Boss Says No Tatoos or Piercings, Is Legal?

I love it when women in general find tattoos distasteful yet they wear makeup every single day :rolleyes:
 
alias said:
I love it when women in general find tattoos distasteful yet they wear makeup every single day :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Way different and not relevant to this discussion.
 
medic417 said:
Way different and not relevant to this discussion.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't see any difference, one is accepted form of decor the other isn't.

Im sure makeup had it's critics as well when first introduced.
 
Make up can be washed off and if done right looks natural... tattoos dont.

Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk
 
Looks trashy but is not the same thing as having full skully sleeve.

Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk
 
Sasha said:
Make up can be washed off and if done right looks natural... tattoos dont.

Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Looks natural to who? You?

I see no difference, besides one is accepted one isn't.

If you would like to disqualify a whole group of employers for having tattoos, it's your right.

I don't base decisions on appearance, nor do I form opinions because I don't have the ability to see beneath the surface.

And I don't even have a tattoo.
 
How may I help you today...

h11.jpg
 
We have a good number of guys on our FD that have tattoos. City policy states that ALL tattoos, regardless of meaning, must be covered by some sort of clothing.

It's about "professionalism". Both "actual" and "perceived". The court of public opinion has made it's ruling and tattoos are TYPICALLY considered unprofessional.

Personally, I don't have a problem with them, but I don't write policy.
 
BandageBrigade said:
Except that if you request it, a former employer can give nothing more than your dates of employment, and can say nothing good or bad, about performance. They can however, say if you are eligible for rehire.
Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to say, but got caught up in the verbosity of it all.....I guess you can tell I used to work for the government. :rofl:
 
BandageBrigade said:
Except that if you request it, a former employer can give nothing more than your dates of employment, and can say nothing good or bad, about performance. They can however, say if you are eligible for rehire.
Click to expand...


[source required]

Sorry, I get the feeling that it being a flat ban is an urban legend, just that companies generally don't say anything good or bad out of fear (real or perceived) of liability for misleading the prospective employer.
 
JPINFV said:
[source required]

Sorry, I get the feeling that it being a flat ban is an urban legend, just that companies generally don't say anything good or bad out of fear (real or perceived) of liability for misleading the prospective employer.
Click to expand...

I think you meant requested and not required unless you're making up rules.

That being said, to my knowledge you are correct. To my knowledge, and as a former manager, there is no legal ban, it's just what many companies choose to do for liability reasons. Liability potentially to not just the prospective employer, but to the former employee as well, if that person is unable to find work thanks in some part to negative comments made.
 
BandageBrigade said:
Except that if you request it, a former employer can give nothing more than your dates of employment, and can say nothing good or bad, about performance. They can however, say if you are eligible for rehire.
Click to expand...

Rumor

There is no federal law prohibiting or limiting an employers disclosure on a former employee. A few companies do limit what they say to curb liability risks, as this was "common business practice" for many years. Of course, they may be limited by ADA regs, HIPAA regs, etc.

Recent litigation has actually started to change this practice as some employers have been taken to court for misrepresenting or witholding information regarding a prior employee (called a negligent referral).

Further, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have protection for employers discosures similiar to TX (below) in their statutes;

In Texas;

An employer may, but is not required to, disclose to a prospective employer on the request of the employee, job performance information including the manner in which an employee performed a position of employment and an analysis of the employee’s attendance, attitudes, effort, knowledge, behaviors and skills. An employer is immune from civil liability for such disclosures unless the employer knew the information to be false or the employer disclosed the information in a reckless disregard for the truth. (TX§103.001-005)

If someone chooses to deny their prospective employer from contacting their prior employers - how far do you think they'd make in a hiring process?
 
JJR512 said:
I think you meant requested and not required unless you're making up rules.

That being said, to my knowledge you are correct. To my knowledge, and as a former manager, there is no legal ban, it's just what many companies choose to do for liability reasons. Liability potentially to not just the prospective employer, but to the former employee as well, if that person is unable to find work thanks in some part to negative comments made.
Click to expand...

Request, required, ultimately to-ma-to, to-mah-to as I don't think there's anything limiting what a company can say provided what is said truthful, accurate, and doesn't violate very specific, very narrow other privacy rights (e.g. EEOC claims, health records, etc).
 
CAOX3 said:
Looks natural to who? You?

I see no difference, besides one is accepted one isn't.

If you would like to disqualify a whole group of employers for having tattoos, it's your right.

I don't base decisions on appearance, nor do I form opinions because I don't have the ability to see beneath the surface.

And I don't even have a tattoo.
Click to expand...

Really? You dont see a difference between easily removeable make up and permanent tattoos?

Make up is widely accepted on females. Tattoos used to have a very negative connotation. Make up didnt.

And yes, the key to make up is to make it look natural, of course sometimes people ignore that and go all trashy, and around here they would be asked to remove it.

I am not judging anyone, one of my best partners had full sleeves, but i am not going to disagree that tattoos can cause some anxiety to the elderly and lend towards a less than professional appearance.

Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top