Should there be a change in discrimanation laws?

Question

There are no laws governing people with tatoos. Yet a lot of employers refuse employment becasue of them. I have seen Police officers, lawyers, and doctors with them, so why can't people with a tatoo work in a lower type companies, example Mcdonalds, Wendy's, Gas stations etc. get jobs with tatoos?
Shouldn't that be considered discrimanation?

Answer 1

I'm a bayman with 'water' tattoo's, lots of 'em but I can't fire myself! how ever think what would happen if such a law went into effect : The nazi with the swastikas on his forehead work the front desk in the Jewish center......get the point?

Answer 2

No; when considering introducing new legislation, politicians have to balance the benefit to society/business with the detriment it will incur.

The benefit would be for those persons with tattoos who are unemployed on the basis of their having a tattoo. Aside from the fact that it is debatable that there is a sufficiently significant number of such persons, other answerers have already made the point that discrimination laws apply to cases where persons do not have the option to be otherwise - e.g., race and sex. They do apply to areas where there is debate whether the persons concerned have a choice, e.g., religion and sexuality, but these are considered to be options the exercise of which is a basic human right. They are deemed sufficiently important to outweigh any negative impact that an employer might perceive them having on his or her business.

The detriment includes the law's workability, which here includes the extent to which it would interfere with commerce and efficiency. It also includes the impact of the legislation on the judicial system. Such a law would interfere too much with commerce and would add to the workload of an already over-burdened legal system, thus slowing down everybody's access to justice. It's also worth mentioning that there would be evidential problems in proving that persons with tattoos have been refused employment or been sacked on the basis of their having a tattoo.

Acquiring a tattoo is an exercise of individual choice. However, if it could be shown that the tattoo was acquired as part of a religious belief system and the person was excluded from work due to this, then it may fall within existing religious discrimination legislation and/or case law. Absent any religious motivation for acquiring a tattoo, many employers could successfully argue that employing a person with visible tattoos (especially facial tattoos) could have a seriously adverse effect on their business. Although you may be enlightened enough to accept people with tattoos, many people see them as being counter-cultural at best and intimidating at worst. It should not be forgotten that employers make an investment in a person by employing them (even if they exploit them) - the employee is a representative of the company. The employer is therefore taking a risk when employing a person and should not be penalised for attempting to minimise that risk unless they break the law. Otherwise they could argue they were being forced to subsidise the exercise of a person's choice to have a visible tattoo; they would have a strong argument for seeing that as unreasonable.

Like it or not, image is extremely important in the commercial world and I would not expect to be employed as a lawyer if I turned up for interview unshaven, without a tie, in jeans, with unkempt hair or with a facial piercing. These are all things that can be changed and hence there is no discrimination.
Likewise, tattoos can also be removed (albeit painfully), but if somebody acquires a highly visible tattoo knowing that it narrows their employment options, the potential employer may well feel that that tells them something about that person's attitude towards their career - i.e., that acquiring a tattoo was more important to them than progressing their career.

This might sound very right-wing, but it is not - in fact, my sentiments generally lie firmly with protecting workers' rights, but it cannot be sensible to ignore the needs of business in such considerations.

Answer 3

The way discrimination law are changed it will take another 20 to 30 years for tattoos and piercings to be considered a discrimination base. This law is very slow to change and the change comes only after the majority of the general public take a side.

In many states, women are still fighting to get state discrimination laws for equal pay. The next hot issue for discrimination laws will probably be a person's weight. Right now some health care insurance companies are pushing that employers measure an employee's bmi to determine if that employee is "obese" and then charge the obese a higher premium. If you don't know, many employers are already charging smoker's higher premiums for the health care they get through work.

Answer 4

Tattoos are a bit different. Tattoos are voluntary (unlike race, age, etc.).

Also, it depends on where the tattoo is. I've never seen a lawyer with a visible tattoo - ever...

If the tattoo is not visible, then there is nothing to worry about.

That's why most people who get tattoos put them in places where they can hide them at their job.

The companies you mentioned (McDonalds, Wendys, etc...), they are all "customer service" based and they heavily rely on the public for income. IMAGE is everything to these companies. Your employer would not discriminate as long as you kept your tattoos hidden while on the job (or while going to a job interview).

Police officers are not customer service based; therefore, image is not such a problem. Plus, since tattoos have a negative "tough guy" connotation - they can actually help police who are on the job relate better and/or look tougher to the "bad guys".

Doctors and lawyers are service based - but generally doctors and lawyer wear suits and white coats with long sleeves - so the visibility of any tattoos is 0 when servicing customers. Also, doctors and lawyers are generally their OWN BOSSES - which means that THEY make the rules.

People in lower type companies don't make the rules - they are employees.

The public image of tattoos is still very negative - especially among baby boomers who make up the number one consumer group in the US due to their sheer numbers alone.

Generally, companies will hire people with tattoos (but don't know they are doing so b/c applicants know to hide their tattoos at a job interview). Companies have to set employee rules and one general rule in almost ANY company/corporation is that tattoos cannot be visible while working.

So, you see that many types of things influence tattoo discrimination and you can see why it is not illegal to discriminate against people who have tattoos. Tattoos are voluntary and they can promote a negative company image.

Answer 5

The Supreme Court said that the Boy Scouts can refuse to hire gays since they are a private institution. I think that you would never hear an employer tell you that you can not have the job because you have a tattoo, unless the HR is an idiot.
Where do you live anyway? I see people at McDs and gas stations with tattoos here in the Los Angeles area all the time.

Answer 6

buy some makeup to cover them, or bandaids.

I have seen plenty of people with tattoos at fast food places and elswhere, and some of them are gang tattoos, not a rose on the ankle.

If your tattoos cause your overall appearance to not match the image the business wants to project, then that is life.

Offer to cover them, and/or show that you are not a gang member or even wannabe, and you should be able to get a job just fine.

Something tells me if you can't get a job anywhere, it is not the tattoo, it is you. If it is just one place, then you won't be happy working there anyway.

Or, you could get a job in a tattoo parlor and work to make sure everyone has a tattoo so bosses have to hire people who have them. Then get a better job :)

Answer 7

The issue is not discrimination in this situation, it's the right of the government to control private business.

If you want the government to have such a level of control over your private business, then by all means, petition for redress of your complaint.

IF, however, you feel you have the right to not have an intrusive government, such rights that are, in fact, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then you need to recognize that discrimination is NOT illegal. Only certain forms of discrimination.

The purpose of discrimination legislation is not to protect all peoples, but to protect those who cannot otherwise protect themselves.

In the final analysis, is this a hill worth dying over.

Answer 8

As far as I am concerned, an employer should be allowed to discriminate for any behavior that is optional. For instance, being black isnt optional but having tattoos is. Sorry but I dont want to be waited on someone with tattoos all over let alone with a face full of piercings.

Answer 9

I can see no reason whatsoever for saying that it is irrational for an employer to take a person's presentability to the public as a criterion in hiring.

Answer 10

Discrimination laws only apply to issues over which you have no choice.. your sex, ethnicity, handicap, or sexual persuasion.
Tattoos and body piercings are a choice, therefore not coverable.