Company wont hire programmers with tatoo (policy)

[Rx_]

Wow, this thread displays the response at the meeting. I was not intending to bring this up as an employee's rights, fashion statement and the lot.
People are sensitive about this (pro and con) to be sure. My guess is that if we Access-Programmers somehow showed up at a convention, and we had a really great speaker discussing hiring in our industry; I should warn them "for gosh sake, don't mention tats!" LOL

As for the Veteran mentioned above. This relates to advice my son is asking about.
Yes, I am older than the dirt most of you stand on (maybe not that old, you get the point). My son received an appointment to one of the five Service Academy. This week he was chosen to be a Presidential Escort in the Honor Guard in D.C during the parade and events. Not bad for a 19 year old (bragging is sometimes acceptable).
One of the conditions for being part in all of this is "No Visible tats".
Yes, the President (Commander In Chief) does have regulations about ink.
As part of the USMMA college training, he was assigned to various cargo/military ships to work as Engineer Assistant for 100 days, and in a few week for 200 days. He is also a Military Naval Reserve Officer as part of this status.
If any of you have friends that work in the Marine Cargo or Military Navy industry, you can only imagine the pressure he is under to get inked.
Now, regulations for a Service Academy and opportunities to work with the Executive Branch mean ink can not be visible in any of the uniforms.
Again, this is not a "disrobe, bend over and spread them" kind of inspection.

My advice today is "wait until graduation". I am not for or against it. But, his circumstance is different than most.

My message was only intended to advise that it could make a difference.

All of that said... it really brought out a great discussion of the very talented people on this forum!

 

[Dick7Access]

I personally have nothing against tattoos, don't have a tattoo myself. But, if I go to a bank to deposit my money, appearances do count for me.
I can fully understand the idea that an employer can and will base hiring on this type of criteria.[/QUOTE]

People can have all the preferences they want, tattoos, weird hairdos, weird names etc. that is their legal right, but if they are applying for a job or getting something important done; they would be wise to remember that money talks and BS walks. A treasurer of a group I was with was instruction to open a checking account in a certain way. She was a tiny lady who went to the bank with very casual dress. The bank said they could not configure the account as we requested. I told her to meet me at the bank. I went down to the bank with a suit and tie. I told the bank what they were going to do. They said yes sir. Our poor little lady was more intelligent, more business wise, more articulate than I was. The only thing I had was appearance.

 

[Fifty2One]

Being part of a honour guard, everyone knows up front NO VISIBLE TATS OR PIERCINGS, but then if you have signed up to serve your country in that capacity your country basically owns you for the period of enlistment.
For other places if you are front line employee then tats and piercings could have an impact on driving away business, so I can see it being sensible that a company would want to discriminate. For most employment I can see it as being a foolish choice not to hire the best due to having tattoos, well except for someone having a swastika on their forehead or other insignias which would create a poisoned workplace. For piercings, unless it would pose a health & safety hazard for them selves or others, there would be not too many reasons to not hire.
Some companies are run by people intelligent enough to want to hire the best people with the best abilities for the work, often silly prejudisms can really hurt the bottom line.

 

[Vassago]

Being part of a honour guard, everyone knows up front NO VISIBLE TATS OR PIERCINGS, but then if you have signed up to serve your country in that capacity your country basically owns you for the period of enlistment.
For other places if you are front line employee then tats and piercings could have an impact on driving away business, so I can see it being sensible that a company would want to discriminate. For most employment I can see it as being a foolish choice not to hire the best due to having tattoos, well except for someone having a swastika on their forehead or other insignias which would create a poisoned workplace. For piercings, unless it would pose a health & safety hazard for them selves or others, there would be not too many reasons to not hire.
Some companies are run by people intelligent enough to want to hire the best people with the best abilities for the work, often silly prejudisms can really hurt the bottom line.

I don't think the problem is that companies won't hire them because it will drive business away. I think the problem is that it will drive business away! This narrow view is really what is at issue here.

It reminds me of a story about a business here in the bible belt of Florida. There was recently a bill introduced that would have made it illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference or sexual identity. One of the business owners made his point that he had no problem with sexual preference or sexual identity and would never treat anyone different, but couldn't afford to hire someone who identified as the opposite sex because it would affect his business. Obviously the fact that it would affect his business, that people would avoid it, is the real problem. HOWEVER, when he won't hire them, even though it goes against his own convictions, he is adding to the problem. He is basically a hypocrite in his own views. It's almost like he is saying it's okay for his customers to discriminate. THIS is the view that must change.

This same view can be applied to tattoos and piercings. If more business owners would stand up and not allow the BELIEVED convictions of others to affect their business practice, they might be surprised at how little it would really impact it.

On another note, the company Jimmy Johns has a very strict piercing policy. HOWEVER, they changed their policy at one store in an artsy district in Jacksonville because it was more acceptable there. My goal would be to prove the hypocricy in that change.

A recent poll I read stated that close to 50% of Americans 21 to 40 had at least one tattoo compared to 15% of Americans in all age groups 18+. That's not a number that would ACCEPT tattoos as normal, that's a number of people with actual tattoos. Obviousy acceptance in that age group would be much higher. If that doesn't say anything about the direction of acceptance this country is heading into, I don't know what does.

Again, you can either broaden your views and see things with an open mind, which is hard to do when you are raised to believe countering points, or you can find yourself as a minority in the future.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Obviously the fact that it would affect his business, that people would avoid it, is the real problem.

True. What I find most depressing is the people that would avoid a business specifically because of this reason don't think any thing of it. They don't think their aversion is in anyway their fault. They don't see it for the revolting anachronism that it is.

HOWEVER, when he won't hire them, even though it goes against his own convictions, he is adding to the problem. He is basically a hypocrite in his own views. It's almost like he is saying it's okay for his customers to discriminate. THIS is the view that must change.

Anytime it hits the pocket book it becomes an even more difficult decision. We teach kids in our schools how to deal with peer pressure - I think many of the adults need these lessons as well.

A recent poll I read stated that close to 50% of Americans 21 to 40 had at least one tattoo compared to 15% of Americans in all age groups 18+. That's not a number that would ACCEPT tattoos as normal, that's a number of people with actual tattoos. Obviousy acceptance in that age group would be much higher. If that doesn't say anything about the direction of acceptance this country is heading into, I don't know what does.

Exactly. There are grandmas sporting tattoos now. Its pretty mainstream. This cycle has repeated its self so many times its incredibly frustrating that people don't recognize it. Younger people adopt some new fashion, taste in music, hobby, whatever, and the older generation calls it disrespectful, rude, horrible, etc. In 20-40 years those old people die off, and the new thing is mainstream.

 

[Rx_]

So, it is not OK if customers feel this way. But, what about your investors? Seriously, bankers and investors have somewhat of a reputation for having some standard of conduct.
If someone don't get the funding, they don't get the option to hire.
It might be a little risky to tell the person behind the finance how they should conduct their thinking.
The people I cited to were very successful, in their late thirties. They absolutely respected the rights of their workers and valued retention. My other friends like this own a Harley and put on the wash off ink on weekens to ride.

So, forget customers for a moment, if a company needs investment, is it OK behavior regarding for investors? Or, should they take a risk that could result in laying off employees? Some of the investors might be Saudi, or maybe even Chinese. But, your local "too big to fail" banker down the street probably is the most extreme (if that is the word).

 

[Vassago]

So, it is not OK if customers feel this way. But, what about your investors? Seriously, bankers and investors have somewhat of a reputation for having some standard of conduct.

If someone don't get the funding, they don't get the option to hire.
It might be a little risky to tell the person behind the finance how they should conduct their thinking.
The people I cited to were very successful, in their late thirties. They absolutely respected the rights of their workers and valued retention. My other friends like this own a Harley and put on the wash off ink on weekens to ride.

