Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Tattoos and L.A. city employees

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio USA
    Posts
    11,467
    Quote Originally Posted by critter crazy View Post
    Sounds like discrimination to me. We all have a right tour own opinions, but we also have the right to be treated equally no matter what we look like!! Just because you have tats, does not mean you can not do a job well!
    Someone's claim of discrimination is very limited to those actions based on race, creed, colour, national origin, gender, famial status, etc. There is no claim of discrimination based on tatoo.

    Your right to have a tatoo is on equal plain of an employer's right not to hire someone with a tatoo. Why should an employer be forced to hire someone anymore than you should be forced not to have/have a tatoo? Equal rights.

    Let's say I want to talk trash/crudely to people that call the office. I want to say, as I pick up the phone, "What the hell do you want, lady"? Free speech, right? First Amendment issue, right? Of course not. My employer's right to govern my actions while at the work place is a legit concern, and my inability to follow protocol is reason to find my butt out of a job.

    My argument that, "hey, this is just the way I talk"...is weak and ineffective. Sure, I have the "right" to talk like that, but it conflicts with my employer's right to have me speak in a professional and inoffensive tone.

    What is inoffensive/professional to one, might be different to another. And, when it is the employer's business/financial wherewithall on the line, they are, most often, going to err on the side of conservative. Is it right? Well, it is to them.

    Dress codes, grooming requirments, work requirements...all within the legal bounds of the employment arena.

    I find it startling to consider that there are people every day that face true claims of discrimination on the basis of their skin colour, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religious convictions, etc., yet one would rather be unemployed than to cover up their tatoos.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Chicagoland, IL
    Posts
    8,499
    Something else to consider on the employment/dress code/tats covered issue. There are a lot of tats that make political or religious statements too, another no-no in a customer-service related business in which you are dealing with the public. An employer can tell me not to wear a shirt to work that says "Vote Obama!" etc., it is similar with requiring tattoos be covered. They cannot really take them on a case by case basis, there must be a general rule for all.

    When I was a waitress I had to keep my hair a certain way and dress a certain way. It isn't discrimination, it's just that business's code. If I didn't want to dress that way or keep my hair that way, I was free to look for employment elsewhere that didn't require it. I think it is the same with businesses who have a "dress code" that includes body art displays.
    Mom to Raven and Rudy the greyhound

    Missing always: Tasha & Tommy, at the Rainbow Bridge

Similar Threads

  1. The Saga of Pet Store Employees
    By areias in forum Dog General
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-12-2006, 11:26 PM
  2. PETA employees arrested on animal cruelty charges
    By wolfsoul in forum Dog House
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-23-2005, 05:50 PM
  3. tattoos anyone?
    By lute in forum General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-04-2005, 10:48 AM
  4. Oh, Postal Employees .... (new record)
    By Karen in forum General
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-28-2005, 09:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Copyright © 2001-2013 Pet of the Day.com