This needs to be said: Not hiring someone because they have tattoos is anti-progressive.

[Gravitycollapse]

Just as not hiring someone because they smoke pot is anti-progressive.

Whether or not you are hired to a position should be based on your accomplishments, capabilities and prospects. None of those things have anything to do with how one aesthetically modifies her or his body.

[alarimer]

1. It would depend on the tattoo.

Or the type of job it was. Some tattoos are offensive. Personally, it would not be an issue for me, but then the people I hire are not in customer service.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Depends on the tat

I think i would pass on Aryan Brotherhood tattoo.

[Eleanors38]

3. Some businesses in Austin REQUIRE tattoos.

[Bjorn Against]

4. I would agree that most tattoos are fine but...

I knew a guy who had a tattoo of a woman with snakes coming out of her vagina and he constantly complained about how he was discriminated against because of his tattoos. Sorry, but if you make a stupid choice to get something like that tattooed on you then don't complain if no one wants to associate with you.

Generally speaking however I am fine with tattoos and if I were a business owner I would hire people with tattoos as long as they were tasteful.

[tularetom]

5. Progressive schmogressive

It's not even a question of that, it depends on the job.

If I were hiring laborers for a construction project I wouldn't care whether or not they had every square inch of their body tattooed.

If I'm considering two equally qualified candidates for a job with extensive public contact, one visibly covered with tats and one without any, I'm going to hire the one without the tats.

[Common Sense Party]

9. Well-said. My feelings exactly.

It's not "progressive" to hire someone with visible skin markings for certain jobs, it's a bad business decision.

[groundloop]

6. Depends on the job and depends on the tattoos

In most cases I'd tend to agree that a tattoo shouldn't be a deciding factor in hiring. However, I can see where it would be a problem for certain jobs.

[earthside]

7. Hardly.

That is your opinion -- not some universal definition of 'progressive' or 'anti-progressive'.

Besides, smoking pot on the job is grounds for dismissal whether you are progressive or not.
You can do your pot smoking in private on your own time. (Maybe exceptions for medical marijuana.)

But public tattoos are public -- employers should have the freedom to decide what is appropriate for display in their own business.

For instance, I would totally support a restaurant manager/owner at a family or expensive place not hiring someone with snakes or skulls or guns tattooed on their neck or on their hands.

At a biker bar or someplace like that, of course, that is up to the owner.

I don't think being progressive or not has anything to do with an employer wanting what is appropriate for their business.

[Warpy]

8. A lot of body modification scares people off

While it shouldn't be this way, it's the reality of the situation.

A lot of my coworkers at the hospital sported tats, but they were low key and mostly concealed by clothing. It was no big deal. Nobody had horns, split tongues, or other really aggressive body modification. They likely wouldn't have been hired with that because they'd frighten the elderly, not good.

There has to be a certain amount of discretion in cases like that. Perhaps when the kids now in their 20s and going in for this stuff reach their 70s and 80s, they'll be old folks who are perfectly acclimated to caregivers with lizard skin tats, horns, and split tongues. However, it's not the case today.

Having the freedom to do this stuff is quite different from having the widest employment possibilities open to you. If you do the first, you'll find the second curtailed. It will take a little more time for this stuff to be mainstream enough that you'll see bank tellers with it.

[flvegan]

10. No, not hiring someone because they have tattoos is stupid.

If that's the reasoning, then you're an idiot. "You have a tattoo" means no employment? Good luck with that you dumb schmuck.

That said, if they have an offensive tattoo or one that collides with the message of your business, then okay, I get that. For example, KFC is hiring. A perfectly reasonable and responsible applicant is up for hire. She's a vegan with "FUCK KFC" tats on the back of her hands. No job, sorry.

[Tikki]

11. OK, but not hiring someone with tattoos is not classist.

Tikki

[Decoy of Fenris]

12. I'm sure this guy appreciates your endorsement of his "progressive" life choices.

Some times, certain things are just wrong.

[TheKentuckian]

13. Generally lame as well but there are probably some lines I'd understand.

Faces done up in frightening manners especially. I could see some things not really working with certain segments -'nudity, "foul language", you know the rare exceptions but in general probably no one really cares.

[HuckleB]

14. Heck, in Portland, this might need to be reversed.

"Not hiring someone because they don't have tattoos is anti-progressive," as well.

[Lil Missy]

15. Depends on the job, and where the tats are.

[Llewlladdwr]

16. Were these the responses you expected?

Sorry, but given the choice between two equally qualified individuals I would chose the one without tats based on my belief that an individual with tattoos is generally less likely to work well in a team, follow precise instructions and follow company policies and rules than a person without tattoos. Not every position requires a free-spirited non-conformist.

[Vashta Nerada]

17. Judge much?

I have tattoos and I work well in a team and with others. I'll work harder than any of them.

The world will be a lot brighter if you got rid of your judgmental attitude toward people with tattoos.

[Abq_Sarah]

20. It seems to me

You're judging people who, for whatever reason, don't want to hire people with a lot of visible ink. Maybe you ought to work on your judgmental attitude and accept that in the real world, actions do have consequences and if you prefer the ink over a job, that's your problem, not ours.

For the record, I will not hire anyone with neck or facial tattoos. Period.

[cui bono]

33. No, they're criticizing the *reasons* that person didn't want to hire someone.

It had nothing to do with the potential hiree's actual work ethic, just the work ethic that the poster decided they had based on them having a tattoo. And deciding someone's character based on their appearance is being judgmental.

Now if they didn't want to hire someone with ink because of the need to present a certain image as a company to the public that would be different. But that's not what they said. They are actually judging the person's work ethic based on them having a tattoo, which is so far off base I can't tell you. In my industry, there's guys who work on crews that do construction for 12-16 hours a day and you better believe they are working hard and as a team, and these days most of the production crews I see are very much tattooed.

[LisaL]

18. Who died and made you God?

[TransitJohn]

19. I'd hire this guy to sell drinks at a convenience store.

[greyl]

21. Simplistic thinking is anti-progressive. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. A little bit of over-generalization here, methinks.

The young lady with FTW tattooed on one side of her neck, Born to Kill on the other, and F-U-C-K O-F-F-! on her fingers just below the knuckles ain't gettin' hired at my knitting supply store.

I could go on for hours, but you get the picture.

I could also tell you about the 18 year old kid who got ALL 8 of his fingers MASHED OFF in a printing press after a group of us passed around multiple joints in the parking lot at lunch after I graduated high school, but why belabor the point...

[Jamaal510]

23. It depends on the type of tat,

but as far as 420 is concerned, if I were doing the hiring, my employees can't be smoking on the job or showing up to work high or else I'd fire them. To me, it is important to always be aware of the here-and-now when working and taking care of business.

[ripcord]

24. I would fire anyone who showed up to work impaired

No matter if it were booze or drugs, of course I supervise truck drivers. As far as tattoos I got mine before they became a fad and knew that visible tattoos might keep me from getting the jobs I wanted so I just put them where I could cover them with a t shirt and jeans.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. If I know the employee smokes pot, it's because it got in the way of the job.

What you do in your personal life is not my business.

...Until it is made my business.

[gopiscrap]

26. It depends

[Deep13]

27. When I was practicing law, ...

...I frankly would never have hired someone with visible tattoos or piercings. People expect lawyers and those working in law offices to look a certain way. If people look like they are marginal, well, I'll get marginal clients who can't pay me or my employees and that's it. I wouldn't want an associate attorney looking like that in from of judges and the juries of farmers suburbanites that live around here. Practical consideration is all. When I worked for the state, the DA made me shave my beard (and yeah, I resented it), so a facial, neck, or hand tattoo would have been right out.

