'I was refused new job because of my tattoo'

The thing is we now live in a country with very strict Equality & Diversity laws.
If this bloke had got a facial disfigurement and told the same thing there would be hell to pay.
Personally I think he looks a prat BUT if he was the best man for the job then he should get it.
The mistake here is that Virgin should have given him an interview, told him they'll get in touch and pick somebody else.
 
WTF does he expect.
I don't see how it is discrimination. You can't help your colour, enthic background etc, but you can help putting a tattoo on your face.

I would NOT employ him in a job that interacts with the public.

No wonder he is jobless.
 
dmpoole said:
The thing is we now live in a country with very strict Equality & Diversity laws.
If this bloke had got a facial disfigurement and told the same thing there would be hell to pay.
Personally I think he looks a prat BUT if he was the best man for the job then he should get it.
The mistake here is that Virgin should have given him an interview, told him they'll get in touch and pick somebody else.
Click to expand...

True..

Although however ever hard we try there will always be stereo types..

I'm sure any company that values it's image is more likely to hire a good looking smartly dressed muscular man with only a bit of experience over an overweight slob whos got years in experience.
 
dmpoole said:
The thing is we now live in a country with very strict Equality & Diversity laws.
If this bloke had got a facial disfigurement and told the same thing there would be hell to pay.
Personally I think he looks a prat BUT if he was the best man for the job then he should get it.
The mistake here is that Virgin should have given him an interview, told him they'll get in touch and pick somebody else.
Click to expand...

It's business which is based on first impressions. If you have some thuggish guy who is fronting your store, he COULD put off some people and so thats bad for business.

People with facial disfigurements have no choice. This guy did and so deserves the consequences.

Would Mr OCUK hire a guy with tattoos on his face to work on the front desk. I would genuinely like to know. I think I know the answer though.
 
dmpoole said:
SECURITY guard Tom Bibby has missed out on a job – because his facial tattoos would upset customers.

The 38-year-old has spent almost a decade in the security industry and worked at city centre shops including Primark, Netto and B&M Bargains.

But out-of-work Tom was shocked to find out he cannot work at Stoke station because of the tribal markings above his right eye.

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/refused-new-job-tattoo/article-447698-detail/article.html

I've seen this guy many a time round Stoke and he does seem like a nice bloke however were Virgin right not to employ him?
Click to expand...

Yes. Clearly not of sound mind having that on his face.

:o
 
Hmm. I wondered if it might be a maori thing. I think it might be less justifiable if he were a genuine maori. As it is, he doesn't have by case and they're well within their rights not to employ him.
 
I think some companies have really draconian views on tattooos and the like.

I, for instance, am not allowed to have any visible tattoos in my current job. How a tattoo would affect my work is beyond me ??!!?? I understand the fact that I am "client facing" and have to put a good impression across to our clients but jeez what century are we living in ffs ?

Would anybody seriously be offended by or scared of someone purely because they have a tattoo??
 
jegz said:
I think some companies have really draconian views on tattooos and the like.

I, for instance, am not allowed to have any visible tattoos in my current job. How a tattoo would affect my work is beyond me ??!!?? I understand the fact that I am "client facing" and have to put a good impression across to our clients but jeez what century are we living in ffs ?

Would anybody seriously be offended by or scared of someone purely because they have a tattoo??
Click to expand...

Could you be sure EVERY person you ask that question to would say "No I wouldn't be offended".

So you have your answer then...
 
Quite right to refuse him a job, apart from the tattoo, surely they are allowed to choose who they would like to employ.

If I needed a security man, I'd be looking for the smart, well presented burly type.
 
Johnnytoxic said:
Could you be sure EVERY person you ask that question to would say "No I wouldn't be offended".

So you have your answer then...
Click to expand...

Correct but.......how can you be offended by someones looks??? I cant comprehend being actually offended by a tattoo. If your offended by looks then surely by default you would be offended by an ugly person or someone with a disfigurement or even a different skin colour :eek:.

I personally associate people being "offended" with things such as personal attacks, physical assaults, insults and the like, not tattoos, piercings, dyed hair, the clothes you wear.
 
It's not just the tattoo on his face is it. It is also- how should I put it-complimented by a huge one covering the width of his kneck. Incidently, if he'd have done the sensible thing and covered it all up with a Hijab-he wouldn't have got the job, he would have got the compensation :D;)
 
Claim it's part of religion or heritage and the sue them for discrimination, or just sue them for discrimination anyway.
IMO that's just like if your face was burnt in an accident and they wouldn't give you a job because of it. ok ones an accident and you'd never want it buy it's still about the looks/.
 
484320kz1.jpg


Thats Ross Kemp. :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom