Tough on Tattoos: Like it or not, body modifications can reduce your chances of getting hiredBy Scott Cook
This month I’m going to talk about body modification: tattoos and piercings.
Now I know some of us believe that body modifications are really a personal choice, and they’re often done as a remembrance or celebration of someone important in our lives—and that’s all well and good. Tattoos and piercings are your business. You like them? Don’t like them? I don’t care; it makes no difference to me one way or the other. This is America, and you have the right to do anything you want with your body.
What gets me is that some firefighters with outlandish ink visible even with clothes on, or gauges in their ears as big around as toilet paper rolls, think that since they have the right to do that to themselves, others have ZERO right to think negatively of them for doing it. Big mistake.
What image do your body modifications present? Photo iStock.com
As I said, I couldn’t give a rip one way or the other. But your current or future employer will, and that’s a fact. When you’re in the City of Gadzook’s uniform, you represent that city, not yourself, as you would prefer to believe. I know a lot of firefighters who think, “It shouldn’t matter that I’ve marked myself for all to see. What matters is whether I can do the job proficiently and safely.”
To an extent, that’s very true. But when you walk up to Mrs. Jones, who’s having the worst day of her life, the last thing you want to do is make her feel uncomfortable. And before you say a word, or she sees that big shiny fire department badge on your uniform, she sees the tattooed arm, neck or face. Is that going to instill confidence in Mrs. Jones?
And let’s not forget about your prospective employer. Let’s say they have the choice between two prime candidates with equal skills and abilities to represent the city. One of the two doesn’t have any body modifications, while the other has a large, “visible while in uniform” tattoo. Who do you think gets hired?
Maybe it shouldn’t matter. But it does.
I’ll relate a true story from outside the fire service. A very nice young lady applied for a job. She’s smart and quite capable. She’s been hanging around the worksite as a student for several months. One day she wears a shirt that’s not tucked in. The folks that she’ll be working with see the ink on her back. Instantly, their opinion of her changes—not about her abilities as a worker, because they know she’s a good worker. But they begin to have doubts about her character, and how she will represent the company when she’s outside the workplace. In the end, she doesn’t get the job.
It shouldn’t matter … but it does.
Scott Cook is the former chief of the Granbury (Texas) Volunteer Fire Department and a fire service instructor. He’s also a member of FireRescue’s editorial board.
I agree that body piercings can pose potential safety issues but I disagree on body ink, unless it is a swastika tattooed in the middle of the forehead. To me, tattoos can tell you about an individual just as an interview can.
Why should physical appearance carry so much weight? Let's use your side by side comparison tool. You have two candidates. Both are equal except one is missing part of his left ear. Who gets hired? You have two candidates. Both are equal except one has a nasty scar on his right cheek. Who gets hired? You have two candidates. Both are equal except one stutters when he speaks. Who gets hired? You have two candidates. Both are equal except one wears a Calvin Klein suit and the other wears a Wal-Mart shirt and tie. Who gets hired?
We are finding ourselves more and more PRE-JUDGING and diverting our attention away from otherwise good candidates.
If a candidate with piercings understands that they cannot have them in while at work and agrees to it, then hire them if they are the most qualified. If a candidate has tattoos, none of which are offensive in nature, but the department has a policy that they must be covered and the candidate agrees to it, then giddy up go; you got a good candidate.
I remember when the Beatles first hit the scene with their "long hair" and soon thereafter, it wasn't a big deal anymore.
And if they rode a skateboard to the interview? Well, at least you know that they are in half way decent physical shape. Don't be too quick.
I have ink on both arms above the bends in my elbows and yes; I would hire me!
TCSS.
Art
I have one remembrance tattoo but you cant see it when i have a shirt on and the only way you can see it if i dont have a shirt on its located at the top of my upper right arm.
I have to agree, that as a society we have become more tolerant of tattoos and piercings. You see more and more people, regular folks with them.
But, first impressions are everything! And some form an opinion about you as soon as they see you, and we do the same for people we meet. And to some people tattoos & piercings are percieved in a negative manner.
At the fire dept. I work for, if the tattoo is exposed when you are in uniform, it is up to the officer in charge as to weather it needs to be covered.
But at my part-time job for the hospital, it is in the book of rules that your tattoos must be covered up.
i have to agree also, i myself have 6 tattoo's i have one on each arm in the inner forearm one of a duck head and the other of the browning symbol. i have one on each arm on my outter fore arm one saying the kid, nick name my grandaddy gave me when i was younger, the other arm says csa. i am proud to be a southerner and my heritage and that is why i display such items about hunting family and heritage, i also on my upper right arm have a ripped them as if some animal ripped open my skin and there is a flag in the back ground like an exo skeloten of such, the other arm has a very large and proud maltees cross that says fire above it and rescue below it. but here in the columbis fire dept even as a volunteer/part time how ever you want to call it since it is a combi and paid per call which dont matter to me thats just what this dept dose. but regaurdless to any of that yes i am representing Columbia Fire rescue and i have to make sure i am clean shaved i have to be in either a button down columbia shirt or a tshirt while at work and or have a very very neat clothing item on when responding to calls if not at the station. with my tattoos especially when in uniform i have to cover them up and by wearing long sleeve shirts or any other means to make sure that the publuic dose not get the wrong impression but at the same time i have the free will to get these and disp[lay them i just have to be professional about it honestly most ppl say wow those are really nice how many do you have and where do you get them done i will tell them or hand a card of my artist but i do agree over all it can hinder you becasue some ppl are just to uptight about things becasue of their reputation and if that is what they want is for you to cover and or what have you go for it make them happy its your job and or possible job. oh well im done lol have a good one ya'll
oh yeah i have a friend that has pretty much a full body tats he has been getting them since he was able to legally, he has had ppl not even knowing him walk up and give him a dirty look and say you must be an angry person with all that stuff, but then when he talks to them and they kinda get a vibe that he is a good guy he explains what each one is about and how he went about getting them and what not and to be honest most ppl are like wow becasue they judged without asking and that is wrong but it is our society these days that dose that.
My opinion on tatoos, are they same as everyone else's, they are no longer for people who come from the other side of the road, I was raised in a very small town, where every one know's everyone. I feel that tatoo's are an expression of one's self! My dad had them from when he served our country yrs ago, it did not stop him from being a good person, and or failing at a job. He also worked for our city as a police officer when I was a lot younger, I do agree however that they shouldn't be up and down the side of one's neck and every where they can't be hid, when working for the public. I know the finest people all over the country, and there are more with a tattoo than not, so it's not just for people who felt they had to make a statement in order to get attention. I for one have 1 and would like to get more, I want the same on me as the males in the family, they have the patches off my Dad's uniform, which consist of a dragon, the other a mermaid. I want these in memory of him. I think they can be done with taste and kept covered nothing's wrong with it. My hubby has, what else a skull with FLAMES around it...this man lives and breathes this Flame thing!!! Our hotrods have FLAMES. I think if he could get away with it, he would put flames on our walls through out the house. But as you and everyone else say first impressions are everything!!
Apparently that tired old saw about firefighters "...being held to a higher standard" is neither all that true nor all that high.
With regard to a tattoo of "csa", please correct me if I am wrong but, given the preamble to the mention of that I have to presume it means "confederate states of america". While that may be 'tolerated' down south, having that tattoo (visible) elsewhere most likely would preclude you from getting hired.
Family "heritage" or not, the csa represents issues that are clearly not yet fully behind us in 2010. I suggest (if you aren't familiar with it) you google and read the 'cornerstone speech' by alexander stephens. While 'csa' doesn't rise to the level of the swastika it is just as onerous to many.
Personal choices are personal choices but it doesn't mean that they will always be right, viewed as right or be acceptable to others.
I wanted to add one more thing, a choice of a tattoo may be entirely innocent on the part of the wearer but may give to another person a vastly different meaning.
I think that most people realize that a swastika tattoo would certainly be unacceptable, but imagine trying to explain to a patient (or prospective employer) that it is a religious symbol.
Swastika hate message spray painted on a building in Philadelphia -
Jack you do bring up a valid point but in the realization of thing the confedrate states of america which yes it stands for, was about keeping peace in reality and stopping the one in such high power from taking over everything and making it a living youknow what, at the same time look at us now yes tere was diffrences and in the end it was for the best because what whe are UNITED. and the valid point of what people thnk of it is about the ones that really do not know thier history at all, they may get thier belifes about it casue of what and how they was raised to hate it but i belive if they actually did the research and read about the whole thing it may change thier minds about what it really stood for. if you think about it each state has thier own flag right well that how it was back then and if you really look into it our flag is what RED WHITE BLUE. look at the battle flag original RED WHITE BLUE. again our flag may be a diff color or mean something else if it as the states together as we are now if it wasnt for the war back then its like now you got republicans democrats independants so on and so forth its kinda the same way any how yes if you want to know about it and get a point of view do the research. now at the same time where in the swatstica come into place and where the bad thing about the confed flag thing is there was groups that turned it into a bad thing and that is where i think ppl really get thier bad impression of it.
