That would be true if appearances were not important, but they are in business. If you want the job adopt the look for work that gets the job, and be yourself after hours. It's pretty simple.
It's like saying the boss won't hire you if you play Pokemon because Pokemon is socially unacceptable for adults, as such you should be punished for your choice.
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.
Last edited by BurningWhiteKyurem; 31st July 2012 at 12:48 AM.
3DS FC (Pokemon X): 1848-1667-7668
Friend safari is Ice with Snorunt, Beartic, and Cloyster. Looking for Dragon safaris, safaris with Whirlipede or Espurr, and Y-exclusive Mega Stones.
Shiny Chains (D/P): Ralts, Magnemite, Beldum
Shiny Chains (X/Y): None
Targets: Clauncher/Clawitzer, Swirlix, Smeargle
You don't, but the employer is the one hiring unfortunately. And since it is their money they should get to spend it as they wish. After all we are nothing but resources in the corporate mind. If a company can buy the machinery it wants why should it be told who to
Last edited by Malanu; 31st July 2012 at 3:35 AM.
I sort of agree with your stance in that appearance needs to be considered to a certain extent for certain professions, but emphasis on the word "certain". Not all jobs need to worry about this unless it's an especially obnoxious case that would hurt their business badly (and this is not most retail and part-time jobs, frankly), and there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. Similarly, telling employers they can spend their money as they wish is all well and good, since it is their company to run, but then when they start squandering it on frivolous things or flat-out stealing from employees, again, a line needs to be drawn.
Wanting something is different from needing something, too. You can buy a machine, but it'd be advisable to weigh the pros and cons of dropping the money and earning it back before you do. Same with employees, which is what all employers need to consider: what can they bring to the table, and what would be less desirable about hiring them in turn? If the former outweighs the latter, you'd think it'd be a no-brainer to hire them, right?
SHINY RAINBOWS BECKON YOU TO THE ARTIST'S CORNER
Trainer Name: Misha
3DS FC: 5112-3720-5938
Friend Safari: Fighting; Pancham, Machoke, Hariyama
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.
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.Originally Posted by BurningWhiteKyurem
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.
FC: 1463 5647 1777
Come check out my Trade Shop!!!
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".Even if appearances are important, it's still not even close to being a legitimate measure of work ethic, intelligence.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Adopt one yourself! @Pokémon Orphanage
19/08/2012 - First time I've completed the Dex since 1999.
I don't use uber Pokemon , I don't calculate stat values, I don't use cheating devices, I don't breed my way to perfection, and I don't care about natures. I catch my Pokemon the way they are, and treat them like individuals instead of brainless drones. If you use this philosophy, copy & paste this into your signature. (Started by Tyranitar)
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
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.
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.
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?
Last edited by BurningWhiteKyurem; 2nd August 2012 at 2:20 AM.
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.
You say that as if attraction and intelligence had a correlation.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.
Let's let the interview decide that. There's no way you can 100% predict intelligence, but I can certainly predict my business image.
I don't think you understand the purpose of 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?
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.
It would only be compromising if you were faced with the choice of only two applicants with the exact qualifications you just said.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.
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.