Would you recruit someone with a visible tattoo?

Tattoo at work

Within the workplace, there is still - I believe - one subject that creates very strong opinions and pre-conception discrimination when it comes to new colleagues and even worse prospective employees... and that is tattoos.
Tattoos used to be considered taboo, connected to gangs, bikers, football hooligans (that's my Dad's opinion!) and generally other groups of people away from the 'socially acceptable middle ground'. Visible tattoos have always been (for the majority of recruiters and hiring managers), an easy reason for them to preclude them from offering them employment opportunities.

But in the 21st century, tattoos are widely prevalent in society, and appear to have gained a wider social acceptance. With many of the stars of film and TV being 'inked', certainly many more people have chosen to adorn their bodies with permanent artwork. To a certain extent, tattoos have become a fashion statement for many people.
There are of course many people that have tattoos that you would never expect, because they are simply not visible (and no, there is no truth to the rumour that Gordon Brown has the picture of Stalin tattooed on his chest!!) However seemingly becoming more common, are the visible tattoos - hands, neck, face etc - that can now be seen in every high street.

With all the discrimination laws now present in the workplace, should someone with a visible tattoo be treated any differently from an employment perspective? Does a visible tattoo change the way that you think about the prospective employee or colleague?

Obviously, the answer to that question depends on the dress code/appearance policy that an employer already has in place. Someone with visible tattoos applying for a job in a customer facing role, will (I have no doubt) be treated differently to someone with visible tattoos applying for a non-customer facing role.

Tattoos vary tremendously, some are fantastic pieces of art, some are interesting and there are some that are offensive and nasty to look at. First impressions count today more than ever - especially with the recession causing such competition for jobs. People that have visible tattoos know that they will be 'judged' before you get to know them, simply because they are 'inked' - and that is of course their choice, when they make the choice to have a tattoo. But does it make it right?

Would you treat a candidate differently if they had a visible tattoo? Would you allow it to influence your first impression of the candidate? Ultimatley, would it affect your hiring decision?

Originally posted on my www.SironaSays.com blog last year.

Views: 945

Comment by Michael Glenn on January 22, 2010 at 10:19am
I posted something about this a while ago. http://www.glennlist.com/?p=366

But I have recruited for companies that would NOT hire someone unless they had a tattoo or a piercing of a major body part.

Here is my take. Corporate America is ultra conservative. If you are going to work for IBM, cover up the tattoos but if they are visible then it will be tough to get a job at some of these places i.e IBM.

But smaller companies that are not so corporatey, they don't care as much.
Comment by Andy Headworth on January 22, 2010 at 11:05am

I agree. But before you get tattoo's people need to think about the work implications don't they? Those 'seemed like a good idea at the time' visible tattoos have come back to haunt a lot of people I know!

Your image (in your blog) and the one I used are on the extreme side, granted, but anything visible could be classed as provocative by too many conservative employers!

Comment by Andy Headworth on January 24, 2010 at 5:46am
I agree Karen. If the role they are recruiting for is a non-customer facing role then I can't see any issue at all - if the person has got tattoos or piercings, then so what if they are great at their job!

If however the role is front line customer facing, then I guess it depends on where the ink is and what it is - tattoo sleeves that can be covered up is not so much of a problem, but facial, neck or hand ink is a different matter (in my opinion) - and does need to be considered carefully.

As Michael says above, the majority of people in the US (and UK for that matter) are conservative in nature, and find tattoos offensive. While society is changing their levels of acceptance, I think it will be a while yet before they get accepted in the mainstream, don't you?


You need to be a member of RecruitingBlogs to add comments!

Join RecruitingBlogs


All the recruiting news you see here, delivered straight to your inbox.

Just enter your e-mail address below


RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

© 2024   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service