Include body art in equal rights

Just been asked to sign this and it struck me as being odd.

To me it seems pretty daft, not employing someone because of race etc is wrong. But people CHOOSE to have body art, they've made a conscious dessision to have it done. I think most people are well aware of the consequences of stuff like face tattoos and right or wrong people do judge/are intimidated by it.

This is totally different to someone being born of a different race, they've made no choice and it is not a result of a decision.

Your thoughts MAP?

http://www.change.org/petitions/inc...m_source=share_petition&utm_term=friends_wall

 

I've never known anybody to be refused a job because of what they looked like.

 

Can't really agree since what you look like has little bearing on how well you do a job, unless like Aegis said, you are in a role where you will be on immediate contact with the public and might put people off.

 

LOL!!!!

 

Most jobs have a uniform or dress code, having your family history written on your face in permanent ink is a direct violation of this. I could be just as good a barman in tracky bottoms, however I dont, i put my smart pants on and be presentable. When people are out of uniform its in an invitation for judgement, conflict and discrimination body art that is very obvious is no different.

As see it your body art is a choice, hence has nothing to do with equal opportunities and everything to do with actions having consequences.

Should body art effect you as a worker? No. But this isn't an ideal world and I think the fact is it does, be it from other people's judgement or whatever it just does.

 

In professional jobs I have no issue with it, I'd be surprised to see it being a substantial factor in bar work or selling records or similar though. I technically have one tattoo which isn't hidden by my uniform, although it's not enormously attention grabbing. I'll admit I'd always cover it for job interviews though, just to be sure. It's never presented a problem at work, if anything it's been a conversational point which I found very useful.

 

As a fan of tattoos (I have 2, I keep sketching more ideas, my brother has a large one on his arm) when I had a business I hired people with visible tattoos (hands, neck). I would say in some jobs (like in Policing) there should be some restrictions. Basic restriction for Police is no face/hand/neck tattoos and none that should be offensive/politically motivated.

Funny thing is though, I read in some tattoo magazines that those with full sleeves felt that when they were stopped by Police it was because of their tattoos and felt bullied, however when a newspaper article came out about relaxing the tattoo restrictions on Police, many readers turned round and said "Oh now you want more thuggery".

No win either way.

 

This is where I find human beings very illogical...I mean...the way I see it, you are there to do a job. I don't care what the person serving me some lemonade looks like. I don't care if he has a dung beetle tattooed on his cheek, I care about buying some lemonade.

I realize I'm in the minority here...but I just don't get this.

In addition, why is some body art acceptable, but others not?

Why is it okay for a female worker to have ear lobe piercings, but not okay to have them anywhere else?

 

I can see the problem with comparing discrimination against people with body modifications to discrimination against people because of there race, however I don't really see a problem in making sure employers cant discriminate against either so all that's really required here is better wording to differentiate the two.

 

But you're referring to the extreme of the extreme of the extreme. I don't think you can compare those people with someone who has the odd tattoo or one or two mouth rings.

I don't think either that it's necessarily accurate to say that because they devoted time to getting those modifications they must think about nothing but themselves all the time during their daily routine. I'm not a fan of head to toe tattoos either, but I also don't see the logic in assuming that because they are self focused in this one area they must be 'self-only' in everything.

You could say the same about any of us. We spend time on activities that don't really benefit society at large, after all.

 

Youre not, hence the discussion

Well any racist/politically motivated tattoos that are visible or any offensive looking tattoos that are also visible on jobs like Police Officers might not go down well with community relations...or in general anyway

Personally I wouldnt hire anyone that would have "NF" between the eyes.

A gorgeous, well done Sailor Jerry style naked female sailor on the forearm might not go down well if the Officer goes to talk to...lets say a child, religious family or simply conservative family. So this should be covered in a long sleeve. Time and a place an all that.

Wouldnt really matter if the other places are not visible. Nose rings, lips, eyebrows etc seem fine.
Once again for Police Officers wearing these are frowned upon, but mainly this is for safety issues. Guess what Crimmy McCriminal will pull at? I know in a SD situation, I'll pull at the earring if I really have to.

I have yearned for piercings on the top of the ears and eyebrow..I even considered a split tongue (till I read about the most likely consequences) however in training/job/age prevented me from doing so, as well as I feel I seem to have outgrown the urge.

 

Vlech..My bad, that wasn't what I meant. I meant location. Sorry.

I was thinking of how earrings on women are considered acceptable pretty much anywhere, but other piercings are not. I mean...why is it that one in your ear lobe is somehow totally innocuous, but others have big scary connotations? Metal through skin is metal through skin.

It always made me laugh when people called my mouth ring 'self-mutilation'. Apparently a hole in your ear is fine, but a hole in your lip = psychosis.

 

Thought that occurs to me - to what degree should one's body and appearance be any of an employer's business? I've heard of places that require women to wear make-up, for example, which I can't agree with.

 

Gotta agree with akimac here.

I don't thi there's anything wrong with a bit of ink if that's what you want, but if your going to get something shocking, don't be touchy about people being shocked.

If I've a tattoo on my chest and my job doesn't require me to take my top off (oh dear, both of those hypotheticals are wrong about me, what happened to my life...) then it doesn't make a bit of difference, but if I'm getting something on my face then I think it's to be expected.

Throwing this out there, but for someone to get 'extreme' body art, doesn't that take a certain collection of personality traits/a certain personality? Is that generalising or common sense?

 

I disagree for two reasons. One, you have already identified, and it is how the customer/client perceives someone with a body modification. An employer has a duty to do the best for their organisation so this is important.

However, that first rule could also apply to not hiring ethnic minorities if you believe your customers to be racist.

What is crucial is a second distinction, and it follows from the point someone made about choice, but specifically it identifies a type of choice. The wording of the petition site is:

(emphasis mine)

People choose do have body modification. We are not talking about amputees, but people 'expressing themselves'. I don't want my office filled with people who express themselves by swearing, so if someone swore throughout an interview, they would not be successful. Of course someone with a piercing may work just as hard and be just as polite as anybody else, but they have voluntarily entered a subculture - as opposed to a woman wearing earrings. The employer is entitled to consider that in their decision, before getting into the nuances of the roles of police etc.

Will such body modification still be controversial in 20/50/100 years? I don't know. It's certainly more acceptable now than 50 years ago. Does that mean employers should be coerced to employ people with body modifications? Not necessarily