1. I guess we'll see if I can come up with ten thoughts. That seems like about 9 more than I think I have!2. Chris lost his job at the car wash today. The company made a new "no tattoo" rule and fired all employees who had one that they could see under their uniforms. He's devastated- he was on track to be a manager. He's looking into laser removal. I hope he does, because I don't like the ones you can see. They look like an amateur did them.
3. So isn't that discrimination? Apparently not, says the NC Labor board. His grandmother, who runs a coffee shop business, called them. I guess you can make up what ever rules you want, as long as you enforce them uniformly.
4. So he has had a good lesson today about stereotypes- fair or not. I told him that, unfortunately, being a young man with tattoos on his forearms gives him a certain image- justified or not. He is making a statement with them that some people might not like to hear.
5. I don't think tattoos are bad at all. Don't get me wrong. And I love the boy, I am just glad that he can see that dressing a certain way, having a certain haircut, and body piercings, and tattoos can make people think you're a certain kind of person. (BTW, he has a military haircut, no piercings other than ears- and I'm not sure those haven't grown shut.)
6. So what do you think about tattoos? Do they make a statement? Should someone lose their job because they have one? (ok, three?) Should we better educate our children before they go marking on their bodies, or are the ones making the rules against them the ones who need to be enlightened?
7. His manager was upset, because he told the district manager that he was having to fire the best employee that he had. What they'll do is hire all these rich boys who have the preppy, no tattoed look to come in. They won't work hard because they'll be afraid to get dirty- they might break a nail.
8. He already has two other offers- one from a competitor store and one from a guy who wants to start a car detail business. This guy has everything set up, just needs an employee (he already runs a bed liner business, too.) Chris would go to people's work, pick up their car, do whatever to it, and take it back. All while they're at work. Heck, I'd hire him!
9. Brandon is doing better- he got to drive today for the first time since his knee surgery. I made sure he could stand on the brake (that was the dr's test!) before I let him go. Poor boy, he's been miserable being stranded at home.
10. We have VBS at the church I work for this week. Over 100 kids- and it has been so much fun already! I love seeing them all sing and shout! Day 3 tomorrow- I'd better wash some clothes, take a bath, and have a restful night.
sorry for Chris and yay for Brandon! sounds like Chris has drive and will find his way, but it's a tough lesson to learn.... prejudice and stereo-typing have been around forever.... and it's a bad thing that 'good' people have to have 'bad' conceptions cast upon them..... there are pro and cons that can be argued for both sides.... all I can say, is that my nearly 90 year old ex father in law has tattoos from the navy.... they don't look good on OLD skin.... no way, no how..... maybe everyone should have to imagine how they will look 60 plus years from now..... lol... that would stop me in a minute....
ReplyDeleteenjoy the VBS!
Thanks Mo! I know, it is unfortunate but a reality that we judge people by their looks. Big scary biker? We assume they're mean. Well dressed young man, successful. Girl with a short, short skirt and halter top, loose. Fair, accurate, or not, that's what we see. So he's learning that he needs to project the image he wants others to see. Not a bad lesson at 22.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was an officer in the US Army you could not become an Army officer if you had a tattoo. Getting one would get you kicked out of the service. We were taught, "Gentleman and commissioned officers DO NOT have tattoos. About 30 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 have tattoos, according to a Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University survey. For those under age 25, the number is about 28 percent. In all, the post-baby-boom generations are more than three times as likely as boomers to have tattoos.
ReplyDeleteAs a result of tattoo attitude changes, Army Regulation 670-1, chapter 1-8E (1) has been modified via an ALARACT 017/2006 message.
Additionally, paragraph 1-8B (1) (A) was revised to state: “Tattoos that are not extremist, indecent, sexist or racist are allowed on the hands and neck. Initial entry determinations will be made according to current guidance.”
The Army has never allowed indecent tattoos on any part of the body, G1 officials pointed out.
The new policy allows recruits and all Soldiers to sport tattoos on the neck behind an imaginary line straight down and back of the jawbone, provided the tattoos don’t violate good taste.
