login info join!
Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Tattoos & Discrimination Search   Reply
first5678
Model
Nicolette
Posts: 12,629
Midland, Texas, US


John Jebbia wrote:

I'm going to say something that's unpopular. But yes. I personally believe a employer should have that right. Just as the person of said race has the right to bring that policy to the public's attention. Just as the public has the right to decide if they want to do business with said employer. This is true freedom. I'm free to make hiring decisions. You're free to crusify me in the press if you can. I, as an employer can decide if I want that scrutiny or not. That's freedom.

Okay. I totally and completely disagree, but I can respect the fact that that is your belief.
And at least you aren't trying to pick and choose where appearance is allowed to be judged, I guess lol

Feb 19 13 01:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Orca Bay Images
Posts: 32,233
Lodi, California, US


Nicolette wrote:
But my point is, where does discrimination based on appearance start and end? When is it okay? Why is it okay for certain aspects but not others?

How about when the free expression interferes with the business?

If the tattoo can be covered by uniform or other clothing, no problem.

If the tattoo is unobtrusive and benign in nature, probably no problem.

If the visible tattoo would reasonably offend the business' clientele or fellow staff, it's a problem.

That all will vary by business and by positions within the business.

Feb 19 13 01:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,577
London, England, United Kingdom


Caradoc wrote:
What's next, then? Expanding anti-discrimination laws to allow people to wear John Deere baseball hats and overalls when they're working in retail sales?

If you want tattoos so you can be "individualistic," and "special," do it on your own time. I see absolutely no reason any employer needs to hire people who don't reflect the company values - and if those company values don't happen to include precious snowflakes who think the dress code doesn't apply to them, oh well.

I'm certainly not going to hire anyone who looks like this to represent my company:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HmE8wu4nb1s/UKCUB-1S3iI/AAAAAAAACRI/UPWhZQ6JE2I/s1600/star+tattoos+on+face+3.jpg

or

http://www.materialworldblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/mike-tyson-tattoo-1.jpg

or

http://shechive.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/face-tattoos-2.jpg?w=500&h=504

Your competence (or even the lack thereof) is overshadowed at that point by the simple fact that you have decided to permanently display just how "individual" you want to be, and when it comes to working in a corporate environment that simply isn't going to work.

If you want to be tattooed, fine. Go ink yourself. I might admire it. I might not. There's a lot of shitty ink out there.

But don't insist that I have to accept your choice when it comes to hiring you (or not).

Very well put...

and speaking of shitty ink...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/AA777/RussianTats_zpsf69849fc.jpg

Lovely eh, just imagine her as a PA or receptionist?

Feb 19 13 01:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Nicolette
Posts: 12,629
Midland, Texas, US


Leo Howard wrote:

well, someone earlier pointed it out, I think they said something to the effect of " Tattoos are a choice, race is not" ( I may have misquoted ) and if the person who is applying for the job has visible tattoos and they are forward facing to the customers, and that customer base could be offended by the site of a tattooed person, then yes the company can completely use that as criteria ( in my opinion ) however, in an office environment where they do not deal with the customers then it absolutely should not be a criteria,  where as race or color of skin should not be used as a criteria, because any customer who is offended by doing business with someone of another race or color, well that customer is the one with the true problems.

Now, I know of an instances where there were decisions based on race/color when it came to a promotion, and I was told as much that was the issue, it didnt happen to me but to someone I wanted to promote and the upper management made the decision based on demographics even though one applicant was far more qualified.

Alright.

I'm my going to repeat myself. You already know what I think. But I can definitely respect an argument such as this and, again, appreciate the thought out response.

Feb 19 13 01:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
John Jebbia
Posts: 27,608
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Nicolette wrote:
Okay. I totally and completely disagree, but I can respect the fact that that is your belief.
And at least you aren't trying to pick and choose where appearance is allowed to be judged, I guess lol

Do you believe that just as you have the right to tattoo yourself, I also have the right to stand on the corner with a sign that says "all tattoos suck!"?

Feb 19 13 01:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Nicolette
Posts: 12,629
Midland, Texas, US


John Jebbia wrote:

Do you believe that just as you have the right to tattoo yourself, I also have the right to stand on the corner with a sign that says "all tattoos suck!"?

Sure. But I also believe it makes you an asshole.

