We Should Not Discriminate Tattoos And Body Piercing In The Workplace

This paper uses four books and articles to explain the discrimination that tattoos, piercings and other body modifications face in the workplace. The paper will discuss the laws and ethics of discrimination in the workplace. The study also contains a stigmatization of tattoos. In this study, questions were asked to determine how people who had tattoos and those without tattoos viewed tattooed individuals. This document also contains court cases against discrimination based on tattoos and body piercings. This paper also discusses the efforts of social workers to alter their dress codes in order to better promote their diverse backgrounds and what they do. This is to demonstrate that by reducing discrimination, we can start the process of eliminating stereotypes.

Many Americans are subjected to constant discrimination, judgment, and stereotypes because they have tattoos and body piercings. This feeling is even stronger in the workplace. Tattoos and piercings are strictly prohibited in most businesses. The rules at their workplaces make most people feel like they are being suffocated. Everyone wants to be able to walk around without feeling judged and discriminated. Everyone has an opinion about someone or something. Wouldn’t a small step be a positive change for those who feel that they can’t express themselves at work? The workplace should not discriminate against people who have tattoos or piercings.

There are dress codes and ethical rules at every workplace, but they all have certain guidelines. We all receive handbooks or manuals when we start a new job. They tell us what is expected. We are all required to adhere to a dress-code in our jobs. Fleischer (2004) explains that employers can enforce a dresscode on employees when they have a valid reason to do so. Businesses use ethics as a way to bring their employees into line (Gavai 2010, for example). Most employers add their tattoo and piercing policy to their job descriptions to fit the business model. Some places do it, others don’t, and in some cases, it is adjusted for certain jobs.

The use of tattoos or piercings in the workplace is not discriminatory. Although employers cannot discriminate based on race, religion, or origin, they still do. Interviewers must be free of stereotypes and biases even though we all have them. “Most people feel judged by an employer when they see their tattoos or body piercings. We are all prone for stereotypes, and it is only natural that our brains do this. But businesses hire people based on experience and job knowledge. “The screening, testing, interviewing, and evaluating of candidates must be fair, impartial and objective. (Gavai 2010,)” This means that they need to focus on the skills and qualities of a potential employee and determine whether they are suitable for the position.

Tattoos are a common form of body modification. The trend is increasing with each passing year. In 2007, a Harris Poll revealed that 40% of Americans between 25-40 years old had at least 1 tattoo. That’s up from 3% just 20 years before and 0.5% fifty years earlier. It is amazing to see the percentage increase in only 20 years. Although tattoos are becoming more popular, some people still dislike them and put others into stereotypes. According to some, the number of tattoos would increase if employers were more open.

Stereotypes themselves are discrimination. These stereotypes are about a group, thing or category and they make it look like we can judge people. Scovell (2010) writes that a study found that women who were blonde and tattooed are viewed negatively. Williams, Thomas & Christensen (2004) mention new research that shows prejudice leads to discriminatory workplace effects, such as employment, promotions, policies, or practices. Martin and Dula speak about stereotypes of people with tattoos. These stereotypes include not being successful in school, coming out of a broken-down home, a childhood that was unhappy, never attending church, poor decision making skills, and getting tattoos after drinking. Not all people who fall into these categories have tattoos. Say that 100 people rarely attend church. However, only 80 of them have tattoos. In this case, 80 out 100 of those who have tattoos do not go to church. Stereotyping at its best.

This study was conducted to determine the stigma attached to tattoos. The survey was designed to show what people might think of tattooed individuals. They also conducted a Big Five personality measure, which is a survey of the five personalities: openness to experience, conscientiousness and extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. Martin and Dula, (2014) discovered that tattoos have a range of stigmas. The study included both tattooed people and those who were not. This was done to ensure that the results weren’t skewed. The participants were asked questions regarding tattoos. Some of the question were: People with visible Tattoos shouldn’t take them seriously. Criminals tend to be more likely than others to have Tattoos. People getting tattoos may have mental disorders. The stigma associated with tattoos was higher for non-tattooed people. The fact that non-tattooed persons think of tattooed individuals so negatively is very disturbing. This study has shown that tattoos are often discriminated against.