“The only tattoos acceptable on the neck are those on the back of the neck,” said Hank Minitrez, Army G-1 Human Resources Policy spokesman. “The ‘back’ of the neck is defined as being just under the ear lobe and across the back of the head. Throat tattoos on that portion of the neck considered the front, the ear lobe forward) are prohibited.”
Soldiers who are considering putting tattoos on their hands and necks, should consider asking their chain of command prior to being inked.
“While the Army places trust in the integrity of its Soldiers and leaders, if a Soldier has a questionable case regarding tattoos, he or she should seek the advice of the local commander through the chain of command,” added Minitrez.
Should a Soldier not seek advice and have tattoos applied that aren’t in keeping with AR-670, the command will counsel the Soldier on medical options, but may not order the Soldier to have the tattoos removed. However, if a Soldier opts not to take the medical option at Army expense, the Soldier may be discharged from service.
The U.S. Coast Guard has a limitation on the size of a tattoo in percentages of a given area that will not exceed 25 percent of the space between wrist and elbow, knee and ankle, but it does not allow tattoos on the hands or neck.
The Army’s new policy, however, does not mean Soldiers should rush out and have the backs of their necks or their hands entirely covered in decorative art, Minitrez said.
“The Army does not have a percentage policy for tattoos,” Minitrez said. “As long as tattoos do not distract from good military order and discipline and are not extremist, racist, sexist or indecent they’re permitted.”
If a Soldier’s current command has no issue with his/her tattoos, the Soldier should have personnel files so notated that the Soldier is in line with AR-670, officials said. Though not mandatory, having the notation entered serves as back-up documentation at a follow-on command which might feel the Soldier’s tattoos don’t meet Army regulations.
I'll be praying for your VBS ...
ReplyDeleteThat is so sad about Chris, and so easy to say on our end, but it is THEIR loss, and it sounds like there are other people who thankfully realize that and will reap the rewards.
ReplyDeleteI think a company has a right to make a policy, but existing GOOD employees should be grandfathered in, in my opinion. This is just a shame.
Btw, I have a tattoo ... it's just not visible in most instances. :)
And I guess that's what matters. I've got two, but they are well hidden under my uniform and only see the light of day when I'm off-duty. Even though I have them, I can see how "unprofessional" they can look. Our DON - Director of Nursing - has a rose on her breast, and 9 times out of 10 it's visible to all as she wears some pretty low-cut tops under her scrub jacket. To be honest, the sight makes me cringe. She's the DON for heaven's sake!!
ReplyDeleteWe also have a rule about no facial piercings. I have my nose and eyebrow pierced, but am quite happy to take them out at work and pop them back in when I clock off.
Like you say Janeen, as long as a rule is enforced across the board, then that's okay. Tattoos don't seem to be a problem at the place I work, which makes me wonder what's so bad about piercings then? But I adhere to it, because it's the rule.
I'm sorry Chris has had this happen to him. Was there no way they could be hidden more? It does seem unfair to make it an issue AFTER he'd already been there a while and doing so well.
I'm so sorry for Chris. It's an absolute shame! And I really don't understand ... by now they should know him and how well he does his job.
ReplyDeleteI used to dislike tattoo's. I still don't get the point why you would color yourself like that. But especially when it's done tastefully (and more or less out of sight) I don't mind. We had a teacher at our school who had a little rose tattooed on her ankle. It was nicely done and no problem. I guess it would be a problem when teachers would have large tattoos on their arms and neck though.
I don't think most parents would like that in front of their kid's eyes all day ... (stereotypes indeed!)
I have one, one my upper arm, does it make a statement. Not to me it doesn't. It's a personal thing (to me).
ReplyDeleteWould I have it removed?, nope.
I could fully understand if it was 'love' 'hate' on both hands (fingers) or a tattoo that was poorly done, or one in bad taste.
I'd be more put off if someone had nearly all their face pierced than having tattoos.
This is the stupid part (I think.) When they hired him 6 months ago, he had all the same tattoos he has now. The policy then was that they had to be covered at work. So he wore long sleeves under his uniform shirt. Poor kid- it has been in the 90's for the past month, and he's in long sleeves. This new rule states that they can't be seen from just the uniform shirt- no sleeves allowed.
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding me?! They fired him for tattoos? Tell him to move to Hawai'i, or most any other area in the Pacific Islands, because here they are a HUGE part of the culture here. It's a tradition dating back hundreds of years that carries a lot of family culture with it. Many people (both men and women) have their whole family lineage tattooed the length of their leg, from hip to ankle; it's a long standing tradition in what was/is an oral-visual history, and artistic culture. There was no written language in the islands until the missionaries landed here, and immediately shoved their Puritanical "Christian" (not Christian behavior in my pov) view-points down the throats of the native peoples, outlawing their language, their hula dances (another traditional way to tell their history), tattooing, and clothing, and the US and European business interests, with the backing of US military, then subjugated the island people by force. Similar to what was done to USA's Native American tribes.
ReplyDeleteAs to the mainland: "Following a trip back through America’s past, Tattoos first started showing up on more and more men in the US during the late 50s. Originally, tattoos were fancied by sailors and marines, and military personnel during the many, many wars our country fought over the years, namely World Wars. Since the 20s, military people have been getting their ranks, or unit, faction, etc. tattooed on their bodies, generally on their shoulders, as a sign of loyalty and pride. Back in the day, if you had a tat, it either meant you just got out of the military or you just were released from prison.
For historical definition, there are tattoo machines that date back all the way to the late 1800s.
There was this taboo association with tattoos that caused people to react. Ink on your skin, “Oh no, that person must be a ruffian!”
So I think that some non-indigenous people have this idea in their heads that ALL tattoos are bad, and that anyone that has one (or more) must therefore be "bad", too.
I have two, that have deep Spiritual significance for me.
Especially in this day and age, I believe that to judge a person solely by whether or not they have tattoos, does a dis-service to you both. Granted, there are some people who sport gang-related tattoos, or do it because they think it makes them look "cool", but there are far more people out there who have interesting tattoos, and stories to go with them, who are nice people, creative people.
Don't judge us all the same ~
I personally don't care if folks have tats or not...but if they're in poor taste (something really graphic and violent or a Nazi symbol or an upside down crucifix, ect...), I can see how those would turn people off. Heck, my high school principal had tats on his arms (Navy) and the one in jr. high had some Marine ones on him. Both were former/retired military so I was cool with it.
ReplyDeleteI have one on my shoulder...but no one can see it unless I have a bathing suit on and it looks really bad after 20 years. The ink bled.
I'd keep Chris if he was doing a good job. I don't see the point in firing someone because of the tats if they bust ass on the job.
Although, a waitress kinda freaked me out recently. She had these stars all over her face. *shudder* She was cute but *yikes* I'm a wimp. The face?
My work has a no visible tattoo policy and no facial piercings. Ears must have only one piercing and there is to be no weird hair colors. I think people have a right to express themselves and be who they want to be, but if that's the case, plan to work for yourself or for a company that doesn't present itself to the public like a big corp will. Unfortunately, big corps, like mine, want to present themselves as clean and shiny and in a way, I understand that and respect that, but in other ways, I do feel it's discrimination.
ReplyDeleteWe've recently cracked down on our dress code policy too. I've always adhered to it, but most of the employees in our store try to get away with being slackers. Shirts not being tucked in. Forgetting name tags. Wearing colored shoes, ect.....We have to have our shirts tucked in, a black or brown belt w/ matching solid shoes and always a name tag on the left side. Oh...and khakis. Yesterday that uniform sucked since our air was shut off for renovations! UGH!
Oh, and just for the record, I got rid of my nose piercing for this job and I have 4 tattoos....all in places nobody can really see unless they look hard enough. One is on my left wrist though and is visible most of the time, so I bought a watch that covers it! I respect my workplace and I like my job, so I will follow rules!
ReplyDeleteMy boys are covered in tattoos. I don't really care. I don't exactly "like" them, but it isn't my body. They have both decided they don't want jobs that discriminate, and they've managed to find them. Ruby Tuesdays originally refused to hire Jonathan because of his tattoos...and yet now, he works there. So maybe they changed their policy.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't think they should NOT be hired. If it means not facing the public, there's a concession they could make. I think they make these blanket policies to cover people who are so disfigured from tattoos and piercings, one could lose their breakfast looking at them.
