Woman Covered in Shit Tattoos Told to Cover Up for Work - Complains!

[Apollo]

I don't like that the girl used the word "prejudice" to describe her ordeal. She wasn't born with tats, she made that decision herself, that is by no means "prejudice" imo. I say that as someone who has tats, so I guess I'm discrimating against my own race, lol. Bottom line, if you want to be a teacher, a lawyer, a doctor, nurse, etc don't get too many or overly visable tattoos. It's really that simple. It's your body, you can do whatever you want, but it's also someone else right to choose to employ you. Using the discrimation card, even slightly like she did, is despicable imo.

Can I give your post 5 stars please!!!

Why?

Because your employer has the right to enforce whatever dress code they seem fit. You don't HAVE to work for them, you are choosing to. Therefore you choose to obey their rules.

Exactly!!!

[Apollo]

It's outdated and wrong. Len is 100% right.

Maybe.

But as an employer, don't I have the right to hire whomever I want to work for MY company?

We have this population that complains that people aren't being open-minded or progressive enough about fairly new popular things (like the exposed full body tattoos) which is cool and understandable. BUT those same people refuse to give those who disagree with them the same respect and open-mindedness. Freedom of speech.........unless you disagree with me, then you should shut up.

I don't care if somebody wants to tattoo their entire body, from the top of their forehead down.

Conversely, I also don't care if a business doesn't want to hire them because of it.

If people want others to "accept" them.......then they have to accept others who have a different opinion or value system.

[username]

The way I see it she's entitled to do whatever she wants to her own body but she also needs to accept that it might limit her career options somewhat. Not saying that's right but any imbecile knows that visible tats can cause you problems in this way. If she genuinely didn't realise that this is how things work then she's probably not that bright and shouldn't be anywhere near a classroom anyway.

But thats the whole point, changing those attitudes to bring them in line with the times, these are just old standards that no ones changed up but just looking at the world around you clears up how socially unacceptable tats are these days.

Those morals will be great to remember when you have to ask "do you want fries with that burger?" a thousand times a day.

It's all nice and idealistic, but is it really worth being stuck in low-level jobs for the rest of your life?

But thats what im getting at Ronnie, this aint some far out idea, this aint nudism in the workplace, its a perfectly natural part of social evolution, in much the way spikey hairdos were once employers anathema...now you got weathermen with em, this isnt something wild and totally idealistic and out of sync with the direction our cultures going in.

It's outdated and wrong. Len is 100% right.

That's all nice and well lads. I'm not even disagreeing. But I am saying that reality right now is that when you do that, you'll be flipping burgers for life. No matter how outdated you think it is, it's what will happen. And ignoring that is just incredibly stupid.

[The Sandman]

Didn't they see the tattoos when they hired her? Why'd they give her the job. I get that she should be required to cover up tattoos in areas that are normally covered up, but asking her to cover up tattoos that would have been clearly visible at the time of offering her the job seems a bit absurd.

It sounds from the article more like it was for a placement as part of her training course, rather than an actual job

When ya look like that, what are your job prospects?

- bartender

- graphic design

- kitchen staff

- stripper

- mechanic?

tattoo artist

Vet

You'd be surprised at how many people in the medical profession have a lot of tattoos.

Reminds me of this:

Was part of the INKED Inc. display - showing lots of professionals with lots of tattoos that you wouldn't otherwise expect.

[Apollo]

Didn't they see the tattoos when they hired her? Why'd they give her the job. I get that she should be required to cover up tattoos in areas that are normally covered up, but asking her to cover up tattoos that would have been clearly visible at the time of offering her the job seems a bit absurd.

It sounds from the article more like it was for a placement as part of her training course, rather than an actual job

When ya look like that, what are your job prospects?

- bartender

- graphic design

- kitchen staff

- stripper

- mechanic?

tattoo artist

Vet

You'd be surprised at how many people in the medical profession have a lot of tattoos.

Reminds me of this:

Was part of the INKED Inc. display - showing lots of professionals with lots of tattoos that you wouldn't otherwise expect.

That's a great picture and a great message.

But it's not really addressing the point of this topic/conversation.

