Does Discrimination Against Body Modifications Still Exist?

Tattoos have been around for quite some time now, and they have always been a symbol of belonging, cultural expression or for religion. These days, individuals choose to tattoo themselves because it is part of their lifestyle or personal image. While continuing to grow in popularity and becoming a lifestyle, people are facing issues with having visible tattoos in the workforce. Although it is a form of free expression, employers have a right to enforce certain rules about tattoos in their company because they have a public image to uphold. How you present yourself to the public is solely important, which is why tattoos should not be allowed to be seen in the workplace, since it may appear offensive or unconservative.

Many employers try not to hire people with tattoos especially as sales representatives. Studies have showed that people with tattoos that are interested in what is sold would gravitate more towards a sales representative with tattoos. As a female with tattoos, I can say that I have personally seen the difference in the way that people may treat me because of my body modifications. Even with body modifications studies may show that the more tattoos and piercings the more deviant the person. I cannot truly agree with this. Tattoos in the tattoo wearer’s eyes are more of a creative freedom or an art form.

To begin, Leanne Padowski has personal experience with this area. According to the article, "Our company's policy states that anyone who works in customer service cannot have a visible tattoo." Ms. Padowski deals first hand with the restrictions of visible tattoos, and therefore, this is a credible piece of evidence to support her argument. Mr. Johnson, on the other hand, is bias since

it’s not always just a body modification, it is sometimes more than that. For military families or those with deceased relatives, tattoos are placed on a person’s body as a remembrance or honor to their loved ones. It’s a permanent tombstone the person carries on their body. Employers should not discriminate against something that has such a deep meaning behind what is easily seen on the outside. Employees shouldn’t be forced to cover up something they truly desire and cherish on their

People are told to not discriminate against someone for something an applicant can’t control, and doing so would be illegal. With that being said, visible tattoos and body piercing are something very much controllable. She uses a very good example that runners would be at a disadvantage if they were to run 100 meters wearing combat boots. People who choose to have piercings and tattoos put themselves at a disadvantage. Imagine if 2 people walked into a job for an interview. They both had the same amount of experience, but one is dressed in a nice suite

A business is allowed to limit or prohibit tattoos, piercings, and other forms of body modification as much as they want as long as it is addressed in the employee handbook, usually in the dress code

Tattoos are becoming very popular amongst the people of my generation, but now they seem to be creating more buzz than ever when it comes to today’s job market. Jon Kelly and Rachel Hennessey wrote articles covering this topic presenting the views of employers and their policies against tattoos. In both articles, they discuss how employers frown upon the art of employees inking. The biggest reason is because, some employers feel that tattoos deliver an unprofessional look to the customer and that can ruin the image built and portrayed by their prosperous companies.

Discrimination from people have a tattoo are completed accepted and sometimes are not. Because of their what looks like or act, but anyways employers have options, on what they want to do for their care. That’s why some enthusiast for painting, their skin is bad for some employers to look of them with tattoos. For example, they have recognized that it’s no bad thing if their staff mirror the appearance of their customers.

However, people should not be denied a career because of the art they have on their bodies. Just because an individual has tattoos does not mean they are unprofessional or unworthy of a high-paying job. Colleges do not deny people an education because they have tattoos. If a person with tattoos has a higher education and a better background than someone without tattoos who is going for the same job, then the person with tattoos should get the job. But due to the nature of businesses, the person with less experience would most likely be the candidate picked based on appearance. In the workplace, when people look at someone that is covered in tattoos they automatically discriminate against this person. It is almost as if they think that image determines their demeanor and professionalism. This person can be the most courteous and professional person in the world, but no one would ever know because this person was not given a chance due to their appearance and the judgment of others.

While tattoos have become more and more acceptable over the years, the question still lies on whether tattoos or any other kind of body modifications in the workplace should be allowed. It's beyond easy to make cases showing the negative impacts of discrimination against tattoos and piercings in the workplace. Plastic surgery, drawing on your eyebrows, getting fake nails, and coloring your hair are also examples of body modifications. Though not everyone agrees with or thinks they’re beautiful, employees are not told to cover up these modifications. Tattoos and piercings are purely another form of beautification and what makes each person their own unique individual. Beauty is personal.

People argue that tattoos should never be shown in a professional setting. Most places of employment even have a dress code that requires you to cover them while working. Employers, in some settings, say that tattoos would or could be offensive or obscene. It was hard to find any article that was against tattoos in the workplace. After a while of searching the internet and databases, I found an article titled “Tattoos in the Workplace: The Research Forbes Was Too Lazy To Do” by Annie Singer. Written on February 26, 2016 and updated February 26, 2017, Singer’s research found that “consumers showed a preference for non-tattooed front-line staff.” She also found that “visible tattoos had a predominantly negative effect on employment selection, driven by the hiring manager’s

Colored hair, tattoos, and, piercings can be considered as professional in the workplace. No one should be denied a job solely on the fact of having a different hair style or visible tattoos, because this does not determine ones value or work ethic. Instead of judging someone based on their looks employers should take a better look at their qualifications and attitude because that is what determines their work ethic. It is common for employers to choose someone they find more attractive over someone who has the qualifications. Multi-colored hair and visible tattoos are becoming more and more common and acceptable every day so why is it not in the work

The art of tattoos has been prevalent in many ancient cultures and represented many different things. In the more recent past times, tattoos were seen in a very negative light; mainly associated with circus freak shows, bikers or outlaws. Even though there are more Americans getting tattoos these days, there is still a disapproving view on tattoos in the workplace. Tattoos are continuously becoming more popular with each generation and more often have some personal meaning. Many companies that have recently started to accept appropriate body art in the workplace have seen positive benefits related to their new policy changes. This debate has also led people to file discrimination lawsuits against their employer. There are occasions that the subject matter or the placement of a tattoo on the body may not be professional for certain types of jobs. With the growing number of people that have body art, the more personal meaning behind it and younger demographics of both people working for and being served by many companies these days, having visible tattoos should no longer be damaging among many careers today. The debate needs to be evaluated by each company, and often each individual situation, to determine if body art can be accepted.

“In some industries, such as software and biotechnology, companies need to attract the most intelligent employees, regardless of what is inked on their skin or dangling from their flesh.” (WONG, 2005) This is a great example because it helps argue my point. A company should be worried about the work that its employee will produce and not worry so much about what is on or in their skin. “The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas says employers will be forced to become more accepting of body art. "Some employers are already having trouble finding skilled workers -- they are not going to let some body art get in the way of hiring the best-qualified candidate," said John Challenger, chief executive officer of the Chicago-based firm.” (WONG, 2005)

There are many employers that have the opinion that having visible tattoos is unacceptable for the professional work environment. Someone with a tattoo is seen as uneducated and possible dangerous. However, there is no solid evidence to support either of those beliefs. The stigma of sporting a visible tattoo has no validity. A person with tattoos is just as knowledgeable and capable of working as a non-tattooed person. Tattoos, whether visible or covered, do not change a person’s individual work ethic or how educated they are.