Feb 19 13 01:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
In Balance Photography
Posts: 3,370
Boston, Massachusetts, US


Nicolette wrote:

Okay. But why? Why was it chosen to only apply to those?
What about loopholes in that that are totally legal but allow some to put their discrimination out there under the guise of "under qualified" or not fitting in?

I'm not just talking legally here. I'm also trying to bring in morally and ethicly.

The civil rights act came into being because people made a case that the problem of racial discrimination was large enough and severe enough that it needed legislation to correct.

It was an enormous effort. It was painful for the nation. There were incredible sacrifices made.

At that time, discrimination due to body art paled in comparison. It just wasn't important. Similarly, as other discriminations were made illegal (gender, age, religion, sexual orientation), discrimination due to body modification paled in comparison.

Feb 19 13 01:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
John Jebbia
Posts: 27,608
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Employers have the right not to hire smokers and that doesn't affect their ability to do the job professionally.

By the way I'm a heavy smoker and agree with employers to exercise this right.
Feb 19 13 01:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leo Howard
Posts: 6,729
Phoenix, Arizona, US


John Jebbia wrote:
Employers have the right not to hire smokers and that doesn't affect their ability to do the job professionally.

By the way I'm a heavy smoker and agree with employers to exercise this right.

Good point, my wife's company recently instituted a ban on hiring anyone who uses any tobacco products, they now administer a test for tobacco use on all new hires.

Feb 19 13 01:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
V for Victory Modeling
Posts: 436
Roseville, California, US


John Jebbia wrote:
Again, no one has answered this question. You practice freedom of expression by getting inked. The business owner practices his by not hiring you. Why is your right to free expression more important than the employers?

+10!

I don't have anything against tattoos, they are just not for me.

Feb 19 13 01:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Nicolette
Posts: 12,629
Midland, Texas, US


Leo Howard wrote:

Good point, my wife's company recently instituted a ban on hiring anyone who uses any tobacco products, they now administer a test for tobacco use on all new hires.

Wtf. Tobacco is a completely legal product. This doesn't make any sense.

Feb 19 13 01:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
John Jebbia
Posts: 27,608
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Nicolette wrote:
Sure. But I also believe it makes you an asshole.

and i believe you have a right to do so. Freedom swings both ways.

Feb 19 13 01:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
In Balance Photography
Posts: 3,370
Boston, Massachusetts, US


Nicolette wrote:

Wtf. Tobacco is a completely legal product. This doesn't make any sense.

It drives up health care costs. That's why.

Feb 19 13 01:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leo Howard
Posts: 6,729
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Nicolette wrote:

Wtf. Tobacco is a completely legal product. This doesn't make any sense.

To them it makes lots of sense, it causes their insurance premiums to sky rocket when they employ tobacco users. By the way, my wife works for a hospital.

Funny thing though, I dont think they care one way or another about tattoos, as long as they aren't offensive

Feb 19 13 01:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
John Jebbia
Posts: 27,608
Phoenix, Arizona, US


who decides whats an offensive tattoo?
Feb 19 13 01:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leo Howard
Posts: 6,729
Phoenix, Arizona, US


John Jebbia wrote:
who decides whats an offensive tattoo?

In my wife's company's case it would be HR who decides

Feb 19 13 01:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
John Jebbia
Posts: 27,608
Phoenix, Arizona, US


Leo Howard wrote:
In my wife's company's case it would be HR who decides

so if they wanted to they could decide that cute bunny tattoo is offensive because bunnies are used in research....

Feb 19 13 01:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leo Howard
Posts: 6,729
Phoenix, Arizona, US


John Jebbia wrote:

so if they wanted to they could decide that cute bunny tattoo is offensive because bunnies are used in research....

Absolutley

Feb 19 13 02:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Caradoc
Posts: 19,484
Scottsdale, Arizona, US


John Jebbia wrote:
who decides whats an offensive tattoo?

...and *that* is why so many employers simply say, "No visible tattoos in the workplace." Once you start making valuation/judgement calls on the artistic merit, people get all sorts of stupid.

Feb 19 13 02:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leo Howard
Posts: 6,729
Phoenix, Arizona, US


John Jebbia wrote:
who decides whats an offensive tattoo?
Leo Howard wrote:
In my wife's company's case it would be HR who decides
John Jebbia wrote:
so if they wanted to they could decide that cute bunny tattoo is offensive because bunnies are used in research....
Leo Howard wrote:
Absolutley

However, if they are looking for a reason NOT to hire someone, I doubt they would use a little bunny tattoo as a reason, in fact, since AZ is a "right to work" state, they need no reason to hire/not hire or fire anyone.

Feb 19 13 02:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leo Howard
Posts: 6,729
Phoenix, Arizona, US


.
Feb 19 13 02:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Violet von stein
Posts: 9
Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom


Looknsee Photography wrote:
You express sentiments that pop up often.  With all due respect, some thoughts...

...  You are probably unaware about the jobs that pass you by.  People don't exactly
     stop & send you a note that says "if it weren't for your ink, you'd be perfect".

...  But I'm glad you are happy with the number & quality of jobs you get.

...  I should mention that I, too, make photographs "as a way of expressing art
     and individuality"
, but I can't do that if there's someone else's art in the
     middle of my photograph.

...  Indeed, I am very protective of copyrights, and photographing a tattoo is
     copying someone else's art.  I don't want to be associated with that.

...  Yes, it's not my body that is inked, but it is my photograph, and to a
     photographer, that's almost as personal.

Look -- you probably don't like being lectured.  Neither do I.  Let's just agree to disagree, and that basic status quo (where some people choose to ink their body and where some photographers choose to avoid working with tattooed models) is just going to continue into the foreseeable future.

I respect that, i guess it all depends on what you look for in a model. You can get around the tattoos as they have brought out lots of different cosmetics for that purpose for example Zombie boy did an advert for this product http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9mIBKifOOQQ#
V
Xoxo

Feb 19 13 04:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticPhotography
Posts: 7,699
Buffalo, New York, US


Okay, if you are going to be a tattooer, you must like tattoos. Granted. But you have to wonder about some of the people giving tattoos.

If Mike Tyson says "draw some silly tattoo all over my face", okay. What's the big deal. It's not like Mike hasn't already been involved in some major screw ups and the tattoos aren't going to matter to him. He's made his mark on life.

But, if a 18 year old girl comes in and says "cover my face with stars", ya have to sort of wonder about the person doing the tattoos. It seems like even though they like tattoos and make a living from them, he/she should think about it a minute and say "hey, you know this might screw your life up". It's not like an angel on the ass.

I just can't believe someone would do it.
Feb 19 13 04:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
eos3_300
Posts: 1,458
Brooklyn, New York, US


ArtisticPhotography wrote:

I disagree
The Tattooer view is disconnected from "normal" society and thinks everybody will see their art as beautiful and desirable.
Factor in the generation gap and people see things very differently
You can see that in this thread

Feb 19 13 04:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DHayes Photography
Posts: 4,796
Richmond, Virginia, US


ArtisticPhotography wrote:
But, if a 18 year old girl comes in and says "cover my face with stars", ya have to sort of wonder about the person doing the tattoos. It seems like even though they like tattoos and make a living from them, he/she should think about it a minute and say "hey, you know this might screw your life up". It's not like an angel on the ass.

I just can't believe someone would do it.

Kimberley Vlaeminck, the girl with the stars on her face and Lesya, the one with the gothic script on her face were done by the same "artist", Ruslan Toumaniantz.  Lesya's tattoo says, "Ruslan", her now fiancĂ©'s name...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02 … reloaded=1

My guess is that Lesya can forget about that corporate receptionist job.

Feb 19 13 04:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Orca Bay Images
Posts: 32,233
Lodi, California, US


DHayes Photography wrote:
My guess is that Lesya can forget about that corporate receptionist job.

Maybe she can find a company with "Ruslan" in its name.

Feb 19 13 04:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Photo PLUS
Posts: 5,503
Lorton, Virginia, US


eos3_300 wrote:

I disagree
The Tattooer view is disconnected from "normal" society and thinks everybody will see their art as beautiful and desirable.
Factor in the generation gap and people see things very differently
You can see that in this thread

I see tattoos as an art form as much as I see graffiti as an art form, it's vandalism. That doesn't mean that in themselves tattoos or graffiti work is bad, it's just that walls of buildings and human body are not meant to have shit painted on them. It's like decorating grandma or Fluffy or Spot or parents. It's weird.

Feb 19 13 05:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Natalia_Taffarel
Posts: 7,386
Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina


Nicolette wrote:
Because this is a job sepcifically centered around how we look

To sell a product. Why do you think it's different from any other job that sells products or services?

Why should advertising/fashion/ediorial be excluded from this "protection to tattoos" law? Or any other "look" based law that might follow?

Feb 19 13 05:35 pm  Link  Quote 
first5678   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers