Hiring Based on Body Art Essay

Why do most employers bar stains while other doesnt mind them? If a person is trying to give birth a coiffe that interacts with the public or with throng from other companies, those other people could be judgmental about tattoos that ar visible outside the clothes. Theres belike a variety of reasons further I signify a common one is that some companies feel that their employees project their participation im days and theyd the like some say in the image that they choose. This is obviously truer when the employees argon dealing with the public.Now in some industries, the keep company image of employees having tattoos is benefit, a provided in others, especi completelyy in certain more standpat(prenominal) markets, tattoos are viewed as a blemish on the image. Keep in mind, too, that some companies pay marketing and PR firms quite a lot of money to develop and reinforce the chosen image for the company and with those companies, its an important thing that they want to project and they want to protect it. Employers tend to cater to their customers.If their customers are more conservative, they likely wont want to deal with a tattooed and pierced salesperson/clerk, and they may ask mortal to remove their piercings and cover their tattoos with long sleeved clothing, for instance. Some employers dont care, its the quality of the person and his/her seduce that matters. As long as you clothe safely (i. e. , sturdy property if youre rangeing about heavy machinery and pull long hair back if youre around moving equipment) it doesnt matter. And some employers those who are trendy and catering to a younger and more brash crowd may encourage itBecause some of us think tattoos are a sign of little than upstanding type of person. Some dont want to have their customers think that the business is not upstanding, and having employees with tattoos will make their business look bad. I personally associate tattoos with drug use, as some who use drug cov er the marks with tattoos, and therefore would not really like to have nourishment served to me by a tattooed server, out of fear of disease associated with intervenes drug use. Tattoos are not a genteel right. A company has a right to control the dress, hairstyles, and overall appearance of their employees.A company probably wouldnt ban a tattoo, unless if someone has Evil Satan on their forehead that is probably not going to go over in a craft interview Because for certain job like those advanceder up its not healthy. Say youre in the doctors office && your doctor has tattoos all over til now on his face would you think he knew what he was doing. To me they give off a bad image in the work place I chouse tats dont get me wrong but getting them in ridicules places seem unprofessional. Sure it doesnt affect your ability of how you do the job but other pals opinions would not get you any high up job nor business.Should it be illegal to allow tattoos to be a factor at all in th e hiring process? I think it should be frowned upon, but not illegal. If you have a company and you have people representing you, then you can choose what kind of image those people have. Theres a lot of stigma connect with tattoos culturally (whether founded or unfounded isnt the point), and if theres an industry or position where that stigma could affect business, then thats the bosss decision. Its not like people whove gotten tattoos didnt know that it might be an issue later on, you should get them where you can cover them up.They make people take piercings out to work (some little old doll at the supermarket may be offended by a septum piercing and so forth ). The issue isnt whether it should be illegal to not hire because of tattoos, its that we should all just get over it as a society. Depends do they have an Hate Kill tattoo across their knuckles, an tattoo of an Nazi wilt on the forehead, or an naked men/women on their skin? Any place where they work at is an profession al place. So thus they need to look professional and keep bringing back people. If its a very beautiful rtistic tattoo I would allow it, or if its a tattoo that means a lot to them, again I would allow it. (What I mean by allowing it is exposing it) As long as its tasteful or able to keep the tattoo hidden. In some jobs I think it should be illegal.. Like when a grocery store wont hire someone with visible tattoos or piercings, thats ridiculous. A tattoo doesnt make you look any less(prenominal) presentable in that situation. (I used to have to cover mine up ) But for other jobs, where macrocosm presentable and demanding respect (a lawyer, a judge, a cop, maybe a doctor I think it is o.k. that tattoos are a factor. I wouldnt want my attorney to have tattoos all over their arms. Yes, umpteen businesses will allow one that cant be seen, many feel it is not agreeable in the work place. Many do not allow nose piercings to worn at work along with chin, and lip. It is their business a nd if they feel it makes a bad presentation or statement about employees that should be there choice No. Its up to the employer. They dont have to hire you if you have a tattoo and they shouldnt be forced to do so. Same as a smoker, drinker, etc. Im talking private sector now.Im sure there are some politicians working on government requirements to have a quota of at least 10% people with tattoos. nope. There are only a few illegal categories for discrimination much(prenominal) as sex, age over 40, race, etc. tats are way down the line from those. I have ink but it is on my biceps & hidden most of the time. I know people with full sleeves, skull & even facial tats. cardinal mans head is mostly green. They knew before they did it that they were making a life decision. Absolutely not For one thing, having a tat is a risky behavior one that many employers may not want in an employee.Another is that many people who buy goods think that tats where you can see them is tacky, and may sho p elsewhere. No one is entitled to work at a place where their personal looks or behavior is to the detriment of the business Is It Legal for Employers to reject job-seekers because they have piercings or tattoos? legal? YES, unless. the tattoos/piercings are related to a bona-fide religion and/or ethnicity and the employment decision was made based on that religion/ethnicity. this is a grey area that the EEOC can assist in but generally it is legal for an employer to have such(prenominal) a policy EDITThis is taken from the EEOC website and the accommodation for tattoos and piercings COULD fall under this. Employers must reasonably appease employees sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might maintain an employees religious beliefs or practices by allowing flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, sporting or not, its life.There are laws about bias for race/gender/religion but naught about appearance of non-naturally occurring features. Certainly employers can reject an applicant for the reason of appearance mayhap their customer base would not respond appropriately to piercings or tattoos or unusual hair color. Im sure there are some positions where it would not be a conundrum, but I cant see those being assets in a law firm or score office. Some places prohibit visible piercings and tattoos (schools for example). Strictly legal, piercings/tattoos are NOT set out as a special category of people.In Federal discrimination laws, those categories are sex, age, race, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, disability, marital or multitude status. So, since Federal law has not made piercings/tattoos a distinct discrimination basis or category, it would not be illegal under Federal discrimination law to reject an employee due to this. State laws unremarkably follow the same basis on discrimination as the Federal law with few exceptions. So unless you could link piercings/tattoos to an existing discrimination base, fair or not, that is a reasonable reason to reject a person.Employers look at a persons ability to do the job, and they look at rubber issues. For example a person who has only one arm may be rejected for a job where he must lift a certain poundage and throw heavy ropes, such as a long shore man. The person with one arm may feel that is unfair, but if he cannot do the job or must rely on other workers to do his work the rejection is legal. A person with a piercing may have the potential of a safety problem in a fast moving assembly line where people are not even allowed to wear wedding rings.EDIT for those who do not understand the law and how discrimination may be perceived this is directly from the EEOC, tattoos fall under the same guidelines as a dress code so ther e are instances where not hiring just due to the tattoos COULD be seen as discrimination and could cause the employer problems if nothing more than having to defend their reasoning While an employer may require all workers to follow a supply dress code even if the dress code conflicts with some workers ethnic beliefs or practices, a dress code must not treat some employees less favorably because of their national origin.