Should employers be able to disqualify candidates with tattoos and piercings?

[Malanu]

No wonder the editor acted like I was dumb!... I was!

Criminal activity is something different from what I'm talking about, but your point is valid.

As to the buying point, picture being told by an outside entity that all things being equal, you must have X amount of this companies machinery!

I can't type the rest. Because no matter how I word it. It makes me sick to my stomach that I have reached such a conclusion, and I am sorry I have come to it.

[Iceberg]

Even if appearances are important, it's still not even close to being a legitimate measure of work ethic, intelligence.

Assume you have a high tech company:
- Profile A - An attractive woman with a large bust, however only has high school education. Doesn't really fit the traits you're looking for but she's in your considerations.
- Profile B - A woman that isn't as attractive, has piercings and tattoos everywhere but has high school AND university education, has exactly what you need in an employer.

Would you still take the attractive person because she looks good? You'd be risking business reputation and credibility with her lack of intelligence as opposed to business image itself if your pierced employer is intelligent.

So really, it's a double edged sword.

You raise a very valid point. However, if we were to take the same two profiles you suggested, but instead of a job where the person would mostly be working "behind the counter" (meaning they wouldn't really be interacting with the customer, but more manufacturing the product) they would be directly working with the customer, such as a salesman/woman for a high end car dealer.

If I was the owner of a Mercedes dealership, who obviously caters to a certain class of people. I would want someone who fits in with that group of people, such as a clean, classy looking young man or woman to be my salesperson. So out of your profiles, it may be in my best interest to hire the attractive, less educated woman over the tattoed woman.

However, in a job were interactions with the customer are slim to none, I totally agree with you; hire the more qualified person regardless of if they have tattoos or piercings.

[Malanu]

Assume you have a high tech company:
- Profile A - An attractive woman with a large bust, however only has high school education. Doesn't really fit the traits you're looking for but she's in your considerations.
- Profile B - A woman that isn't as attractive, has piercings and tattoos everywhere but has high school AND university education, has exactly what you need in an employer.

Will woman B wear cloths covering her Tats and limit her piercings to a customary level? If she agrees then she would have the job.

[GhostAnime]

Even if appearances are important, it's still not even close to being a legitimate measure of work ethic, intelligence.

I don't see your point. All this topic is about is that it's simply a factor. Whether it's the deciding one is truly dependent on the individual situations. There's no absolute yes or no answer; just "it matters".

[Shiny_Wooper]

Well it depends on the job:
Lawyer-pretty straight forward you need to be professional, if you have a small tattoo maybe on your ankle or not visible its definitely fine, piercing,well i personally should not let them work there if they wore the piercings to work but i'f you could take them out (earrings if they are multiple).
Fast food: well fast food is usually low-class anyhow so i wouldn't mind some tattoos or piercings.

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

I don't see your point. All this topic is about is that it's simply a factor. Whether it's the deciding one is truly dependent on the individual situations. There's no absolute yes or no answer; just "it matters".

My point is looks don't accurately quantify a person's intelligence.

The reason I brought up the profiles is that:

You could be the most attractive human being in the world, and when they hire you, they find out that the hire is regrettable because your smarts don't measure up.
OR
You could be the most unattractive human being in the world(assuming tats and piercings are considered that in the business world), but you can execute whatever it is that the employer wants at maximum efficiency and you have the book smarts to back yourself up.
(of course vice versa)

Thus, if you're worried about looks tainting the business image, you need to also worry about credibility if you're going to start hiring attractive but lacking in intelligence people.

[Charazemma]

Personally, if I was an employer then I would still hire a person, unless the tattoo was offensive- you know, something racist, swearing, nudity etc etc. It does depend on the type of job though. For example, if they were working in a place where they are likely to come into contact with older people, or a certain religion which does not like body art, then I would ask them to cover it up. If there was no direct interaction with public, then anything (within reason) goes.

Why should someones appearance dictate their future? Tattoos are no sign of stupidity or ignorance (unless they are as I described above). In fact, surely having no tolerance and judging someone on their appearance is the true sign of stupidity and ignorance?

I have tattoos. That doesn't make me a stupid delinquent. I have never been in trouble with the law, and I have a degree. My tattoos don't affect this!

[Malanu]

My point is looks don't accurately quantify a person's intelligence.

The reason I brought up the profiles is that:

You could be the most attractive human being in the world, and when they hire you, they find out that the hire is regrettable because your smarts don't measure up.
OR
You could be the most unattractive human being in the world(assuming tats and piercings are considered that in the business world), but you can execute whatever it is that the employer wants at maximum efficiency and you have the book smarts to back yourself up.
(of course vice versa)

Thus, if you're worried about looks tainting the business image, you need to also worry about credibility if you're going to start hiring attractive but lacking in intelligence people.

Why does the person have to be attractive in example? Most employers would hire an average looking person over an art display on legs. Honestly, if you are going to make yourself a tapestry you should consider the fall out of your choice in all it's ramifications (LONG TERM). Not get the work done and then whine because you are undesirable for high paying corporate jobs because you look like a biker!

Seriously. It's like like sticking your hand into boiling water and being shocked that it burns!

What don't you see in these pictures of fortune 500 CEOs?
http://www.google.com/search?q=fortune+500+CEOs&hl=en&safe=strict&client =firefox-a&hs=P7g&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=x5 YZUIL5PMrviQKqg4DYBQ&ved=0CE8Q_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih= 835

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

Why does the person have to be attractive in example? Most employers would hire an average looking person over an art display on legs. Honestly, if you are going to make yourself a tapestry you should consider the fall out of your choice in all it's ramifications (LONG TERM). Not get the work done and then whine because you are undesirable for high paying corporate jobs because you look like a biker!

