Iceland refuses to employ cleaner due to tattoo
Scroll to see replies
Original post by whyumadtho
I'm not suggesting it is rational or right, I am just pointing out why organisations and/or the public see certain things as unfavourable.
Yes, and I am saying that anyone who associates tattoos with gangs, violence, and criminality, would be just as likely to associate an Islamic garment with 9/11, 7/7 etc.
There is a current association of professionalism being comprised of qualities such as unmarked skin, neat hair, clean and straight teeth, clean clothes/uniform and polished shoes, etc. This is a professional standard enforced in all areas of work. In the overwhelming majority of professions, people without such qualities are rare. I believe the reason for this is that it is a social expectation of the organisations to abide by such standards.
This is a quote from the Metropolitan Police recruitment website:
Tattoos
As a candidate for employment with the Metropolitan Police Service you should present a professional image, and be sensitive to the impression you will make on members of the public. Anyone who has a tattoo which could be construed as offensive to any religion or belief, or is in any way discriminatory, violent or intimidating, will not be accepted to join the MPS. This is irrespective of wherever the tattoo appears on your body. Any tattoos on the face or visible above the collar are not acceptable if you wish to apply for a uniform role.
As part of the application process you will be required to supply a photograph/s of any tattoo/s you have and a decision will be made as to whether the tattoo/s complies with our dress code. If the tattoo/s is considered unacceptable then your application will be rejected
As a candidate for employment with the Metropolitan Police Service you should present a professional image, and be sensitive to the impression you will make on members of the public. Anyone who has a tattoo which could be construed as offensive to any religion or belief, or is in any way discriminatory, violent or intimidating, will not be accepted to join the MPS. This is irrespective of wherever the tattoo appears on your body. Any tattoos on the face or visible above the collar are not acceptable if you wish to apply for a uniform role.
As part of the application process you will be required to supply a photograph/s of any tattoo/s you have and a decision will be made as to whether the tattoo/s complies with our dress code. If the tattoo/s is considered unacceptable then your application will be rejected
This clearly shows that there is an obvious distinction in the public eye between a tattoo that is merely an expression of non-offensive feeling - e.g. a treble clef on the wrist, and a massive swastika on your arm. I'm not suggesting that Iceland should be forced to employ someone with a swastika tattoo, but I am saying that most people would prefer to be greeted with a treble clef on the wrist than a Burka.
Original post by Tommyjw
Try posting somethings that actually sparks a discussion that isn't your own narrow minded single opinion and we can 'argue'.
Nope, I knew it, just another leftist idiot, who when asked to justify his views in context to a parallel he doesn't like, insults instead of argues. You're pathetic.
Original post by tufc
Yes, and I am saying that anyone who associates tattoos with gangs, violence, and criminality, would be just as likely to associate an Islamic garment with 9/11, 7/7 etc.
This clearly shows that there is an obvious distinction in the public eye between a tattoo that is merely an expression of non-offensive feeling - e.g. a treble clef on the wrist, and a massive swastika on your arm. I'm not suggesting that Iceland should be forced to employ someone with a swastika tattoo, but I am saying that most people would prefer to be greeted with a treble clef on the wrist than a Burka.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by tufc
Nope, I knew it, just another leftist idiot, who when asked to justify his views in context to a parallel he doesn't like, insults instead of argues. You're pathetic.
Sorry, but you are still rambling on without posting any suchb points of discussion that i am yet to argue about seem as you like to do that so much.
So, i ask again, because you clearly can't read very well. How about posting something intelligent that actually raises a point i can discuss? You cannot just sit there and be a little armchair general and tell me i can't argue when you haven't even put forward any discussion points.
Go back to school child.
Original post by bradshawi
I cannot stand tattoos (they are called tramp-stamps for a reason). Though, this is coming from Iceland? Not that I have ever been into one (I think all customers need a blackeye to be able to enter!), but have you seen who is their advertiser on the TV? But I would hate to see any employee from any firm with such awful markings on their skin.
Look up the word tramp stamp.
Original post by whyumadtho
I disagree. Historically and presently, people with visible tattoos are associated with criminal gangs - and most criminal gangs often have visible tattoos. Historically, the majority of people with visible tattoos were unfavourable members of society, as opposition to the highly conservative norms of the past was a rarity amongst conventional members of the public. Dissimilarly, the minority of niqab- or turban-wearing people both presently and historically are/were associated with Islamic terrorism.
That's rubbish. It's all about tarring with the same brush and generalising, something you ticked me off for doing in another thread. And you need to learn about the history of tattooing.It's an ancient art, and British tattooing actually has its roots in the navy. The fact is, most Islamic extremists wear Islamic garments, that doesn't mean you associate all Muslims with extremist acts. A large proportion of gang members have tattoos, but that doesn't mean you associate anyone with tattoos with criminal acts.
Yes, and people would rather be greeted by a person with an unmarked hand than a marked one. Why can't people have tattoos on their face?
Yes, and I would rather be greeted by a displayed head, rather than an obscured one. What have facial tattoos got to do with it?
Original post by Tommyjw
Sorry, but you are still rambling on without posting any suchb points of discussion that i am yet to argue about seem as you like to do that so much.
So, i ask again, because you clearly can't read very well. How about posting something intelligent that actually raises a point i can discuss? You cannot just sit there and be a little armchair general and tell me i can't argue when you haven't even put forward any discussion points.
Go back to school child.
So, i ask again, because you clearly can't read very well. How about posting something intelligent that actually raises a point i can discuss? You cannot just sit there and be a little armchair general and tell me i can't argue when you haven't even put forward any discussion points.
Go back to school child.
You haven't answered my point. Why should people be allowed to wear Islamic garments to work, by choice, if people aren't allowed to have tattoos and work?
You can't just call my argument unintelligent because you have no argument to counter it.
Original post by whitepearlbaby
Look up the word tramp stamp.
Oh, I stand corrected! (BTW I felt sick when I google imaged it). I genuinely thought tramp stamps referred to ALL types of tattoos.
Original post by alabelle
She can't move it to under her uniform, a tattoo is sort of permanent. 
I don't disagree that she should have thought about that, but I don't think it's a fair rule.
I don't disagree that she should have thought about that, but I don't think it's a fair rule.Yes, but she has still chosen to have it. If she had the f-word or some other naughty word there instead, would you still side with her? It's the same argument, except that Iceland wish to have an even higher standard than just no naughty words.
Original post by tufc
You haven't answered my point. Why should people be allowed to wear Islamic garments to work, by choice, if people aren't allowed to have tattoos and work?
You can't just call my argument unintelligent because you have no argument to counter it.
You can't just call my argument unintelligent because you have no argument to counter it.
Because it;'s a ridiculously clear argument that needs no justification?
Firstly. You ARE allowed to have tattoo's at work, just not in visible places. Hands, face and sometimes the arms) Learn something. It's really NOT that hard to get your tattoo in a non-visible place, given that is like 90% of your body.
The Hijab and similar things are religious pieces of clothing with much more significance to a person than a tatoo on their hand they could have put on their chest.
It is illegal to discriminate based on religious principles. Equal rights means people from different races (and thus different religious clothing) should have the same rights. Nothing legally (or morally) is said at all like this about tattoo's.
Simple logical argument, no understand why you can't understand it.
Original post by tufc
That's rubbish. It's all about tarring with the same brush and generalising, something you ticked me off for doing in another thread. And you need to learn about the history of tattooing.It's an ancient art, and British tattooing actually has its roots in the navy. The fact is, most Islamic extremists wear Islamic garments, that doesn't mean you associate all Muslims with extremist acts. A large proportion of gang members have tattoos, but that doesn't mean you associate anyone with tattoos with criminal acts.
Yes, and I would rather be greeted by a displayed head, rather than an obscured one. What have facial tattoos got to do with it?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by SpiritedAway
I asked my mum (who is an employer) what she thinks, and she said if you are meant to have tattoos, then you'd be born with them, and they do not look nice or professional and she doesn't want customers to have a bad imagine of the business and sadly there are too many negative stereotypes about people with tattoos, and at the end of the day, if you start letting having one employee bend the rules, then where do you stop? Company policy is there and to followed by all from the managers to the cleaners.
So she makes her employees come to work naked and bans make-up, spectacles and haircuts? Appealing to nature is such a flawed argument.
Personally, I'd rather live in a world where people could alter their appearance to suit their own aesthetic tastes, but I recognise that I don't live in this ideal world and that's why I wouldn't get a hand tattoo. This woman is clearly oblivious to the society she lives in.
Original post by whyumadtho
I have already stated explicitly that these are not my views and I am explaining to you why the public feel this way. I am fully aware it is an irrational generalisation. Visible tattoos, in the public eye, are associated with criminality and unconcern with appearance, but Islamic garments are not. You are opposing this, but why do you associate scruffy hair, dirt/broken shoes and stained clothing with unfavourable members of society? Apply exactly the same arguments you have made above to your own opinion.