Brandon;
Your understanding of American History needs to be broadened considerably. The 'csa' stood for many things but the following comment is a most glaring example of why it, and you, are wrong. "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. "
Alexander H. Stephens
March 21, 1861
Savannah, Georgia http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
Kali;
My comment about the height of the bar was not meant to construe that I believe it to be -or should be- low but rather it was a sardonic comment in reply to those that believe that we are and should be held to higher standards yet conversely feel that it is their right to have a visible tattoo, regardless of whether or not others find it offensive.
Irrespective of an individual's motivation to modify their looks, in doing so they risk not being hired and representing both the department and the fire service. Life is a series of choices and not everyone makes the correct, or best, ones for the long run. But to clarify I do agree with the 'higher standard' concept and make every personal effort to comply.
So, that might explain why when I am with several other motorcycle enthusiasts with our tattoos bared for everyone to see, there is a harmony between each other, but if I were to bare my tattoos in the world of button down risk management peers, the reaction from them would be less inviting? Makes sense.
Our son got his first tat at 16 with our signed permission. Young men on his football team were getting them. He added a few more and he is now an executive for a major insurance company. Ink never held him or me back and we have the same friends that we always have had and have managed to make a few new ones. If the tattoos give them pause, they don't show it.
Which reminds me; I need to get one touched up.
Art
Writer?
I thought it was "blogger".
I think that there is a blog in there somewhere.
I liked your not so obscure reference.
Phunny...
In a cute way.
Art
I feel like as long as we all present ourselves as professional's and our station, and remember that we are just that, what's underneath shouldn't matter. I love what I do, I alway's have and people don't see this when I run call's or at station.I feel should we represent that uniform to the highest when in public!
i'm probably the biggest philanthropist and equality pushing hippy you'll ever meet. but when it comes down to it, stereotypes remain unbroken and unforntunately we are judged by our appearances, as you said very nicely scott.
i happen to have a nose piercing and a ring in it and i did get some flack from the department, but no orders or requests to have it removed. fortunately almost every one of our members has +2 tattoos so it's not a judgement issue.
i can see how for a paid position though, it would not be so forgiving.
regardless of what you do to your body, i believe it should be able to be reversible or covetable (is that a word?!) in some way. tattoos should be able to be covered and piercings hidden.
even though most of us know whats on the outside doesn't count, we live in a world where our employers think the opposite and we must represent and uphold a stereotype of a clean-cut citizen. unfortunate but important.
Stereotyping based on tattoos is just the same as stereotyping by race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. It just isn't right.
Actually it only relates to religion, as one can choose to believe or not. As to race or sexual orientation, those are not choices but rather a gift from your genome.
So would large, all encompassing facial tattoos be acceptable on a firefighter, cop or medic?
I guess the real question is, where does it end? Is there a limit as to what is acceptable, or where on the body it is acceptable? Or is it open ended and anything goes?
as a vol. fireman and a emt-b i had both of my deptment shirts ordered in long sleav, and i would not get anything that could not resonably be covered.
i know its not right but i see how people look at me when i am in shorts and a short sleav on my bike, its much dfferent when i show up in bunkers or a ems uniform.
Ink is cool but a Firefighter is a life style on duty as well as off duty. We are in the publics eye and if I have full TAT's and Piercings then how am I going to make a patient feel comfortable. Be discrete where and what you put on your body. It is art and has a story behind it. Use it as a focal point not a shock to the interview panel or recruiter.....
All that should matter is can you count on the guy or gal next to you when it hits the fan, and is that person compentent and willing to be there with you when it does.
Kali, you said: "If you haven't figured this out already..."
I thought the same thing. I was surprised by the number of the number of young people that haven't figured this out already. And the vast majority of them are pretty sharp. They just made a bad decision with tattoo placement, or piercing placement/size...
I myself have several tattoos, but when I put on my uniform I make sure none of them are visible. Yes, that means I have to wear a long sleeve shirt everyday, even in the middle of summer. I choose to because my job and civilians in need matter more.
i agree that tattoos do pose a problem.and usually the person who doesnt have any ink will more then likly get the job.but i think that people are so close minded to tattoos.as far as other body mods i think that it will hinder your chances because if you cant take them out or cover them up the employer may not want to take a chance.but as others have said it shouldnt prevent you from getting the job if you have tattoos
I wonder whether being an over weight firefighter or physically unfit firefighter also reflects on the service and/or the publics opinion on your professionalism? Even perhaps presents doubt in their minds about your ability to do your job, compared to the physical appearance of a comrade who obviously works out and watchs his/her diet.
