Tattoos and management don't mix
A new incentive by the UK Government suggests that job seekers may be offered financial assistance to have tattoos removed in a bid to assist them successfully secure employment.
Whilst listening to the debate on the radio on the way in to work, I instantly wondered if this was a good way to spend taxpayers money; was this an emerging or emergent issue and is it discrimination; were the payments and employer's prejudices justified or has the whole thing been blown out of all proportion.
Then the debate took an interesting turn - a number of the people being interviewed on this issue stated that it may be "acceptable" for staff to adorn tattoos but that when they wanted to move into management, it was less likely to be "acceptable". In fact, most stated that tattoos on managers were "unacceptable".
British "pop" culture (prominent sports and music stars; t.v. and film stars and those most likely to be 'idolised' by Generation Y and beyond) have no shame in displaying their body art - piercings; tattoos; vogue hair styles etc.
The debate did lack context - perhaps highly visible tattoos on staff interacting with customers and clients on a face-to-face basis would be more impactive than those dealing with customers over a telephone? Perhaps creative industries are less likely to be put off by tattoos than corporates?
Are tattoos rightly taboo for UK managers or is this a form of discrimination from prudish, white collars?
Should management keep a healthy distance from the 'vogue' fashion trends or do some need to shed their stuffy tweed jackets and slacks to appeal to a wider and younger audience?
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
51,377 people viewed the community in October
Personally I have no problem with tattoos. Surely as managers we should judge people on what they produce rather than how they look?
You would hope so but then why do we need to have anti-discrimination laws for ageism; sexism; racism and on it goes?
Now we've got the UK Government providing financial assistance to have tattoos removed because they believe (and I'm assuming it's been a hypothesis they've tested before ploughing finance into it) that people with highly visible tattoos are less likely to secure employment from a state of unemployment.
Being 'unemployed' and seeking employment, the prospective employer is unable to make an objective assessment of "what they can produce", so I guess appearance is filling at least some of that information gap?
I guess to some degree it might depend on (a) the nature of the tattoo and (b) it's prominence....
I'm not having mine removed anytime soon.....
It is a touchy subject and I see the point if people have gone to extremes but it is an individual choice and the govt, whilst potentially looking to help (a new direction from them obviously) are not going to make a dent in the unemployed by helping a few people become more acceptable to the eye.
Some other ideas like not ripping the heart out of public services and forcing the NHS down a privatised services route might keep a few more in work I would have thought.
Haven't the government got better things to worry about than this? Good grief. I'm not a personal fan of tattoos, but if someone wants to have one, who really cares? Their body, their life. Leave them to get on with it.
Surely this depends on the context to some degree? If you are customer-facing or front-of-house then, if you have obscene tattoos over your face or other highly visible areas of your body, it's a completely matter than if you are not.
If you were working with vulnerable people or children and had a face covered in tattoos might this not be intimidating or frightening?
I'm generally against discrimination in any form but I can certainly see where such things would be wholly inappropriate - management or otherwise. As with most things in life, it’s situational - in my eyes anyway.
However, whether it's a good use of taxpayer's money to get them removed is another thing altogether.
Peter
I'm with Peter on this. There are some professions where image is important and if you're not fitting that image then it'll be tough for you to get ahead. Having said that I would have thought there are plenty of other things for the government to do before they worry about removing tattoos.
Just to play "Devil's Advocate" - is this a form of discrimination? It's clearly perceived as being an issue as the Government are choosing to provide valuable financial assistance to the scheme so where should it end?
Should we have dietary assistance for obese people who're long-term unemployed? We currently offer assistance to recovering drug addicts and alcoholics.
What about if they come into the interview with a mohican or visible piercings (accepting these can be temporary), should it be acceptable to decline them the opportunity of employment on these factors or should employers be able to state that this is not in keeping with the 'company dress code' and that in order to be employable, the hairstyle needs to be changed or the piercings removed?
Perhaps the focus should be on giving financial assistance with whatever barrier an individual is facing - beit tattoos or other aspects of their physical appearance; counselling and / or addiction advice.
We've already got laws around sex; race; disability and age discrimination - should these be extended to include any discrimination as a result of a physical attribute or aspect of physical appearance?
A couple of points there Colin:
Firstly, is it really perceived as being an issue or is it one of those headline-grabbers thrown in to distract attention from far more important, but perhaps less headline-inducing, measures that the Government wants to introduce?
Secondly, the issues you mention - sex, race, disability & age discrimination are generally ones that are not 'self-inflicted' (although I accept that sex is something that now is 'changeable') and are ones that cannot generally be changed.
If, however, a person decides to cover themselves with tattoos - a decision that (one would assume) would be entirely their own, then why should they have recourse my money, paid in taxes, to remove them? Surely they should have considered the fact that they are pretty much permanent before going ahead and having them done?
