Is banning tattoos in the workplace discrimination?

[Pogue]

I don't believe in freedom of expression for fascists. I don't think they should be treated like normal human beings.

[Pol Pot]

I don't believe in freedom of expression for fascists. I don't think they should be treated like normal human beings.

To ban their expression would show fear of them. Its like spanish inquisition banning Jewish and Muslim books in order to "stop the infection from spreading", and like Ottoman Turks took Christians as slaves because they disagreed with their "infidel, satanist, ways". they also blamed them for genocial crusades and other things.

Those fundamentalist had the same hate towards "satanists" that you have against fashs, they also had reasons that were pretty convincing to them, but the real value lies not in hate but in freedom.

And I believe that fashs have freedom of being idiots.

[Pogue]

To ban their expression would show fear of them. Its like spanish inquisition banning Jewish and Muslim books in order to "stop the infection from spreading", and like Ottoman Turks took Christians as slaves because they disagreed with their "infidel, satanist, ways". they also blamed them for genocial crusades and other things.

Those fundamentalist had the same hate towards "satanists" that you have against fashs, they also had reasons that were pretty convincing to them, but the real value lies not in hate but in freedom.

And I believe that fashs have freedom of being idiots.

I don't fear them though. I just don't think they should have freedom of expression because I recognise what this leads to. I don't think they should be given the slightest chance to practice their politics.

[Pol Pot]

I don't fear them though. I just don't think they should have freedom of expression because I recognise what this leads to. I don't think they should be given the slightest chance to practice their politics.

Well for this dillema I always remember Thomas Jeffersons words: The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.
and : The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

[Pogue]

Well for this dillema I always remember Thomas Jeffersons words: The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.
and : The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

I don't get it.

[gorillafuck]

I think you should be able to be employed regardless of tattoo's, because a ban on tattoo's in the workplace could lead to all sorts of things. And if they did a ban on the swastika they might also do a ban on hammer and sickles, red starts, circle A's, etc. and we can't have that.

[cleef]

In the UK atleast, the Hammer and Sickle doesn't have the same resonance of violence and thuggery that the Swastika does.

Many of the people i speak to in the UK dont even know what the hammer & sickle is let alone see it as a symbol of violence lol.

[communard resolution]

Many socialists have a patronising tendency of wanting to ban everything they don't like. I disagree with this. Who will impose the ban? And whose interests does the banning of 'extremist symbols' serve?

[Invariance]

The description of the discrimination forum somewhat answers your question: "Forum to address issues of social discrimination." An institution can discriminate on the basis of a non-social criteria. For example, night-clubs often discriminate against those who don't follow a certain dress code (e.g. you're not allowed to wear white sneakers, some require males to wear a shirt with a collar, or refuse females who wear tank-tops as I've discovered).

If a night-club, however, refused entry based on whatever demographics it so desires - e.g. refuses to allow entry Muslims, or black people, or those from a working class background, or young people, or gay people), then that would constitute social discrimination.

The extent to which that discrimination is truly oppressive depends on material circumstances - i.e whether that form of discrimination results in true economic/social disadvantage. Female toilets are discriminatory against men (lol, not that it is really enforced in a stringent manner, but let's pretend it is), but its not truly oppressive because you have an alternative - men's toilets.

The problem is when people equate non-social discrimination to social discrimination which is also oppressive, and assume they are on an equal footing. (However, some forms of social discrimination aren't oppressive - e.g. a gay men's club may refuse membership to heterosexual women, which is a form of social discrimination, but it ain't oppressive).

Refusing someone a job on the basis that they have tattoos is discriminatory. But its not a form of social discrimination (unless, of course, you can show that people who typically tend to have tattoos constitute a certain demographic, and hence that discrimination would indirectly adversely affect that specific demographic or privilege another). For example, there once existed in the police force in the UK (I'm not sure if it still exists), a height requirement. As I remember, this constituted a form of discrimination because it indirectly excluded females since females tend to be of shorter height then men. However, so far as I'm aware, tattoos cover a range of demographic groups.

Also, it really depends on other pertinent circumstances. If you work in, say, some sort of guest-relations capacity, then it is somewhat of an inherent requirement for the job that you be presentable and well-dressed - which some may argue tattoos violate. Being refused employment as a model because you're ugly is discriminatory, but it's an inherent requirement of the job that you be good looking. Lastly, one workplace having a no-tattoo policy isn't really tantamount to oppression if other avenues are open to employment. Your case for oppression becomes less convincing when you can easily rectify the situation - e.g if you can take your piercings out or wear a long-sleeved shirt which covers your tattoos. This is one reason why most forms of social discrimination are much more severe - a black man can not simply change his color.

So unless the government enforces a ban of employment for those with tatoos in all workplaces , irrespective of where those tattoos are, which would constitute a form of structural oppression since it would deny employment universally, it really isn't an oppressive form of discrimination (that's not to say I don't agree with refusing to hire someone on the basis that they have a tattoo, but I don't consider it a 'burning' issue, so to speak.).

Short answer: yes it is discriminatory, but its social repercussions are not really that severe or oppressive.

[Stand Your Ground]

Out of curiousity, who would define what's offensive?
Presumably a swastika would be, but what about the hammer and sickle?

I don't see a political tattoo being offensive.

[SubcomandanteJames]

It's not the place of any institution to ban freedom of expression in my opinion if the laborer does does his laboring, or leaves everyone else alone. Now, I'm not saying that people outside of the institution shouldn't take action against such expression. But it should be a person to person fight/debate, not one that is mandated by rules or laws.

[Killfacer]

The description of the discrimination forum somewhat answers your question: "Forum to address issues of social discrimination." An institution can discriminate on the basis of a non-social criteria. For example, night-clubs often discriminate against those who don't follow a certain dress code (e.g. you're not allowed to wear white sneakers, some require males to wear a shirt with a collar, or refuse females who wear tank-tops as I've discovered).

If a night-club, however, refused entry based on whatever demographics it so desires - e.g. refuses to allow entry Muslims, or black people, or those from a working class background, or young people, or gay people), then that would constitute social discrimination.

The extent to which that discrimination is truly oppressive depends on material circumstances - i.e whether that form of discrimination results in true economic/social disadvantage. Female toilets are discriminatory against men (lol, not that it is really enforced in a stringent manner, but let's pretend it is), but its not truly oppressive because you have an alternative - men's toilets.

The problem is when people equate non-social discrimination to social discrimination which is also oppressive, and assume they are on an equal footing. (However, some forms of social discrimination aren't oppressive - e.g. a gay men's club may refuse membership to heterosexual women, which is a form of social discrimination, but it ain't oppressive).

Refusing someone a job on the basis that they have tattoos is discriminatory. But its not a form of social discrimination (unless, of course, you can show that people who typically tend to have tattoos constitute a certain demographic, and hence that discrimination would indirectly adversely affect that specific demographic or privilege another). For example, there once existed in the police force in the UK (I'm not sure if it still exists), a height requirement. As I remember, this constituted a form of discrimination because it indirectly excluded females since females tend to be of shorter height then men. However, so far as I'm aware, tattoos cover a range of demographic groups.

Also, it really depends on other pertinent circumstances. If you work in, say, some sort of guest-relations capacity, then it is somewhat of an inherent requirement for the job that you be presentable and well-dressed - which some may argue tattoos violate. Being refused employment as a model because you're ugly is discriminatory, but it's an inherent requirement of the job that you be good looking. Lastly, one workplace having a no-tattoo policy isn't really tantamount to oppression if other avenues are open to employment. Your case for oppression becomes less convincing when you can easily rectify the situation - e.g if you can take your piercings out or wear a long-sleeved shirt which covers your tattoos. This is one reason why most forms of social discrimination are much more severe - a black man can not simply change his color.

So unless the government enforces a ban of employment for those with tatoos in all workplaces , irrespective of where those tattoos are, which would constitute a form of structural oppression since it would deny employment universally, it really isn't an oppressive form of discrimination (that's not to say I don't agree with refusing to hire someone on the basis that they have a tattoo, but I don't consider it a 'burning' issue, so to speak.).

Short answer: yes it is discriminatory, but its social repercussions are not really that severe or oppressive.

I have a tattoo of shit streaming down my leg.

[The Situationist]

If someone has an offensive tattoo on their face then just have them cover it with makeup.

As for tattoos in general, they are so commonplace now, that employers won't be able to avoid them soon.

[Ink]

I'd say yes, it is discrimination.

I have a full sleeve, nothing vulgar or offensive, and I would not like being refused a job simply because I have tattoos.

Although, I wouldn't really mind if they asked me to cover it up.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

[FONT=Arial]Yes, it's a form of discrimination, but at the same time it's an acceptable practice and quite frankly clumping it into the same category as social discrimination is more offensive than asking an employee to hide their skull-and-crossbone tattoos. Invariance made quite an eloquent response.

"Offensive" is a highly subjective term. The nature of discrimination is not so easily black and white. Working from the standpoint of social discrimination, if an artist wants to select a black (or white) model due to a particular idea in his (or her) head, that is not the same thing as a food distributor selectively passing over minorities.

Discrimination is not inherently evil. If you think it is, then I suppose you have no preferences to who you sleep with, eh?
[/FONT]