Is banning tattoos in the workplace discrimination?

[☭World Views]

Topic

[Killfacer]

What kind of tattoo? If someone has a giant swastika on their forehead then i think they should be banned.

[narcomprom]

The employer, sady, can set a dress-code even in Sweden. There must be trade unionists in your vicinity, ask them. They are always happy to assist workers about local legal issues.

[F9]

What kind of tattoo? If someone has a giant swastika on their forehead then i think they should be banned.

If s/he changed his mind, and was just an immature act?What if it was violently happened without permission?
Will bosses stop to the swastika?H&S, (A) and everything political they disagree wont follow?They will. So you shouldnt judge based on the mans tattoo, but on the person "s/he hides inside".

Fuserg9

[Killfacer]

If s/he changed his mind, and was just an immature act?What if it was violently happened without permission?
Will bosses stop to the swastika?H&S, (A) and everything political they disagree wont follow?They will. So you shouldnt judge based on the mans tattoo, but on the person "s/he hides inside".

Fuserg9

Well don't expect a shop to employ ex boneheads with giant swastikas tattood on their foreheads. It's not good for customer relations.

[Il Medico]

Regular tattoos no. Offensive tattoos (like Nazi stuff) then yes. One has the right to do with their body as they wish. How ever if what they do with their body propagates racism, antisemitism, or any other bigotry, then it could and should be held as a reason for not hiring. Not that it will matter after the revolution as employment is a capitalist phenomena.

[Pol Pot]

That is discrimination. That is the same like refusing to employ blacks, gay people etc...

So what if I have a tatoo, why should that bother anybody. I would even support the right of people with nazi tatoos to get emplyed, that is their right of self-expression.

[Communist]

That is discrimination. That is the same like refusing to employ blacks, gay people etc...

Obviously not the same. People aren't born with tattoos, in most cases it's a choice. Even if Jack Daniels does the decision making. :-)

I would even support the right of people with nazi tatoos to get emplyed, that is their right of self-expression.

Oh no. This entire post is just way out there, isn't it.

[Pogue]

That is discrimination. That is the same like refusing to employ blacks, gay people etc...

So what if I have a tatoo, why should that bother anybody. I would even support the right of people with nazi tatoos to get emplyed, that is their right of self-expression.

....

seriously, think before you post, it makes a world of difference...

[LOLseph Stalin]

It would depend on the tattoo. If people display tattoos that carry Racist or any other kind of prejudiced messages then there could be a problem, especially if the people affected by these symbols are regular customers(such as somebody having a Swastika tattoo and a Jew saw it). However, if the tattoos carry no such messages the people shouldn't be denied work because of them. They're not harming anybody.

[Stand Your Ground]

It would depend on the tattoo. If people display tattoos that carry Racist or any other kind of prejudiced messages then there could be a problem, especially if the people affected by these symbols are regular customers(such as somebody having a Swastika tattoo and a Jew saw it). However, if the tattoos carry no such messages the people shouldn't be denied work because of them. They're not harming anybody.

Agreed. Offensive tattoos no. Any other tattoos yes.

[Killfacer]

That is discrimination. That is the same like refusing to employ blacks, gay people etc...

So what if I have a tatoo, why should that bother anybody. I would even support the right of people with nazi tatoos to get emplyed, that is their right of self-expression.

What? So not employing someone who is visually threatening and offensive to a large amount of your potential customers is discrimination? Shut up.

[nuisance]

Agreed. Offensive tattoos no. Any other tattoos yes.

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

[LOLseph Stalin]

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

To some people the hammer and sickle is seen as offensive for whatever reasons. Obviously Poland feels it's offensive enough to have it banned.

[Pogue]

When I'm really old I want to get laods of blatantly anarcho-syndicalist tattoos across my face and arms, like the sabcat, the sabot, slogans such as 'fuck the boss' etc then apply for a job at tescos.

Of course such speculation is silly because the revolution will have happened before I am old but you know.

[nuisance]

To some people the hammer and sickle is seen as offensive for whatever reasons.

I'd probably go with that most people do. You know, the most historcal use of it was by the Soviet Union, and that was abit shit really.

[Killfacer]

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

[Dr Mindbender]

i suppose it depends on the tattoo and the nature of the job.

If i have a big cock tattooed on my forehead i probably shouldnt work at an old peoples home or children's nursery school for example.

[Pogue]

i work at a nursery school that doubles as an old persons home and i have a cock and balls on my head, i dont understand the problem and no one else does. they ship me in for sex ed sometimes (i'm part time)

[Pol Pot]

In my country hammer and sickle is seen as ultra-offensive and you cant get into a club wearing a t-shirt with it, or even a t shirt with CCCP on it.
Same goes for serb national symbols or the symbol of orthodox christian cross (because of recent war with Serbs who are ortodox), people are ultra-sensitive on those subjects...

if people go banning things they dont agree with, than there would be a ban on hammer and sickle, then there will be discussion about banning religious symbols (like they are banned in french schools) and everything else. Either all tatoos allowed or all tatoos banned.
I believe in total freedom of speech and that includes "hate speech" or whatever. If you ban one type of hate, then somebody will one day be banning us because we spread hate against capitalism. Every idea is against something else, and the ruling class can see anything as "hate" and ban it. Just this is what are Putnin's clique using the "anti-extremism" laws in Russia. To ban those seeking change as "extremist haters"...

Here is an attempt on that in US:
Oregon Legislator Seeks Sweeping Hate Crime Laws
February 10, 2001, 02:00 PM
By AP saff

An Oregon legislator has introduced a bill that could make it a hate crime
to smash a Starbucks window or sabotage a timber company. While the bill
would expand hate crimes to include eco-terrorists, and anti-capitalist extremism, Sen. Gary George,
R-Newberg, says his real target is political correctness.

"Even the Scriptures tells you not to judge a person's thoughts but their
actions," George said, "and that's what's always bothered me about this
crime. . . . It seems to be the ultimate in political correctness."

The bill calls for an additional five years in prison for an offender
whose crime is motivated by "a hatred of people who subscribe to a set of
political beliefs that support capitalism and the needs of people with
respect to their balance with nature."

The idea for the bill came from Eric Winters, a Portland lawyer active
with a group of Libertarians called the Mainstream Liberty Caucus. He took
his proposal to Richard Burke, the 1998 Libertarian candidate for governor
who is now on George's staff.

"You should be punished for the harm you cause, and you shouldn't be
punished extra just because you don't like someone's racial background,"
Burke said. "We shouldn't put people in jail for bein bigots or for being
environmentally conscious or for not liking the WTO."

Randy Blazak, a Portland State University sociology professor who will
speak at the Oregon Hate Crimes Conference, counters that society
routinely takes into account an accused criminal's intent. "The fact is,
we punish people for what they are thinking," he said. "We do that
already. We say, 'Did you plot to kill this person or were you drunk?' "

George, a farmer, says if criminals can be singled out for crimes
motivated by racism or anti-religious sentiment, he sees no reason not to
include crimes against capitalism.

"I think this is a growing problem, and we thought there needed to be a
vehicle to discuss the issues against capitalism like eco-terrorism."