'I was refused new job because of my tattoo'

jegz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not offended but more put off. Like I would be put off if a security guard wore a hoodie over his head. More extreme than the tattoo obviously.
 
Johnnytoxic said:
Not offended but more put off. Like I would be put off if a security guard wore a hoodie over his head. More extreme than the tattoo obviously.
Click to expand...

If you were "put off" by a security guard then depending on what you were put off of surely he's doing his job properly!!! ;)

I'm not trying to pick an argument and I completely agree that an employer has a right to employ whoever they like (as long as they're foreign and disabled:eek::D) and they are fitted to the job description.

I however do not agree with the views some people have on tattoos and the stigma attached to them, which a lot of the time is probably not even associated to the fact the person has a tattoo.

For example my grandfather had a tattoo of a swallow on one of his forearms which he had done in the 1930's when he was in the navy. Never did anyone find it offensive nor did he ever lose a job over the fact he had a tattoo. It seems the world has gone slightly backwards in this respect as if I were to go into a job interview with the same tattoo I would probably be branded unsuitable for the placement.
 
Last edited:
jegz said:
If you were "put off" by a security guard then depending on what you were put off of surely he's doing his job properly!!! ;)

I'm not trying to pick an argument and I completely agree that an employer has a right to employ whoever they like (as long as they're foreign and disabled:eek::D) and they are fitted to the job description.

I however do not agree with the views some people have on tattoos and the stigma attached to them, which a lot of the time is probably not even associated to the fact the person has a tattoo.

For example my grandfather had a tattoo of a swallow on one of his forearms which he had done in the 1930's when he was in the navy. Never did anyone find it offensive nor did he ever lose a job over the fact he had a tattoo. It seems the world has gone slightly backwards in this respect as if I were to go into a job interview with the same tattoo I would probably be branded unsuitable for the placement.
Click to expand...

A security guard doesn't just have to scare the hell out of somebody. He or she has to be approachable, friendly and helpful: at least to some people.
 
Energize said:
Yes it would. And they will regardless of laws, as they will just say, "they weren't the right person for the job".
Click to expand...

yeah, but that would make a much bigger story than just a tatoo, it would probably involve the police just for not employing because they're E.G> black/muslim ect.

and thats different to saying you have a tottoo, you dont have the job...... really not the same
 
jegz said:
If you were "put off" by a security guard then depending on what you were put off of surely he's doing his job properly!!! ;)

I'm not trying to pick an argument and I completely agree that an employer has a right to employ whoever they like (as long as their foreign and disabled:eek::D) and they are fitted to the job description.

I however do not agree with the views some people have on tattoos and the stigma attached to them, which a lot of the time is probably not even associated to the fact the person has a tattoo.

For example my grandfather had a tattoo of a swallow on one of his forearms which he had done in the 1930's when he was in the navy. Never did anyone find it offensive nor did he ever lose a job over the fact he had a tattoo. It seems the world has gone slightly backwards in this respect.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in the main, I see it as a first impression thing, tattoos like clothes are a form of self expression and relatively meaningless to other people. But, the impact on that first meeting takes time to overcome, time that the chap won't have if he does other duties, assisting folk and the like. It would have been eminently more sensible to have the tattoo on his arm, at least he could conceal it when occasion demands.
 
ethan said:
A security guard doesn't just have to scare the hell out of somebody. He or she has to be approachable, friendly and helpful: at least to some people.
Click to expand...

Who says the person in question wouldn't be "approachable, friendly and helpful" to people that command that treatment?
 
jegz said:
Who says the person in question wouldn't be "approachable, friendly and helpful" to people that command that treatment?
Click to expand...

Going by his appearance that's who. I am not saying that as a person he isn't friendly or helpful.
 
I bet they wouldn't have refused him straight away if he were a minority though, like say a Māori for example. Oh no, I'm willing to bet that it would have been a totally different kettle of fish then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom