Should it be illegal for employers to discriminate against the tattooed

Forums New posts
egb_hibs

egb_hibs

Private Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2002
Article on the beeb on this subject http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28758900

Tricky one IMHO. I think it's quite heavy handed to take against most tats, but the likes of the guy with full face tattoo and (i think) dyed eyeball, is highly likely to be off putting to many people and I think employers have the right to take that into account; it's not like the guy was born that way, and such an extreme gesture cannot then disown its own extremity. (In fact I rather think that if it produced no reaction it would have little appeal)
 
egb_hibs said:
Article on the beeb on this subject http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28758900

Tricky one IMHO. I think it's quite heavy handed to take against most tats, but the likes of the guy with full face tattoo and (i think) dyed eyeball, is highly likely to be off putting to many people and I think employers have the right to take that into account; it's not like the guy was born that way, and such an extreme gesture cannot then disown its own extremity. (In fact I rather think that if it produced no reaction it would have little appeal)
Click to expand...

If it's a customer facing job then perhaps the potential employer does have a right to discriminate. If he/she thinks that employing this person will damage the business then he/she has every right to protect that.
 
I was once on the front page of a national Sunday newsp.. rag because some prick alleged I refused him a job because of a tattoo. Much to the amusement of the team I was playing for that day, I hadn't seen the paper until it was shoved under my nose!

Little did he realise it was because he had a rolled up copy of the weekday version of said rag under his aerum!

It wiznae really it was because he didn't have the necessary qualities to fulfil the role he had applied for.


Prick.


On a quite, very, very, separate note, yes I think it could be a deciding factor. Can you imagine a gunt with a gunt tatt on his arm working in the Hibs shop? Said prick would probably not be able to see what the problem was and bleet to a national Sund ...
 
An employer should have a right to discriminate against employing tattooed or pierced people applying, especially if they are dealing with the public. I see these young kids with these big fuk off lugs in there ears and wonder what the fuk are they thinking.
 
Conversely, I went into an interview for a promotion opportunity a couple of years back and the main interviewer had 3 rings pierced into his eyebrow, and one in his left nostril. He wasn't even wearing a tie!!! :shock: I got the job though! :banana:
 
SuperTortolano said:
An employer should have a right to discriminate against employing tattooed or pierced people applying, especially if they are dealing with the public. I see these young kids with these big fuk off lugs in there ears and wonder what the fuk are they thinking.
Click to expand...
Those ear thing are feckin awful. Between that and the massive tattoo coverage with neck now commonplace and face becoming not the very rare thing it once was, it seems to be that a significant proportion of young people are mutilating themselves. There's probably a PhD in there somewhere for a sociologist to investigate why.
 
I blame Beckham. :doh The tattoo sleeves arm thing now seems to be ubiquitous amongst most young professional footballers. I'm definitely an auld fuddy duddy in their eyes these days; but I think it looks shite now, and will look even more shite when they're auld and saggy. grandpa
 
I remember a guy in Kirkcaldy job centre telling anyone who was near that he couldn't get a Jo because of immigrants and actually started to verbally attack a polish bird I was hungover and got sick eh listening to him and not so calmly pointed out that the reason was probably because he had a spider web tattooed on his face and that all he was doing by ranting was managing to make himself look even more of a dick
 
Come on Big G!!!!

Come & fight yer corner!

FWIW I find tattoos more of an oddity than offensive, but each to his own I suppose.

Another aside, I would rather work alongside someone clartit in tattoos than alongside someone reeking of cigarette smoke, but I don't suppose my employer would take that into consideration.
 
Im the only one in my family who hasnt got any inkwork. Never felt any need or desire to have anything written or drawn on my skin. (Apart from pre-surgery to ensure the correct bit was lopped off/excavated)
I will however arrange for a nice wee design to be added to my virgin skin when we win the Scottish Cup, even if they have to dig up my putrefying and mouldering corpse to do it.
I dont particularly like tattoos on women other than the discrete kind- the hardly noticeable ones tramp stamps look a bit slutty I always think, and Cheryls bottom was fine as it was thanks.
Men with piercings and stuff I just dont get particularly the big plugs in their lugs (Big G!) which I find a bit strange. Ive never even fancied an ear ring, although Im prone to fancy watches, girly leather bracelets on my holidays and stuff like that, so Im far from being too macho to consider adornments as being simply for wimmin.
Neck tattoos should result in being sent to a penal island (along with footballers who wear their socks up over their knees, and anyone who wears their polo shirt with the collar up Cantona-style.)
Folk with clearly offensive tats re FTP/FTQ and other nonsense have demonstrated that they are clearly unemployable anyway by reason of being a moron, so the original question is possibly a moot point there.
 
[MENTION=20]Dr Shrink[/MENTION]

Re comment about tramp stamps I agree. Most of those written in Chinese/Japanese/Greek or whatever generally translate to 'Wide Load'.
 
Equality and diversity.

Black white brown yellow fat thin short tall shaven unshaven beard no beard pierced unpierced tattoed no tattoed gay straight bi chaste Jew baha'i mohammedian zoroastrian christian Hindu Buddhist seikh agnostic....

Equality and diversity.

Fuck all you whores said biggie smalls
 
Diversity - you must recognise everyone is different

Equality - you must treat everyone the same

If there were ever a more basic example I doublethink...
 
