Tatoos in workplace

[WebDesires]

I don't have a solid feeling or opinion, I'm merely putting myself in the shoes of an employer and justifying their decisions, I expect an opinion is drawn up when hiring someone and it depends on the business and position that employee is taking... But yes I would say personally that those are big factors too that yu mentioned.

It's like restaurants, they wouldn't employee people with bad personal heigene would they? Could you imagine going to a posh resturant and the woman who serves you is dirty with bad makeup, messy greasy hair and nits.

 

[CoolHandCol]

If they were meeting customers I would insist on them being covered. Not everyone is tolerant and I would not risk it affecting my business

 

[Clinton]

For goodness sake, if you want to work in modelling or acting, don't take the chance!

The only thing worse than a tattoo on a model is ... half a tattoo. Designers don't want the restriction of having to design pieces to ensure that your tattoo is either fully visible or fully covered. If you're a hand model advertising a moisturiser why would an advertiser want to distract the viewer's attention with the tattoo on your wrist?! He's paying very good money for that ad, he wants full value.

I didn't post in this thread earlier but having spoken with someone in the industry today, a person responsible for hiring and firing, I thought I should make mention of this.

 

[simon field]

If you're a hand model advertising a moisturiser why would an advertiser want to distract the viewer's attention with the tattoo on your wrist?! He's paying very good money for that ad, he wants full value.

Yup, and the same goes for nail varnish. Stupid stuff.

 

[Cobby]

Some women slap make-up on in an unprofessional way. Others have dark roots showing through peroxide hair. Just looks scummy. Do you feel the same way about them?

I'd put it more in the category of folks that like to wear visible religious iconography. Organised religions seem to have certain legal protections with this sort of thing, but they're really just displays of things that have deep personal significance, and are arguably no different to some tattoos.

 

[Cobby]

For goodness sake, if you want to work in modelling or acting, don't take the chance!

The only thing worse than a tattoo on a model is ... half a tattoo. Designers don't want the restriction of having to design pieces to ensure that your tattoo is either fully visible or fully covered. If you're a hand model advertising a moisturiser why would an advertiser want to distract the viewer's attention with the tattoo on your wrist?! He's paying very good money for that ad, he wants full value.

I didn't post in this thread earlier but having spoken with someone in the industry today, a person responsible for hiring and firing, I thought I should make mention of this.

Apart from the fact I can't see people with hand tattoos applying for this type of job, or even being surprised at rejection if they did, the whole thing is rendered a moot point because of Photoshop. Nice thought though.

 

[WebDesires]

You would be surprised... I've got a friend with tattoos all over his arms, hands, neck etc. Looks very unprofessional and yet he moans that he cant get a retail job...

It's very simple, having a clean friendly image is VERY important, no employer cares that you like tattoos or think there great, there not great, they don't look good and DO NOT give off a good image period.

Also I think you miss the point, an employer is not going to spend the time and money on photoshopping every photograph just to remove a models tattoos, they would quite simply find someone to their liking, there are plenty of people in this world...

 

[Clinton]

... the whole thing is rendered a moot point because of Photoshop. Nice thought though.

Yes, it's not unusual for young people to expect others to compensate for any of their own shortcomings, even if self-inflicted. As WebDesires says, these kids will discover that they can be dispensed with as there are plenty of other, non-tattooed options.

I have this week fortunately met several young people who don't fit the stereotype, and it was a pleasant surprise. But your post dragged me back to planet earth to remind me that we do have over pampered youth with egos so big that they'll take jobs on only if the employer realises they're doing him a favour and he is willing to workaround whatever obstacles they put in his path.

It a tough job market, it's simple - don't take the chance.

 

[Cobby]

Yes, it's not unusual for young people to expect others to compensate for any of their own shortcomings, even if self-inflicted. As WebDesires says, these kids will discover that they can be dispensed with as there are plenty of other, non-tattooed options.
...
It a tough job market, it's simple - don't take the chance.

Despite your insanely cynical view of the 'youth' of today or people with tattoos, it's unlikely that anyone with prominent tattoos would apply for or expect to gain employment in such specialist areas as "hand modelling", or that anyone considering getting a prominent tattoo would ever consider their potential future career as a "hand model" before going ahead. The premise is absurd, but it's nice that you care enough to offer up advice.

Also I think you miss the point, an employer is not going to spend the time and money on photoshopping every photograph just to remove a models tattoos, they would quite simply find someone to their liking, there are plenty of people in this world...

No, the point is, taking into account the absurdity above, all images of catalogue models are photoshopped anyway as a matter of course, and if a company has a particular model they like they can and do remove tattoos they do not want in the image.

What's weird is this immediate assumption that people with tattoos have some kind of special-level entitlement related to it.

 

[Cobby]

Yes, it's not unusual for young people to expect others to compensate for any of their own shortcomings, even if self-inflicted.
...But your post dragged me back to planet earth to remind me that we do have over pampered youth with egos so big that they'll take jobs on only if the employer realises they're doing him a favour and he is willing to workaround whatever obstacles they put in his path.

I've encountered a few of these, but by far the most entitled, even just at the interview stage, are the older applicants. I'll grant you that the younger applicants are generally far less practical than you expect...

 

[paulears]

I always sigh in desperation when I see young dancers get tattoos, usually on their ankles or small of their back, and then they spend hours trying to keep them covered because the producers hate them. I've seen them not get picked up again at the end of their contracts, and they're always totally amazed the tats have wrecked their audition chances. Busy open auditions don't even involve talking to them. Next group, one, two, three, four ...... You and You stay, thanks everybody else, next group! It's plain stupid to disfigure yourself if what you look like to OTHERS is important. Nobody cares what the individuals think, it's the rest. If people want tattoos, fine - it's a choice, just don't whine when the people offering the jobs don't like them.