[laundry_queen]

28. I agree.

I'm in business school and recently read an article on the prevalence of tattoos and piercings in the accounting field. Times have changed. As long as a tattoo is not offensive or as long as it doesn't cost the business clients or money, I don't see a problem with it. Now, I'm in Canada where things are generally more liberal so maybe things are different here..recently I went to a fancy restaurant for a relative's birthday and every single person who served us was dressed up and had piercing and tattoos everywhere. Every one of them. One of my accounting profs has tattoos and piercings. My SIL applied to the city police force and she has more tattoos than I do, and she got in (their policy is pretty relaxed). It's pretty accepted here. I plan on keeping my nose ring in when searching for a job after I graduate in the summer. I'll only take it out if I absolutely cannot find a job (I'm in a low-unemployment area so it's unlikely). My tattoos are easily hidden (in the winter anyway) so not a big deal. I haven't really run into anyone who cares one way or the other, except my own mother (who also thinks fat people are lazy and don't make good employees - item: I'm obese). So, I'm not too concerned, and I'm actually surprised at the reaction to tattoos here at DU.

[uncle ray]

29. where are the folks who would not hire a person wearing makeup?

it's strange,many people would not hire someone with visible tattoos, yet they'll hire someone with caked on makeup, three colors of eye shadow, inch long eyelashes, a fake tan, overdone dyed hair on their head, and hair shaved off the rest of their bodies. pierced earlobe? that's fine. pierced anything else, you're some kind of nonconformist anarchist freak who doesn't deserve the chance to earn a living.

[XemaSab]

30. If someone's body mods are geared to say "I am a dirtbag,"

then the person will get treated like a dirtbag.

[a la izquierda]

36. My being tattooed suggests I'm a dirtbag?

My BA, MA, and PhDs suggest otherwise.

[XemaSab]

38. My point was that it depends on the context and content of the tats

Smart people get smart tattoos; ignorant people get ignorant tattoos.

The OP is saying that I'm a bigot for steering around the dude in the grocery store with "MS13" tattooed on the side of his neck, but I think that NOT doing so is naive to the point of foolhardiness.

(Sorry I didn't make myself clearer in my first post.)

[a la izquierda]

40. Oh, I see your point.

Sorry about that. It is really early too, so it could be my pre-maté reading comprehension problems.

[XemaSab]

41. I was asleep and I woke up with indigestion and now I am on the internet

So yeah, my bad too.

[LittleBlue]

31. This is why I hate undefined labels

As soon as someone adopts a label, even progressive, someone else will come along and proclaim "you're not part of the club unless you do X." Even if X is completely unrelated to the label.

This labeling has so little meaning beyond party affiliation, trying to strip someone of their label is even more pointless.

[Le Taz Hot]

32. Judgment is also a criteria

and some bozo coming in with a swastika on his forehead, in my own very progressive opinion, does not have good decision-making capabilities, does not have a good vision for the future and will NOT be representing me or the company I represent.

[4bucksagallon]

34. It depends on your business.........

If I was in the business of tattoo removal then it would be ridiculous of me to hire a tattooed person wouldn't it?

[a la izquierda]

35. Thanks.

My bosses don't give a rats ass. Of course, I don't show them when I teach (college students). But they see them in off hours occasionally.
Eta: in moderation, though. There are some seriously racist dudes out there with ink in very visible spots. I'm guessing that's not what you mean.

[leftynyc]

37. Sigh

When was the election that decided you are the arbiter of what and is not progressive?

[B Calm]

39. I had a co worker with an Assault Rifle tattooed on each arm. Some

may think that is beautiful, but not me.

[Freddie]

42. My daughter is a nurse. No visible tattoos

Or visible piercings except earrings allowed. Simple reason, most of the elderly (the majority of their patients) don't like or feel comfortable with body art. I think this will relax in the future when that generation is gone, most of us boomers are fine with it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

43. That depends

sorry, but I wouldn't hire someone for a customer-facing position if they had tattoos below the wrist or above the collarbone. Tattoos generally? Not a problem. Tattoos on the face, neck, and hands? Those severely limit your career options, sadly.

[GeorgeGist]

44. Police Officer?