Why are so many people getting tattoos? Not an employment issue anymore?

[ckelly78z]

Originally Posted by URY914

Never seen a tat that could make an ugly girl look better. But an ugly girl with an ugly tat is doubling down.

But I have seen some absolutely beautiful girls with large tatoos that because of the ink, I thought less of (rather than a 10, they were maybe an 8.5).

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by ckelly78z

But I have seen some absolutely beautiful girls with large tatoos that because of the ink, I thought less of (rather than a 10, they were maybe an 8.5).

+1
Just a couple of days ago I saw a girl with tats on her shoulders, back and upper arms. She was tall and thin with long dark brown hair. I heard a guy in behind me say, "She would be beautiful except for all that ink." I agreed with him. She took something beautiful and totally effed it up. Too bad it was her.

[Slider79SC]

Opinions are just that, opinions. Everybody is entitled to them.

I am fairly tattoo'd up myself with full sleeves, chest and a large leg piece (more to come). It has never stopped me from anything in life. I don't care who knows or how they feel about it. My ink means very personal things to me and me only and that is all that matters.

My wife has a beautiful back piece on her whole right side of her back that represents her family and all there kids.. etc. My wife is gorgeous and you would never know its there unless she tells you and to me it never changed her beauty!!!

It has not stopped her one bit in exceling in life either. She is public facing at a high level in her job every day and is quite well respected in her field for a very large national medical company.

The cookie cutter tattoo stuff is just that, it is a fad and will end just like other fads. If someone wants to label me then they don't know me and are not worth my time.

And if a employer every told me to cover or change something then that would be their 2 week notice, not worth working for judgmental or close minded people, life is way to short as it is....

[Jim Bremner]

Both sides in this discussion need to post pics of good and bad.

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by Slider79SC

And if a employer every told me to cover or change something then that would be their 2 week notice, not worth working for judgmental or close minded people, life is way to short as it is....

This.

[fintstone]

I suspect most do not ever know the jobs they were not hired for, promotions/raises they did not receive, etc...based on appearance. Not just tattoos, but piercings of any kind, obesity, long hair, if you smoke, smell bad, etc. In most businesses, appearance is an asset, you can use or squander, like it or not. In the end, it is good to know so you can make a decision; what is more valuable to you?

[Tobra]

^just so^

Originally Posted by gacook

My tats have had absolutely zero impact on my employment abilities. I've rapidly climbed the ladder in the Army, the corporate world, and now in Government. Maybe my employers just haven't been as close-minded as some on here...

FWIW, I would never get a tat on my neck/face/hands. When in shorts and a t-shirt, you can see 3 of my pieces, though.

You got them in reasonable places where they would have a low impact.

I crossed a number of people off the list when I was looking for office staff. In certain venues, whether you consider it close minded or not, visible ink is a non-starter.

[Rikao4]

what is the current policy if you want to enlist..?

IIRC..if your in and have them your 'safe'...

Rika

[jwasbury]

Originally Posted by Tobra

I crossed a number of people off the list when I was looking for office staff. In certain venues, whether you consider it close minded or not, visible ink is a non-starter.

^absolutely. If I can't see your tats or body modifications, no problem...ink and pierce to your heart's content. appearance matters in many settings...visible ink is a non starter in my setting, so are sweat pants with "Juicy" written across the butt. You show up to an interview for a job in my department sporting either one, you're not going to make the short list.

[yazhound]

My job is performed in an office environment. I am in the deep, conservative south. We have a staff of over 50. The stress on assistants can be heavy. They deal with mutiple agencies and professional offices in multiple states as well as the general public. One of my assistants is hispanic with clearly visable tattoos. I fought hard to get her assigned to me because she is skilled, smart, a self-motivator, somewhat OCD (helpful in her job) and flat gets the job done. She often completes that work of others who are not as adept as her. She is also bilingual. Her abilities are so recognized that she has the responsiblity of training others. Oh, and her tongue is pierced.

When hired her tatts were not an issue nor are they now. This, despite the fact that our organization tends towards the conservative side in behavior and dress if not politics necessarily. Had we declined her employment because of her tatts we would be much, much worse off for it.