What if he had tattoos all over his fingers, hands, on his forehead and neck, on the side of his face (ala Mike Tyson).

As the owner of a hospital/school/whatever I still should have the right to hire who I want to give the job to. And if I run a medical facility that specializes in elderly sick people, I'm going to hire people that make them feel comfortable.

People have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies.

But shouldn't I also have the right to decide if I want to hire them or not?

Acceptance goes both ways.

[Axls Rocket Queen]

Simple solution to this whole issue:

The only tattoos I have which aren't easily coverable in work clothes are on my wrists. I've never had anyone at work take issue with them before, but if an employer ever did and I really wanted the job that bad, I'd cover them for work.

[The Sandman]

Didn't they see the tattoos when they hired her? Why'd they give her the job. I get that she should be required to cover up tattoos in areas that are normally covered up, but asking her to cover up tattoos that would have been clearly visible at the time of offering her the job seems a bit absurd.

It sounds from the article more like it was for a placement as part of her training course, rather than an actual job

When ya look like that, what are your job prospects?

- bartender

- graphic design

- kitchen staff

- stripper

- mechanic?

tattoo artist

Vet

You'd be surprised at how many people in the medical profession have a lot of tattoos.

Reminds me of this:

Was part of the INKED Inc. display - showing lots of professionals with lots of tattoos that you wouldn't otherwise expect.

That's a great picture and a great message.

But it's not really addressing the point of this topic/conversation.

What if he had tattoos all over his fingers, hands, on his forehead and neck, on the side of his face (ala Mike Tyson).

As the owner of a hospital/school/whatever I still should have the right to hire who I want to give the job to. And if I run a medical facility that specializes in elderly sick people, I'm going to hire people that make them feel comfortable.

Oh but that wasn't the point I was making - I'm wholeheartedly against that sort of visibility. Why else did the army recently relax their policy on face/neck/hands tattoos? To improve sign-ups.

Fodder...

[Facekicker]

The way I see it she's entitled to do whatever she wants to her own body but she also needs to accept that it might limit her career options somewhat. Not saying that's right but any imbecile knows that visible tats can cause you problems in this way. If she genuinely didn't realise that this is how things work then she's probably not that bright and shouldn't be anywhere near a classroom anyway.

Exactly. Christ almighty schools are one of the most conservative places you can work, particularly ones that have a religious ethos and board of management. 99% of the schools here in Ireland are Catholic run for example, it is no secret that teachers are expected to conform/uphold the ethos of the school. Getting tatted up and then complaining when you get rejected by one of these schools tells me only one thing - you are a fucking dumbass.

Frankly, I don't want some tatted up pincushion teaching my kids anyway. It's a vile look and kids are impressionable enough as it is without them coming home telling me about their teacher with the drawings all over her neck. Next thing they'll be scrawling all over themselves with a permanent marker to copy the teacher.

As for discrimination? Sorry but it all boils down to personal choice, and if it is good enough for the employee to exercise theirs in getting a tattoo as their preference then it works both ways, if an employer doesn't like them they have every right to refuse to hire you. That's their choice. Go work somewhere where tattoos meet the look of the business, or better still start your own business and hire all the tattooed people you like.

[Len Cnut]

The way I see it she's entitled to do whatever she wants to her own body but she also needs to accept that it might limit her career options somewhat. Not saying that's right but any imbecile knows that visible tats can cause you problems in this way. If she genuinely didn't realise that this is how things work then she's probably not that bright and shouldn't be anywhere near a classroom anyway.

But thats the whole point, changing those attitudes to bring them in line with the times, these are just old standards that no ones changed up but just looking at the world around you clears up how socially unacceptable tats are these days.

Those morals will be great to remember when you have to ask "do you want fries with that burger?" a thousand times a day.

It's all nice and idealistic, but is it really worth being stuck in low-level jobs for the rest of your life?

But thats what im getting at Ronnie, this aint some far out idea, this aint nudism in the workplace, its a perfectly natural part of social evolution, in much the way spikey hairdos were once employers anathema...now you got weathermen with em, this isnt something wild and totally idealistic and out of sync with the direction our cultures going in.

It's outdated and wrong. Len is 100% right.

That's all nice and well lads. I'm not even disagreeing. But I am saying that reality right now is that when you do that, you'll be flipping burgers for life. No matter how outdated you think it is, it's what will happen. And ignoring that is just incredibly stupid.

But again, thats my point, just accepting that doesn't really do any good. The point is these things change in dribs and drabs and someone somewhere has to make some kinda fuss to highlight how odd a thing it is in this day and age, thats what i was getting at in my first post.

[AxlisOld]

She isn't being discriminated against, she is allowed to keep the job isn't she? To me having someone cover tattoos is no different than having a dress code at work or requiring someone's hair be combed/brushed.

Also, as was brought up, she is working at one of the most conservative places possible.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Len,

Do you realize that tattoos are a generational? Just because they are cool or popular now, does not mean they will be 20 years from now. So why should businesses change their policies to benifit one generation? You wouldn't ask them to change policies for any other "fad" why should tattoos be any different.

Now to address the "fad" aspect, because yes it is indeed a fad. After WW2 many soldiers went out and got the ole' anchor or "mom" tattoo's. Those are symbols that helped define that generation. But their children DID NOT embrace tattoos the way their "fathers" did (because back then it was the men getting them, not women). If you go back and look at the kids of 60's and 70's, they did not have tats (for the most part, of course there were exceptions). Why not? Because tattoos were something their parents did, so they grew long hair and did other things to rebel. But what happend to the kids of the 80's and 90's? We REALLY embraced the tattoos, because it was something to make us look different than our parents. It's all a generational thing really. BTW, I didn't make this up, one of my Grandfathers relayed this wisdom on me after I had gotten my tattoos. He said "It might make you look young now, but someday those tattoos are going to make you look old." And to be quite frank, he was right. I'd bet the farm that the kids born in the 2000's won't give a rats ass about tattoos, they will have their own thing to rebel with.

If you need further proof, think about piercings. How many guys had one ear ring back in the 80's or 90's? Shit I even did. How many do you see today? None. Because they have been out dated.

[The Sandman]

Just cos you have a terrible tat Len

[Dazey]

Just cos you have a terrible tat Len

I've got three shit ones but I wasn't fucking daft enough (and that's saying something) to have any of them past the wrist or above the neckline. I means it's not fuckin' rocket surgery is it?

Edited October 22, 2014 by Dazey

[The Sandman]

Just cos you have a terrible tat Len

I've got three shit ones but I wasn't fucking daft enough (and that's saying something) to have any of them past the wrist or above the neckline. I means it's not fuckin' rocket surgery is it?

I like yours tbf!

But yeah, tattoos on face or neck generally do not suggest a productive member of society....

(Not that I'd ever tell that to his face)

[Dazey]

I've got three shit ones but I wasn't fucking daft enough (and that's saying something) to have any of them past the wrist or above the neckline. I means it's not fuckin' rocket surgery is it?

I like yours tbf!

But yeah, tattoos on face or neck generally do not suggest a productive member of society....

I like my GnR tattoo. The rest, not so much.

[Val22]

A lot of work places tell you to cover your tattoos. It's just the way society is.

I worked in a school for 13 years and had to keep my tattoos covered. I never got annoyed. There were young kids, so I just kept them covered. It wasn't a big deal to me.

My daughter has to cover us her tattoos, but my son can keep his showing, which he does and his piercings are okay too.

It depends on the place of business. it's just the way it is.

[Len Cnut]

Do you realize that tattoos are a generational? Just because they are cool or popular now, does not mean they will be 20 years from now. So why should businesses change their policies to benifit one generation? You wouldn't ask them to change policies for any other "fad" why should tattoos be any different.

Body art has existed for centuries man, in all different cultures. Longer than any still running business in this world, thats for damn sure. And why should they change their policy? I dunno, why did they change it over spikey hair? Or, y'know, all those funky fuckin' razor haircut the children and so fond of these days. It just happens, doesn't it? Or purple hair or something, I dunno. Or long hair even.

If you need further proof, think about piercings. How many guys had one ear ring back in the 80's or 90's? Shit I even did. How many do you see today? None. Because they have been out dated.