I dont feel that the public gives a hot damn if you have ink or not,when the chips are down and people are in need tattoos are the last thing on the minds of those in danger. Ast to whether somebody hires you for your services or not based on issues of ink (as to whether or not you have ink) is prejudice.It should be based on your skills ,training and abilities. On the flip side i think you should use common sense.have a great night troops.
Bruce
Both sides have very good points, but the straight truth is that departments are still a little stiff when it comes to personal freedom. The department and it's upper officials want to present a professional image, and since most of the officials are older, they see tatoos as a sign of loose personal values. I personally don't have a problem with someone having ink, as long as it is not offensive, or outlandish. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in, where people see what they want to see. One thing departments need to keep in mind though, by refusing to hire someone because of their body modifications, they are opening themselves up to lawsuits for discrimination.
I think it does affect the public’s perception of you, and studies have shown that in general industry of equal candidates, fitter people are preferred when hiring or promoting more often.
I think where that is offset to some degree is that the public is somewhat knowledgeable of a physical agility requirement that departments have (or should have).
Ray,
You bring up an excellent point about tattoos, "...as long as it is not offensive, or outlandish." Therein lies the rub, who decides what is or isn't offensive or outlandish? Clearly a person that chooses a particular tat or design finds it neither, but is it their opinion that matters or that of those around them?
It is indeed a persona choice and I couldn't care less one way or the other if someone has a tattoo. I don't make hiring decisions and poor tattoo and placement choice could prevent someone from getting hired. It's not about discrimination but about decision making.
Where the law suit will arise is when one person is hired and another not, based on either the visibility of the tattoo or the tattoo itself. It's far easier, more fair and less liable if uniform regulations are clearly stated and enforced. If it says "no visible" then offensive or outlandish won't come into play and no judgment on it would be necessary.
Jack,
I agree completely. As long as the guidelines are spelled out, it should not be a problem, but in todays lawsuit-happy world,it is difficult to determine what the exact guidelines should be. What is offensive or obsene to one person is fine to another. I have worked for several places that clearly stated that no tattoo should be visible, and no piercings for males were allowed. I often wonder if persons with all that metal in their bodies would last very long in a fire, before all that metal heated up. I also have to agree with Scott that the publics perception of us would be affected if they were in trouble, and saw someone in a uniform with full sleeve tats, or multiple piercings come into their home.
"Let’s be clear about the legal parameters that still remain. Employers can have a dress code or appearance policy prohibiting visible tattoos. Occasionally, an employee will claim race, gender, religious, or national origin discrimination, but those cases rarely get to first base. Employers have the right to tell employees how to dress, what looks professional and what doesn’t, and whether something is likely to interfere with customer or client relations."(Source: http://employmentlawpost.com)
There should be no problem if, at the time of the employment contract is drawn, very clear expectations, including no exposed tattoos or piercings including earrings are stated as conditions of employment. A lawsuit challenging an employer's right to dress code issues would be a loser for you.
They can't tell that you can't have tattoos. They are telling you that you cannot display them when you are on the clock and on their time. THEY pay YOU. Therefore; THEY set the rules.
If you don't like it, I'm sure there are employers who will hire you with tats, gauges, piercings, neon spiked hair and pants hanging precariously from your butt crack.
Why do we want to find reasons to give our money away to the lawyers when the exercise of common sense would do just fine?
Art
"Why do we want to find reasons to give our money away to the lawyers when the exercise of common sense would do just fine?"
Art, excellent point. The tough part is Junior Doe thinks he has a winnable case, and Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe, Esq's see that even though Junior Doe doesn't have a winnable case, he's got to pay their fee.
One man's common sense is another man's battle cry.
One man's common sense is another man's battle cry.
Which is why the legal system is clogged with frivolous lawsuits, an attorney fresh out of law school is "worth" $250 an hour and liability insurance is so high.
Between our justice system and our health care system, we are going to go "broker" than we already are.
We have to get ourselves back to center.
Art
This can be a sensitive subject but one that needs to be debated on all levels. Present employed members are well aware of their department’s expectation as a uniformed employee. It is the future employee who is at a disadvantage if they have already made a choice to express themselves through body art. If they were aware of the possible future affects on employment they could rethink the location of their expression. Many young college students and volunteers are displaying ink that would close the door on what many of them would like to obtain – a career position in the fire service. More needs to be done in making department policy known to those who are considering future employment.
I think pople are way too old fashioned about tattoos. You need to stop being so judgemental about it. You don't look at people without tattoos and think "wow what a prude" so why judge someone's character based on their looks. People have become incredibly shallow and entirely too sensitive about tattoos. I don't see why a tattooed candidate should be discriminated against if they are willing to at least cover them up during their shift. It's not like tattoos hinder an individuals work abilty.
So long as tattoos are covered (per departmental regulations) it's really a non-issue.
But while we're on it, if a person chooses not to wash their laundry or to shower regularly what's the big deal? You know, a few food stains, maybe a bit 'rank' but so what, they can still do the job.
What if a person chooses not to use deodorant, it's their body, their choice. Maybe they like that natural smell. They can still do their job, right?
And why bother to shave every day, why not every couple of days, if a person thinks the 'scruffy' look is a matter of expression? They can still do the job, right?
What if you have a firefighter that just happens to like to wear eyeliner, mascara and lipstick? Just because he thinks he looks good in it? He can still do his job, right?
And why bother to shave every day, why not every couple of days, if a person thinks the 'scruffy' look is a matter of expression? They can still do the job, right?
Jack; actually, the OSHA standard on the wearing of respirators-i.e. SCBAs specifies that even a "day's growth" can compromise the seal of the mask, so no; you could not safely do the job in this case.
You know; for the sake of argument.
Art
Art,
Yeah I realize that but come one, that scruffy look is like, wow man, like my form of like self-expression.
Of course, you dodged the other issues I mentioned. B.O. isn't an issue with OSHA or NFPA.
Of course, you dodged the other issues I mentioned. B.O. isn't an issue with OSHA or NFPA.
Hey; if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ...nevermind.
I can't tell you how many times in this past year our human resources guy had to go to an employee and tell them that we were getting complaints of body odor. If it is stated in the handbook that proper grooming is required, then you can certainly take appropriate action. On the flip side, we also got complaints of too much perfume or cologne. I guess that there is a fine line on foo foo, but stink is stink and you cannot show up for work in an overly funkadelic state.
Let's see what else did I dodge?
Oh yeah; clothes cannot be baggy, torn, tattered or look like they were grabbed out of the hamper. Dress code requirements are allowed and should be enforced. That way; lawyers stay out of it, if it has been done uniformly.
With regards to firefighters wearing mascara, eyeliner and lipstick...I would have to throw that one over to the attorney. It has never come up at our locale, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Mopar, mon fraire'?
But...you do see the point I'm trying to make, right? One person's right to stink like hell ends at the tip of another's nose, FF or civilian. Guess the same argument holds true for tats and eyes.
Jack;
Yes; I see your point, smell your point and if it wasn't for reasonable people, where would we be?
You bring back some not so fond memories of my ambulance days. Some of the sights and smells...man, oh man. Let's put it this way; when the smell is so strong that it leaves a taste in your mouth, that's strong.
Art
Way to be a smart ass about the whole thing. All those things make you look unprofessional and although they don't change your work ethic it makes YOU undesirable to work with and be around. As long as the tattoos are covered up until your off work shouldn't be an issue. I know quite a few firefighters with full sleeves (older guys, I might add) and they are two of the hardest workers at the station. Another tattooed "hooligan" from my academy was the top ten in class through graduation. Do you get it now?
Mallory,
Keep your personal comments to yourself, they add nothing to this discussion.
As for my comments, apparently you are unable to distinguish analogous examples from smartass-ness.
Simply because you are in favor of tattoos doesn't put you in the apex position to pass judgment. And as for my examples, so what if someone doesn't want to wear deodorant? It's a societal convention that people have become used to. So long as they are showered everyday what is it to anyone else, in some respects it's no more obnoxious than someone lathered in perfume or cologne.
I was trying to make a point that what one person sees as a personal liberty or expression another may not. That you see tattoos as a means of expression is great, I'm simply playing devil's advocate. The very fact that you seem so disgruntled about my comment(s) would lead me to believe that you are one of those people who think everyone around them has to just shut up and deal with whatever you want to hand out. Not a very desirable quality either. Do I get it? Nope, have to be a fool to want to tat yourself up but hey, have at it, not going to affect my life one bit. Do you get it now?
(seems that you yourself think tats=hooliganism, I never implied as much. Check your mirror.)