And, by God, it is the 21st Century. BTW, would rather have someone who has their own personality rather than a cookie cutter establishment type who can only parrot what has come before....

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Rikao4

what is the current policy if you want to enlist..?

IIRC..if your in and have them your 'safe'...

Rika

It is a bit different for each service. When you are ramping up in strength the standards are lowered....when ramping down, they are tightened as is happening in the Army now:
Army: Your half-sleeve tattoos could be OK | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com

This paraphrases the AF policy:
"For Air Force members, tattoos and/or brands anywhere on the body that are obscene or advocate sexual, racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination are prohibited in and out of uniform. Any tattoos and/or brand prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature that tends to bring discredit upon the Air Force are prohibited in and out of uniform. An Air Force member is not allowed to display excessive tattoos that would detract from an appropriate professional image while in uniform. Excessive tattoos are tattoos which cover over 25% of the body part."

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by yazhound

My job is performed in an office environment. I am in the deep, conservative south. We have a staff of over 50. The stress on assistants can be heavy. They deal with mutiple agencies and professional offices in multiple states as well as the general public. One of my assistants is hispanic with clearly visable tattoos. I fought hard to get her assigned to me because she is skilled, smart, a self-motivator, somewhat OCD (helpful in her job) and flat gets the job done. She often completes that work of others who are not as adept as her. She is also bilingual. Her abilities are so recognized that she has the responsiblity of training others. Oh, and her tongue is pierced.

When hired her tatts were not an issue nor are they now. This, despite the fact that our organization tends towards the conservative side in behavior and dress if not politics necessarily. Had we declined her employment because of her tatts we would be much, much worse off for it.

And, by God, it is the 21st Century. BTW, would rather have someone who has their own personality rather than a cookie cutter establishment type who can only parrot what has come before....

If a person and their skills are known...that might be different. Most places I have worked, a person with significant visible tats would never be hired in the first place. Many people believe that tats (other than the typical small military emblem on the shoulder) are a form of self mutilation..as are piercings, forked tongues, stretched ears, etc.... and are part of a bigger psychological problem. Why hire them when you can hire another person who does not cause that reaction with other employees or your customers? I believe that others would hesitate to hire a person with a visible tattoo just because of the obvious lack of situational awareness in the marketplace to get a permanent marking that would affect your earning potential. It would be no different than showing up to a professional interview in shorts and a sports bra.

[Tilikum Turbo]

If I wish to make a "statement", I simply wear a T-Shirt...that's loud enough for all the world to see. And at the end of the day, I can take it off.

No one in my profession in all honesty(and I also have to go overseas frequently to meet clients as well) would take me seriously if I had visible tattoo's on my arms, neck, face, etc.

Like a lot of things in life, they seem like the right thing to do at the time, but consider there is a reason why Tattoo removal has become a big business: there must be a lot of regret from the initial decision.

[yazhound]

Originally Posted by fintstone

If a person and their skills are known...that might be different. Most places I have worked, a person with significant visible tats would never be hired in the first place. Many people believe that tats (other than the typical small military emblem on the shoulder) are a form of self mutilation..as are piercings, forked tongues, stretched ears, etc.... and are part of a bigger psychological problem. Why hire them when you can hire another person who does not cause that reaction with other employees or your customers? I believe that others would hesitate to hire a person with a visible tattoo just because of the obvious lack of situational awareness in the marketplace to get a permanent marking that would affect your earning potential. It would be no different than showing up to a professional interview in shorts and a sports bra.

Her skills were not known really, just suggested. Only through actually working does the person prove their skills. A resume et al., is great but only goes so far. Why hire them? The old saying... good help is hard to find... a truism. I would take my assistant with the tatts over two without as she is just that much better. Again I say, you risk losing out if you judge the book by its cover. You also lose out on meeting people who may differ from you, but can add much to your life because they are different. And to be sure, I have had other successful, conservative firms and individuals try to hire her away, knowing full well her appearance.