I'm not a big military person either...seems like they should be happy to get a willing body and not mind so much what's on it.
It you want to work for police...identifying tattoos are a no-no. That makes sense if you're going undercover or espionage.
Firing Chris, after the fact is pretty damn low. But NC is a 'right to work state' just like NY and they can do whatever they want. It's 'their' business after all----they can make the rules, unless of course you're black or puerto rican or gay or.....
poop...now I'm all fired up...
ReplyDeletepretty
ReplyDeleteIm so sorry to hear that your Son lost his job bc of tatoos. I do think that is discrimination too.I dont like tatoos at all, yet some ppl do. MY Son has a bunch and they are ameatureush most of them.
ReplyDeleteId of never let someone do that to me, but he did. So now with it 98 here he goes to his work with long sleeves. A hard lesson and price to pay. He also wishes he hadnt gotten them. I do too.
I have nothing against tattoos. I think if you must have bunches of them they should be within the body areas not visible to the public when serving in a service industry, because many have such a policy. I think these people who turn themselved into pin cushions metal piercing-wise must have low self-esteem or some other underlying problem. Anyone who puts a tattoo on their neck or face can't be serious about competing in the work place. I have never had a tattoo because there is nothing that I can think off that I am committed or interested enough in that I would permanently grace my body with. I am a Godly person but tattooing myself with religous symbols seems counterintuitive to me. I hope he accepts one of the other jpbs and is very successful. In today's job market (a poor one!) people need to have as few distractions to the employer as possible. unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteSorry about Chris losing his job, that's so unfair.
ReplyDeleteMy brother's wife's son Paul has lots of tattoos, and blue dreds and piercings. My brother bragged on him to me telling me that since Paul (you can see him on my facebook friends list) has taken over being the manager of a gaming store in Baltimore the profits have doubled. Btw, used to be my brother would have made fun of someone with the tatts, dreds and blue hair like Paul has, my brother is like some of his children are, very prejudiced against people who are different than he is. They all make fun of our Gay cousin behind his back and some of them smirk and make fun of Paul behind his back. Personally, I wish Paul was my biological nephew and that they were the inlaw nieces and nephews. Paul is open minded, highly intelligent, has a super nice personality and is very popular with the ladies. Heck, if I were 30 years younger I'd be chasing after him.
I really don't think drawings on skin should be a distraction as far as hiring goes. You could say a hair cut, no hair, too much hair etc is also wrong...I know some places say no facial hair. It just seems arbitrary and discriminatory. Unless there is a specific reason health-wise etc, how you look really shouldn't make any difference.
ReplyDeleteIf it was because of customers complaining about tattoo'd employees, someone is not being realistic.
ReplyDeleteI remember the whole stress of recovering from knee surgery. I went stir crazy.
The Navy is funny about facial hair but that's really more to protect the Naval persons, it's classed as a fire hazard (I kid you not). That doesn't mean you wouldn't get in if you did have facial hair, they would just warn you that if it does catch fire it's not their fault.
ReplyDeleteIn short, don't try and sue/blame us.
It has sure sparked some interesting conversations around our house. There have been good lessons, though. Things like thinking about what image you want to portray to the world- first impressions count, whether they're accurate or not. Also, what people look like isn't what they are. How many serial killers have had neighbors who said "but he was such a nice, clean-cut young man!"
ReplyDeleteThere isn't an answer. I know that corporations have an image they want to portray. I think it is wrong to fire a good employee just because you changed the rules and don't fit, but they have that right.
Tattoos have become very popular with men and women BUT I think everyone should think hard before getting any because many institutions and places of work frown on them. I think some are done so well and some are done very poorly. So for a company to say only ones done in taste will be allowed is impossible. It's like all or nothing so many places have chosen nothing. I do think this should be made known BEFORE hiring though
ReplyDeleteI have a couple but they can't be seen or I could lose my job too as I work for Child & Family Services and they are really into image
Well Jan, we also have a 'no tattoo' rule here too. Everybody in the family associates them with the wrong sort of person. When I lived in Bradford, England, one of my best friends had tattoos and he was definitely not the wrong sort of person but we do worry here about what our customers would think.
ReplyDelete