'I was refused new job because of my tattoo'

Sadly they can refuse to employ him if they want, I had it when i had dreadlocks and if i get my face re-pierced and go job hunting im sure i'll get the same treatment
 
Dunno if its been said already, but is it me or does he look exactly like Ross Kemp minus the tat?

edit, yes it was said already :D
 
I think it looks crap. Major companies are right not to employ people with visible tattoos. They look crap, they make the employee look unprofessional which in turn brings down the reputation of the company.

I'm surprised he's not working in a call centre.
 
I think it's completely understandable that the company decided not to him employ him. They have a certain image that they want to portray and facial tats aren't part of that. Simple as really. Oh and if he's trying to claim that he "was shocked" that a company wouldn't want to employ him because of the tat, he's a bloody liar.
 
I used to work for BT who (not sure if the still have this policy) but didn't emply anyone who had any visable tattoos or piercings apart from a single regular size piencing in each earlobe. I accepted this and would remove my facial piercings for work.

Whilst descriminating on things about which the person has no choice (age, sex, race, disability, etc) is wrong, I see nothing wrong with descriminating against someone over the deliberate choice they have made. If a company don't want to employ someone with a facial tattoo because they feel it gives the wrong impression of their company then that's their choice.

When I buy clothes I recognise that what I'm going to wear says something about me and part of buying those clothes is asking whether they project the image I want the to. It's the same for a tattoo, you get one because it says something about you and if you get a visable one it because to want people to see it. This guy has had a tattoo on his face and people have made a decision about him based upon what it says to them. I don't see a problem. I could just as easily reject a guy who turned up to an interview in jeans and a t-shirt rather then a suit and it would be for exactly the same reasons.
 
Last edited:
Johnnytoxic said:
How about a stocky guy with no tattoos?
Click to expand...

If there was two big scary men going for the same job, one with tattoo and one with not, then they should be looking at the CV, not his face.

Remember security is not just there to protect stock, they are there to protect YOU aswell. So it should always be the most qualified with most exsperiance..
 
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...
Aye you're right. But most jobs have a dress code, and if he does that to himself can't really complain if he no longer meets the dress code.
 
I dont think its wrong or right, its just their decision to make. I prob wouldn't employ him if I was the man at Virgin.
 
BrightonBelle said:
It doesn't even look 'scary' it looks laughable :/

What is it of?

BB x
Click to expand...

Some random 'tribal' pattern thing....well it might be, looks poopeh anyway.

I do hate the way tribal tattoos are suddenly 'the thing' in this generation =/, Most of them are tacky.
 
platypus said:
Aye you're right. But most jobs have a dress code, and if he does that to himself can't really complain if he no longer meets the dress code.
Click to expand...

thats right DRESS code not FACE code....:mad: are you all drones?

shocked at some of the replies (well maybe not really...)
 
Neodite said:
If there was two big scary men going for the same job, one with tattoo and one with not, then they should be looking at the CV, not his face.

Remember security is not just there to protect stock, they are there to protect YOU aswell. So it should always be the most qualified with most exsperiance..
Click to expand...

that depends completely on what the security company is there to do.
in most cases its just ot be a visual deterrent and reporter of issues, having no more rights than a normal member of staff when it comes to doing something about someone being unlawful.

that said, security are meant to look approachable and level headed, rather than 'scary' or a nutter.
 
LoadsaMoney said:
484320kz1.jpg


Thats Ross Kemp. :D
Click to expand...

My first thought too..

... and he scares me :p
 
Morba said:
that depends completely on what the security company is there to do.
in most cases its just ot be a visual deterrent and reporter of issues, having no more rights than a normal member of staff when it comes to doing something about someone being unlawful.

that said, security are meant to look approachable and level headed, rather than 'scary' or a nutter.
Click to expand...

Maybe they do not... But having somone like him patroling somewhere would make anoying little kids think twice before they try something :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom