Help my petition? (Tattoos in the workplace).
Replies
-
Yeah. Troll.You know who else chooses to modify their body in an unnatural way? People who get gender reassignment surgery. Should these people also be discriminated for altering their bodies in a way that a lot of people don't like?
Yes.0 -
No, not really. You shouldn't allow racist tattoos or, as was mentioned earlier, something like tattoos of vaginas. And you're right, for the most part, that all tatted folk would have to have a shot, and that's how it should be. People have the right to express themselves in a non-offensive, non-threatening way, and still get a job. That is the issue at hand. Denying someone who has tattoos is not at all the same as saying you have to wear certain clothing.
We're talking one tattoo, man. A small tattoo on the forearm. There are officers here who have tattoos on their necks.no offense but I really dont want to see police officers all tatted up.
ok thats not the issue though...if you allow tats you got to allow them all...this is not discrimination...no one has the "right" to be a police officer...they can choose how they want to be represented
this does not apply to religion or sex but they could prevent wearing religous clothing or high heels
many people find tattos scary and offensive and assoicate tats wih convicts. that is changing slowly as more women get ink but for now, police are still mainly condservative and they want a conservative image0 -
Signed0
-
But what better way to challenge that negative stigma? Again, again, again -- there are already cops who have tattoos here *in that police department*. If they're so concerned about their image, it's already less-than-conservative, in that case.
No, not really. You shouldn't allow racist tattoos or, as was mentioned earlier, something like tattoos of vaginas. And you're right, for the most part, that all tatted folk would have to have a shot, and that's how it should be. People have the right to express themselves in a non-offensive, non-threatening way, and still get a job. That is the issue at hand. Denying someone who has tattoos is not at all the same as saying you have to wear certain clothing.
We're talking one tattoo, man. A small tattoo on the forearm. There are officers here who have tattoos on their necks.no offense but I really dont want to see police officers all tatted up.
ok thats not the issue though...if you allow tats you got to allow them all...this is not discrimination...no one has the "right" to be a police officer...they can choose how they want to be represented
this does not apply to religion or sex but they could prevent wearing religous clothing or high heels
many people find tattos scary and offensive and assoicate tats wih convicts. that is changing slowly as more women get ink but for now, police are still mainly condservative and they want a conservative image0 -
my husband & i both work for 2 separate law enforcement agencies. neither allow visible tattoos. don't see any problem with that. show off your tattoos on your own time, keep it professional at work.0
-
and regarding the cops who already have tats.. new chief,new regime.. happens all the time0
-
No, the current chief of police has been the chief of police for several years.and regarding the cops who already have tats.. new chief,new regime.. happens all the time0 -
Interesting situation! I'm a teacher in SC and in my district, teachers are not allowed to have visible tattoos. They can't be seen at all, so that means covering them with a bandaid, makeup, etc. Student teachers at the nearby universities are told not to get them or get them so they can be covered up because they won't be hired with them. I don't see it as discrimination.
In my situation, since I work with impressionable youth I can completely understand my district's position. In your spouse/bf's situation, he is working with the public as well. While he isn't working necessarily only with you tattoos do present a certain impression whether people want to believe that or not. Unfortunately, sometimes when rules are changed within an organization the previous employees are grandfathered in, meaning the new rules, don't apply to them b/c they are already employed. This is not discrimination- it's a procedural change. My suggestion to you and your bf is to either cover it with makeup, remove it, or find employment somewhere else. Good luck!0 -
Yeah. Troll.You know who else chooses to modify their body in an unnatural way? People who get gender reassignment surgery. Should these people also be discriminated for altering their bodies in a way that a lot of people don't like?
Yes.
I'm actually a gnome, but whatever.0 -
But what better way to challenge that negative stigma? Again, again, again -- there are already cops who have tattoos here *in that police department*. If they're so concerned about their image, it's already less-than-conservative, in that case.
No, not really. You shouldn't allow racist tattoos or, as was mentioned earlier, something like tattoos of vaginas. And you're right, for the most part, that all tatted folk would have to have a shot, and that's how it should be. People have the right to express themselves in a non-offensive, non-threatening way, and still get a job. That is the issue at hand. Denying someone who has tattoos is not at all the same as saying you have to wear certain clothing.
We're talking one tattoo, man. A small tattoo on the forearm. There are officers here who have tattoos on their necks.no offense but I really dont want to see police officers all tatted up.
ok thats not the issue though...if you allow tats you got to allow them all...this is not discrimination...no one has the "right" to be a police officer...they can choose how they want to be represented
this does not apply to religion or sex but they could prevent wearing religous clothing or high heels
many people find tattos scary and offensive and assoicate tats wih convicts. that is changing slowly as more women get ink but for now, police are still mainly condservative and they want a conservative image
Yes!! I def'ly signed...and to the dude you are talking to...tattoos aren't scary. No scarier than a faux hawk, or cuffed sleeves on the muscles...who cares. I've seen plenty of cops with tats. Cops should be tough...why not get tats. Tattoos are becoming increasingly acceptable. I love mine & can't wait to get another. Tattoos deserve stigma just as much a people who take antidepressants....neither one should!!0 -
Signed for you - not offensive and can be covered up = no problem
I don't have any tattoos yet, but I am getting 2 of them (that can be covered up) - I work in the healthcare field, and my cousin has 3 = no problem for her.
Good luck0 -
Signed!
I think that if the tattoo is not offensive or gang-related, there's no reason it shouldn't be permitted. A lot of people have tattoos. Should somebody really be denied the job of their dreams because they chose to get a tattoo? You don't discriminate against people who have had nose jobs like that, so why is it excusable to discriminate against somebody who got a tattoo? And more importantly, with all of the criminal issues going on, do you really want to tell somebody they cannot be a police officer because of the way that they look if they are otherwise capable?0 -
Perhaps I misread, or missed a part, but I don't believe you mentioned whether or not he has or has not applied outside of his Jurisdiction.
If the other cities/counties are so accepting of Tattoos, like you claim them to be, why doesn't your man apply at those agencies in those other cities/counties?0 -
That's the problem. None of them are given the *option* to cover it up, even if it's totally capable of being covered. I could understand if they wanted it hidden, but they don't want their new hires to have it *at all*.Interesting situation! I'm a teacher in SC and in my district, teachers are not allowed to have visible tattoos. They can't be seen at all, so that means covering them with a bandaid, makeup, etc. Student teachers at the nearby universities are told not to get them or get them so they can be covered up because they won't be hired with them. I don't see it as discrimination.
In my situation, since I work with impressionable youth I can completely understand my district's position. In your spouse/bf's situation, he is working with the public as well. While he isn't working necessarily only with you tattoos do present a certain impression whether people want to believe that or not. Unfortunately, sometimes when rules are changed within an organization the previous employees are grandfathered in, meaning the new rules, don't apply to them b/c they are already employed. This is not discrimination- it's a procedural change. My suggestion to you and your bf is to either cover it with makeup, remove it, or find employment somewhere else. Good luck!0 -
I signed it. I grew up in Conway and moved to Seattle 8 years ago. My entire family still lives in Arkansas. I can't tell you how many times that someone has heard me speak and asked where I am from, because I still have some southern accent left. I answer Arkansas and more times than I can count, I hear how people think it's a 'Hick' state.
Things like this show it IS a hick state. That makes me sad. The people of Arkansas are the warmest, friendliest people I have ever met. I have tattoos and will be getting more soon. I'm pretty sure that they have never kept me from doing anything. I wish you luck.0 -
...and to the dude you are talking to...tattoos aren't scary. No scarier than a faux hawk, or cuffed sleeves on the muscles...
they arent scary to me but to a lot of older conservative people, they are
I dont make the rules or peoples attitudes but lets stay real0 -
That's the problem. None of them are given the *option* to cover it up, even if it's totally capable of being covered. I could understand if they wanted it hidden, but they don't want their new hires to have it *at all*.Interesting situation! I'm a teacher in SC and in my district, teachers are not allowed to have visible tattoos. They can't be seen at all, so that means covering them with a bandaid, makeup, etc. Student teachers at the nearby universities are told not to get them or get them so they can be covered up because they won't be hired with them. I don't see it as discrimination.
In my situation, since I work with impressionable youth I can completely understand my district's position. In your spouse/bf's situation, he is working with the public as well. While he isn't working necessarily only with you tattoos do present a certain impression whether people want to believe that or not. Unfortunately, sometimes when rules are changed within an organization the previous employees are grandfathered in, meaning the new rules, don't apply to them b/c they are already employed. This is not discrimination- it's a procedural change. My suggestion to you and your bf is to either cover it with makeup, remove it, or find employment somewhere else. Good luck!
If it's covered and not visible when he applied, how do they know? Did they strip search him? Just lacking in understanding.0 -
To a lot of older conservative people, black men or large men with a lot of muscles are scary. Should they not be allowed on the police force?...and to the dude you are talking to...tattoos aren't scary. No scarier than a faux hawk, or cuffed sleeves on the muscles...
they arent scary to me but to a lot of older conservative people, they are
I dont make the rules or peoples attitudes but lets stay real0 -
He has!Perhaps I misread, or missed a part, but I don't believe you mentioned whether or not he has or has not applied outside of his Jurisdiction.
If the other cities/counties are so accepting of Tattoos, like you claim them to be, why doesn't your man apply at those agencies in those other cities/counties?
. And he's qualified with all of them. They can't hire him until a position opens up, but when one does, if he's next in line, he'll get the job. ^~^.
Like I mentioned before though, this petition isn't just about him. Even if he gets a job with another department, I'm still going to pursue this petition for anyone else who has been wronged in this way. Ultimately, this started with his experience, but it is *not* about only him, but the many people who have been turned away for this superficial reason.0 -
Then the cops got the tattoos after the fact of hiring, or hid them, and now can't be fired for that reason alone. I agree with the others, I don't see it as discrimination. If you can bring up evidence he hired someone with full knowledge of a tatt, that is one thing.... Good luck, but I can't sign it. Sorry
No, the current chief of police has been the chief of police for several years.and regarding the cops who already have tats.. new chief,new regime.. happens all the time0 -
I signed it. Good luck!!!0
-
When he went in to interview with the corporal, they had a good chat, and he eventually said to the officer, "I've gotta show you something though," and revealed the tattoo on his arm. The corporal was very upset and told him that he was very, very sorry he couldn't hire him even though he was ideal for the position -- they have hired people before who have hidden their tattoos, and then got in a *lot* of trouble for it.
That's the problem. None of them are given the *option* to cover it up, even if it's totally capable of being covered. I could understand if they wanted it hidden, but they don't want their new hires to have it *at all*.Interesting situation! I'm a teacher in SC and in my district, teachers are not allowed to have visible tattoos. They can't be seen at all, so that means covering them with a bandaid, makeup, etc. Student teachers at the nearby universities are told not to get them or get them so they can be covered up because they won't be hired with them. I don't see it as discrimination.
In my situation, since I work with impressionable youth I can completely understand my district's position. In your spouse/bf's situation, he is working with the public as well. While he isn't working necessarily only with you tattoos do present a certain impression whether people want to believe that or not. Unfortunately, sometimes when rules are changed within an organization the previous employees are grandfathered in, meaning the new rules, don't apply to them b/c they are already employed. This is not discrimination- it's a procedural change. My suggestion to you and your bf is to either cover it with makeup, remove it, or find employment somewhere else. Good luck!
If it's covered and not visible when he applied, how do they know? Did they strip search him? Just lacking in understanding.0 -
You're absolutely fine if you don't want to sign it. However, I am still going to correct you that this *is a recent change*. Why is no one getting that?
Then the cops got the tattoos after the fact of hiring, or hid them, and now can't be fired for that reason alone. I agree with the others, I don't see it as discrimination. If you can bring up evidence he hired someone with full knowledge of a tatt, that is one thing.... Good luck, but I can't sign it. Sorry
No, the current chief of police has been the chief of police for several years.and regarding the cops who already have tats.. new chief,new regime.. happens all the time
One more time. THIS IS A RECENT CHANGE IN THIS DEPARTMENT.0 -
To a lot of older conservative people, black men or large men with a lot of muscles are scary. Should they not be allowed on the police force?...and to the dude you are talking to...tattoos aren't scary. No scarier than a faux hawk, or cuffed sleeves on the muscles...
they arent scary to me but to a lot of older conservative people, they are
I dont make the rules or peoples attitudes but lets stay real
is that the same thing? tats have a stigma of prison with older people. blacks and muscles dont0 -
Signed!0
-
You didn't say that in your opening post... and I was just going off of it.... Also, their might be a reason for the change, If it is a big issue, write the mayor or the city council. With all the information you have given, they are the ones that get the final say, after all...
You're absolutely fine if you don't want to sign it. However, I am still going to correct you that this *is a recent change*. Why is no one getting that?
Then the cops got the tattoos after the fact of hiring, or hid them, and now can't be fired for that reason alone. I agree with the others, I don't see it as discrimination. If you can bring up evidence he hired someone with full knowledge of a tatt, that is one thing.... Good luck, but I can't sign it. Sorry
No, the current chief of police has been the chief of police for several years.and regarding the cops who already have tats.. new chief,new regime.. happens all the time
One more time. THIS IS A RECENT CHANGE IN THIS DEPARTMENT.0 -
No, I'm not sure whether it's in the main post, but it is in a few posts replying to others. I'm not sure if you realize this, but the point of a petition is to show said decision maker that people back this up. Whether I speak to the chief of police, the mayor, or anyone else, I don't want them to think I'm only one opinion.
You didn't say that in your opening post... and I was just going off of it.... Also, their might be a reason for the change, If it is a big issue, write the mayor or the city council. With all the information you have given, they are the ones that get the final say, after all...
You're absolutely fine if you don't want to sign it. However, I am still going to correct you that this *is a recent change*. Why is no one getting that?
Then the cops got the tattoos after the fact of hiring, or hid them, and now can't be fired for that reason alone. I agree with the others, I don't see it as discrimination. If you can bring up evidence he hired someone with full knowledge of a tatt, that is one thing.... Good luck, but I can't sign it. Sorry
No, the current chief of police has been the chief of police for several years.and regarding the cops who already have tats.. new chief,new regime.. happens all the time
One more time. THIS IS A RECENT CHANGE IN THIS DEPARTMENT.0 -
They do to some older people. I have a tattoo and my grandmother didn't think I got it from a stint in prison. But if she sees a black man walking down the street, she tends to think he's involved in drugs or gangs, and black women tend to be prostitutes in her mind. And while muscles may not make one think of prison, prison usually makes one think of muscles (since they don't do much else, they usually do a lot of working out).
To a lot of older conservative people, black men or large men with a lot of muscles are scary. Should they not be allowed on the police force?...and to the dude you are talking to...tattoos aren't scary. No scarier than a faux hawk, or cuffed sleeves on the muscles...
they arent scary to me but to a lot of older conservative people, they are
I dont make the rules or peoples attitudes but lets stay real
is that the same thing? tats have a stigma of prison with older people. blacks and muscles dont0 -
He has!Perhaps I misread, or missed a part, but I don't believe you mentioned whether or not he has or has not applied outside of his Jurisdiction.
If the other cities/counties are so accepting of Tattoos, like you claim them to be, why doesn't your man apply at those agencies in those other cities/counties?. And he's qualified with all of them. They can't hire him until a position opens up, but when one does, if he's next in line, he'll get the job. ^~^.
Like I mentioned before though, this petition isn't just about him. Even if he gets a job with another department, I'm still going to pursue this petition for anyone else who has been wronged in this way. Ultimately, this started with his experience, but it is *not* about only him, but the many people who have been turned away for this superficial reason.
Ah, okay. I'm a little on the fence with this, honestly. I could see if his tattoo was offensive in which it depicted gang related markings, racist tendencies, nudity, etc, etc, but from what I have been reading (I lurk a lot before I reply) his tattoo seems pretty minuscule. This Department does seem to be taking this a little over board. If he's capable of covering it, I don't see why it's such a huge issue...Besides the professionalism part of it. But I believe one can be professional while still wearing a Tattoo...This is one of those things where it varies by the agency. Each agency has different rules and what not. Regardless, I wish him luck and thank him for what he wants to do.0 -
signed !! nothing wrong with ppl who have tats !!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions