Living Legend
Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:55 PM
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.
Living Legend
Posted 02 May 2013 - 08:06 PM
since when is a different opinion, judgmental?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.
Superstar
Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:30 AM
since when is a different opinion, judgmental?
it's discrimination because some people do not want or can not cut their skin for health, personal or religious reasons. It's not like its an objective goal on one's performance eval that everyone can achieve. It really sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
How long do you think these employees stay at that job? Once you leave, you are stuck with an employer's logo on your body.
All Star
Posted 03 May 2013 - 05:18 AM
Labeling tattoos as a scar is very judgemental. They are not scars. Period.
Why should a persons health or religious issues impede advancements of others willing to go the extra mile for the company? For the religious, that is their choice, why should their religious convictions that shun tattoos be inflicted on everyone else?
untitled
Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:42 AM
Living Legend
Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:55 PM
Who is calling tattoos a scar? I don't see where anyone HERE has labelled a tattoo a scar. I don't see where the religious are inflicting their beliefs about tattoos upon anyone. You seem to be really sensitive about "religious" people. What's that all about?Labeling tattoos as a scar is very judgemental. They are not scars. Period.
Why should a persons health or religious issues impede advancements of others willing to go the extra mile for the company? For the religious, that is their choice, why should their religious convictions that shun tattoos be inflicted on everyone else?
Superstar
Posted 04 May 2013 - 02:58 AM
Who is calling tattoos a scar? I don't see where anyone HERE has labelled a tattoo a scar. I don't see where the religious are inflicting their beliefs about tattoos upon anyone. You seem to be really sensitive about "religious" people. What's that all about?
Why should a persons health or religious issues impede advancements of others willing to go the extra mile for the company?
Some religions forbid tattoos. And not everyone is into body modification. What about the person who has a rare skin disorder, or skin cancer and can't get a tattoo...should that person be discriminated against due to his medical condition (or choice not to partake)? That question still has not been answered.
What if the employer decides to give a bonus for other types of body modification? ear gauging? ear shaping (cropping/pointing)? Branding (intentional controlled burning or cauterizing of the tissue to create scars)? Or.....http://www.huffingto...ack_Eye_Tattoos
Would you do it?
untitled
Posted 06 May 2013 - 06:35 AM
Disco Infiltrator
Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:26 AM
Living Legend
Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:29 PM
Living Legend
Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:38 PM
So..ok, only nomad called it scarring. That's his opinion, and the only one.Read the thread again, nomad calls it scaring
You say you don't see where religious are inflicting their belief and claim I'm too sensitive, then in the very next paragraph you state some religions are against tattoos and body modifications.
There are a lot of religious people who still live by the Old Testament and what that loony guy Leviticus wrote admonishing gays, tattoos and everything else he didn't like in ancient times. That's what's I was talking a about...
This is about a simple company logo tattoo, not any other type of body modification. As you always say, stay on the subject :-)
I asked this same question on another forum, and a guy jumped in and responded, "hell yea I'd get ear gauges again if a company paid me to do it!" ....so, you see, it does apply for some people.
Founder
Posted 07 May 2013 - 11:09 PM
25% raise is a lot of dough.
untitled
Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:41 AM
This isn't about having tattoos. It's about the company telling you that you won't get paid as much as your coworker unless you do it. I can't imagine it's legal for them to do... it seems to violate equal opportunity. But so far no one has chimed in with the law.
I know the argument being made by some here is discrimination, but I was just surprised by the size of the tattoo. I was thinking more along the lines of a little decal.
I don't know that it can be compared to not getting paid as much as your coworker. It's more of a bonus for going above and beyond. If you don't want to work Sundays or the Sabbath because of religious reasons or you don't want to work holidays because you have a family, does that mean you are being discriminated against because another employee who doesn't have a problem working those times jumps at the opportunity for the extra pay?
Living Legend
Posted 08 May 2013 - 08:04 PM
I don't see how practicing one's beliefs is even comparable to permanent "scarring"...I mean body modification. That's apples & oranges. Now if the employer was paying a bonus for adult circumcision, then yea, I could see how your logic might apply.I know the argument being made by some here is discrimination, but I was just surprised by the size of the tattoo. I was thinking more along the lines of a little decal.
I don't know that it can be compared to not getting paid as much as your coworker. It's more of a bonus for going above and beyond. If you don't want to work Sundays or the Sabbath because of religious reasons or you don't want to work holidays because you have a family, does that mean you are being discriminated against because another employee who doesn't have a problem working those times jumps at the opportunity for the extra pay?
untitled
Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:08 PM
I don't see how practicing one's beliefs is even comparable to permanent "scarring"...I mean body modification. That's apples & oranges. Now if the employer was paying a bonus for adult circumcision, then yea, I could see how your logic might apply.
My logic only applied to the religious aspect of forbidding tattoos, which was brought up earlier.
I guess the body modification aspect could be compared to the practice in the past of some employers that required women to wear high heels. Over time, this caused many women to develop foot problems such as bunions, which can be operated on, but can also become a permanent "scar," if you will. Discrimination? Absolutely, especially when the male employees had no such requirement. I still don't believe it's comparable to this scenario, because it was a requirement and not a choice and offered no bonus. The female employees simply had to comply or lose their job.
I personally don't have tattoos and have no plans on getting one and certainly wouldn't do it for an employer, but I wouldn't feel discriminated against if it's left as a choice and there was no reduction in the pay I was already receiving, nor a requirement to be hired in the first place. I think I would feel differently if it were a public sector job versus a private sector job. If I don't like it I can go work for another company or start my own. If it's a government job, that wouldn't hold true.
Your other scenario of adult circumcision would definitely be gender discrimination and what industry would that be an advertisement for? It's rhetorical. Don't answer that.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