Dr Shrink said:
Im the only one in my family who hasnt got any inkwork. Never felt any need or desire to have anything written or drawn on my skin. (Apart from pre-surgery to ensure the correct bit was lopped off/excavated)
I will however arrange for a nice wee design to be added to my virgin skin when we win the Scottish Cup, even if they have to dig up my putrefying and mouldering corpse to do it.
I dont particularly like tattoos on women other than the discrete kind- the hardly noticeable ones tramp stamps look a bit slutty I always think, and Cheryls bottom was fine as it was thanks.
Men with piercings and stuff I just dont get particularly the big plugs in their lugs (Big G!) which I find a bit strange. Ive never even fancied an ear ring, although Im prone to fancy watches, girly leather bracelets on my holidays and stuff like that, so Im far from being too macho to consider adornments as being simply for wimmin.
Neck tattoos should result in being sent to a penal island (along with footballers who wear their socks up over their knees, and anyone who wears their polo shirt with the collar up Cantona-style.)
Folk with clearly offensive tats re FTP/FTQ and other nonsense have demonstrated that they are clearly unemployable anyway by reason of being a moron, so the original question is possibly a moot point there.
Click to expand...

[video=youtube;Sq9oR9x171w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq9oR9x171w[/video]

Since I got this fella finished of at the International Tattoo Convention in Liverpool 4 or 5 years ago.......

azteccalendar.jpg


I have been considering getting one of these Doc. Handy for half time pie and Bovril......

800px-Raoni---portrait.jpg


BIG G
 
egb_hibs said:
Article on the beeb on this subject http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28758900Tricky one IMHO. I think it's quite heavy handed to take against most tats, but the likes of the guy with full face tattoo and (i think) dyed eyeball, is highly likely to be off putting to many people and I think employers have the right to take that into account; it's not like the guy was born that way, and such an extreme gesture cannot then disown its own extremity. (In fact I rather think that if it produced no reaction it would have little appeal)
Click to expand...
Similar argument to folk who want to wear their old Ramones tshirt and jeans to work. You can but it'll limit your options for employment. You gotta decide whats more important to you. Your stuck with a tattoo, though so may come to regret if you change your mind.Customers expect standards of dress from some workers and will take there money to who they have confidence in. Unless you can find a way to stop that, you can't expect employers to accommodate your personal proclivities. Cost me a fortune in non-tax deductible clobber but its what you need to do if you want the good work.
 
egb_hibs said:
Diversity - you must recognise everyone is different

Equality - you must treat everyone the same

If there were ever a more basic example I doublethink...
Click to expand...

Diversity coz everyone is different. Equality coz everyone is equal.
Only you typed "you must"

Too basic for you it would appear.
 
emerald green said:
Diversity coz everyone is different. Equality coz everyone is equal.
Only you typed "you must"

Too basic for you it would appear.
Click to expand...
And too complicated for you perhaps; your sentences don't mean anything.

I challenge you to come up with any proper explanation of the two which doesn't result in the contradiction I described.
 
Wannabehibee said:
I regularly see a guy at Queen Street station in weegieland in the mornings. Covered in tattoos, the best ones being the spiders web on one side of his face, the obligatory teardrop and also has "The Lost Boys" written on the side of his temple. Can normally be seen pushing a pram.
Click to expand...

As a student up in Aberdeen, was staggering home one night in the early hours, no one around but for a guy taking his dog out for a pish. He had his back to me but as I approached he turned round... with a full tattooed face & those big ear spool things. Scared the absolute sh!t out of me.

I know it's not PC but these folk are not normal (outside the South Pacific).
 
egb_hibs said:
And too complicated for you perhaps; your sentences don't mean anything.

I challenge you to come up with any proper explanation of the two which doesn't result in the contradiction I described.
Click to expand...

Don't treat somebody worse than you otherwise would because they're [different to you], don't treat them differently at all unless there's a compelling reason to.

tldr: Don't be a dick to folk
 
Sound advice FT, but it's not the same as equality / diversity paradox. You're just talking about politeness.

An example of the paradox might be; how can I treat equally the diverse views on marriage that you and a Muslim might hold?
 
Its always seemed to stick with me from the days of trying to join the army to get tattoos where they are covered by a shirt. Mine are for me no one else so I have never had any problems with that.
 
egb_hibs said:
Sound advice FT, but it's not the same as equality / diversity paradox. You're just talking about politeness.

An example of the paradox might be; how can I treat equally the diverse views on marriage that you and a Muslim might hold?
Click to expand...

you're creating a paradox where there isn't one. In what way are EDHR policies instructing you to do that? Give examples.
 
FTJT said:
you're creating a paradox where there isn't one. In what way are EDHR policies instructing you to do that? Give examples.
Click to expand...

You would agree that the sentiments of recognising diversity and equality are in conflict here? Of course given laws have to chose between the two because they are in conflict - in this case recent laws
reject diversity.

But that is selective - given laws and indeed institutional regulations are a big fudge in trying to square the circle of these two ideological cornerstones of the day, which are often voiced together - sometimes even as if they are the same thing - when they are on conflict.
 
An employer should have the right to employ who the hell they like. But the terms and conditions shouldn't change once employment has been offered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom