Personal Affect Of New Tattoo Policy

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.

The first reason I believe there should be tattoo restrictions in the military is because society’s perception of their military is very important. Without the support, trust, and respect of the civilian populace, we as a

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

Winston Churchill, President Theodore Roosevelt, and John Fetterman they all have something in common and that is tattoos. I am here to argue that tattoos can view as freedom of expression, strong Naval tradition, and more importantly no hindrance on job performance. The Marine Corps should have no restrictions on tattoos. Over the past 50 years’ tattoos have continued to grow in popularity, yet the Marine Corps wants to place restrictions on their service members; claiming their policy is design to help their service members to maintain a discipline appearance. It would be proven that tattoo is viewed as favorable by royalty and the elite.

Although tattoos represent a variety of things in a person’s life, they don’t necessarily dictate how well a person is able to perform their job. For the last few months, there has been an ongoing debate about troops in the Army that have tattoos, and as a result their careers have been placed on the line. With this upcoming change, it has been specifically said that troops cannot have tattoos that extend below their knees and above their elbows and ones that reach above their neckline. Sgt. Maj. Raymond Chandler argues that tattoos cannot be racist, extremist, or sexist. If the tattoo violates that then they will have to get it removed (Freedberg). While it is assumed that this is limited to new recruits, it will also be applied to the

Although tattoos represent a variety of things in a person’s life, it doesn’t necessarily dictate how well a person is able to perform their job. For the last few months there has been an ongoing debate about the troops in the Army that have tattoos and as a result their careers have been placed on the line. With this upcoming change it has been specifically said that the troops cannot have tattoos that extend below their knees and elbows and also ones that reach above their neckline. Sgt. Maj. Raymond Chandler also gave another stipulation which says that their tattoos cannot be racist, extremist, or sexist it also does not matter where there tattoo is located on the body if it violates those restrictions it will still have to be removed

Although tattoos represent a variety of things in a person’s life, they don’t necessarily dictate how well a person is able to perform their job. For the last few months, there has been an ongoing debate about troops in the Army that have tattoos, and as a result their careers have been placed on the line. With this upcoming change, it has been specifically said that troops cannot have tattoos that extend below their knees and above their elbows and ones that reach above their neckline. Sgt. Maj. Raymond Chandler argues that tattoos cannot be racist, extremist, or sexist. If the tattoo violates that then they will have to get it removed (Freedberg). While it is assumed that this is limited to new recruits, it will also be applied to the

There is always a lot of controversy when it comes to tattoos. Most people instantly have an opinion of them; they are either for or against tattoos. What is not realized is the fact that there is a ton of time and effort put into the sketching and placement of a tattoo. People tattoo themselves as a way of self-expression and liberation.

AR 670–1 Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia This rapid action revision of 3 February 2005-o Updates figures throughout the regulation (throughout). o Clarifies the definition of unauthorized tattoos while wearing the class A uniform (chap 1). Identifies officials responsible for making initial entry determinations on tattoos and brands (chap 1). Delegates the authority to MACOM commanders to grant exceptions to policy or discharges on initial entry soldiers with tattoos (chap 1). Clarifies the definition of a privately

Introduction: Is there anyone here that does not like tattoos or likes them, but would never think of getting one? Today, tattoos are a growing in popularity when before tattoos were only seen on people in a circus as an act or on military veterans who wanted to display their troop proudly. Even though there is this growing popularity of tattoos, entry-level jobs require strict dress code policies disapproving the sight of tattoos while at work.

This leaves possible employers in a situation requiring them to decide whether or not to allow tattoos. More and more employers are seeing past the typical views on tattoos and allowing their employees to

PRIOR TO COMMISSIONING/WARRANT OFFICER APPOINTMENT, OFFICER CANDIDATES WILL BE RESCREENED FOR TATTOOS WHICH ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS POLICY.

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.

Tattoos today are recognized as totally different than what they were pictured as in the past. “Tattooing is recognized by government agencies as both an art form and a profession and tattoo-related art work is the subject of museum, gallery and educational institution art shows across the United States.” [ (Levins,

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.