Starbucks is reviewing strict rule for no visible tatoos (1 Viewer)

Why is Starbucks evaluating the Tatoo and Dress Policy?

  • More people with Tatoo will visit Starbucks instead of independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • They are most worried that the 30,000 petition could cost sales

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .

Rx_

Nothing In Moderation
Local time
Today, 07:01
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
2,803
Starbucks is reviewing its strict rule of no visible tattoos for its employees.

Not only is it taking a second look at tattoos, it's going over its entire dress code, says spokesman Zack Hutson. The company expects to announce a dress code update within the next few weeks.
Updated due to question: Dress Code for the Staff.
At this time, they don't hire anyone with visible tatoos. They do require long-sleved shirts for those who have them on arms.
 
Last edited:

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 13:01
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
9,110
Is this a tattoo and dress code for customers or staff?

Col
 

LewisCowles-CD2

New member
Local time
Today, 13:01
Joined
Sep 12, 2014
Messages
8
Personally I don't think tattoos are getting that much "bigger" as in more popular, but I fail to see why it should matter if someone wants to put ink inside their skin, as long as they don't walk around doing it to others (literally has NEVER happened!) then why should employers make arbitrary rules about such stupid things...
 

Vassago

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
Local time
Today, 09:01
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,751
Tattoos are definitely trending into a more acceptable and widespread feature for someone to have in almost any market. Soon enough, it will be ok in all markets as the younger generations take over.

I feel like we've beat this topic to death already.
 

Bladerunner

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 06:01
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
1,799
Personally I don't think tattoos are getting that much "bigger" as in more popular, but I fail to see why it should matter if someone wants to put ink inside their skin, as long as they don't walk around doing it to others (literally has NEVER happened!) then why should employers make arbitrary rules about such stupid things...

Because of their potential customers??????? plus the tattoos have been in the past a visual sign that you are a BAD boy, Probably Dangerous and one to stay away form. Nowdays, so many kids have them, it is hard to tell who is the bad guys. Will tell you this, 95% of the jails in the US houses prisoners who have multiple tattoos and very few people who do not. Go Figure.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 09:01
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
Will tell you this, 95% of the jails in the US houses prisoners who have multiple tattoos and very few people who do not. Go Figure.

So your logic here is:

1) Convicted criminals tend to have tattoos.
2) Convicted criminals are bad people.
Ergo
3) Anyone with a tattoo is a bad person.

I'm sure the 20% to 30% of Americans with at least one tattoo (including, unsurprisingly, a MUCH higher percentage of the enlisted military) would object to that.

Logically, your argument is no more sound than this one:

1) Piracy has drastically decreased since the 17th century.
2) Average global temperature has gone up since the 17th century.
Ergo
3) Pirates prevent global warming.
 

Brianwarnock

Retired
Local time
Today, 13:01
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
12,701
I don't normally defend Blade but he did say

Nowdays, so many kids have them, it is hard to tell who is the bad guys

I think Froth has been ottp in his response. I find some tattoos ugly but that would not prevent me visiting, after all I'm not particularly pretty myself.

Brian
 

AnthonyGerrard

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 13:01
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
1,069
If its a dolphin on the shoulder, I would be offended - as well as the generic coffee, cakes etc - I can find the same boring crap on every highstreet.

The same boring "individuality" displayed by the staff too.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 09:01
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
My point was it's as ridiculous to think that tattoos indicate a 'bad guy' as it is to think pirates prevent global warming. It is a logical fallacy, and there is no logical connection there at all.

If you think that's over the top, that's not my problem.
 

AnthonyGerrard

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 13:01
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
1,069
My point was it's as ridiculous to think that tattoos indicate a 'bad guy' as it is to think pirates prevent global warming. It is a logical fallacy, and there is no logical connection there at all.

If you think that's over the top, that's not my problem.

Yep that's right Piracy has actually gone up - and is the main cause of global warming.

Just like tattoos are only worn by bad guys.


We all think exactly that!

How old are you - do you have a tattoo for effect, that when someone expresses any negative opinion on , you flounce off the handle in a teenage diatribe of how misunderstood you/they are.;)
 

Rx_

Nothing In Moderation
Local time
Today, 07:01
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
2,803
Of course one wonders how they will handle tatoo slogans.
For example: Seattle's Best
(A competitor to Starbucks)

Saw an interesting article about tatoo with semiconductor ink used to make the RFI connection for human Nural Nets and to read body indicators. As one might guess, one was on the back of the skull.

I have been wondering when the new thin-film LED will be used.
An art form powered by human body, presents a video.

Add the two together.... Tatoo required with neural net... so officials and girlfriends can See What You Are Thinking.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 09:01
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
We all think exactly that!

