nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

tattoo's and employment

joe stodge

would you hire someone if they have visible tattoos?

I have quite a few myself, back, legs, arms none visible if I wear a long sleeve shirt or T-shirt.

I don't think I've been hindered in employment with mine as I dress for interviews and don't flaunt them openly through out the process.

that being said I've noticed a huge boom in youngsters (18-23) getting fairly large visible pieces on their necks, hands, fingers and faces. I've always seen this as a fairly short sighted move as trends move on and even my opinions on stuff I felt strongly about when I was 18-23 have also changed with age.

I'm fairly sure that these type of tattoos would drastically effect someone's ability to find employment.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Jayop

Depends on the type of work and the type of tattoo. If it's public facing then probably not anything on the face, and the hands would depend on if it's a jailhouse job or something properly done. The neck I wouldn't be too worried about.

I don't have any but have nothing against them and have considered it myself in the past.

Cina

The answer should always be yes. You shouldn't judge a potential employee on their body ink.

I would imagine a large amount of people share this view, but subconsciously do discriminate against people with tattoos.

biko

Depends on what job they have applied for.
But you're essentially right, it doesn't look business proper.

greenflash

I wouldn't not hire someone purely because they have tattoos. I would hire the right person for the job regardless of tattoos, piercings or any of the other trappings of individuals who promote their individuality by looking like every other individual out there.

Stab*City

It depends on the person seeking the job. If they can come across as interested and trustworthy maybe the employer could see past the tatts.

brevity

It depends on the position I guess.

I'd imagine certain businesses might have clientele that wouldn't be happy seeing tattoos on staff.

If the person is qualified then that should trump all else IMO.

GLaDOS

Cina wrote: »

The answer should always be yes. You shouldn't judge a potential employee on their body ink.

I would imagine a large amount of people share this view, but subconsciously do discriminate against people with tattoos.

If it's a customer/client facing role I think it's fair enough to discriminate based on it. I've no problem with tattoos myself, but they don't look "professional" and that's gonna be a problem in certain roles.

Tigger

it totally depends onnthe work you do, Chefs and mechanics can definatly do what they want but people that face the public or work in business clothing should be able to cover up
why; well the same reason you dont wear a bright orange suit as an undertaker it just looks wrong and makes people feel that you are a real "rebel"
i have a mate thats a tatoo artist, he has ink on his face and even he calls any ink thats visable when you are wearing a suit a "Jobstopper"

Hector Bellend

It would have to be within reason.

You should always hire on suitability first but people do discriminate subconsciously.

I also find that people also prefer looking at big healthy breasts.

TerrorFirmer

GLaDOS wrote: »

If it's a customer/client facing role I think it's fair enough to discriminate based on it. I've no problem with tattoos myself, but they don't look "professional" and that's gonna be a problem in certain roles.

This. I've a load of tattoos but none below the wrist or above the neck.

In a client facing role I would not hire someone with neck/hand/visible tattoos regardless of their qualifications.

At the end of the day it's about the customer.

joe stodge

Tigger wrote: »

it totally depends onnthe work you do, Chefs and mechanics can definatly do what they want but people that face the public or work in business clothing should be able to cover up
why; well the same reason you dont wear a bright orange suit as an undertaker it just looks wrong and makes people feel that you are a real "rebel"
i have a mate thats a tatoo artist, he has ink on his face and even he calls any ink thats visable when you are wearing a suit a "Jobstopper"

up until recently the only people I've known personally to have any tattoos on their faces were tattoo artists.

I know the lad that does my tattoos does question people getting this type of stuff done and tells them of the possible impact later on from it.

he's told me he's flat refused to tattoo faces on occasion too.

sbsquarepants

Context is everything.
A "normal" tattoo - of course, no problem.
A swastika on their forehead - no, I'd probably leave them jog on!

bucketybuck

I prefer not to hire people that have poor judgement. If during the interview process you demonstrate signs of poor judgement then I will probably hire the other candidate, the one who doesn't appear to have poor judgement.

BrokenArrows

greenflash wrote: »

I wouldn't not hire someone purely because they have tattoos. I would hire the right person for the job regardless of tattoos, piercings or any of the other trappings of individuals who promote their individuality by looking like every other individual out there.

You can say that all you want, but if your're running a white collar office and someone applies for a job and their face is covered in tattoos and have something stupid on the knuckles like Love/Hate then are you really saying that that wont be a consideration regardless of how nice they came across in an interview.

I have no problem with tattoos on anyone as long as theyre not visible when you're dressed for the office.

There are plenty of non office jobs where tattoos are a benefit eg. Pubs/clubs, entertainment industries. Anything that wants to be visually seen as edgy.

c_man

If they've tattoos on their face, neck or hands then no I wouldn't hire them. On their arms or whatever, fine.

yourdeadwright

Iv always thought Tattoo's shouldn't be an issue if someone is qualified ,
But then as someone has already said here it would make you think does the person have poor judgement, Everyone I know with hand or neck Tattoo regret them a few years later , but make the same mistake a few times

Ash.J.Williams

GLaDOS wrote: »

If it's a customer/client facing role I think it's fair enough to discriminate based on it. I've no problem with tattoos myself, but they don't look "professional" and that's gonna be a problem in certain roles.

It's OK to discriminate?

SEPT 23 1989

If i ran a brothel or a pirate ship I would have no problem with it

mahamageehad

Depends on the job, and the tattoos.

There's lots of hatred for hand tattoos in this thread which I'm surprised by, I know a good few people with tattoos on their wrists or on the edge of a finger and I wouldn't consider that a problem at all. Obviously a little different if it's LOVE HATE tattooed on knuckles! Same for tattoos on behind an ear or at the nape of your neck, I wouldn't see them as a problem. I do understand that face tattoos could be an issue many jobs, but that usually isn't important for the types of people that get face tattoos. Plus, some girls get their eyebrows tattooed now so there's that. :pac:

GLaDOS

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It's OK to discriminate?

Based on visible tattoos, yes.

sparrowcar

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If i ran a brothel or a pirate ship I would have no problem with it

Is being an inmate in a state correctional facility also considered employment?

yesto24

Like everything it depends.
Things like what the job is and where the tattoo is and what the tattoo is.
I find nearly all tattoos on hands and fingers just look bad. I am not sure why.
Another factor would be the quality of the tattoo, poor quality tattoos are a sign of poor judgment.
Also what the tattoo looks like on you. A tattoo on a toned fit body looks way better that on a fat slab of meat. But again that comes down to good and poor judgment of the person with the tattoo and if hiring I want to hire a person who can make good choices.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It's OK to discriminate?

Yeah, it's generally ok to discriminate based on things people have done as opposed to what they were born with.

And generally, it's not the employer as such, but what the employer knows the customers expect.

I'll be hiring a salesperson soon for a product I have spent over three years of my free time developing and have pinned all my hopes on. I'd have to be a right eejit to hire someone with tattoos everywhere and sent them schools to sell my product. I have tattoos, I don't care about tattoos, but people do, and it's my time and effort that went into creating the job, not the employee's.

If you want to put your life into a business, and risk it all based on your employee's freedom to tattoo their face, go ahead. Have fun throwing away your investment.

greenflash

BrokenArrows wrote: »

You can say that all you want, but if your're running a white collar office and someone applies for a job and their face is covered in tattoos and have something stupid on the knuckles like Love/Hate then are you really saying that that wont be a consideration regardless of how nice they came across in an interview.

I have no problem with tattoos on anyone as long as theyre not visible when you're dressed for the office.

There are plenty of non office jobs where tattoos are a benefit eg. Pubs/clubs, entertainment industries. Anything that wants to be visually seen as edgy.

That is an 'if' though. I work in the engineering side of construction. If someone is qualified, experienced and able then they will be considered. Someone with "Erie 32" and an Ivory Coast flag on their forearm is probably not the right candidate in any situation.

whoopsadoodles

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I would bave thought getting your boyfriend's name tattood on your body, and his initials on your arm would imply that someone wasn't smart enough to think through the potential repercussions of their actions in your eyes, no?

Yet you said previously that that's what your girlfriend had when you took her on as an employee and subsequently a life partner.

The logic doesn't follow through.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

frag420

If you owned a tattoo studio, would you hire someone without tattoos?;):D

whoopsadoodles

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't disagree with your original reasoning, that you could potentially lose clients if your employee has visible tattoos.

What I don't understand is equating it with intelligence and putting forward the idea that people with one kind of tattoo aren't smart enough to work with you but another type which, imo, is far worse, is not a measure of how smart they might be. The two dont correlate.

Fr_Dougal

Had mine done a few years ago, for work.