NO THEY'RE NOT! No one I know associates tattoos with criminality. But plenty of people I know associate Burkas with Islamic extremism. That's obviously an 'irrational generalisation', to use your term. But to use your argument against you further, this is their view isn't it? Something that's unfair, but still present? Last weekend in the supermarket, there were about 10 people in the aisle I was in, just looking at the shelves. A woman in a Burka walked into the aisle. 15 seconds later it was empty.
People don't like certain things that they deem as unprofessional. Just as the Metropolitan Police deem facial tattoos as unacceptable (probably because of their connotations with criminality), others may view visible tattoos as unfavourable for the same reason. There is no logical difference, but the public is illogical, and any business that attempts to set the precedent in allowing their workers to look however they like will find their custom going elsewhere.
Same argument. It's illogical to associate anyone wearing a Burka with Islamic extremism, but people still do it.
Original post by Tommyjw
Because it;'s a ridiculously clear argument that needs no justification?
Firstly. You ARE allowed to have tattoo's at work, just not in visible places. Hands, face and sometimes the arms) Learn something. It's really NOT that hard to get your tattoo in a non-visible place, given that is like 90% of your body.
The Hijab and similar things are religious pieces of clothing with much more significance to a person than a tatoo on their hand they could have put on their chest.
It is illegal to discriminate based on religious principles. Equal rights means people from different races (and thus different religious clothing) should have the same rights. Nothing legally (or morally) is said at all like this about tattoo's.
Simple logical argument, no understand why you can't understand it.
Firstly. You ARE allowed to have tattoo's at work, just not in visible places. Hands, face and sometimes the arms) Learn something. It's really NOT that hard to get your tattoo in a non-visible place, given that is like 90% of your body.
The Hijab and similar things are religious pieces of clothing with much more significance to a person than a tatoo on their hand they could have put on their chest.
It is illegal to discriminate based on religious principles. Equal rights means people from different races (and thus different religious clothing) should have the same rights. Nothing legally (or morally) is said at all like this about tattoo's.
Simple logical argument, no understand why you can't understand it.
Stop being so self-righteous. I know all about non-visible tattoos, I have two non-visible tattoos myself.
And the tattoo on my shoulder is an important part of my expression of my spirituality. If it were on my arm, why shouldn't I be entitled to the same expression of spirituality and philosophy as a Muslim?
It is not illegal not to employ someone who insists on wearing a Burka. It would be illegal to refuse employment to someone simply for holding a belief, but employers are allowed to discriminate against someone when they feel it would affect their business.
Aside from the law, how is it fair?
Please apply your arguments to your own conceptions about people with scruffy hair, dirty/broken shoes and stained clothes.
Visible tattoos, not tattoos in general. You are not the public. A dress standard is an appeal to majority. The public are the majority. Therefore, a dress standard indicates the public's viewpoint and impressions of a particular appearance. People associate a suit with professionalism - that is irrational. Not everyone who wears a suit is professional/intelligent/etc. The public is irrational, and as much as you may dislike it, it is evident by people's immediate impressions of others' outwardly appearances.
I'll ask again: how many working people have you seen wearing burqas?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I'm not refuting that.
Original post by tufc
NO THEY'RE NOT! No one I know associates tattoos with criminality.
But plenty of people I know associate Burkas with Islamic extremism. That's obviously an 'irrational generalisation', to use your term. But to use your argument against you further, this is their view isn't it? Something that's unfair, but still present?
Last weekend in the supermarket, there were about 10 people in the aisle I was in, just looking at the shelves. A woman in a Burka walked into the aisle. 15 seconds later it was empty.
Same argument. It's illogical to associate anyone wearing a Burka with Islamic extremism, but people still do it.
Original post by tufc
Stop being so self-righteous. I know all about non-visible tattoos, I have two non-visible tattoos myself.
And the tattoo on my shoulder is an important part of my expression of my spirituality. If it were on my arm, why shouldn't I be entitled to the same expression of spirituality and philosophy as a Muslim.
It is not illegal not to employ someone who insists on wearing a Burka. It would be illegal to refuse employment to someone simply for holding a belief, but employers are allowed to discriminate against someone when they feel it would affect their business.
Aside from the law, how is it fair?
And the tattoo on my shoulder is an important part of my expression of my spirituality. If it were on my arm, why shouldn't I be entitled to the same expression of spirituality and philosophy as a Muslim.
It is not illegal not to employ someone who insists on wearing a Burka. It would be illegal to refuse employment to someone simply for holding a belief, but employers are allowed to discriminate against someone when they feel it would affect their business.
Aside from the law, how is it fair?
You really are comparing the spirituality (etc) of your tattoo to a religion? ...
And yes it is illegal actually.