I agree that tatoos and piercings are a personel choice. I have one that was designed and bought for me by my son. It was a birthday present and looks very nice and has both meanind and thought to it as well as tells a story about me.He said he wanted to get it for me in order to show his appreciation and respect he has for what I do and have done. I agreed to the tatoo but it was with one stipulation. It could not be seen when I wore a short sleeve shirt. Gota admit he did do a great job on what he wanted to express and gave it a personel touch. Ive had it now for about 4 yrs and a lot of people still dont realize its there. Remember their is a time and place for everything and at work or a job interview is not the place to show off a piercing or a tatoo and most definately as an officer not to your crew members or a patient.
Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich
Why should physical appearance carry so much weight? Let's use your side by side comparison tool. You have two candidates. Both are equal except one is missing part of his left ear. Who gets hired? You have two candidates. Both are equal except one has a nasty scar on his right cheek. Who gets hired? You have two candidates. Both are equal except one stutters when he speaks. Who gets hired? You have two candidates. Both are equal except one wears a Calvin Klein suit and the other wears a Wal-Mart shirt and tie. Who gets hired?
We are finding ourselves more and more PRE-JUDGING and diverting our attention away from otherwise good candidates.
If a candidate with piercings understands that they cannot have them in while at work and agrees to it, then hire them if they are the most qualified. If a candidate has tattoos, none of which are offensive in nature, but the department has a policy that they must be covered and the candidate agrees to it, then giddy up go; you got a good candidate.
I remember when the Beatles first hit the scene with their "long hair" and soon thereafter, it wasn't a big deal anymore.
And if they rode a skateboard to the interview? Well, at least you know that they are in half way decent physical shape. Don't be too quick.
I have ink on both arms above the bends in my elbows and yes; I would hire me!
TCSS.
Art
Dec 29, 2009
Justin Buck
Dec 29, 2009
RJ SEIPLE
But, first impressions are everything! And some form an opinion about you as soon as they see you, and we do the same for people we meet. And to some people tattoos & piercings are percieved in a negative manner.
At the fire dept. I work for, if the tattoo is exposed when you are in uniform, it is up to the officer in charge as to weather it needs to be covered.
But at my part-time job for the hospital, it is in the book of rules that your tattoos must be covered up.
Dec 29, 2009
Brandon
Dec 29, 2009
Brandon
Dec 29, 2009
Angela McCleskey
Dec 29, 2009
Jack/dt
With regard to a tattoo of "csa", please correct me if I am wrong but, given the preamble to the mention of that I have to presume it means "confederate states of america". While that may be 'tolerated' down south, having that tattoo (visible) elsewhere most likely would preclude you from getting hired.
Family "heritage" or not, the csa represents issues that are clearly not yet fully behind us in 2010. I suggest (if you aren't familiar with it) you google and read the 'cornerstone speech' by alexander stephens. While 'csa' doesn't rise to the level of the swastika it is just as onerous to many.
Personal choices are personal choices but it doesn't mean that they will always be right, viewed as right or be acceptable to others.
Dec 29, 2009
Jack/dt
I think that most people realize that a swastika tattoo would certainly be unacceptable, but imagine trying to explain to a patient (or prospective employer) that it is a religious symbol.
Swastika hate message spray painted on a building in Philadelphia -
Hindu scalp painting of religious symbol -
Dec 29, 2009
Brandon
Dec 29, 2009
Jack/dt
Your understanding of American History needs to be broadened considerably. The 'csa' stood for many things but the following comment is a most glaring example of why it, and you, are wrong.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. "
Alexander H. Stephens
March 21, 1861
Savannah, Georgia
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
Dec 29, 2009
Jack/dt
My comment about the height of the bar was not meant to construe that I believe it to be -or should be- low but rather it was a sardonic comment in reply to those that believe that we are and should be held to higher standards yet conversely feel that it is their right to have a visible tattoo, regardless of whether or not others find it offensive.
Irrespective of an individual's motivation to modify their looks, in doing so they risk not being hired and representing both the department and the fire service. Life is a series of choices and not everyone makes the correct, or best, ones for the long run. But to clarify I do agree with the 'higher standard' concept and make every personal effort to comply.
Dec 29, 2009
Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich
Our son got his first tat at 16 with our signed permission. Young men on his football team were getting them. He added a few more and he is now an executive for a major insurance company. Ink never held him or me back and we have the same friends that we always have had and have managed to make a few new ones. If the tattoos give them pause, they don't show it.
Which reminds me; I need to get one touched up.
Art
Dec 29, 2009
Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich
I thought it was "blogger".