There was a case in the papers the other day where somebody posted on Trip Advisor that a waitress looked dreadful with nose ring, and facial tattoos, and the manager responded by saying it's a shame the customer couldn't see past them to the real person. I almost laughed. As the customer, didn't we always say the customer was always right, even if we knew they weren't? If customers are expected to make allowances, then that's not the best way to make money.

 

[Clinton]

Paul, you should contact Cobby, he'll get the dancers' tattoes photoshopped out.

 

[Cobby]

There was a case in the papers the other day where somebody posted on Trip Advisor that a waitress looked dreadful with nose ring, and facial tattoos, and the manager responded by saying it's a shame the customer couldn't see past them to the real person. I almost laughed. As the customer, didn't we always say the customer was always right, even if we knew they weren't? If customers are expected to make allowances, then that's not the best way to make money.

It's akin to complaining because your waiter is ugly or wears glasses. Choosing not to pander to shallow idiots is a perfectly okay way to make money, and I do it frequently.

That said, who cares what the personality of the serving staff is, unless that personality is rude or disrespectful to me, neither their attractiveness nor personality really matters. But then, it's usually only the customer that says "the customer is always right". Weird that.

 

[simon field]

Or having an earring. Or using foundation. Or hair gel (you know, 'wet look').

All of them shocking, all of them judge-able. Tut tut.

 

[UKcentric]

Guys, would you employ someone who doesn't have tattoos? I find it a bit strange and frankly a bit suspicious that someone wouldn't be inked in this day and age. Perhaps they have nothing to say for themselves? Or have no personality. It's kind of creepy don't you think?

UKBF thread 29/3/2026

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

There was a case in the papers the other day where somebody posted on Trip Advisor that a waitress looked dreadful with nose ring, and facial tattoos, and the manager responded by saying it's a shame the customer couldn't see past them to the real person. I almost laughed. As the customer, didn't we always say the customer was always right, even if we knew they weren't? If customers are expected to make allowances, then that's not the best way to make money.

hmm... would this chap be upset if while on holiday in Hawaii a mauri served him with tribal tattoo's on their face? or where they in Hawaii?

C'mon guys this is 2016 not 1916 society tells us we have to respect each others choices - just because some fool on Trip Advisor tells us a waitress looked dreadful doesn't mean that she was... People should never judge a book by it's cover... her appearance may well have not been to everyones taste, but paul doesn't state whether or not this customer in particular was a dwarf, a person with a severe disability, a mental patient or a cantankerous old racist twunt with no self esteem either.

As far as I'm concerned the customer is king - they're not always right but they are king when it comes to how they are served... had this particular chap been in my shop I'd have told him exactly that has I was throwing him out for being a knob.

 

[Shonda Myers]

I don't want to discriminate people with tattoo but if it's too much and causes distraction while talking to a possible client I guess I would have to say no.

 

[simon field]

But why would it be any more distracting that smelly perfume, or bright red lipstick?

 

[Pish_Pash]

For goodness sake, if you want to work in modelling or acting, don't take the chance!

Unless you want to secure a part in an Iceland supermarket TV advert.....to reflect their demographics, it's mandatory.

 

[Clinton]

 

[NorthernNewbie]

There's nothing bad about them and in the area where I hope to work (media/arts) they seem more tolerable than say a more corporate environment.

 

[MrComputerSaint]

If the person can do the job they are employed for, I wouldn't care if they have their whole body covered in tattoos.

 

[paulears]

In the media and arts, my experience is the opposite - tattoos can be a problem. I'm always surprised when girls in particular have very large and dark tattoos that are visible through their costumes. They attempt to cover them up, but that creates problems with the wardrobe department who find the covering stains the costumes. Performers frequently are selected because of what they look like, as well as how well they perform. Rather like taking a parcel to the post office, there is a tendency to select people based on fitting certain sizes. We do try, but there are practical aspects to this. Costumes are available in limited sizes, so while small adjustments are possible - too small or too bigs is a real problem. Having tattoos visible is not a problem for the person - it's not them being judged, it's the appearance. Having say, a line of 8 people in identical costume means it's a 'picture' - it looks nice and is balanced, perhaps with the audience meant to be watching the person in the middle - the 'star'. The big tattoo on one person draws the eye, then keeps it there while people try to see what it is. This is not what is meant to happen - it (in our jargon) pulls focus, and this is not desirable. Facial tattoos are even worse. They draw the eye, and for us that is a key feature. Many dancers get tattoos when at college, and really regret them. For people who tend to have short careers, any negative aspects really hurt when you get selected based on a very short and intense audition, where perhaps 90% get a no.

 

[Newchodge]

It must depend on the role.

In a professional client facing role I would never employ someone with visible tattoos. It doesn't matter if we should have moved beyond this by now. I will not risk alienating a potential customer (whose money counts, whatever I think of their attitudes) by employing someone whose appearance screams non-professional to a proportion of my clients.

In a non client-facing role, then it would not matter.

 

[Dawn Osolinski]

I would hire them based on their credentials, regardless of whether they have tattoos or not, or where they have them, even if they're visible even when wearing long sleeves and a buttoned up shirt / high neck top.

As long as they (the tattoos and the individual) aren't prejudice in nature then it's fine. You can meet a honest, thoughtful and professional employee with tattoos, then again you can meet someone who is the complete opposite (dishonest, spiteful and well, unprofessional) who hasn't a single tattoo. I know which person I would be looking to hire.

 

[zomex]

I think it depends on the business, job role and type of clients the employee would be dealing with.

In some type of jobs the tattos could be a benefit if for example a salesman in certain industries.

It shouldn't make a difference in most cases but there would be some acceptions I think face tattoos would be an issue for most employers but on the arms it's very common these days and shouldn't be an issue.