Would you employ somebody with obvious tattoos?

ZigBee

If some guy with facial tatoos, indeed tattoos on his lower arms walked in looking for a job, would you employ him?

There seems to be some kind of tattoo mania on the streets these days. I've never seen so many generics with tattoos on their lower backs or with chinesey symboly thingies on their arms. And as for the punk rockers scrawled all over their bodies! You've got to feel sorry for them.

larryone

Well obviously if you ask people on a piercings and tattoos forum this question, they're going to answer with some bias.
No I would not turn down a perspective employee because of a tattoo, if I were in such a position to do so...

Lower backs and upper arms generally dont show in a job interview. Personally, I would not get tattood in a place that I couldnt cover with a suit.

Stark

It depends on the tattoo. Many tattoos are quite tasteful while others scream "scumbag". Also it would depend on the job. Some jobs are welcoming to eccentric people due to the nature of the jobs. For other jobs, you can only have the most straight and narrow of people.

Blub2k4

I work in a place where there are three of us very heavily tattooed on the forearms, we work in a technology company so we are valued for our tech and our languages so the tats dont enter into it. We all walk around at times with arms uncovered and never a word said, that said all of us clean up well in a suit and that's all that matters.

Reku

I work in a technology company too but they're not as accepting as your's sadly, made me ditch my nails (had them all filed to a point, meant that I didn't tend to get dirt under them since the flats were at an angle to the main direction of movement of the nails against anything, personal OCD, now instead I tend to keep them cut back to just where the skin ceases to connect to the nail so I don't spend half the day cleaning dirt from under them. The filed nails were also damn hand for opening packages and stuff.)
I've two tattoos but both are hidden so they can't complain about them, the next few will be too but there is one I'd like to get on my face so that'll have to wait 'til I retire.

Blub2k4

OT
what were you thinking of getting done on your face?

Reku

Blub2k4 wrote:

OT
what were you thinking of getting done on your face?

OT???
Just a simple custom design, both tatoos I've so far and all the others I hope to get are custom designs. Wouldn't bother getting anything which I just saw and liked the look of or some silly fashion thing, these are personal so at least 20 years from now, unless I've completely changed as a person they'll still hold meaning for me. Guess you next question will be why does one of them have to go on my face? Well is the position not as important as the image as regards the meaning of a tatoo?

Blub2k4

OT means off-topic. as this is a side discussion to the original posters and not On-topic.

I'm just wondering about the facial tattoo as it is kinda the last taboo with tats after hands as it is there is no covering it when you present yourself to people.
I find it a little hardcore myself and think you would have to be very sure of your professional position and in life to have it done.
That's all.

Reku

Yeah, I was looking into the possibility of a blacklight tatoo but I need to know for certain that it wouldn't be visible under normal light (the tattoos are for me, couldn't care if no-one else ever sees them after they're done)



But you'll notice the outline around the tattoo under normal light in that pic. I'll just have to be ultra patient instead I think...

Blub2k4

You will always see the scar from putting the ink in, so I dunno if the scar would be acceptable to you.

Blisterman

I probably wouldn't hire someone with tatoos on their face, because, to be honest, I'd think they were either weird or really dumb to get their face tatooed.

Reku

Blisterman wrote:

I probably wouldn't hire someone with tatoos on their face, because, to be honest, I'd think they were either weird or really dumb to get their face tatooed.

The only reason you perceive it as "weird" is because it has yet to become socially acceptable, piercings are no less weird. As to "stupid" that's a matter of oppinion, it's no less permanent than the scars most people who get their eyebrows pierced and have something happen to ruin it end up with, is risking a bald patch in the middle of your eyebrow not stupid? What about all the problems with tongue piercings, having to survive on yoghurt and baby food 'til it heals, the damage to the teeth that piercings around the mouth tend to cause. Then there's bellybutton piercings, prone to getting infected and tend to end up quite sore since your clothing tends to rub against it.
Nipple piercings, just asking to be pulled.
Should I go on?
"Stupid" and "weird" are but society's current viewpoints, do you think the Americans in the bible belt view themselves as stupid the way they want to have their kids taught creationism as opposed to the theory of evolution?
In Ireland if someone doesn't drink they're "weird", in hardline muslim countries alcohol is illegal.

Blub2k4

In fairness though about the only place that facial tattoos have EVER ( there are possible exceptions ) been socially acceptable has been in Polynesia, maori, tongan etc warriors and then only to intimidate their enemies, while also representing their tribe.
The only people I know in Ireland with them are tattoo artists, although I did see a guy one day on Westmoreland st with a large tribal running from his arm up his face.
I'd employ someone with tattoos regardless of where they were, but I do see why people have problems with them and the job would also play a role, if it was a public facing job then you have to take the target public into account and let that help in the decision.

Reku

The Celts.

Anyway, I agree that if it's a PR job you should do your best to look as plain and unthreatening as possible, but for many other jobs it really should have no impact. It does though because of peoples' perceptions about the type of people who get tattoos, even though a large number of guys these days have some sort of band (celtic, or elven since LoTR) or the like on their arm and a very large number of girls have a rose/star/dolphin/fairy on their back/hip many older people still connect tattoos with thugs and low-lifes, even in a poor attempt at a documentary about tattoos they had on RTE a few weeks back the interviewer only made one attempt to ask a normal looking middle class person if they had a tattoo, most of the rest were either quite rough looking individuals or clearly lower class, as such, "documentaries" done this badly only serve to perpetuate this image people seem to have of those who get tattoos.

Now if a female PR person had a fairy tattoo on their face I certainly wouldn't care, not exactly a hostile or offensive image now is it? If the person had to travel abroad though, then it might become an issue due to the different cultures (e.g. in a predominantly strict Christian/Jewish region any tattoo would be frowned upon since technically it's a sin against God). If it were a guy PR person with a fairy as long as the belief people would undoubtedly have about him being gay (if he worked for a company that's clients were mostly straight males, due to the risk of homophobia) wouldn't cause problems then again I feel what difference if he has the tatoo on his face.
There are people out there with promenant birthmarks, large moles, etc... on their faces which people will often stare at, should this be considered when they apply for a job? Afterall just as you can argue that people choose to get tattoos these people could choose to have their feature removed.

Traditionally getting your hair cut extremely short/with a razor was associated with the army or prisons, i.e. tough thuggish blokes, yet now most of the guys out there seem to go for this haircut, it's now socially acceptable.
Heck, even shaving it all off altogether has become more acceptable.

Let's face it, in a way many women effectively apply a temporary tattoo to their faces on a daily basis.

Blub2k4

I'd be interested in any information you have on the traditional celtic tattoos.
There is not a lot of info about unfortunately.

Reku

I believe it mostly tended to be spirals and such. But then the celts actually had quite a few rather brutal things which they deemed socially acceptable (e.g. bathing in the opponent's blood) so I suppose they weren't the best example.

memphis

It really depends on the job to be honest. Some would rown on a tattoo or peircing, while in a different environment it maybe totally accpetable.

I personally wouyld never get a tattoo in a "questionable" place that can't easily be covered up by a shirt or suit, etc.

DonkeyStyle \o/

I wouldn't think that much into someones tattoos... (swasticas aside) ... but I'm not an employer.
But some interviewers these days are so into making baseless, snap-judgements about people that they'd immediately think "hmm, wreckless, no respect for authority, blah blah blah, this is what a management book told me to think - who am I to argue?".
Although the irony here is that ignoring the likelihood these baseless assumptions and getting your hands or face tattoo'ed, means you do act without thinking of the consequences and/or don't care... which obviously doesn't do you any favours.

Blub2k4

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

I wouldn't think that much into someones tattoos... (swasticas aside) ... but I'm not an employer.
But some interviewers these days are so into making baseless, snap-judgements about people that they'd immediately think "hmm, wreckless, no respect for authority, blah blah blah, this is what a management book told me to think - who am I to argue?".
Although the irony here is that ignoring the likelihood these baseless assumptions and getting your hands or face tattoo'ed, means you do act without thinking of the consequences and/or don't care... which obviously doesn't do you any favours.

I like the swastika, but taken in its older form, pre-nazi perversion of the symbol, it is one of the oldest life symbols there is, have a look here http://www.manwoman.net/, very interesting stuff particularly the whole gentle swastika idea, well worth a look.

Reku

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

I wouldn't think that much into someones tattoos... (swasticas aside) ... but I'm not an employer.
But some interviewers these days are so into making baseless, snap-judgements about people that they'd immediately think "hmm, wreckless, no respect for authority, blah blah blah, this is what a management book told me to think - who am I to argue?".
Although the irony here is that ignoring the likelihood these baseless assumptions and getting your hands or face tattoo'ed, means you do act without thinking of the consequences and/or don't care... which obviously doesn't do you any favours.

Unless you're a security guard/bouncer, when it's almost expected of you.

Could you not also make the same baseless assumption that if someone is:
overweight - they must be lazy
friendly - they'll spend the day chatting by the water cooler
distant, not too warm - probably spend the day avoiding people and surfing the web.
smart - cocky and arrogant, will always dispute management's methods thinking they know better.
etc...

Either way, with society as it is it'll be retirement day before I get the tattoo on my face.

DonkeyStyle \o/

farohar wrote:

Could you not also make the same baseless assumption that if someone is:
overweight - they must be lazy

Yeah, I'm quite sure there are interviewers out there that'd think like that... bloody wanna-be fortune tellers some of these guys. :rolleyes:
I think it's all about playing by their rules as much as you can... as much as it sickens me.

padser

def wouldnt employ anyone with a viasable tatoo. not unless there was absolutely no other suitable applicants, and even then id probably re advertise the position

Blub2k4

padser wrote:

def wouldnt employ anyone with a viasable tatoo. not unless there was absolutely no other suitable applicants, and even then id probably re advertise the position

Would you care to explain why? Are you actually in a position to hire and fire people? Interested to hear about this from someone who is in such a position.