[yazhound]

Originally Posted by fintstone

It is a bit different for each service. When you are ramping up in strength the standards are lowered....when ramping down, they are tightened as is happening in the Army now:
Army: Your half-sleeve tattoos could be OK | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com

This paraphrases the AF policy:
"For Air Force members, tattoos and/or brands anywhere on the body that are obscene or advocate sexual, racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination are prohibited in and out of uniform. Any tattoos and/or brand prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature that tends to bring discredit upon the Air Force are prohibited in and out of uniform. An Air Force member is not allowed to display excessive tattoos that would detract from an appropriate professional image while in uniform. Excessive tattoos are tattoos which cover over 25% of the body part."

As a former USAR guy I can only chuckle about that. AF should worry more about its physical training or lack thereof then whether a service member is tatted. Some of the best soldiers I have had the privilege of serving with were heavily tatted. Guys that I trust implicitly with my life. Guys who were more than garrison touts but the real deal. Not to suggestion guys without weren't... because that would be false too.

Good order and discipline... lol, half of the AF including the officers can't figure out how to properly shine their footgear. Geez look like joe the rag bag.

[fintstone]

You are out of touch. AF standards are much higher than those of the Army in almost every category (particularly for entrance testing)...and fitness standards are comparable to the army...much tougher for some age groups. No one shines their footwear any more (as if a fine shoeshine is a bragging right or necessary in battle).

[yazhound]

Originally Posted by fintstone

You are out of touch. AF standards are much higher than those of the Army in almost every category (particularly for entrance testing)...and fitness standards are comparable to the army...much tougher for some age groups. No one shines their footwear any more (as if a fine shoeshine is a bragging right or necessary in battle).

True on the shine now that uniform oriented to desert war. Not on the rest. Shine is issue of pride and not being a ragbag and is an indicia of morale, dedication, and discipline. While Pararescue guys have high physical standards, the regular line/flight guys not so much.

As far as ASFAB scores, grant you that. AF as rule has higher score requirements. But that doesn't really reflect military ability so much as one might think. I know guys with low scores that have more military knowledge and ability than half a dozen high scoring guys.

[campbellcj]

I don't "get" tattoos - don't have one and probably never will. Tattoos on other people don't bother me for the most part although I would have to really think about hiring someone with full "sleeves" or ink on their neck or face. My clients are mostly conservative, middle-aged or older corporate and government types and I imagine they would not be enthused.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by yazhound

True on the shine now that uniform oriented to desert war. Not on the rest. Shine is issue of pride and not being a ragbag and is an indicia of morale, dedication, and discipline. While Pararescue guys have high physical standards, the regular line/flight guys not so much.

As far as ASFAB scores, grant you that. AF as rule has higher score requirements. But that doesn't really reflect military ability so much as one might think. I know guys with low scores that have more military knowledge and ability than half a dozen high scoring guys.

Apparently the ASVAB and AFOQT scores are scientifically proved to measure aptitude...last RIF of AF officers (the ones AF considered the bottom of the pool)...any that were interested were recruited to go into the Army. Strangely, the ones I know seem to have gone from just below average in the AF to the brightest and best in the Army and have done very well. You are also wrong on the AF fitness testing. Everyone does it and it is very comparable to the Army test...and, as I said earlier, for some age groups, much harder.

[gacook]

I'm assuming most of you don't work in a technology industry, as most "techies" that I know/work with are so inked up and pierced, it's unusual to see one WITHOUT ink.

Anecdotal about paradigm shifts...my current boss was my boss in the Army many years ago. He's roughly 20 years older than me, and has always been a mentor; still is. About a month ago, I told him I'm thinking about making a move over to one of our sister agencies that focuses more on engineering (computer, network, software, telephony, etc.). We were talking about the interview process and he made a wisecrack about the ink on my arms, to which I told him I'd of course be in a suit/tie so ink wouldn't be visible. To his credit, he commented that I'd probably be better off leaving my earrings in and wearing my short sleeves to show that I could "fit in" with the rest of the organization. He was joking, of course, but there has been a huge shift in what is "acceptable" in the workforce.

Turn down someone with ink--simply because they have ink--at your own peril. You very well might be turning away the best, most innovative employee you'd ever have, simply because you're "old." The old adage of not judging a book by its cover is very real.