One could argue that addicts (drugs, alcohol etc) also fall into this category of having self-inflicted issues but, then again, the adverse effect that these have on society as a whole does, I guess, provide reason to treat them for the better good.
I just can't see the same argument for tattoo removal and I consider that there are far better uses of public money and far worthier causes in need of funding than tattoos.
I stand by my earlier comment regarding the situational element in relation to whether or not managers (or other staff) should wear tattoos.
Hi Peter,
Totally agree there's a nice PR message in there - Government taking positive action to address unemployment issues and this is something the Conservative party campaigned heavily on in the run up to the general election.
However, with regard to the wider debate about whether there's justification in diverting taxes - would you rather continue subsidising the payment of unemployment benefit instead?
This could be seen as a shrewd investment if the people go on into gainful employment?
To be honest Colin I can't see this affecting huge numbers of people.
There are large numbers of people currently unemployed who have good qualifications (and are not hindered by tattoos) and the focus should be on finding employment for these people first.
Sorry but I'm just not convinced that the benefit cost ratio for tattoo removal outweighs those related to other more inclusive measures.
I am not sure where I stand with the Government’s idea to offer free tattoo removal for those who are tattoo’d and umemployed to be honest. On one hand I do agree it is a waste of money that can be spent elsewhere and it is good to see the Government trying to tackle unemployment. But on the other hand, there is still such a stigma attached to people who have tattoos which is abit wrong – it all really comes down to personal tastes.
If someone has a tattoo it doesn’t mean they are incapable of doing a job be it in management or not. It is rare you will find someone with tattoos that are so excessive they can not be covered up somehow so it would not affect that many people. Personally, I have several tattoos, one of which is quite visible at all times, and have never had any issues but have always been conscious of how more tattoos could affect me in the future. I think would hate to think it would prevent me getting a job, despite perhaps having the appropriate qualifications and experience.
Hi Nicola,
I completely agree with your sentiments, tattoos do not equal inability nor should we be making subjective judgements about a person's 'suitability' based on whether or not they have a tattoo or any other distinguishing features such as a highly visible scar on their face or similar.
Unfortunately, I think like all prejudices, it takes more than legislation to change actual behaviour. I found the debate interesting in that people were nonplused by the debate on tattoos when it comes to seeking employment yet a number of the people interviewed went on to say that tattoos were unacceptable in management.
Do you think this kind of approach - "it's okay for them but not for us" type management statements of this kind, have a negative impact on people's perception of management?
Not necessarily. Not all people in management are prejudice towards tattoos and I think it would be a very small minority who would look negatively on managers. It is must like the argument about whether managers should have long hair and facial hair.
I saw a similar debate unfolding on a friends Facebook last week and it seemed people were more angry at the Government for insinuating that people have negative views of people with tattoos than the prospect of employers discriminating against potential employees.
On another note, I wonder how many people will see this as an opportunity to have unwanted tattoos removed by saying they are affecting their employment options? As it stands I believe the NHS removes tattoos for those who are “extremely distressed” by unwanted tattoos.
Personally, spend the money on setting up factories where people un-employed can learn skills and start contributing
So are we to assume that there is a pool of untapped talent in the guise of unemployed tattooed individuals just waiting to be given the opportunity to impress businesses with their skills? Or dare I say it, just another ludicrous Government scheme expecting us to believe that high unemployment is due to excess tattoos on people?
I have been a manager for eight years and too have tattoos, though not in such prominent places; to cause such attention. Saying that, I also have an employee who does have tattoos on his face, hands and neck. This person is one of my best employees, though not a manager.
In short, I believe public money can be better spent, especially in these tough economic times and tattoos on managers can be seen as acceptable, though I believe this is highly dependant on the industry in which they work. As its far more likely to be seen as acceptable in the music and fashion industries than the corporate world of finance and law.
As a footnote I would agree with previous comments, that it would also depend on how tasteful the artwork was.
Hi all,
I believe that it would be a good idea, in the right circumstances, for the government to assist in payments for tattoo removal. However, this could only be justified if the tattoo(s) were on their neck, face or hands. My reason behind this is that getting a person into employment and paying NI and Paye has to be a benefit to all. At the same time the money given should be repaid back at an agreed rate when employment commences. If the tattoo(s) were on the arms, then like me, long sleeve shirts would be the order of the day.
The other point is as tax payers, we pay for criminals to be rehabilitated so as they can be accepted back into society. In getting them back into employment the government has no problems in funding degree courses, what are the costs incurred by this?
So my bottom line is – if a person has had a tattoo in the areas I’ve mentioned above and they now regret it. I feel assistance should be there to help. I also feel that the money could be found from within the system – one would be the prison education budget. I’m not trying to say that individual with tattoos should be classed as a criminal, but just like them, they may have regretted their past also.
If the tattoo personalities are not accepted in the field of professional practice, or don't deserve to serve as 'managers', then, the Government should devise a means of warning the youth and the school going age to desist from that lifestyle to save future expense of removal.
In order to prevent continuity, the cost of the removal should be an agreement to pay back by the person whom the surgery will be carried on. I then suggest that the cost needs to be paid the employer who needs those personnel on the agreement to deduct from his /her wages or salary but not tax payer’s money.
That's a good point Lawrence. I really don't think it's the tax payers responsibility to foot this bill. The individual concerned chose to have the tattoo, and likewise the employer chooses whether that's a barrier to employing that individual or not, so therefore the responsibility rests with these two parties, not the rest of us.
Personal views on tattoing and their removal aside, it's worth remembering that If you have a policy on the wearing of jewellery, having tattoos or other markings, it should try and be flexible and reasonable concerning those matters which are traditional within some religions or beliefs. Unjustifiable policies and rules may constitute indirect discrimination. For more information check out the HR jargon blog D is for dress code at http://metishr.co.uk/hr-consultant-blog
Gary
Agree 100% and have to say some of the lines taken on classification of people with tattoos seriously leave me wondering whether those making such comments are truly leaders and managers. Surely one of the keys to being so is to see the potential in others and look beyond beauty being skin deep and protect at all times against prejudice.
I can understand certain cultural aspects to tattoos E.g. in the far east, where they represent membership of criminal fraternities etc but even there attitudes are changing.
As you suggest people should be spending their time worrying about other things and this is a ridiculous proposal from govt.
Wow this thread has got some really good and varied responses to a subject with no easy answer. This is a many sided coin with as many answers depending on the circumstances.
Tony asks is it discrimination well possibly and probably in some circumstances where the company ethos is we want “people like us”
Should appropriateness be taken into consideration and Mike gives some great examples of where it may or may not make good business sense to have someone up front dealing with people who is heavily tattooed. Although it could be taken as an opportunity to educate people.
It is everyone’s right to do with their own body what they want but as with everything else in life if you want the right you should practise the responsibility. So I agree obnoxious or extremely offensive tattoos that would be visible at work should not be allowed. I am not going to say what is offense or obnoxious because I am not qualified and it takes rather a lot to offend me. However those who take offence at the least thing should not get their way a debate should be had and an agreement reached.
The government must have run out of ideas on how to solve all the crisis’s we currently have if they are spending time on this.
As a former Soldier I have found that there are more than a few excellent workers out there (including myself) who have tattoos. I am a firm pro choice advocate when it comes to all forms of self expression, be it tattoos, piercings or even the odd brightly coloured mohican hairstyle.
However, when companies out there have a brand to promote I think that they should be free to impose certain restrictions on their employees when it comes to their personal appearance during work or at any out of hours event when they may be representing the company who pay their wages.
Everyone, quite rightly should be free to express themself but when you are being paid to do a job then I think it's only fair to adhere to and policies that include piercings / dress code / tattoos and not use complaints of discrimination when you don't get your own way when you want to show them off at work. Obviously any tattoo that can be seen to be offensive should be covered at all times.
If the government wants to give people the chance to have tattoos removed then why not apply the costs in the same way a student loan is. I don't think my hard earned taxes should be used to pay for the removal of some one elses ill advised choice of body art. And then there is the cost of the feasibility study into wether or not this would work, how much of our cash has already been wasted on that.
To conclude, cover your tatts, sort your hair out, only pierce your ears and wear smart, clean and ironed clothes to work. I did say I was ex Army didn't I.
I believe that anyone making the decision to get tattooed must think through the implications that it may have on their current or even their future employment. The stigma attached to the heavily tattooed is well known. If they haven't considered the negative component of their decision then I personally have no sympathy.
The very thought of the tax payer paying for the removal of someone's mistake infuriates me. Our mollycoddling culture must end and make people responsible for their own actions!
I'm concerned as to why tatoos are taboo in certain corporate areas, now I accept that obscene/inflamatory visible tatoos will be seen as incommensurate with the role of management, especially in face to face customer relationships, and that excessive visible tatooing can be a distraction, but what is the difference between that and a disfigurement such as a birth mark, apart from one was deliberately applied to the body? Thatcher was a notorious pogonpohobe, but was she right to deny people ministerial opportunity because of facial hair? Is long, lank hair unacceptable? Poor dress sense? What about regional accents? It seems that the "manager" must be squeezed into a narrow coridoor of conformity which frowns on individuality.
27 years in the RN, and have been to many salacious settings in Europe, Asia and Africa. No tatoos or piercings, for which I am truly thankful, though more through luck than judgement! I personally would not want to disfigure my body with piercings or ink. I wouldn't but would not rush to preclude those that do from work for which they may be emminently suitable.