I think that there is a blog in there somewhere.
I liked your not so obscure reference.
Phunny...
In a cute way.
Art
Dec 29, 2009
Angela McCleskey
Dec 29, 2009
Caroline
i happen to have a nose piercing and a ring in it and i did get some flack from the department, but no orders or requests to have it removed. fortunately almost every one of our members has +2 tattoos so it's not a judgement issue.
i can see how for a paid position though, it would not be so forgiving.
regardless of what you do to your body, i believe it should be able to be reversible or covetable (is that a word?!) in some way. tattoos should be able to be covered and piercings hidden.
even though most of us know whats on the outside doesn't count, we live in a world where our employers think the opposite and we must represent and uphold a stereotype of a clean-cut citizen. unfortunate but important.
Dec 29, 2009
scott stribling
Dec 31, 2009
Jack/dt
Actually it only relates to religion, as one can choose to believe or not. As to race or sexual orientation, those are not choices but rather a gift from your genome.
So would large, all encompassing facial tattoos be acceptable on a firefighter, cop or medic?
I guess the real question is, where does it end? Is there a limit as to what is acceptable, or where on the body it is acceptable? Or is it open ended and anything goes?
Dec 31, 2009
260fire134
i know its not right but i see how people look at me when i am in shorts and a short sleav on my bike, its much dfferent when i show up in bunkers or a ems uniform.
same person just differt look!
Dec 31, 2009
Chris Adams
Dec 31, 2009
Scott Cook
Tattoos or not, mods or not.
It shouldn’t matter … but it does.
All that should matter is can you count on the guy or gal next to you when it hits the fan, and is that person compentent and willing to be there with you when it does.
Kali, you said: "If you haven't figured this out already..."
I thought the same thing. I was surprised by the number of the number of young people that haven't figured this out already. And the vast majority of them are pretty sharp. They just made a bad decision with tattoo placement, or piercing placement/size...
Dec 31, 2009
Christian Cossey
Dec 31, 2009
harvey
just because some people have closed minds about tattoos
Dec 31, 2009
kevin
Dec 31, 2009
Jack/dt
this is religious -
nothing upsetting here -
or here -
Dec 31, 2009
Jack/dt
to go with all the lights on your POV -
Dec 31, 2009
Dean Hawkins
I wonder whether being an over weight firefighter or physically unfit firefighter also reflects on the service and/or the publics opinion on your professionalism? Even perhaps presents doubt in their minds about your ability to do your job, compared to the physical appearance of a comrade who obviously works out and watchs his/her diet.
What do you think, Scott?
regards
Deano (down under)
Dec 31, 2009
Bruce J Martino
Bruce
Dec 31, 2009
Ray Purcell
Jan 1, 2010
Scott Cook
I think it does affect the public’s perception of you, and studies have shown that in general industry of equal candidates, fitter people are preferred when hiring or promoting more often.
I think where that is offset to some degree is that the public is somewhat knowledgeable of a physical agility requirement that departments have (or should have).
Scott
Jan 1, 2010
Jack/dt
You bring up an excellent point about tattoos, "...as long as it is not offensive, or outlandish." Therein lies the rub, who decides what is or isn't offensive or outlandish? Clearly a person that chooses a particular tat or design finds it neither, but is it their opinion that matters or that of those around them?
It is indeed a persona choice and I couldn't care less one way or the other if someone has a tattoo. I don't make hiring decisions and poor tattoo and placement choice could prevent someone from getting hired. It's not about discrimination but about decision making.
Where the law suit will arise is when one person is hired and another not, based on either the visibility of the tattoo or the tattoo itself. It's far easier, more fair and less liable if uniform regulations are clearly stated and enforced. If it says "no visible" then offensive or outlandish won't come into play and no judgment on it would be necessary.
Jan 1, 2010
Ray Purcell
I agree completely. As long as the guidelines are spelled out, it should not be a problem, but in todays lawsuit-happy world,it is difficult to determine what the exact guidelines should be. What is offensive or obsene to one person is fine to another. I have worked for several places that clearly stated that no tattoo should be visible, and no piercings for males were allowed. I often wonder if persons with all that metal in their bodies would last very long in a fire, before all that metal heated up. I also have to agree with Scott that the publics perception of us would be affected if they were in trouble, and saw someone in a uniform with full sleeve tats, or multiple piercings come into their home.
Jan 1, 2010
Scott Cook
Jan 1, 2010
Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich
They can't tell that you can't have tattoos. They are telling you that you cannot display them when you are on the clock and on their time. THEY pay YOU. Therefore; THEY set the rules.
If you don't like it, I'm sure there are employers who will hire you with tats, gauges, piercings, neon spiked hair and pants hanging precariously from your butt crack.
Why do we want to find reasons to give our money away to the lawyers when the exercise of common sense would do just fine?
Art
Jan 1, 2010
Jack/dt
Jan 1, 2010
Scott Cook
Art, excellent point. The tough part is Junior Doe thinks he has a winnable case, and Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe, Esq's see that even though Junior Doe doesn't have a winnable case, he's got to pay their fee.
One man's common sense is another man's battle cry.
Jan 1, 2010
Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich
Which is why the legal system is clogged with frivolous lawsuits, an attorney fresh out of law school is "worth" $250 an hour and liability insurance is so high.
Between our justice system and our health care system, we are going to go "broker" than we already are.
We have to get ourselves back to center.
Art
Jan 1, 2010
Faye Kennedy
Jan 2, 2010
James Ryan
Jan 2, 2010
Mallory Turner
Jan 3, 2010
Jack/dt
But while we're on it, if a person chooses not to wash their laundry or to shower regularly what's the big deal? You know, a few food stains, maybe a bit 'rank' but so what, they can still do the job.
What if a person chooses not to use deodorant, it's their body, their choice. Maybe they like that natural smell. They can still do their job, right?
And why bother to shave every day, why not every couple of days, if a person thinks the 'scruffy' look is a matter of expression? They can still do the job, right?
What if you have a firefighter that just happens to like to wear eyeliner, mascara and lipstick? Just because he thinks he looks good in it? He can still do his job, right?
Jan 3, 2010
Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich
Jack; actually, the OSHA standard on the wearing of respirators-i.e. SCBAs specifies that even a "day's growth" can compromise the seal of the mask, so no; you could not safely do the job in this case.
You know; for the sake of argument.
Art
Jan 3, 2010
Jack/dt
Yeah I realize that but come one, that scruffy look is like, wow man, like my form of like self-expression.
Of course, you dodged the other issues I mentioned. B.O. isn't an issue with OSHA or NFPA.
Jan 3, 2010
Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich
Hey; if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ...nevermind.
I can't tell you how many times in this past year our human resources guy had to go to an employee and tell them that we were getting complaints of body odor. If it is stated in the handbook that proper grooming is required, then you can certainly take appropriate action. On the flip side, we also got complaints of too much perfume or cologne. I guess that there is a fine line on foo foo, but stink is stink and you cannot show up for work in an overly funkadelic state.
Let's see what else did I dodge?
Oh yeah; clothes cannot be baggy, torn, tattered or look like they were grabbed out of the hamper. Dress code requirements are allowed and should be enforced. That way; lawyers stay out of it, if it has been done uniformly.
With regards to firefighters wearing mascara, eyeliner and lipstick...I would have to throw that one over to the attorney. It has never come up at our locale, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Mopar, mon fraire'?
Jan 3, 2010
Jack/dt
Jan 3, 2010
Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich
Yes; I see your point, smell your point and if it wasn't for reasonable people, where would we be?
You bring back some not so fond memories of my ambulance days. Some of the sights and smells...man, oh man. Let's put it this way; when the smell is so strong that it leaves a taste in your mouth, that's strong.
Art
Jan 3, 2010
Mallory Turner
Jan 3, 2010
Jack/dt
Keep your personal comments to yourself, they add nothing to this discussion.
As for my comments, apparently you are unable to distinguish analogous examples from smartass-ness.
Simply because you are in favor of tattoos doesn't put you in the apex position to pass judgment. And as for my examples, so what if someone doesn't want to wear deodorant? It's a societal convention that people have become used to. So long as they are showered everyday what is it to anyone else, in some respects it's no more obnoxious than someone lathered in perfume or cologne.
I was trying to make a point that what one person sees as a personal liberty or expression another may not. That you see tattoos as a means of expression is great, I'm simply playing devil's advocate. The very fact that you seem so disgruntled about my comment(s) would lead me to believe that you are one of those people who think everyone around them has to just shut up and deal with whatever you want to hand out. Not a very desirable quality either. Do I get it? Nope, have to be a fool to want to tat yourself up but hey, have at it, not going to affect my life one bit. Do you get it now?
(seems that you yourself think tats=hooliganism, I never implied as much. Check your mirror.)
Jan 3, 2010
Malcum Salyers Jr.
Jan 4, 2010