Take out your piercings, damn it!

[RecordProducer]

If she dressed, spoke, and acted professionally, what's the difference?

You can't dress, speak, and act professionally when you already look like a bum who snorted cocaine until 5 AM, then woke up and came to work. I am totally into freedom of expression and behavior, as long as it doesn't hurt others, but I do understand the difference between modesty and individuality When you run a gallery, look like a grotesque medieval mascot if you want. But if you're in the corporate world at a non-creative position, your only card to play on is - decency and reliability.

 

Imagine a guy who is tattooed all over, has bleached hair, and looks like a rock-star-pot-head. Now imagine that you're trying to invest $10,000,000 in buying a company and you need an accountant to estimate the value of the given company. Would you trust this guy? Or would you prefer to have a regular, suit-and-tie kinda guy who looks like an intelligent mamma's boy?

 

Yes, a lot of it is mere prejudice. But at least at the beginning you should stick to the rules. You can make your own once you're accomplished.

[OceanBlue]

The thing that burns me is that this was a great candidate for the position in every other way. Her experience was spot-on and she spoke well and carried herself well. She seemed like a good choice and she had to go and ruin it with a pierced tongue wagging all about. Grrrr. I hate answering phones.

 

You can't dress, speak, and act professionally when you already look like a bum who snorted cocaine until 5 AM, then woke up and came to work. I am totally into freedom of expression and behavior, as long as it doesn't hurt others, but I do understand the difference between modesty and individuality When you run a gallery, look like a grotesque medieval mascot if you want. But if you're in the corporate world at a non-creative position, your only card to play on is - decency and reliability.

 

Wow - maybe read B_O's description of her again...

[RecordProducer]

Wow - maybe read B_O's description of her again...

I know how to read. I also know how to read between the lines.

[blind_otter]

WEll IMO if the managing partner noticed right off the bat the piercing must have been very obvious.

[Ocean-Blue]

I don't recall seeing where they are not allowed to wear them in a work environment. The big lawsuit had to do with the school. And the Supreme Court ruled that the Sikh kid was allowed to wear his ceremonial dagger to school. I totally disagreed with this ruling. So they can't wear them on a plane, but it's okay for a 20 cm blade to be worn to school.

 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the Superior Court's decision (that the item in question could be worn under certain conditions). The claimant/student was fine with these restrictions and never challenged them. This became an issue only after the school board imposed a complete ban on kirpans.

 

Also, if one were to have a piercing or tattoo, it is HIGHLY unlikely that an employer would have a leg to stand on (in terms of hiring explicit practices). However, for one to be protected under the Charter, there would have to be a government actor. Private companies may have more of a case as they'd go through local human rights legislation. Again, I don't see there being a case when it comes to piercings/tattoos.

[Racquel Colette]

I wasn't directing it to Kitten Moon herself, just pointing out why employers won't hire people who have multiple piercings and tattoos, because they do look dirty and gross. It's not an attractive look, it's gross. Businesses don't want gross and dirty looking people working for them. So I was just giving the reasoning behind all that.

[Racquel Colette]

Oh, yes, Canada is so much more open and accepting....as long as the piercings and tattoos are tasteful and out of sight, it's cool in Canada! LOLOL

[sedgwick]

Your statement, "because they DO look dirty and gross," does not clarify the two things on which I asked for clarification: according to whose definition? And, how can ink under someone's skin make them "dirty?" According to what precedent does ink in one's skin constitute dirt? Is there any dirt in the ingredients in tattoo ink? Well, there's pigment, which is not dirt, and then there are the ingredients commonly found in the carrier (liquid) part of the ink:

• ethyl alcohol (ethanol)
  
• purified water
  
• witch hazel
  
• propylene glycol
  
• glycerine (glycerol)

I do not see "dirt" listed among them; in fact, alcohol and witch hazel are sometimes used to remove dirt from the skin!

 

And if a tattooed person is sitting right across a desk from you, or standing right beside you, and you can't smell them, isn't your assumption that they're "dirty" automatically negated? I just stepped out of the shower and smell like lavender soap at the moment, but yup, I'm still tattooed. So am I dirty? And if I give no signs of being dirty, and in fact smell nice and wear clean clothing, do I not negate your assumption? If you persist in believing someone is dirty when there is no dirt on them, is that not your problem rather than theirs?

 

According to dictionary.com, one of the ten definitions of "gross," and the one I feel most closely correlates to your contextual usage, is: "Slang. extremely objectionable, offensive, or disgusting: He wore an outfit that was absolutely gross." So then we must define: in what specific ways, and to what specific people, are tattoos objectionable, offensive, or disgusting -- to the EXTREME? Is your personal objection enough to qualify? I don't find tattoos objectionable, so that's one person's opinion cancelled out, right there. Can you point me to a definitive study that shows that tattoos are objectionable to a majority of citizens of the earth, or at least the Western world? Are you actually OFFENDED by others' tattoos, and can you show me a definitive study that proves tattoos are actually offending a majority of people on a daily basis? I'd wager more people simply don't care what others do with their skin than waste the time being offended. Disgusting: please point to similar data.

 

Thus, a black-and-white statement like "because they do," is therefore useless unless backed up by clear data. Point me to the concrete facts that prove, indisputably, that this is anything but your opinion, and I will continue this discussion with you. Otherwise, you're just stating what YOU think, which is by no means definitive, and by no means encompassing of what large groups of others think.