Not strictly tattoos but anyway…Our prosecution counsel from a case last month had a gold tooth, and i think possibly an earing too.
That wasn't the funny bit, the funny bit was defence counsel making a premptive apology to the Judge about the variety of footwear sported by counsel(s) on both sides (due to the snow) ranging from some big DM boots to some hairy ugg boots. )
Actually on-topic, as everyone else says, if they're in places covered by a normal suit i dont think its going to be a problem. If its not covered by the suit , you'll no doubt have some/all interviewers wondering if thats really the 'professional' look they want.
is it appropriate for an employer to ask if a person being interview has got any tattoos?
For example if a person is going to be possible in court or meeting clients and they have a massive pin up girl on there fore arm that could affect people opinions if a short sleeve shirt was worn
or can a employer ask them when the employee is meeting clients or in court they wear clothes that would cover said tattoos?
i have two tattoos but they are not visible even in a short sleeve shirt!!
I don't think there is any "right" to refuse employment because of a tatoo.
I don't know employment law in Italy. I'm speaking of North America, where many employers outright ban visible tattoos in the workplace (per their published employee handbooks) and employers can certainly refuse to hire someone because of body modifications.
Pop culture will try to convince you that rights are expansive and independent of the choices you make. Don't believe it. Choices have consequences and many rights are in fact privileges to be earned.
While it is morally wrong to discriminate against things that are not choices, such as race and gender, in a free society, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the choices that other people make. That is the basis of freedom.
/scott
That is the basis of freedom.
/scott
does freedom of speech and expression not cover tattoos and piercings as long as there not indecent and offense to people?? i should be free to pierce and tattoo whatever aslong as it does not affect other people lives?
i work to live not live to work, so why sholud a job dictate the options you make in your life
While it is morally wrong to discriminate against things that are not choices, such as race and gender, in a free society, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the choices that other people make. That is the basis of freedom.
/scott
I'd disagree with this statement. How do you see it as not morally wrong to judge someone based on their appearance, regardless of how that appearance came to be? And how does that equate to a "freedom?"
By this logic you're saying it's OK to discriminate against a fat person because being fat is a choice. Regardless of someones genetic disposition to be overweight there is almost always a solution to lose weight. It's a choice. Even if the weight is a result of taking medication, say an anti-depressant, isn't that a conscience choice they're making? They could be thin and depressed.
It should be all or nothing with discrimination. You can't claim that it's not ok to discriminate against different races and genders (which are for all intents superficial reasons) and then turn around and say it's OK to discriminate against someone for markings that are on their skin.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I realize this DOES happen and (in our current society) is to be expected in any given professional setting, but to say it's "morally ok" to discriminate for any reason is just plain silly - dare i say immoral.
A visible tattoo is going to impact whoever sees them.
How it is going to impact is a cultural and situational question.
By the way, there was a study done on guessing the tattoo owners age, depending on the tattoo content. I thought it was quite interesting.
does freedom of speech and expression not cover tattoos and piercings as long as there not indecent and offense to people?? i should be free to pierce and tattoo whatever aslong as it does not affect other people lives?
i work to live not live to work, so why sholud a job dictate the options you make in your life
Reverse the roles for a minute. Are you saying that, if you were an employer, you would want to be forced to hire someone whose personal appearance, speech, expression, etc., you found distasteful or offensive? What if they told you they had decided (for you) that it wasn't indecent or offensive? Would you want to have to hire them now?
It sounds like you want freedom for yourself, but you want to deny it to others. Freedom to make choices requires that others have freedom to make their own, potentially different, choices.
If a potential employee is free to choose things that make them less desirable to employers, it follows that employers should be free to choose not to hire them. And, generally speaking, that's the way it works in North America.
/scott
I'd disagree with this statement. How do you see it as not morally wrong to judge someone based on their appearance, regardless of how that appearance came to be? And how does that equate to a "freedom?"
By this logic you're saying it's OK to discriminate against a fat person because being fat is a choice. Regardless of someones genetic disposition to be overweight there is almost always a solution to lose weight. It's a choice. Even if the weight is a result of taking medication, say an anti-depressant, isn't that a conscience choice they're making? They could be thin and depressed.
It should be all or nothing with discrimination. You can't claim that it's not ok to discriminate against different races and genders (which are for all intents superficial reasons) and then turn around and say it's OK to discriminate against someone for markings that are on their skin.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I realize this DOES happen and (in our current society) is to be expected in any given professional setting, but to say it's "morally ok" to discriminate for any reason is just plain silly - dare i say immoral.
Your post is a jumble of non-sequiturs. You've mischaracterized my position by conflating several ideas and lacing your post with inflammatory words. Let me try to cut through the nonsense.
Employers should be free to choose who they hire, provided they do not discriminate on legitimate grounds, such as race, gender, and ok, since you brought it up, why not obesity. It is ridiculous to propose "discrimination" be enlarged infinitely ("for any reason"), as this effectively takes away the choice of the employer. For example, if an applicant comes into my office and, in the name of freedom of expression, ridicules and insults me, then I am not going to hire them. If you want to be inflammatory, you can call that "discrimination" against rude people, because that would be accurate. However, to characterize it as immoral simply does not follow.
Just because someone makes a choice you don't like doesn't mean they are immoral. It's just the flip side of the coin in a free society.
/scott
does freedom of speech and expression not cover tattoos and piercings as long as there not indecent and offense to people?? i should be free to pierce and tattoo whatever aslong as it does not affect other people lives?
i work to live not live to work, so why sholud a job dictate the options you make in your life
Reverse the roles for a minute. Are you saying that, if you were an employer, you would want to be forced to hire someone whose personal appearance, speech, expression, etc., you found distasteful or offensive? What if they told you they had decided (for you) that it wasn't indecent or offensive? Would you want to have to hire them now?
It sounds like you want freedom for yourself, but you want to deny it to others. Freedom to make choices requires that others have freedom to make their own, potentially different, choices.
If a potential employee is free to choose things that make them less desirable to employers, it follows that employers should be free to choose not to hire them. And, generally speaking, that's the way it works in North America.
/scott
any person that does not get a job for any other reason then on merit of the work they do is wrong in my opinion.
Tattoos, piercings, colour of skin or disability, it does not matter if they are the best at the job they are applying for then they should get the job but if you are the best programmer in a list of CV's, and have the the right experience but dont get the job because you have a tattoo, piercing, colour of skin or disability, i believe that is wrong.
any person that does not get a job for any other reason then on merit of the work they do is wrong in my opinion.
Tattoos, piercings, colour of skin or disability, it does not matter if they are the best at the job they are applying for then they should get the job but if you are the best programmer in a list of CV's, and have the the right experience but dont get the job because you have a tattoo, piercing, colour of skin or disability, i believe that is wrong.
Well, I see body modification as an aesthetic choice, quite distinct from skin color or disability. I don't think it's good public policy to insulate people from the consequences of their choices, nor do I think it's good economic policy to enjoin employers from considering aesthetic factors in making hiring decisions.
However, reasonable people can disagree.
/scott