Howsabout you look back at the post I initially replied to, where that is the precise point Bladerunner tried to make.

In fact, just since you obviously missed it, I'll quote it again for you:
plus the tattoos have been in the past a visual sign that you are a BAD boy, Probably Dangerous and one to stay away form. Nowdays, so many kids have them, it is hard to tell who is the bad guys. Will tell you this, 95% of the jails in the US houses prisoners who have multiple tattoos and very few people who do not. Go Figure.

Obviously the only way to tell a 'BAD boy' from a good person is to look for a tattoo. Because you can always tell if someone is good or bad from their appearance, just look at Ted Bundy! Oh, wait....

As to the rest....

How old are you - do you have a tattoo for effect, that when someone expresses any negative opinion on , you flounce off the handle in a teenage diatribe of how misunderstood you/they are.;)

Nope, but I find it hilarious that you think that. Whatsamatter, son, don't like getting called out for an out-moded prejudice? "Omigod, a guy on the internet thinks I'm ridiculous because I think tattoos make you a criminal! I know, I'll call him a child! That'll sure show him!"

Fact of the matter is I'm probably older than you and don't have a single tattoo. I simply learned long ago not to judge people by appearances, and think poorly of people who do.
 

AnthonyGerrard

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 13:01
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
1,069
Howsabout you look back at the post I initially replied to, where that is the precise point Bladerunner tried to make.

In fact, just since you obviously missed it, I'll quote it again for you:


Obviously the only way to tell a 'BAD boy' from a good person is to look for a tattoo. Because you can always tell if someone is good or bad from their appearance, just look at Ted Bundy! Oh, wait....

As to the rest....



Nope, but I find it hilarious that you think that. Whatsamatter, son, don't like getting called out for an out-moded prejudice? "Omigod, a guy on the internet thinks I'm ridiculous because I think tattoos make you a criminal! I know, I'll call him a child! That'll sure show him!"

Fact of the matter is I'm probably older than you and don't have a single tattoo. I simply learned long ago not to judge people by appearances, and think poorly of people who do.

Your still seemingly oblivious to what Blade actually said, and Brian pointed out to you also. :confused:

Your needlessly offended and preachy. In spite of the facts ....and your still at it I may add.

I am glad you don't judge by appearance - cos if your eye sight's as bad as your comprehension- your misapplication of logic could lead you to anywhere?
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 09:01
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
Anyway, to get back on topic...

While I obviously think judging people's moral character by whether or not they have ink injected under their skin is insane, I can certainly understand Starbucks beeing leery of visible tattoos. It's a known fact, as shown in this very thread, that a goodly number of people in the US are put off by visible tattoos. That leaves Starbucks with an issue: which costs the company more: customers who are put off by tattood employees and may not come back, or bad employee morale due to the whole 'no visible tattoos' rule.

Having spent so long living in Seattle before I had to move back to Hell...er...I mean Michigan...I could go on and on about the whole 'coffee culture' thing, but it basically comes down to which is more profitable - catering a little more to the 'alternative' crowd and losing a few of the more traditional current customers, or sticking with what they have and dealing with the (admittedly slight) morale issue and lack of the whole 'coffee culture' crowd market segment.

I really don't know which way they're going to go, although my feeling is the loss of business from anti-tattoo customers will be miniscule, and would be overcome by increased efficiency due to slightly better employee morale.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 09:01
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
Your still seemingly oblivious to what Blade actually said, and Brian pointed out to you also. :confused:

Your needlessly offended and preachy. In spite of the facts ....and your still at it I may add.

Never said I was offended - I said that the whole prejudice is insane.

Since you're so convinced that I'm misreading this:
plus the tattoos have been in the past a visual sign that you are a BAD boy, Probably Dangerous and one to stay away form. Nowdays, so many kids have them, it is hard to tell who is the bad guys. Will tell you this, 95% of the jails in the US houses prisoners who have multiple tattoos and very few people who do not. Go Figure.
...please, enlighten me on how this does NOT imply that he feels tattoos indicate a bad person. Hell, not only does he point out that there's a longstanding prejudice that tattoos indicate you're a bad person, he straight up correllates tattoos with convicted criminals. And yet you both tell me he's not saying what he very explicitly said.

I am glad you don't judge by appearance - cos if your eye sight's as bad as your comprehension- your misapplication of logic could lead you to anywhere?

Yes, because I'm the one misunderstanding "tattoos have been in the past a visual sign that you are a BAD boy, Probably Dangerous and one to stay away form." and "95% of the jails in the US houses prisoners who have multiple tattoos and very few people who do not. Go Figure."

Blade's entire point, since you obviously are utterly incapable of understanding either it or me, is that tattoos drive away customers, and as 'proof' he points out that tattoos show you're a bad person.

He didn't say that that's the general conception, he said that tattoos indicate you're a bad person, and further correllated it with 'prisoners have tattoos, therefore tattoos are for bad people'.

I, in return, have not once disputed the 'drives away customers' portion of his post, only the 'tatoos show you're a bad person' part. Sorry that's too difficult for you to comprehend. I'm sure they offer remedial reading classes in your area that you could use to remedy that.

Edit: Since you are obviously incapable of determining the difference on your own, I'll break it down for you. Bladerunner's post started out by pointing out that visible tattoos can lose customers. That part I never argued. He then went on to explain that that was because tattoos have always marked you as a bad, dangerous person, then he bemoaned the fact that more people have them now. Then he pointed out that prisoners tend to have tattoos as a way to reinforce his 'bad people have tattoos' point.

He never said that Starbucks would lose customers because customers are put off by visible tattoos or because customers think tattoos indicate bad people. His point was that they would lose customers because tattoos DO indicate the tattood person is bad, dangerous, or a criminal.

There is a HUGE difference between "They would lose customers because customers think tattoos are for evil people" and "They would lose customers because tatoos are for evil people."

Edit 2: To get right down to it, had Bladerunner stopped with "plus the tattoos have been in the past a visual sign that you are a BAD boy, Probably Dangerous and one to stay away form.", I'd have had no issue with the statement, as he'd still just have been talking about what customers think. It was when he went on to try to prove tats definitely indicate lack of moral character with the next two sentences that I objected.

Edit 3: Let me just add that individually listing out 3000 missing log files for my boss thanks to a drive failure is incredibly tedious work.
 
Last edited:

AnthonyGerrard

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 13:01
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
1,069
Never said I was offended - I said that the whole prejudice is insane.

Since you're so convinced that I'm misreading this:

...please, enlighten me on how this does NOT imply that he feels tattoos indicate a bad person. Hell, not only does he point out that there's a longstanding prejudice that tattoos indicate you're a bad person, he straight up correllates tattoos with convicted criminals. And yet you both tell me he's not saying what he very explicitly said.



Yes, because I'm the one misunderstanding "tattoos have been in the past a visual sign that you are a BAD boy, Probably Dangerous and one to stay away form." and "95% of the jails in the US houses prisoners who have multiple tattoos and very few people who do not. Go Figure."

Blade's entire point, since you obviously are utterly incapable of understanding either it or me, is that tattoos drive away customers, and as 'proof' he points out that tattoos show you're a bad person.

He didn't say that that's the general conception, he said that tattoos indicate you're a bad person, and further correllated it with 'prisoners have tattoos, therefore tattoos are for bad people'.

I, in return, have not once disputed the 'drives away customers' portion of his post, only the 'tatoos show you're a bad person' part. Sorry that's too difficult for you to comprehend. I'm sure they offer remedial reading classes in your area that you could use to remedy that.

Edit: Since you are obviously incapable of determining the difference on your own, I'll break it down for you. Bladerunner's post started out by pointing out that visible tattoos can lose customers. That part I never argued. He then went on to explain that that was because tattoos have always marked you as a bad, dangerous person, then he bemoaned the fact that more people have them now. Then he pointed out that prisoners tend to have tattoos as a way to reinforce his 'bad people have tattoos' point.

He never said that Starbucks would lose customers because customers are put off by visible tattoos or because customers think tattoos indicate bad people. His point was that they would lose customers because tattoos DO indicate the tattood person is bad, dangerous, or a criminal.

There is a HUGE difference between "They would lose customers because customers think tattoos are for evil people" and "They would lose customers because tatoos are for evil people."

Edit 2: To get right down to it, had Bladerunner stopped with "plus the tattoos have been in the past a visual sign that you are a BAD boy, Probably Dangerous and one to stay away form.", I'd have had no issue with the statement, as he'd still just have been talking about what customers think. It was when he went on to try to prove tats definitely indicate lack of moral character with the next two sentences that I objected.

Edit 3: Let me just add that individually listing out 3000 missing log files for my boss thanks to a drive failure is incredibly tedious work.



I still think you've got your knickers in a twist over nothing. YOu have misapplied the logic - when there's no evidence that Blade actually did. He just listed few home truths about tats.

People can misinterpret the facts into illogical conclusions - but I am not sure he did though.

Escpecially as you keep focusing away from - the "Nowdays, so many kids have them, it is hard to tell who is the bad guys".


Here he explicitly says he cant make the link between tattoos and badness. Yet your insisting he necessarily does.


Enough time wasted already! My fault I jumped in - when Brians original reply - should have stood as enough explanation/reply.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom