by Jenny Rae

Created on: February 28, 2009

Tattoos and piercings are ancient forms of body art that are perfectly legal and readily available to anyone who chooses to express themselves in such a way. However, in a customer-oriented workplace, an employer has every right to insist that their employee take the piercings out or cover up the tattoo during work hours. Why? Because the shock value that tattoos and piercings create can, and will, turn customers away from a business that they would normally frequent.

In this day and age, it seems rather ridiculous that someone walking into a coffee shop would turn around and walk out after seeing the person behind the counter has an eyebrow piercing or tattoos snaking up their arms. It has become such a common sight, that the customer leaving is only denying themselves a good cup of coffee rather than making a statement of discrimination. The people who would actually choose not to give their business to an establishment for that reason are few and far between. To the business owner, however, that one person walking out was potential revenue for the business, and their tattooed employee was the reason they didn't get it. From this point of view, the employer has every right to ask the employee to take that piercing out or cover up that tattoo.

On the other hand, for an employer to not even hire a person based on their tattoo or piercing is like not hiring someone based on their age or ethnicity. Granted, if the potential employee shows up at the interview with a spike through their lips, or something equally disturbing, that's just ignorant, rude, and bad taste (depending, of course, on what type of position is being offered). But, for example, if the employer catches a glimpse of ink poking out of the interviewee's shirt sleeve, and chooses not to hire them for that reason, that is entirely discriminatory, and completely unfair.

Similarly, when the nature of the business does not involve interacting with customers in person, then an employer should not have strict rules for removing piercings or covering tattoos. If they do, then discrimination is the dominating factor, rather than what is best for the business. As an example, I witnessed such a case of discrimination when employed at a call centre. Despite the fact that literally no customers ever saw us, and we only interacted with them by telephone, the company decided to issue a strict policy against tattoos and piercings. (They issued this policy only AFTER several people with multiple tattoos and piercings were hired-a clear sign that this was a discriminating act against them.) All piercings were to be removed, and tattoos were to be covered up completely - long sleeved shirts for arm tattoos, even in the dead of summer, and if there were any tattoos on the face or neck, they were to be covered up by band-aids or gauze and tape. Now, to many of us, the sight of a large piece of gauze taped to the side of someone's neck was a lot more disturbing than the tattoo itself hiding underneath. One of the employees who had extensive tattoos on his arms refused to wear long-sleeved shirts in the summer-for that, he was fired, citing "bad attitude," among other vague, unjustifiable reasons.

The issue of tattoos and piercings in the workplace is still a very debatable subject, with a lot of "ifs" and "buts" involved. However, if an employer is fair and reasonable, and only asks for tattoos and piercings to be covered or removed for the sake of their business's customer-friendly atmosphere, and the employee understands that, then the "issue" does not have to be an issue at all.

Learn more about this author, Jenny Rae.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.