Tattoos in the Workplace. Your Thoughts?

TATTOOS IN THE WORK PLACE! WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THEM??? I HAVE 14 TATTOOS MOST OF THEM ON MY ARMS IS THAT BAD????

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on May 16, 2011 at 6:51pm

The U.S. Supreme court found in Water v. Churchill (1994) that, "the government has a lower obligation to respect constitutional rights when it acts as employer rather than as the sovereign." This certain affirms that there is some obligation to the Constitutional Rights of government Employees than you seem to assert.

There is some obligation to respect the rights of federal employees but it is strongly balanced against the needs of the employeer (the government) to function efficiently, therefore a federal employee's rights, versus those of a private-sector employee, can be somewhat (or greatly, depending upon your view) diminished.

In United Public Workers v. MitchelVl, '47 the Court recognized that
essential First Amendment rights "in some instances are subject to the
elemental need for order without which the guarantees of civil rights
to others would be a mockery."" To achieve this "order," the
Court recognized Congress' power, "within reasonable limits," to
regulate the conduct of its employees.1 49 Justice O'Connor elaborated
on this notion in Waters, wryly observing that when an employee
accepts a government paycheck to assist in an agency's effective
operations, this act carries with it the power of the Government to
impose restraints on employee conduct. 50

In summary, being "appointed" as a federal employee is a legal act
that carries with it corresponding rights and ramifications. Having a
contractual relationship with the government does not make an
individual an employee. It requires the legal act of appointment

Once appointed, an employee does not have an employment contract
with the Government, but a relationship, a "status" that draws its
essence from the legal act of appointment.

WATERS V. CHURGHILL AND UNITED STATES V. NTEU
http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/44/hemingway.pdf?rd=1

Since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed in precise language that tattoos "are forms of pure expression that are entitled to full First Amendment protection," there is high bar to clear when attempting to limit a government employee's Constitutional Rights.

Not necessarily; this ruling ONLY had to do with the City of Hermosa Beach CA not allowing tattoo parlors. The statement that tattoos are '...forms of pure expression..." was language in the ruling wherein the court was establishing what tattoos were (and what they meant to both wearer and tattoo artist), along with the tattoo process and the establishment where said tattoos were created. The court ruled that the City was wrong in attempting to zone out tattoo parlors on the basis of public health, and that tattoos were a form of art, thus to prohibit them was 'facially unconstitutional.'
http://sbmblog.typepad.com/files/08-56914.pdf

Bottom Line: If the government employer cannot explain how banning all visible tattoos meets an important government interest when a lesser regulation would accomplish that interest, then it cannot impose such a free speech ban on its employees.

See this - http://www.nmbar.org/AboutSBNM/sections/EmploymentLaborLaw/Enewslet...
and this - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5923/is_201010/ai_n57033407... for analysis on Garcetti vs. Ceballos.

If I understand the above decision, an employee, while at work, can not express his or her personal opinion(s) and that (by extension) tattoos are considered personal opinions and can be subject to regulation.

In Garcetti, the Court stressed that while a public employee has the right to speak as a citizen on issues of public concern, e.g., a teacher writing a letter to a newspaper that addresses how the school board is handling funding issues, any speech in which he engages as part of his official duties is not accorded First Amendment protection. If one speaks as a citizen, moreover, he is subject to restrictions deemed necessary for the employer to operate efficiently.45

In underscoring the fact that the amendment is triggered only when a public employee speaks as a citizen on issues of public concern that do not involve her job duties, the Court made it virtually impossible for a tattoo or piercing to come within the amendment.

Finally, even if a court were to rule that wearing a tattoo or piercing implicates the [First] amendment, Garcetti establishes that the employer can subject that mode of expression to restrictions that enable the employer to run its business efficiently.

So, if someone has not been hired, or has lost a job due to his or her tattoos, and they're not "extremist, indecent, sexist or racist," they should find a lawyer and begin the legal process of challenging the ban.

Riggs v. City of Fort Worth
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5923/is_201010/ai_n57033407...
Inturri v. City of Hartford
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5923/is_201010/ai_n57033407...

Eventually these overreaching bans on tattoos are going to cost cities and counties a lot of money in court costs.

That may not necessarily be true.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on May 16, 2011 at 9:05pm

Don't forget "criminal", "gang", "pro-violence", or otherwise offensive tats.

As long as the department has a policy that defines what is and is not allowable without it being overly vague, then it's probably an enforceable policy.

Smart employers have a clause in that policy that says that the employer is the judge of what tat is a policy violation if there's any question.

The smart thing to do if you want tats is to get tats that are covered by your standard uniform. If they're not visible, as long as they're not a gang affiliation or something similar, its your business.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on May 16, 2011 at 10:10pm

That's a curious remark, care to elaborate on it, and maybe more clearly define to whom you're directing it?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on May 16, 2011 at 10:19pm

Tell it to the citizens who fund the fire department. You may think their supposed "judging someone because they have a tattoo" is stupid, but they have the right to their beliefs.

Also remember that a lot of our older citizens were raised in social situations where "tattoo" equals "thug".

Is that the kind of confusion you want to spread when you enter the home of someone whose taxes fund your department?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on May 16, 2011 at 10:24pm

So are you saying that employees have some Constitutional right to employment?

If they don't, then it's going to be tough to make a tattoo a Constitutional case.

As the old drill sergeant said "We're here to defend democracy, not to practice it."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on May 17, 2011 at 11:33am

You've got way too much time on your hands, Jack. lol

Thanks for posting, I wasn't going to debate further.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lutan1 on May 17, 2011 at 6:56pm

Does the tattoo affect their performance of the role?

NO!

Non issue....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on May 17, 2011 at 10:57pm

That is not the only consideration.

"Does the tattoo generate controversy or is it considered offensive to members of the public?" That's definately an issue.

"Does the tattoo support hate groups, advocate for violence, or is it a sign of gang affiliation." That's definately an issue.

"Does the tattoo denigrate any group due to their race, color, ethinicity, religion, creed, national origin, or other protected status?" That's definately an issue.

It's not just about free speech or job performance.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lutan1 on May 17, 2011 at 11:20pm

OK, so there's legitimate issues with specific types of tattoos in terms of content, but generally speaking tattoos to me, is a non issue.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by E4 on May 25, 2011 at 5:32pm

What are you thoughts on FF's flaunting their fat guts hanging over their belt? I'd rather see an in shape FF with a tattoo then a fat out shape FF that can hardly get out a recliner for a call. Being out of shape puts the rest of the crew and the public in danger a tattoo won't. So go ahead and mutilate your body with Whoppers or smoking and it is ok just don't get a tattoo, humm. Not to mention the FF's who are so over weight that the back of their necks look like a pack of hotdogs! Much more pressing issues then tattoos to worry about.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on May 25, 2011 at 8:10pm

That's a red herring logical fallacy. Red herrings are designed to divert attention from the actual topic.

The actual topic here is tattoos. What kind of physical shape firefigthers are in has nothing to do with whether or not tattoos are permissible at at specific fire department or a good idea anywhere.

You have the right to tattoo your body any way you wish. Your department also has the right to avoid employing you if you have a tattoo that violates their rules.