Fair on a business side. Lets look at someone with a tattoo sleeve. Yes i acknowledge how nice they can look, how meaningful they are and all that.. but it is simple fact that a man serving in an average store with a full tattoo sleeve on show will give people bad impressions. Ever heard the type of sayings like 'you know if you like someone in 5 seconds' and all that jazz? (no sure of the exact statements). You don't literally sit there and think about it, but 'deep down' psychoilogically you have judged a person or a place without knowing. This is the same.
Same reasons for placing the best products at eye level. making people wear uniforms, creating illusion of space etc. All about effecting a customers view of the store, even if they aren't directly sitting and thinking about it.
Original post by whyumadtho
Please apply your arguments to your own conceptions about people with scruffy hair, dirty/broken shoes and stained clothes.
This implies apathy, not a personal choice.
Visible tattoos, not tattoos in general. You are not the public. A dress standard is an appeal to majority. The public are the majority. Therefore, a dress standard indicates the public's viewpoint and impressions of a particular appearance. People associate a suit with professionalism - that is irrational. Not everyone who wears a suit is professional/intelligent/etc. The public is irrational, and as much as you may dislike it, it is evident by people's immediate impressions of others' outwardly appearances.
Neither are you the public! I'm saying not to discriminate between tattoos and burkas - we can't be sure how the public feel so we either disallow both or allow both. You want to assume a level of intelligence in the public eye for one, but not the other.
I'll ask again: how many working people have you seen wearing burqas?
Several. One in a carpet store near my college, another in Comet.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I'm not refuting that.
Original post by Tommyjw
You really are comparing the spirituality (etc) of your tattoo to a religion? ...
And yes it is illegal actually.
No it's not. An employer is allowed to claim exception under the Equality Act 2010, if they feel that it would negatively affect the efficiency with which they do their job.
Fair on a business side. Lets look at someone with a tattoo sleeve. Yes i acknowledge how nice they can look, how meaningful they are and all that.. but it is simple fact that a man serving in an average store with a full tattoo sleeve on show will give people bad impressions.
No they won't. I wouldn't let it affect whether they sold something to me. And why does a Burka not have the same effect. I know a lot of people who very much dislike being served by people wearing Burkas.
Ever heard the type of sayings like 'you know if you like someone in 5 seconds' and all that jazz? (no sure of the exact statements). You don't literally sit there and think about it, but 'deep down' psychoilogically you have judged a person or a place without knowing. This is the same.
Yes, and I feel deeply intimidated by someone wearing a Burka. Yet you'd probably expect me to sit down and think about it.
Same reasons for placing the best products at eye level. making people wear uniforms, creating illusion of space etc. All about effecting a customers view of the store, even if they aren't directly sitting and thinking about it.
Does a Burka look like uniform?
Original post by tufc
This implies apathy, not a personal choice.
Apathy relative to social standards and expectations. The exact same argument applies to visible tattoos - society doesn't view them favourably, so people who still get them are apathetic, seeing as they are fully aware their job prospects will be limited by having one.
Neither are you the public! I'm saying not to discriminate between tattoos and burkas - we can't be sure how the public feel so we either disallow both or allow both. You want to assume a level of intelligence in the public eye for one, but not the other.
Several. One in a carpet store near my college, another in Comet.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Eligibility
- Anybody came close to or considered getting a cleaning job just to be in work?
- Are tattoos lower class?
- Can I be a teacher with tattoos
- Inner forearm tattoo: is it a problem?
- Eligibility for student finance if I was in the EU for a period of the last 3 years
- Tattoo? Entirely bad idea, or manageable?
- How to deal with flatmates that just don't clean
- Why did you decide to return to learn?
- Supermarket Hurt/Heal Game
- can i go to college without a nat5 maths?
- Boots piercings and hair colour
- Head gasket and cylinder head advise needed please
- Which is the 'poshest' supermarket chain?
- Nurses with tattoos
- Transaction writing help
- Leicester Tenancy Takeover
- medical students and tattoos
- February Book of the Month Official Discussion: TSR Book Club
- Tattoos as a lawyer
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
AQA GCSE Chemistry Paper 1 Higher Tier (8462 1H) - 22nd May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official Royal Veterinary College Applicant Thread for 2024Posted 5 minutes ago
Unknown Protein concentration? Plz help me on thisLast reply 6 minutes ago
Goldmansachs Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 10 minutes ago
PWC Flying Start Degree Apprenticeships 2024!Last reply 19 minutes ago
Can I get funding for a full time course if I've studied before?Last reply 20 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 22 minutes ago
What university are best for 3D animation and visual effect?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