I dunno man, you seen those big disc things those boys have in their ear, looking like they're expecting a fuckin' acrobat to somersault through their big dangley fuckin' earholes?

Anyway, I've accidentally positioned myself as defender of the fuckin' tattoo kids, personally i reckon all them mongs with a bunch of shit in their face look stupid too, i just don't think, or would've thought rules about this shit are slackening somewhat. And I suppose they are really, slowly. It don't really matter if EVERYONE still has em in 20 years time (although there's a lot of erasing that wants doing if they don't!) point is it'll be one less stupid rule gotten rid of.

And get stuffed Sandy, my tattoos sick!

Simple solution to this whole issue:

The only tattoos I have which aren't easily coverable in work clothes are on my wrists. I've never had anyone at work take issue with them before, but if an employer ever did and I really wanted the job that bad, I'd cover them for work.

Here y'are, look, someones got the idea!

Edited October 22, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Patience 4 Axl]

She isn't being discriminated against, she is allowed to keep the job isn't she? To me having someone cover tattoos is no different than having a dress code at work or requiring someone's hair be combed/brushed.

Also, as was brought up, she is working at one of the most conservative places possible.

That's true and I don't disagree. I have an ankle tat and on my interview for my current job I wore pants instead of a skirt, just in case. My issue though is with their excuse of being "strict Catholic". What does that even mean? To my knowledge there is nothing that says Catholics aren't allowed to have tattoos.

[Ace Nova]

She isn't being discriminated against, she is allowed to keep the job isn't she? To me having someone cover tattoos is no different than having a dress code at work or requiring someone's hair be combed/brushed.

Also, as was brought up, she is working at one of the most conservative places possible.

^^This^^

[Iron MikeyJ]

@Len,

I know body art and piercings have been around since forever. I just meant the trend of 19 year old chicks getting a butterfly tatted on their upper arse didn't begin until the 90's. It is a fad that will be associated with folks born in the 70's, 80's and 90's. If it carries on beyond that, well good for them. But all I'm saying is that it may also go the way of the single pieced ears in dudes. The next generation will decide what they like and don't like. But society doesn't need to be updated just to follow trends. What's the next battle going to be, the right to wear skinny jeans in the office??? Some lines don't need to be crossed, just some folks need to learn a little bit more manners.

She isn't being discriminated against, she is allowed to keep the job isn't she? To me having someone cover tattoos is no different than having a dress code at work or requiring someone's hair be combed/brushed.

Also, as was brought up, she is working at one of the most conservative places possible.

That's true and I don't disagree. I have an ankle tat and on my interview for my current job I wore pants instead of a skirt, just in case. My issue though is with their excuse of being "strict Catholic". What does that even mean? To my knowledge there is nothing that says Catholics aren't allowed to have tattoos.

Desecration of the skin IS a sin according to Catholics, and many other Christian doniminations.

[Amir]

The passage in the bible against tattooing is in Leviticus, Christians tend to ignore pretty much all of Leviticus (which also prohibits pork, wearing garments made of two materials, etc.). Hell, even Deuteronomy goes against Leviticus in the case of marrying your dead brother's wife (hence all the bother about Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon: Church of England essentially founded because Anne Boleyn wouldn't put out unless he put a ring on it).

[AxlisOld]

The passage in the bible against tattooing is in Leviticus, Christians tend to ignore pretty much all of Leviticus (which also prohibits pork, wearing garments made of two materials, etc.). Hell, even Deuteronomy goes against Leviticus in the case of marrying your dead brother's wife (hence all the bother about Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon: Church of England essentially founded because Anne Boleyn wouldn't put out unless he put a ring on it).

I think most Christians selectively ignore most of the bible don't they?

[Patience 4 Axl]

@Len,

I know body art and piercings have been around since forever. I just meant the trend of 19 year old chicks getting a butterfly tatted on their upper arse didn't begin until the 90's. It is a fad that will be associated with folks born in the 70's, 80's and 90's. If it carries on beyond that, well good for them. But all I'm saying is that it may also go the way of the single pieced ears in dudes. The next generation will decide what they like and don't like. But society doesn't need to be updated just to follow trends. What's the next battle going to be, the right to wear skinny jeans in the office??? Some lines don't need to be crossed, just some folks need to learn a little bit more manners.

She isn't being discriminated against, she is allowed to keep the job isn't she? To me having someone cover tattoos is no different than having a dress code at work or requiring someone's hair be combed/brushed.

Also, as was brought up, she is working at one of the most conservative places possible.

That's true and I don't disagree. I have an ankle tat and on my interview for my current job I wore pants instead of a skirt, just in case. My issue though is with their excuse of being "strict Catholic". What does that even mean? To my knowledge there is nothing that says Catholics aren't allowed to have tattoos.

Desecration of the skin IS a sin according to Catholics, and many other Christian doniminations.

No, there's no formal doctrine on the tattoo issue for Catholics as far as I know. Never heard anything about it in all my years in Catholic school, going to church, etc. My boss is Jewish (he actually has several tats) and he's joked about it several times that apparently there's something in the old testament Jews follow about not defiling your skin or something to that affect, but it's not in Catholic teachings.

[Amir]

The passage in the bible against tattooing is in Leviticus, Christians tend to ignore pretty much all of Leviticus (which also prohibits pork, wearing garments made of two materials, etc.). Hell, even Deuteronomy goes against Leviticus in the case of marrying your dead brother's wife (hence all the bother about Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon: Church of England essentially founded because Anne Boleyn wouldn't put out unless he put a ring on it).

I think most Christians selectively ignore most of the bible don't they?

If we want to get controversial... But "officially" speaking, from my limited understanding Christians are supposed to follow the New Testament but still take some elements from the Old Testament.

History of the Church of England is pretty interesting (half of my history classes of the last two years of high school were on the Tudors, including the English Reformation and to a lesser extent the Scottish Reformation). We were always told to consider that Henry VIII may have sincerely had a change of heart regarding the Supremacy of the Papacy, but my cynical self found that hard to believe, especially considering how proud Henry was of being granted the title of Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) by the Pope for a text he wrote called Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (In Defence of the Seven Sacrements).

There's your boring history trivia for the day

P4A, this is the passage in Leviticus: "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD."

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-28.htm

Obviously I have no idea how accurate these translations are from the original Hebrew.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Amir

[Johnny Drama]

@Len,

I know body art and piercings have been around since forever. I just meant the trend of 19 year old chicks getting a butterfly tatted on their upper arse didn't begin until the 90's. It is a fad that will be associated with folks born in the 70's, 80's and 90's. If it carries on beyond that, well good for them. But all I'm saying is that it may also go the way of the single pieced ears in dudes. The next generation will decide what they like and don't like. But society doesn't need to be updated just to follow trends. What's the next battle going to be, the right to wear skinny jeans in the office??? Some lines don't need to be crossed, just some folks need to learn a little bit more manners.

She isn't being discriminated against, she is allowed to keep the job isn't she? To me having someone cover tattoos is no different than having a dress code at work or requiring someone's hair be combed/brushed.

Also, as was brought up, she is working at one of the most conservative places possible.

That's true and I don't disagree. I have an ankle tat and on my interview for my current job I wore pants instead of a skirt, just in case. My issue though is with their excuse of being "strict Catholic". What does that even mean? To my knowledge there is nothing that says Catholics aren't allowed to have tattoos.

Desecration of the skin IS a sin according to Catholics, and many other Christian doniminations.

No it's not. It's in The Bible but that's a Jewish thing.

The passage in the bible against tattooing is in Leviticus, Christians tend to ignore pretty much all of Leviticus (which also prohibits pork, wearing garments made of two materials, etc.). Hell, even Deuteronomy goes against Leviticus in the case of marrying your dead brother's wife (hence all the bother about Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon: Church of England essentially founded because Anne Boleyn wouldn't put out unless he put a ring on it).

I think most Christians selectively ignore most of the bible don't they?

If we're talking Jewish law as a basis, Catholics are supposed to follow the laws, at least for the most part, relating to morals etc but not ceremonious stuff ie sacrifices, beards and pork.