Many people have attempted to challenge the discrimination of tattoos in court. Louis Pechman’s article Employers Can Regulate Body Arts on Employees, published in 2005, discusses some of the cases where tattoos or piercings were discriminated against at the workplace. In a case where an employer requested that an employee remove an ear piercing and she refused, claiming it was against her faith. She belonged the Church of Body Modification. The law allows dress codes to be enforced as long as they are applied equally. Her employer could not legally force her to remove her piercing because it was part of her religion. In a different case, an employee was sued by a woman for retaliation. She also claimed gender discrimination. Her employer asked that she cover her tattoo of a heart or face termination, but did not do the same for a male colleague with a Navy tattoo. The company did not want customers to think that she had a drug problem, was from a broken-down family or was a prostitute. However, tattoos on men were considered to be a symbol of heroism (Pechman, 2005). These cases are far more common than we think. However, not all of them are as successful. These court cases would not have occurred if employers had allowed employees to make body modifications.

Social workers have raised the issue of tattoos, piercings, and the increasing popularity among individuals. They frequently state that policies requiring the coverage of such modifications are outdated, and may be inconsistent with core values in social work (Williams Thomas Christensen 2014. Social workers are not the only ones who have concerns about outdated and inconsistent dress codes that prohibit tattoos and body piercings. The majority of employees think that body modification should be allowed regardless of the customer’s response. It is important to keep in mind that workers should remain sensitive to those who do not approve of such body modifications. However, it’s also crucial to maintain a flexible approach to expectations regarding professional appearance to avoid being at odds with core values like human diversity, cultural competency, and empowerment (Williams Thomas Christensen, 2014). Many people think that social workers should be able to deal with diversity because they are dealing with it.

Every single person has to deal with different people in their job. We can’t reject someone because of something we dislike about them or that they seem offensive. “We shouldn’t exclude those with the knowledge and skills just because of a mark they wear on their necks, arms or faces” (Scovell, 2010). If the roles were reversed, employees would discriminate and deny customers access to products or doctors for health concerns. Scovell (2010) explains how nurses are also diverse, yet people don’t know it because they can’t modify their uniforms. “Failure in tolerating difference or allowing people to live different lives doesn’t give confidence that you can give nonprejudiced treatment” (Scovell 2010).

Most people change who they are to get a new job. Kaufman (2013) informs us that Thomas preemptively wore the cardigan for her interview and that this is not her normal daily attire. Her job requires her to wear them daily to conceal her tattoos. When she was hired, human resources did not perform a physical examination. She said that if she wore clothes that revealed her tattoos then it would lead to multiple interviews. Then, the job would vanish. She wondered if it was because of her tattoos that she couldn’t get a job. She wore clothes to hide her ink and got an intern position. But she was told by her boss that tattoos would make it difficult for her to get a permanent job. One man talks of feeling like he is two people, one being corporate Robert and the other rock n’roll Robert (Kaufman 2012). When he is at work he is completely covered with tattoos, but once he returns home he lets the tattoos show.

By resolving the conflict between tattoos, piercings and discrimination, companies could avoid lawsuits. It would also reduce stigma towards tattoos and body piercings. It would be easier to reduce stereotypes against body modification if people saw successful people with tattoos as normal. “Letting the public decide what nurses look like is a very dangerous thing to do.” From not liking a tattooed arm of a nurse to not liking their skin colour is only a small step (Scovell, 2010). This message applies to all professions, not just nurses. Nobody should decide what people are allowed to do. We are moving closer to segregation by imposing restrictions on employees.

The tattoo is nothing but a color or design on your skin. A piercing is just an extra. It is absurd to judge someone based on their body modification. This is also a blow to a nation that promotes freedom. “Professionalism doesn’t come from how we appear, but our knowledge and behaviour” (Scovell 2010,). Character, personality, and knowledge are not just superficial. Some people are not accepting of their differences and want to make complaints about other’s differences. In order to reduce prejudice, we should allow tattoos and body piercings at work. People fought many years ago to be free from being judged by the color of your skin. Despite the fact that it happens today, these workers are still permitted to work. Although it may seem that the discrimination has changed to include the skin tone of a person, the actual act is the exact same.

The workplace could be made more discrimination-free if people were allowed to display their tattoos or piercings. A world without professional discrimination would make sense. The first step would be to end all discrimination on the job. We know that people will be different and may not like someone’s appearance. It would be great to see a surgeon with tattoos who is the best surgeon in his/her field. This would show society that this person is not part of a gang or on drugs. Perhaps a teacher with tattoos can inspire children to achieve more in their schoolwork and ignite a desire to learn. We should start judging people on the basis of their knowledge, character and skills, not their tattoos or piercings.