So, forget customers for a moment, if a company needs investment, is it OK behavior regarding for investors? Or, should they take a risk that could result in laying off employees? Some of the investors might be Saudi, or maybe even Chinese. But, your local "too big to fail" banker down the street probably is the most extreme (if that is the word).

That is exactly what needs to change. That exact issue. What do tattoos and piercings say about a person's conduct? Why should they set a standard or in some way fall out of a standard? That is exactly what the world is moving away from. We are making progress little by little.

I'm sure if I didn't mention my piercings, no one here would have even thought I had them or not.

Things are shifting, but they are far from perfect. More executives, including those in banks and investment companies, are getting them today than a year ago though. It will continue this way for a while.

 

[Adam Caramon]

So, forget customers for a moment, if a company needs investment, is it OK behavior regarding for investors?

Each person will have to make that decision for them self. Personally, if I know my employee is qualified, I would stand by them regardless of how they look.

Imagine a similar situation - foreign investors want to review your physical location before they decide to invest. These foreigners come from countries where women don't work alongside the men. Would it be okay for the boss of the company to ask the women to physically relocate for the day?

 

[Galaxiom]

Or ask men to grow their beards and hair to satisfy the investor from a culture where it is considered an insult to God to cut one's hair?

 

[Vassago]

There's also a page I am a member of on Facebook where people post pictures of themselves both in and out of work attire. I've seen doctors, police officers, CEOs, and EMTs all post pictures there. For some of them, their work uniforms cover a lot of their tattoos, but not all. I'll see if I can find some to show an example.

I remember going to the clinic to have blood drawn a few months ago. The Hematologist looked like a typical older doctor on the surface and at a first glance. He had a beard, short gray hair, etc... actually reminded me a bit of Doctor House, only he actually wore a lab coat. It wasn't until I sat down that I noticed he had ink on the tops of his hands and an eyebrow piercing. I was sort of stunned and greatly appreciative of the clinic.

Naturally, he was completely professional and clean and did everything just as sufficient as any other doctor would do.

 

[Dick7Access]

There's also a page I am a member of on Facebook where people post pictures of themselves both in and out of work attire. I've seen doctors, police officers, CEOs, and EMTs all post pictures there. For some of them, their work uniforms cover a lot of their tattoos, but not all. I'll see if I can find some to show an example.

I remember going to the clinic to have blood drawn a few months ago. The Hematologist looked like a typical older doctor on the surface and at a first glance. He had a beard, short gray hair, etc... actually reminded me a bit of Doctor House, only he actually wore a lab coat. It wasn't until I sat down that I noticed he had ink on the tops of his hands and an eyebrow piercing. I was sort of stunned and greatly appreciative of the clinic.

Naturally, he was completely professional and clean and did everything just as sufficient as any other doctor would do.

Jax old buddy,
I agree with you but unfoundedly all employers are not that liberal minded. I still maintain it is what is most important to a person. The job or their ear ring Etc.

 

[RainLover]

There's also a page I am a member of on Facebook where people post pictures of themselves both in and out of work attire. I've seen doctors, police officers, CEOs, and EMTs all post pictures there. For some of them, their work uniforms cover a lot of their tattoos, but not all. I'll see if I can find some to show an example.

I remember going to the clinic to have blood drawn a few months ago. The Hematologist looked like a typical older doctor on the surface and at a first glance. He had a beard, short gray hair, etc... actually reminded me a bit of Doctor House, only he actually wore a lab coat. It wasn't until I sat down that I noticed he had ink on the tops of his hands and an eyebrow piercing. I was sort of stunned and greatly appreciative of the clinic.

Naturally, he was completely professional and clean and did everything just as sufficient as any other doctor would do.

WOW
Vassago went to a Doctor who was clean and professional, and he had a Tat.
Well then that makes it all right.
I think I will get a Tattoo on my forehead that says “Death to the Infidels”.
These days no one would take offence. After all its simply a means of expression. I might even get a job working directly for the President.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Actually I based my comments on Rx’s statement. I live in California near the city of Irvine where many successful games are developed such as blizzard World of Warcraft and many others. My point is blizzard did not become a worldwide success by limiting their hiring practices. I would venture to guess Google and Apple also hire non-conformist also.

Blizzard

Maybe the need to hire non conformists - is the reason behind not wanting someone with a tattoo. Used to be edgy to have a tattoo - now theres a plethora of crap tattoos.

Would we want to hire a female with a dolphin , or a male with a Beckham esque script horror? If so may as well recruit in Magaluf!

 

[Adam Caramon]

I think I will get a Tattoo on my forehead that says “Death to the Infidels”.

If the only way to defend your position is to use the most extreme example you can think of... That should give you an idea as to the strength of your argument.

 

[RainLover]

If the only way to defend your position is to use the most extreme example you can think of... That should give you an idea as to the strength of your argument.

Adam,

You are 100% correct.

However my post gives you some idea how I feel about the argument that the boss should change to fit in with the applicant rather than the applicant complying to the rules of the potential employer.

As far as I am concerned it is my money and if I don't want to employ certain types of people then that is my prerogative.

 

[Fifty2One]

Indeed - we hire based on performance so we optimize on profits - after all isnt that what everyone works for - to make money?

Adam,

You are 100% correct.

However my post gives you some idea how I feel about the argument that the boss should change to fit in with the applicant rather than the applicant complying to the rules of the potential employer.

As far as I am concerned it is my money and if I don't want to employ certain types of people then that is my prerogative.

 

[Vassago]

WOW
Vassago went to a Doctor who was clean and professional, and he had a Tat.
Well then that makes it all right.
I think I will get a Tattoo on my forehead that says “Death to the Infidels”.
These days no one would take offence. After all its simply a means of expression. I might even get a job working directly for the President.

If you can't see the difference between a tribal tattoo on the arm and a tattoo on the forehead that reads that, then you have bigger issues to worry about than what others have tattooed on their skin.

 

[Vassago]

Adam,

You are 100% correct.

However my post gives you some idea how I feel about the argument that the boss should change to fit in with the applicant rather than the applicant complying to the rules of the potential employer.

As far as I am concerned it is my money and if I don't want to employ certain types of people then that is my prerogative.

I think you are missing the point. My goal is to change the minds of employers who see tattoos and piercings as being unprofessional or in some way mean the bearer is unqualified. I want them to feel comfortable with it. I want them to have a better understanding and open their minds. I'm not talking about twisting anyone's arms here.

That and you seem to be taking some kind of great offense, which is typical when someone has a closed mine and realizes they don't have a valid reason.

 

[Dick7Access]

I think you are missing the point. My goal is to change the minds of employers who see tattoos and piercings as being unprofessional or in some way mean the bearer is unqualified. I want them to feel comfortable with it. I want them to have a better understanding and open their minds. I'm not talking about twisting anyone's arms here.

That and you seem to be taking some kind of great offense, which is typical when someone has a closed mine and realizes they don't have a valid reason.

Both of you have valid points, but again the bottom line is $$$$$$$$$$$.
If a business could make more money with employes having ear rings etc all their employes would have to wear earrings. Until then if you want a job go with the flow.

 

[RainLover]

I think you are missing the point. My goal is to change the minds of employers who see tattoos and piercings as being unprofessional or in some way mean the bearer is unqualified. I want them to feel comfortable with it. I want them to have a better understanding and open their minds. I'm not talking about twisting anyone's arms here.

That and you seem to be taking some kind of great offense, which is typical when someone has a closed mine and realizes they don't have a valid reason.

I am not as bad as I write.

When it all boils down you with your Tatts and ear rings are the person with the problem.

If you have a good job now, imagine where you could be in a few years without you accessories.

I would perfer a nice Job, a House and maybe a Boat, to making a statement.