31 replies to this topic

[caligirlz]

Real estate agents at a New York-based broker are showing their company pride — and getting an extra 15 percent in commission — by having their company's logo tattooed onto their bodies.


The trend started when one agent got a tattoo of the company's logo after a client, who happened to be a tattoo artist, mentioned the idea.

"I said, 'Man, I don't know how to thank you,'" Lolli (company CEO) remembered.

He decided to show his appreciation by upping his employee's commission from 25 to 40 percent — he calls it "platinum status" — and then offered the same deal to all of his other agents. So far, 37 of his 700-plus rental agents have taken him up on it. The marketing tactic made them the winners of the Inman News' Twitter contest, #madREskillz.

Source: http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/employees-get-company-logo-tattooed-on-185920539.html

Um, no thanks

[The Average Joe]

Washable tattoos for the workday...I would do that for an extra 15%. No way I'm inking myself though.

[camay2327]

22 years in the Navy and no Tattoo. No way.

[TruthSeeker]

Not everyone hates tattoos, I have over 20 myself and plan to get more. I'd do it for 25% more and if I get to choose where it goes.

[folsombound]

Simply(and bluntly)put, NFW!

[Darth Lefty]

I work for a real company that wouldn't ask it of me. I'd be inclined to call it harassment or discrimination

[caligirlz]

Not everyone hates tattoos, I have over 20 myself and plan to get more. I'd do it for 25% more and if I get to choose where it goes.

this really isn't about loving or hating tattos. It's about a company rewarding employees who get their logo tattooed and discriminating against those who do not.

[TruthSeeker]

this really isn't about loving or hating tattos. It's about a company rewarding employees who get their logo tattooed and discriminating against those who do not.

How is it discriminating? It's an equal opportunity for everyone in the company. Apparently it's an opportunity that requires commitment and dedication to the company but that is the owners while point - commitment ... and giving opportunity to earn more for those who are committed.

[chris v]

I have many tattoos and am also a very dedicted employee but I would never do this.

[TruthSeeker]

If a co-worker chose to do it would you feel discriminated against for not doing it? I didn't get the impression it was being forced upon anyone so I don't get the discrimination claim.

[nomad]

How is it discriminating? It's an equal opportunity for everyone in the company. Apparently it's an opportunity that requires commitment and dedication to the company but that is the owners while point - commitment ... and giving opportunity to earn more for those who are committed.

An equal opportunity to scar your body to show your commitment to a company? You're a fool if you can't see the discrimination here.

[Carl G]

So what's the difference between commitment and involvement?

Think of it as a ham and egg breakfast. The pig is committed. The chicken is involved.

The owner wants more pigs working for his company, but I'll stay a chicken, thank you very much.

[4thgenFolsomite]

my company would never ask me to be a walking billboard or advertisement, which is what this company is asking for.

[The Average Joe]

If the employees want to do it, I see no problem with it. While I think they are foolish and shortsighted (they will never work for a competitor! lol), it's their choice to make. I have worn shirts with the logo of companies I worked for, and my business has embroidered shirts. It's just a form of advertising. If people want to use their body to advertise...makes no difference to me. BUT, I will make a judgement as to what that says about them more than I will pay attention to the "advertising."

[TruthSeeker]

An equal opportunity to scar your body to show your commitment to a company? You're a fool if you can't see the discrimination here.

Judgemental people call it scaring, others call it art. I guess it's not fair because its something you dislike. FYI, nowhere does it say the tatt had to be in public view.