I don't think it is positive discrimination, it is about evaluating one thing against another and if one thing doesn't make the grade then it is grounds for rejection, and there is nothing wrong with that. Therefore whilst discrimination on the grounds of someone's skin colour, something that they have absolutely no control over, is both wrong and illegal there is nothing wrong with forming an opinion of someone based upon the choices they make e.g. the type and location of tattoos, and like any opinion it may be right or wrong.
I have tattoo's on my back, chest and both arms (full tribal sleeves). I work in a business suit everyday in a senior management role for a blue chip company and you cannot see any of them, I made a conscious decision when getting them not to have them visible or on show during the business day, probably because it may have affected or affect my employment chances. Weirdly enough I did 25 years in the Army, never had a tattoo, came out, got drunk and ended up with one which has now become 6 plus piercings. You can't see my tattoos during the day but when I go to works do's, I wear polo or tee shirts, same as everyone else and nobody has ever said to me that I should cover them up including CEO's or MD's. My tattoos have never affected how I do my job or getting promotions and I don't envisage it ever will, however, there may always be someone who thinks I shouldn't have them and won't employ me and if that happens then hey ho, their decision. I doubt they will ever say it to my face or use it as an excuse to fire me nor would I ever find out following an interview. I maybe wrong tho. Is it discrimination? maybe, but then it depends on personal views of the person doing the employing. I have employed tattooed men and women and they have been great employees and become great friends. It is what it is.
If it is a requirement of a job for the job-holder to have good judgement - which it may or may not be, depending on the functions - then a candidate having chosen to have visible tattoos might very well be an informative signifier. By contrast, a person's gender or skin colour has nothing whatever to do with their judgement (obviously) and would not be a relevant factor. More ethically complex are issues surrounding characteristics (such as being gay or jewish) which can be either concealed or displayed, at the option of the person concerned. Can candidates for a job be expected to conceal what they are? Or are they entitled to display their characteristics, regardless of anyone else's reactions or requirements?
I love how everyone says having a tattoo shows poor judgement!! Maybe living your life like a sheep, behaving the way you think everyone expects you to shows poor judgement?.... Sure it is a choice. A choice that people may not agree with, but to say it shows poor judgement because you don't think people should have them is pretty narrow minded. I am obviously not talking about tiger stripes on your face or anything! (I don't have or intend to have any, but that is my choice).
Men with long hair and beards,i would never employ one as its a sign of laziness and its not hygienic :Bag:
Tiger stripes on the face or similar are exactly the sort of things which are under discussion here. So if you don't mean those, what on earth are you talking about? If you don't think choosing to get conspicuous tattoos is a sign of poor judgement, that tells me more than I want to know about your own judgement @Jolley .
So you wouldn't employ a person with long hair, eh. That must apply to women too - or do you have some reason for applying this only to men and not to women?
When Vincent van Gough cut off his own ear, was that an example of poor judgement? After all, he was perfectly entitled to mutilate himself if he chose. And he wasn't even applying for a job ...
Now, now, no need to get personal. All it tells you is that you have assumed something, much like people assume things about people with tattoos. If we back up a bit, the news item that triggered Bradders post was about tattoos in general.... Even those that could be described as "normal" are starting to be used to discriminate against people. An example in the story was a waitress with a tattoo on her forearm that lost her job because a customer complained. I have no sympathy whatever for people with tattoos all over their face (and agree their judgement is impaired). However, I do not agree that "normal" tattoos are any indication of judgement or ability, and shouldn't be able to be used as a reason to dismiss someone from their job. Should anti-tattoo discrimination be illegal? - BBC News
It's about time that companies that employ people with tattoos stood up to customers complaining, after all that company chose to take them on in the first place
Does Edinburgh show poor judgment......? Oh, hang on... Welcome to the Official Website for The Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo
Presumably a prospective employer can ask a candidate any question that they are legally entitled to do so and can form their opinion based upon the answer they receive. If the answer turned out to be untrue then that would surely be grounds for dismissal. Sexuality and religious orientation are, as far as I am aware, not grounds upon which a job applicant can be legally rejected but I am sure that it does happen, although how that could be proven beyond reasonable doubt would be quite difficult. To extend the question further what about issues such as social background. Take two candidates with equal tertiary educational qualifications with one from a prestigious public school, say Eaton, whilst other went to their local state school. Most interviewers would probably be able to distinguish between the two, although I am sure there will be exceptions to the rule, but should they be allowed to select on social background ?
