterized by the amount of tattoos on your body. Or your opinion on someone's tattoos. Don't be so concerned on someone's appearance focus on their potential.

  • Having tattoos doesn't decide our ability to for a job

    A job has its own requirements ,and if we are able to do a job whole hearted Ly then having a tattoo is not a mater of concern tatoo is our hobby and job is our requirement or in other words our duty if we can do our duty satisfyingly then their is no question of tatoos the vision every person judging us in a job interview should not be on what we wear or what we look alike but they should look at what is our ability and why they require us
    so in the conclusion i would say that if we interested in any job for which we have the potential then the tattoos we have cant be barrier.In the famous word ofThomas Friedman

    When I was growing up, my parents told me, 'Finish your dinner. People in China and India are starving.' I tell my daughters, 'Finish your homework. People in India and China are starving for your job.'
    my point is we are already so back in economic rates so please allow the tattoos one may be they could change our future

  • This question doesn't even make sense.

    Are you saying that a law should be passed that you can only get a job if you have a tattoo? In the way the question is worded, that is the only possible interpretation. And the obvious answer to that is no. Word your question more reasonably next time... Adieu.

  • Just because you have a tattoo doesnt mean you are qualified for a job.

    This is going to get businesses to hire people based on their appearance and not based on how good the worker is. Companies should hire people based on their potential, not based on whether you have a tattoo. This does nothing but encourages businesses to choose person with a tattoo over a person without one for a job. So no, it makes no sense to require businesses to hire people with tattoos.

  • You are hired to "look the part". Not to be your self.

    You get paid by someone else, they decide who they want to work for them and what they want them to look like.
    Start your own business if you want to work looking the way you want. I'm sure the people at McDonalds are thrilled about having to wear a uniform, but they wear it anyway because it's a requirement of the job.

  • Sorry i don't know

    Copy Don't judge a book by its cover. This can mean to not push away the strange. But it can also mean to not push away the normal. Tattoos could mean that some one is very creative and artistic. Yet with no tattoos, some one could simply be mindful about permanent decisions. Though, there also is also no reason to segregate people with tattoos. In conclusion, tattoos do not place a person in a superior place in society yet it does not destroy them.

  • Sorry i don't know

    Copy Don't judge a book by its cover. This can mean to not push away the strange. But it can also mean to not push away the normal. Tattoos could mean that some one is very creative and artistic. Yet with no tattoos, some one could simply be mindful about permanent decisions. Though, there also is also no reason to segregate people with tattoos. In conclusion, tattoos do not place a person in a superior place in society yet it does not destroy them.

  • What kind of requirement is this?!

    Having or not having tattoos has nothing to do with a person's ability to fulfil certain job requirements, for example reaching certain standards in math, science or language abilities. It has nothing to do with a person's physical ability, emotional stability, etc. There is no reason tattoos should be used as a requirement or qualification. Tattoos in no way reflect whether or not a person is efficient or hard-working.

  • Tattoos have a social stigma.

    I believe that employers should be able to hire the employees who they believe will best help their business to succeed. Tattoos in general have a social stigma and some are particularly offensive. A business should not have to hire someone with "F*** you" tattooed across his forehead and pay financial consequences for their employee's desire to advertise to the world that he is a moron.

  • What people look like has the nothing to do with work.

    Don't judge a book by its cover. This can mean to not push away the strange. But it can also mean to not push away the normal. Tattoos could mean that some one is very creative and artistic. Yet with no tattoos, some one could simply be mindful about permanent decisions. Though, there also is also no reason to segregate people with tattoos. In conclusion, tattoos do not place a person in a superior place in society yet it does not destroy them.

  • What people look like has the nothing to do with work.

    Don't judge a book by its cover. This can mean to not push away the strange. But it can also mean to not push away the normal. Tattoos could mean that some one is very creative and artistic. Yet with no tattoos, some one could simply be mindful about permanent decisions. Though, there also is also no reason to segregate people with tattoos. In conclusion, tattoos do not place a person in a superior place in society yet it does not destroy them.


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