Saturday, November 1, 2008
Here it goes, Mr Toh.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-30-tattoos_N.htm?se=yahooreferThis article is about employees being told by their employers to cover up their tattoos.
I have two views about this.
Yes, tattoos should be covered up.
And no, i don't see that this is necessary at all.
Firstly, tattoos are, unfortunately, viewed by society as something associated with malice. In order to keep a good image for the company or organisation, the tattoos are required to be covered up. People would find it hard to trust or would be unwilling to let a tattooed person work for them. This is mainly because they would hold suspicion against the individual.
Secondly, some tattoo designs are offensive. They might be showing images such as naked women, guns, switchblades, the infamous middle finger or anything related to violence, crude and sex. It would give the wrong impression of the person-he might have bad intentions. Employers would not want anything bad to happen in the company and only want what's best for it, therefore, they place the company's interests first, deciding not to hire people with tattoos. An employer will do whatever they think is right for their business.
But I think this is quite unfair as well.
People who get tattoos are not necessarily wicked, despite society's judgement, and this is discrimmination.
For example, someone who is very industrious might have one or two tattoos and it would be unjust for him not to be given a chance to work.
To hire someone for a job would be for their ability to work and do their job well, not for the body art.
Well, a good soultion would be that if a potential employee wants to get a tattoo, he should have one on a body part that will not be visible to everyone....
like above the butt crack or something. but then again, it can be seen if you wear low-hip jeans.
Stuffs I painted @ 1:52 PM
