Why or why not?
2006-11-27 09:30:33 · 32 answers · asked by Altima Girl 4 in Beauty & Style ➔ Skin & Body ➔ Tattoos
I think that a company has the right to choose what kind of image they want representing their name...For example, You will never see a 200lb model in an Abercrombie ad or someone with acne telling you that Pro Active is a good and effective product. I am sure that for some professions tattoos are good think, but in others it may seem as a lack of professionalism.
2006-11-27 09:39:08 · answer #1 · answered by Lizet 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They should not be allowed to not hire you for that, Its BS.
Think of life to day, to many people have tattoos, the word "professional" has nothing to do with tattoos, It has to do with your skills in the work force. These company's need to give people a chance to prove them self's before judging them.
Not only that Just think who will be running the future soon, Tattoos will always be here and the youth today will lead tomorrow.
2006-11-27 12:17:55 · answer #2 · answered by Zaden 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know up here in Canada, it's considered unfair and unjust and they can be sent to the better business bureau. You know it's now 2006, not 1979 tattoos are becoming a way of life and now all those people that think is wrong will grow old and retire, who will be most suite for the job when those people retire?? those millions of people that have tattoos. It's called discrimination and technically can send the company to court. But really in the end, who'll send a company to court for not hiring a guy??
2006-11-27 09:40:46 · answer #3 · answered by ♥ღαмαиdα♥ღ 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it is somewhat unfair. I can understand presenting a professional image to some people and not wanting to upset or disturb customers, but tattoos are becoming more and more popular it shouldn't be an issue anymore.
Not everyone with a tattoo is a biker, druggie or failure like so many people believe. I know MANY very successful, smart and good people who do not have visible tattoos while at work, but were fired when their bosses heard rumor they had tattoos. Its just unfair for your entire being, intelligence and ability to work to be judged based on something as small and superficial as a tattoo or piercing.
2006-11-28 04:25:15 · answer #4 · answered by 4eyed zombie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think if the person is good enough for the job they should be hired irrespective of what body modifications they have!!
think about it most police men and army men have tattoos and they are the people we trust to protect us... i cannot see how a lawyer or a banker is any more professional than them!
people with tattoos are stupidly judged... it annoys me so much
you would not refuse emplyment to someone who had hideous burn scarring... and some would find that very very hard to look at - so why should anyone be allowed to not employ people with tattoos...
kids are not offended by tattoos that is ridiculous!
2006-11-27 22:21:55 · answer #5 · answered by azzparagus 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so, it's discrimination based on appearance. There are some tattoos that employers should be allowed to require employees to cover, such as ones that are racist, or contain nudity or profanity so as not to give one the impression that is representative of the company. It's the same with piercings. I'm sure many well-qualified people have been passed up for having a pierced tongue or eyebrow or whatever.
2006-11-27 10:23:10 · answer #6 · answered by Sandy Sandals 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don;t think that they should be allowed. But they do... lets just say that you have one on your neck.... there is no way that they would hire you for a office position at the reception desk because it looks bad for their company. It would be the first thing that a client notice on you when they walk in the doors.
2006-11-28 07:33:49 · answer #7 · answered by laydenirvine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think asking an employee to cover a tattoo is ok, but not hiring someone because they have a tattoo is hugely unfair.
2006-11-27 10:00:13 · answer #8 · answered by lillielil 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That would be an invasion of privacy and also a huge mistake on the part of the hiring company due to the fact that some of the most intelligent people I know are tattooed (my plastic surgeon, our attorney, etc...).
2006-11-27 09:36:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
no, some people think it depends on the type of work being done but where does it stop? and when does it become discrimination? people are often (wrongly) stereotyped because of their tattoos and i think that is wrong. employees should be hired and fired because of their performance and ability to do their jobs. not because of how they look. just because you chose to look a certain way doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the job that you want or deserve.
2006-11-27 09:59:28 · answer #10 · answered by somebody's a mom!! 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