Blub2k4

padser wrote:

def wouldnt employ anyone with a viasable tatoo. not unless there was absolutely no other suitable applicants, and even then id probably re advertise the position

Just to explore this a little more, if you employed someone dressed in a suit with no tats visible, were blown away by their CV and abilities and when they got to work where there is a casual dress code you see they have both their arms fully tattooed, what would you then do?

gom

Personally I have no tatts yet. Been thinking about getting a trible spiral for a while. Probably once the cash flow improves. I would have no problem getting a tattoo almost anywhere on my body. I work in what can be described as a Professoinal and PR orintated company and I'm also an International representiative for a political National Youth organisation.
I wouldn't get a tat on my face because I think it would just make me look ugly. I would consider getting something on my hands(can you get your palms done?) but its just too small a surface area for a decent tat that I could imagine getting.
I would absolutely no problem employing anyone with Tattoos that are in obvious locations except the face. The reason being if someone is staring into someones face and at their tats and not their eyes its a distraction. If the person is staring at their tats on their arms that person is rude. If they are distracted at making eye contact thats a different matter. I do however think that with the taboo getting weaker that this might disapat but I would not be the one leading the break against the taboo.

As for the other locations. No problem. Its more important what the design is as oppose to where. If I see someone with a Swastika, Hardcore sexual imagery(nudity is ok), Anything soccer related, Nationalist symbolism, really bad tattoo work(think ageing Sailors)... Tasteful for the job and unoffensive. If someone is offended by tattoos Full Stop then they have the problem in my eyes. If the tattoo is of an offensive nature or questionable then its the highway...

So. Never get the TriColour or any other Irish Pride type junk. Thats not a taboo in my eyes that will ever change. Nationalism is a poison that I will never support

_sara_

if they were nice and polite but coverd in tattoos then ye defintly but if they were not nice then no so it really depends on what the person is like...tattoos are just art on a person it doesnt mean they're not nice ppl so definitly yes!!

oq4v3ht0u76kf2

gom wrote:

So. Never get the TriColour or any other Irish Pride type junk. Thats not a taboo in my eyes that will ever change. Nationalism is a poison that I will never support

Every time I put on an Irish army shirt or smock there is a tricolour placed over my left shoulder. This makes me immensely proud - so much so that I will soon have a small 0.5cm x 2cm tricolour on my left shoulder, permanently. Am I poisoned? Is having pride in your country, your culture and your ancestors really considered a poison these days? Please lets not derail the thread with this discussion so perhaps you could PM me any response you may have.

Dave

It really depends on the type of industry.

Business (i.e. Investment Banking, Stockbroking etc.) / Law / Sales - No
Engineering / Science / Construction etc. - Wouldn't be a problem

Basically, if I was an employer looking for a person for a job, where people will be dealing with other people face to face on a regular basis then I assume it would be bad for business for that person to have visible tattoos. This would be primarily due to societys hang ups with tattoos. As an employer you have to gear your staff to the needs of the customer.

On the other hand it wouldn't matter a shíte if the person was going for a job where personal appearance wouldn't affect the customer in any way.

gom

Bob wrote:

Every time I put on an Irish army shirt or smock there is a tricolour placed over my left shoulder. This makes me immensely proud - so much so that I will soon have a small 0.5cm x 2cm tricolour on my left shoulder, permanently. Am I poisoned? Is having pride in your country, your culture and your ancestors really considered a poison these days? Please lets not derail the thread with this discussion so perhaps you could PM me any response you may have.

AS I don;t think its fair that you can critic my views of Nationalistic Tats and request that I only PM reply I'll post one rebuff OT and the rest can take place in another thread or in PM.

Pride in ones nation is irrational and segtarian. I'll go into detail with anyone who PMs me explaining why they are proud to be Irish.
AS for your Ancestory and Culture. These are no doubt HIGHLY intermixed with British culture and British Blood. Irish Legal structures, political organisation, laws, language, traditions, religion, food etc etc. I could go on. The fact that our history is completely influenced or a reaction to British Culture intrinsically links them for ever more. Being proud of your Irishness in someway means you must accept the British influence on Irish society or that being Irish is a critic or reaction to being BRitish.

Nationalist Tattoos of any nation are divisive. I would say the same about Soccer tattoos. Basically nationalism and Club membership is link Gang tats in American prisons.

Reku

Dave wrote:

It really depends on the type of industry.

Business (i.e. Investment Banking, Stockbroking etc.) / Law / Sales - No
Engineering / Science / Construction etc. - Wouldn't be a problem

Basically, if I was an employer looking for a person for a job, where people will be dealing with other people face to face on a regular basis then I assume it would be bad for business for that person to have visible tattoos. This would be primarily due to societys hang ups with tattoos. As an employer you have to gear your staff to the needs of the customer.

On the other hand it wouldn't matter a shíte if the person was going for a job where personal appearance wouldn't affect the customer in any way.

My sentiments exactly.

As to gom's post, if you wouldn't employ someone with a tattoo on their face as it would distract from eye contact, what of those with birthmarks, warts, moles, scar tissue, etc... on their face?

Can't say I'd go in for the whole nationalism thing, after all 'tis but a line on a map (if you want to argue the presence of the Irish Sea then how many little islands of our coast could use the same logic to declare their independence and become their own little nation).