'Hide your tats, customers won't put up with it'

alex24 · 6 May 2011 at 17:11

[TW]Fox;19071599 said:
Surely its company policy not to have bare skin exposed when working close to fast moving machinery anyway? Infact, isn't it law that you must wear the right protection or have long sleeves when working in close proximity to such things?

I think this is yet another sad britboy fantasy

As above, I'd be amazed if anyone is allowed exposed arms when working close to such machinery.

I was under the impression that it's safer to have bare arms. Long sleeves can get caught in machinery and trap/pull your limb into it, doing more damage than just a graze on your arm would. If you think about it, you have a much better chance of moving your arm away from the problem if it's not caught in a long sleeve or similar. Same reason you wouldn't wear a tie or dangly jewellery near something like that.

Biohazard · 6 May 2011 at 17:12

[TW]Fox;19071518 said:
He works for a company where image is absolutely everything.

Why is he suprised they would make such a request? He should simply comply, as its a reasonable enough request.

If they were aware of his body art they should have notified him on this ad hoc policy there and then, not once he was working at the job.

I understand the porsche/image point but surely that is all the more important for them to be open accurate and honest at the application stage?

asim18 · 6 May 2011 at 17:12

britboy4321 said:
Just got a new job with Porsche.

Dude, it's Porsche. Not Ford or Vauxhall. Tell him to stop whining; he has three options:

1) Remove tattoos.
2) Cover them.
3) Find another job.

Simple.

And who cares if they didn't mention tattoos at the interview, what would be different?

Morba · 6 May 2011 at 17:15

robskinner said:
Because he makes stuff like this up all the time.

Debate is great, and this makes a good subject, but no one could possibly have the amount of dramas britboy does.

Ordinarily you would have a case, but in this thread you are fighting at the wrong time

Back on topic: can he not just get something else to cover them?

SHEDDER1uk · 6 May 2011 at 17:17

For all we know they could be offensive tattoo's ?

asim18 · 6 May 2011 at 17:17

Morba said:
Back on topic: can he not just get something else to cover them?

Makeup? lol

Adam · 6 May 2011 at 17:18

He chose to have the tattoos so must face the consequences. I think Porsche are well within their rights as they are one of the most recognised brands in the world. Tattoos are hardly professional, I wouldn't be able to have visible tattoos in my workplace and nor would my clients.

If he objects then perhaps he can find another job where his tattoos fit in.

Cosimo · 6 May 2011 at 17:19

arc@css said:
Sorry, I thought tats meant knockers. Maybe I was thinking of tets. Either way it's tet for tat.

They'd have told him/it/her to cover their knockers as well.

PardonTheWait · 6 May 2011 at 17:19

I've known since I had the work done on my forearms that I may end up having to cover them at some point, and I'm happy to if an employer wants me to.

I chose to have them and I was aware of possible consequences.

The only thing I'd find annoying about the situation in the OP is the sudden change of the rules, but really... You get tattoos, you have to deal with the consequences - covering them up or missing out on some jobs. It's not complicated.

Vonhelmet · 6 May 2011 at 17:22

britboy4321 said:
Its not mentioned one way or the other in his contract ..

There will doubtless be additional terms and conditions. As soon as you see anything to do with dressing appropriately you're into arguments that are in no way cut and dried.

Morba · 6 May 2011 at 17:22

asim18 said:
Makeup? lol

Some sort of sleeve I was thinking

Glaucus · 6 May 2011 at 17:24

asim18 said:
Makeup? lol

Kat Bon dee released tat hiding makeup. Damn she looked sexy in that photo shoot.

JBod · 6 May 2011 at 17:28

How can you argue discrimination when it is a personal choice? Its not like sex, race or disability where one does not have a choice in the matter.

Its like having wedges of wood shoved through your years and then complaining you are being stared at or discriminated against. Utterly stupid.

atpbx · 6 May 2011 at 17:32

I wouldnt give some a job who was covered in tats, it just gives out the wrong impression.

Swifty55 · 6 May 2011 at 17:33

JBod said:
How can you argue discrimination when it is a personal choice? Its not like sex, race or disability where one does not have a choice in the matter.

Its like having wedges of wood shoved through your years and then complaining you are being stared at or discriminated against. Utterly stupid.

atpbx said:
I wouldnt give some a job who was covered in tats, it just gives out the wrong impression.

Don't judge a book by its cover?

Edrof · 6 May 2011 at 17:36

I mis-read the thread title and expected much more in the way of ladies

Raikiri · 6 May 2011 at 17:42

http://www.tatjacket.com/about.php

platypus · 6 May 2011 at 17:43

Or just wear a tubigrip thats half the price.

vicisthebest · 6 May 2011 at 17:46

Are they literally all over his arms? Back in the day as a student when I worked at the Disney Store (NO tattoos allowed, unsurprisingly) one lad had a tattoo on the inside of his arm.

He wore some kind of tubigrip bandage thing on his arm over his tattoo.

Could your friend do that?

[TW]Fox · 6 May 2011 at 17:49

Swifty55 said:
Don't judge a book by its cover?

Very noble, and I agree with you.

However back in the real world people DO judge a book by its cover, therefore to project a professional image many companies will request things like this.

One day, when nobody in the world judges a book by its cover, you might be able to walk into a Porsche dealer and find people with full body tattoos.

Until then, I suspect you wont.