piercings and tattoos for them or against them?

[easttxchick]

Just because I don't have a tattoo doesn't mean I am one iota better than someone that has 50. My DH is tattooed-big deal.
Simply put, it's none of my business whether others have tattoos and piercings.

 

[spottedtail]

Tattoos are just a fad.
Their popularity will diminish like all other fads. (afro's, polyester clothes, platform shoes, etc.)

I do the occaisional job interview and tattoos, piercings, saggy pants and hoodies make a bad impression during the process. Those types have been hired before and we positively have more trouble with them, no doubt about that. Not all of course, but definitely the majority.
Their "stuff" seems to have something to do with attitude, especially with the guys.
No more of that.

When a young man or woman comes neatly dressed, no visible tatts or piercings, polite with good attitude, it really does impress! They will get top consideration.

By the way...I personally feel anyone can do what they wish with their own body.

spot

 

[Tala]

Quote:
That's an awful lot of generalizing. I understand it happens, but I disagree. My boss has tats, I forget how many, but he's certainly not "trouble." We've had probably equal success with inked and non-inked employees. People without visible body modification can have just as bad of work ethic and attitude as those that do. Perhaps they have different problems. Seems I recall several of the tattooed people just lacking motivation and work ethic. The smart and clean-looking people were the ones that stole money.
You take your chances no matter what you base your hiring decisions on.

Just curious, would we be having this same "hiring" discussion if we were talking about long hair on men or skirts on women or any other choice about how people dress or modify themselves? How come every discussion about piercing/tats always ends up talking about getting a job?

It seems like everyone's first reaction is always "don't pierce that! you won't be able to get a job!!" It's much ingrained into people that it becomes true just by nature that everyone believes it. It's so stupid.

 

[chickened]

It may be just a coincidence also that most business owners and hiring personell do not have tats or piercings, at least the ones I know ...visible ones anyhow.
Quote:
That's an awful lot of generalizing. I understand it happens, but I disagree. My boss has tats, I forget how many, but he's certainly not "trouble." We've had probably equal success with inked and non-inked employees. People without visible body modification can have just as bad of work ethic and attitude as those that do. Perhaps they have different problems. Seems I recall several of the tattooed people just lacking motivation and work ethic. The smart and clean-looking people were the ones that stole money.
You take your chances no matter what you base your hiring decisions on.

Just curious, would we be having this same "hiring" discussion if we were talking about long hair on men or skirts on women or any other choice about how people dress or modify themselves? How come every discussion about piercing/tats always ends up talking about getting a job?

It seems like everyone's first reaction is always "don't pierce that! you won't be able to get a job!!" It's much ingrained into people that it becomes true just by nature that everyone believes it. It's so stupid.

 

[spottedtail]

Tala...I agree with your comments about my generalizing on post #212.
I only describe my experience on this subject.

Employers make a substantial investment in each person they hire...so yes, they do "play the odds", or "make generalizations" when interviewing. This will not guarantee a good employee by any means, but it will make the odds favorable. Interviews are short, impressions are important!
By the way, qualifications and job experience factor in as well.

You're right, discussions like this seem to come down to "How will you get a job looking like that?"
But from what I've seen, there's definitely some validity in statements like that.

People can do as they wish with their personal appearance.
Just about everyone would agree with that.
But not everyone will like the consequences it can bring.

spot

 

[krcote]

I happen to be one of those horrible women with tattoos and piercings. I happen to have lots of tattoos.
I also happen to; have been a straight A student through high school, prom queen, varsity athlete, got a BS in zoology at a large university while working full time and volunteering, earned a job as an emergency veterinary technician at a very well respected emergency and referral veterinary hospital, bought a house, married a police officer (gasp!) and maintain a herd of animals all while being a productive, taxpaying member of society.
BUT none of you anti-tattoo folks judge me because my tattoos are for the most part under my clothes. I can't tell you how many times the topic of tattoos come up and how shocked people are that "a woman like you" has lots of them. It begs me to ask the question, do you view me differently now that you know I have tattoos? OR, does it help to change your perception of the "type of people" who have tattoos? Unfortunately, the latter is unlikely. Ignorance is one of my least favorite qualities.

 

[WickedNerd]

Quote:
Here, here! Well said!

The one tattoo I have is well concealed under my clothes (and I'd have others, but I haven't designed anything else I want on my body and I don't have the funds for that right now). It's not exposed unless I'm wearing racer back tank tops or cami shirts. Other than that, I look like any other clean-cut, straight-laced individual.

For the record, I graduated in the top 10 of my HS class and graduated Summa Cum Laude with my BA and my teaching credential. I've taught at two high performing schools. I've never exposed my tattoo at work, but in the summer when I'm doing volunteer work or am out with friends I've run into students and their parents while wearing my summer duds. Did they bat an eye? No. Why? Well, I like to think that it's because I'm a thumpin' good teacher and they know that my decorations have no bearing on my work.

Of course, it most likely has to do with the nature of the people in CA. Still, the fact that I had a tattoo didn't matter. They still addressed me warmly and respectfully as they would have if I had run into them on the way to my classroom.

Now, I haven't had that run-in experience since moving back to AL...mostly because it's near impossible for an out-of-state teacher to find a teaching job right now. It's not because I have a tattoo though. The economy just stinks. It's hard to find a job, period. I honestly feel lucky that I've got the job I have, even with the random hours I have to keep. When I do have a teaching job though, the same thing is going to happen, I'm sure. I like working outside in the summer and I'm pretty big into volunteering. My first order of business when I get a full-time gig is to volunteer with a program like Habitat for Humanity, and you can bet my tattoo is going to be showing at times because it's too hot and humid to do otherwise. I promise it won't interfere with the quality of my work or my personality.

 

[easttxchick]

For those of you that wouldn't hire someone who was pierced or with visible tattoos:
Don't be fooled by the outward appearance of what you consider "clean-cut and respectable" looking.
Any of you ever see a picture of Ted Bundy? Pretty respectable looking guy, huh? Bet he didn't have tats or piercings.

 

[NeeleysAVLChicks]

Quote:
HA, great point!

 

[Dar]

Quote:
I'm sure you are right (insert Sarcasm sign)... they have been around since 2000 BC

I am sure they will fade away any day now....

In terms of tattoos on actual bodies, the earliest known examples were for a long time Egyptian and were present on several female mummies dated to c. 2000 B.C. But following the more recent discovery of the Iceman from the area of the Italian-Austrian border in 1991 and his tattoo patterns, this date has been pushed back a further thousand years when he was carbon-dated at around 5,200 years old.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/tattoo.html#ixzz1Oh3HbyBI