makes me feel like a secret agent.

deboraborealis said:
on the one hand, covering up my tattoos and piercings for work does make me feel like a hypocrite and a square.

Its an unfortunate reality that if you are a profeesional you have to hide your ink. I have worked in "Christian" businesses where my body art would have accounted for a flimsy excuse to fire me... I suppose a job in academia MIGHT help, but people seem to be judgeMENTAL everywhere.

asdeputas

Uruguay

December 2006

MAY 10, 2007 11:09 AM

I think that people get their jobs cause they know how to do it no t for the way they look ....If you contract people for the way they look then you are a huge asshole!...

bumblebeetuba

Riverside, CA

October 2002

JUN 07, 2009 08:44 PM

cgilbe1 said:
I heartily disagree.

the whole proto-libertarian argument that places of employment can or should be biased in regards to prospective employees with bodymods is highly troubling.

In the first instance, if the bottom line for businesses is to make money--then the sole criterion for employee selection should be competence.

The strongest objection to my heretical view might be that this could lead business to lose profits--both in lost productivity (through distracting other employees) as well as through the loss of customers who may (rightly or wrongly) view tattooed individuals with suspicion.

In response, we currently forbid companies to discriminate based on characteristics that society holds irreleveant to job performance--gender, sexual preference, ethnicity and so forth. we do this WHETHER OR NOT some individuals at a company might find it "distracting" to have a co-worker in one of these categories, and WHETHER OR NOT businesses claim that their customer base would prefer all-white sales reps, or all-female flight attendants.

We forbid this behavior because as an (ostensibly) democratic and egalitarian society we hold that people should be judged solely on their own merits--which in the job market should be confined to performance rather than looks. After all, most of us would find it highly troubling if a company said "we only hire lawyers/teachers/retail clerks that are exceptionally attractive". why is it any less troubling when companies refuse to hire otherwise competent employees because they prefer a certain "look"?

What is more, the loss of customers is a collective action problem. If companies could not discriminate against individuals based on physical appearance then customers would quickly have to get over their aesthetic preferences (as well they should in a democratic society) if they wanted goods and services.

I do not think an individual should have to live to work. If an employee is competent and would work diligently for an employer--bringing added value to a company--I find it reprehensible that they should be compelled to make a decision between working in their industry of choice or having an inescapably visible tattoo or piercing.

sermon's over.

business should be free to choose who they want working there. say i find out a business doesnt like hiring black people, or tatted people. thats fine, do what you want. but me and a shitload of my friends wont shop there. if you can stay in business, right on. chances are you wont though.

PAGE:

1 | 2

TOPICS: