Moving from Orange County CA to Carmel IN (Indianapolis, Monon: sales, cheap apartments)

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by missik999

We don't hire anyone with visible tattoos at all, for any position, even inside sales, accounting and other areas that have no contact with the public.

With nearly every person under the age of about 40 having at least one tattoo, that must really eliminate a good chunk of eligible potential employees. Even the military and many police and firefighters are allowed to have tattoos. Tattoos no longer have the same moral stigma that they once had. Tattoos now-a-days have been mainstreamed and are no longer just for bikers, WW2 vets, and loose women.

For a company to not allow it's employees to have tattoos in this day and age doesn't seem to make a whole lot of good business sense, and nor does it make the company any more moral or have higher standards than companies that are ok with workers having tattoos. It just makes it look like the company is stuck in the 60's and 70's, on my opinion, that is.

[Humboldt1]

How many people do you know who work in office who make 100k per year with visible tattoos outside of graphic design and technology companies?

There are some secretaries and low level analysts and people who work in operations with 1 or 2 visible tattoos (when they wear short sleeves) but you are not getting into the corp suite with visible tattoos at work.

I refute last post by Ivory Lee saying nearly everyone under 40 has tattoo and among those with tattoos most can be covered up while at work.

My wife has a tattoo and so do some of my coworkers (people making way over 100k) but unless you are at the beach you are not going to see these tattoos.

Companies that pay well allow tattoos so long as they are not visible. I have no doubt you can find some basic job paying 15-20 per hour but why would you want to prohibit yourself from having potential to make 50 per hour or more because of visible tattoos (when working for someone other an yourself)?

[missik999]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

With nearly every person under the age of about 40 having at least one tattoo, that must really eliminate a good chunk of eligible potential employees. Even the military and many police and firefighters are allowed to have tattoos. Tattoos no longer have the same moral stigma that they once had. Tattoos now-a-days have been mainstreamed and are no longer just for bikers, WW2 vets, and loose women.

For a company to not allow it's employees to have tattoos in this day and age doesn't seem to make a whole lot of good business sense, and nor does it make the company any more moral or have higher standards than companies that are ok with workers having tattoos. It just makes it look like the company is stuck in the 60's and 70's, on my opinion, that is.

Uh, no. Not everyone 40-ish and under has visible tattoos.

Our company has no problem recruiting and retaining top talent. It is a very progressive company and we have very high job satisfaction with our employees. We just don't hire people with visible tattoos.

It isn't a moral judgement. The company has a policy that visible tattoos do not contribute to a professional appearance.

Recently we had an applicant come in for a first interview. She had several tattoos on her face and neck. How would she cover those up at work? Her appearance was not professional and she did not get a second interview.

[W & C]

I work in IT department of a financial company. We have a senior Systems Analyst on my team with visible tattoos on her arms. She's also in her late fifties. She's really good at her job and nobody cares about her ink.

Don't see too many facial/neck tattoos in professional workplace, however.

[W & C]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

With nearly every person under the age of about 40 having at least one tattoo, that must really eliminate a good chunk of eligible potential employees. Even the military and many police and firefighters are allowed to have tattoos. Tattoos no longer have the same moral stigma that they once had. Tattoos now-a-days have been mainstreamed and are no longer just for bikers, WW2 vets, and loose women.

For a company to not allow it's employees to have tattoos in this day and age doesn't seem to make a whole lot of good business sense, and nor does it make the company any more moral or have higher standards than companies that are ok with workers having tattoos. It just makes it look like the company is stuck in the 60's and 70's, on my opinion, that is.

I have a tattoo but it isn't visible unless I'm wearing a sleeveless shirt which I obviously don't wear to work. I agree that tattoos no longer the stigma they used to but there's a difference between visible or not in some workplaces.

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by missik999

Uh, no. Not everyone 40-ish and under has visible tattoos.

You misquoted me. I never said "everyone" under 40. I said "nearly" every person under 40. Those are two totally different statements with 2 totally different meanings. One is debatably true. The other is absolutely and unequivocally false.

Seems like tattoos started becoming mainstream around 1995. So anybody born around 1975 would have been college age around 1995 and that generation was among the 1st to mainstream tattoos and the tattoo industry has been on a steamroll ever since. I swear everywhere I go it seems like over half the people I see under the age of 40 has at least one tattoo.

[rrah]

The OP stated that she has tattoos that would be hard to hide as they are everywhere. I think companies differentiate between a small tattoo that may not be very visible and full sleeves, neck tattoos or facial tattoos.

This will age me, but 30 some years ago my husband had to shave his beard when he started working for a Fortune 100 company. Times change.

BTW--nearly everyone I know under the age of 40 does NOT have a tattoo. I think of the 40 or 50 under 40s I know, 3 have tattoos. One is typically not seen and the other two are pretty small. Heck, even when we go out to a local bar in Bloomington with lots of college students I don't see many tattoos. The only time I notice a lot of them is at one or two local places with a more artistic/hipsterish crowd.

[Humboldt1]

Lots of people (not nearly all or even a majority) under 40 have tattoos but most are not visible.

IT departments tend to be more liberal but even they have limits. The example of the IT lady with visible tattoos is rare indeed and most likely she would not be employed by my company, regardless of her skill set.

[sheerbliss]

Forty-something non-tattooed person here. Back in the day, someone with a medium-sized or larger, very visible tattoo was the sort of person to tell someone where to get off if they didn't like their tattoo. They didn't want to work for The Man. My sister was such a person, even though her tattoo was completely hidden by a t-shirt.

For some of us, it's odd to see people getting more tattoos than a sailor or a Hell's Angel and then complaining they can't get a job that a tattooed person twenty years ago wouldn't have wanted, and approval that person wouldn't have cared about.

[Humboldt1]

This is going to sound harsh, but we are debating the merits of having visible tattoos for someone who aspires to make 15-20/hr indy. Get rid of the visible tattoos and aspire to more.