I was using attractive to indicate someone that is more pleasing to the eyes than the one with piercings/tattoos etc. Fact is, attractive people DO get hired more often (independent of their credentials).

If we're living in a society where we can express ourselves in many ways, why should I be punished by not getting a job just because I made my own choice? Doesn't sound like freedom there. Who's the say that a tatted person can't do the job equally or more proficient than the average Joe?

It simply doesn't make sense to discount someone because of the choices they've made, as opposed to discounting someone because they don't have the credentials to make your company a successful one.

[Malanu]

I was using attractive to indicate someone that is more pleasing to the eyes than the one with piercings/tattoos etc. Fact is, attractive people DO get hired more often (independent of their credentials).

If we're living in a society where we can express ourselves in many ways, why should I be punished by not getting a job just because I made my own choice? Doesn't sound like freedom there. Who's the say that a tatted person can't do the job equally or more proficient than the average Joe?

It simply doesn't make sense to discount someone because of the choices they've made, as opposed to discounting someone because they don't have the credentials to make your company a successful one.

You are looking at things wrong. You made your choice to not conform to social norms. Why are we expected to treat you like everyone else, when you wanted to be different? You cannot have it both ways. You either want to be different (with everything that comes with it) or you want to be "normal" (Accepted).

And you also need to accept that "Normal" is determined by my generation until you get into that place. Then the next generation will be asking you why having Glowing Red Eyes(for instance) keeps them from getting a good job.

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

[/b]You are looking at things wrong. You made your choice to not conform to social norms. Why are we expected to treat you like everyone else, when you wanted to be different? You cannot have it both ways. You either want to be different (with everything that comes with it) or you want to be "normal" (Accepted).[/b]

And you also need to accept that "Normal" is determined by my generation until you get into that place. Then the next generation will be asking you why having Glowing Red Eyes(for instance) keeps them from getting a good job.

That makes absolutely no sense when you consider our freedoms and the definition of social norms. How can you tell me that you have norms in place controlling how and what we should do to express ourselves when basic law show us that everyone has the right to thought, belief, opinion, and most importantly expression? Sounds like a huge double standard in place if you're telling us that we can express ourselves and then contradict that saying by stating you need to conform and not express yourself if you want a career.

I don't care about generational arrivals as much as I care about people having an impartial state of mind with respect to hiring workers. That means, if tatted or pierced and has the credentials for success, who am I to deprive the person of an opportunity?

[Malanu]

Now you are getting it! You are free to express yourself, (so long as you are willing to face the backlash of those who disagree with you, your look, your stance, your cloths everything). Have you ever seen a Biker-type as a Bank manager much less a Teller? You have been deluding yourself if you think you can thumb your nose at social norms and then be accepted. Sorry it just the way it is. Unless you are going into a "creative" field, if you don't have the right look you are not getting hired... And that even goes for those in those creative fields! Would you believe a 40 year old man in a suit and tie if he told you he was a "die hard" rocker?

A boss has the right to choose what (s)he is paying for.

How will your Tatted person GET the credential for success if they cannot get passed the first interview?

Get your butt in the door. Prove yourself. Only then will you have the right to be yourself.

[GhostAnime]

Thus, if you're worried about looks tainting the business image, you need to also worry about credibility if you're going to start hiring attractive but lacking in intelligence people.

You say that as if attraction and intelligence had a correlation.

Let's let the interview decide that. There's no way you can 100% predict intelligence, but I can certainly predict my business image.

Why should someones appearance dictate their future? Tattoos are no sign of stupidity or ignorance (unless they are as I described above). In fact, surely having no tolerance and judging someone on their appearance is the true sign of stupidity and ignorance?

I don't think you understand the purpose of business image.

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

You say that as if attraction and intelligence had a correlation.

Let's let the interview decide that. There's no way you can 100% predict intelligence, but I can certainly predict my business image.

You already summed by point

Prior to that, I said that the in the profile, the attractive person did not have enough credentials compared to the tatted/pierced person. Am I going to deprive an opportunity from the tatted/pierced person just because he/she doesn't conform and has the ability to express himself/herself? No, but chances are the employer will solely based on the 'business image.'

That's why I said you'll compromise credibility if your base your interviews more on who's better looking than on comparing who has the better credentials to make a impact in the organization.

[Malanu]

You already summed by point

Prior to that, I said that the in the profile, the attractive person did not have enough credentials compared to the tatted/pierced person. Am I going to deprive an opportunity from the tatted/pierced person just because he/she doesn't conform and has the ability to express himself/herself? No, but chances are the employer will solely based on the 'business image.'

That's why I said you'll compromise credibility if your base your interviews more on who's better looking than on comparing who has the better credentials to make a impact in the organization.

However you are thinking in terms of the girl with the (dragon) tattoo is unattractive. A bombshell with tats isn't going to get a job where appearance is important. Unless you are looking for a "creative" job you must have the appearance that the employer is looking for... While on the job. How you dress/look outside the workplace is your business.

[GhostAnime]

That's why I said you'll compromise credibility if your base your interviews more on who's better looking than on comparing who has the better credentials to make a impact in the organization.

It would only be compromising if you were faced with the choice of only two applicants with the exact qualifications you just said.

Most employers have a much, much better selection pool than this. They'll rarely if ever have to compromise because most jobs that require you to have a professional image get a better competitive pool of people.

In other words, a real world example would be choosing the best applicant among those that would fit your business image in addition to having the credentials, not one side versus another side.