Wilkerson 1

Asia Wilkerson

Professor Gilbert

English 1101

26 July 2019

Tattoos in the Workplace - Argument

There are many different ways that individuals can express themselves. Whether it be a

daring outfit, a bold haircut, a fresh piercing, or a vibrant tattoo. While finding a new career, all

of these things could pose as a strength or a setback based on the industry or even the person

responsible for the hiring. The increasing popularity of tattoos poses as a topic of discussion

when it comes to the leniency of these modifications in the workforce. Where is the line to be

drawn? Are tattoos still taboo in this day and age of society? Individuals responsible for hiring

should not base their decision on whether the candidate has visible tattoos, given they are not

vulgar or offensive. Doing so drastically reduces the pool of potential candidates for any job,

impacts the livelihood of a person seeking employment, and impedes an individual's freedom of

expression. While something as detrimental to an individual's life such as a stable income seems

like a given, those who have a few works of art on their skin to those who have entire

masterpieces are at risk of being denied this basic fundamental right.

According to an article from Gale Opposing Viewpoints, a whopping 25% stated that

they were less likely to hire individuals who have visible tattoos on that basis alone. This reduces

the candidate pool by a whole one-quarter. (Gale). Let’s equate that to 25% of the hiring

managers for every job on the market. The other 75% of managers are going to have a more

broad selection for potential trained, eager, and experienced workers. “With more people than
 Wilkerson 2

ever getting some form of body art, it’s important that you consider the impact of potentially

isolating such a big group from your workforce” (Insight). Opening the horizons to those with

ink will result in profitability for the company that can acquire such unique talents compared to

those who don’t. Consider you are a hiring manager looking for someone with a special skill set

and a winning personality that will drive your business. You have two potential candidates; one

is tattoo free with entry-level experience and the other is a tenured worker in the force with a

tattoo sleeve on their arm stretching to their hand. In a situation like this, it comes down to the

opportunity cost of what is important to the company; a quality qualified candidate or an okay

inexperienced candidate, the deal-breaker being their appearance. The decision of whether to hire

someone or not should be based on the accomplishments of an individual rather than their

aesthetic. A ledger of success will contribute to the overall success of the company, not a picture

on someone's skin.

In conjunction with the employer's opinions on tattoos, the other party that needs to be

considered of course are the individuals with the tattoos. Being limited to fewer opportunities

hinders the outlook of tattooed individuals seeking employment. This even extends to those who

are looking for promotions or happen to get ink after employment has commenced. “ The

Supreme Court has declined to extend the full protections of the First Amendment to expressive

conduct… this is not to say that the First Amendment affords no protection to expressive

conduct.” ( Rima). She elaborates that the nature of the tattoo is the sole determination as to

whether it is legally protected. The classifications would be “expressive conduct” or “protected

speech”. Until there is any legal obligation to be accepting of tattoos that are not protected by the

first amendment (religious tattoos for example) a company’s appearance regulations are based
 Wilkerson 3

solely on their views of the matter, and those affected are at the mercy of someone's opinions. An

excerpt from her Drake Law Review explains, “ There are countless jobs that require a

“professional” appearance or employers who try to maintain and exude a specific image...

Requirements in the workplace for employees to dress, or not dress in certain ways have been

common in modern U.S. society, and many issues surrounding items of “dress” such as women’s

clothing, facial hair, uniforms, and hairstyles have been previously settled… Recently however,

there has been an increasing amount of resistance to dress codes requiring employees to cover

tattoos…” (Rima). By forcing those with tattoos either away or out of the workforce, the

constrictions of these circumstances impose significant societal roadblocks ranging from

humiliation to unemployment.

It is known that tattoos are one of the growing trends in our society today. Being able

to express ourselves in such a way is pertinent to us thriving in a country where we are notorious

to accept all characters regardless of background, race, gender, origin, or in this case appearance.

When we shun or constrain the opportunities of those embracing these freedoms, it begins to

seem as though we are not so free. This impacts the livelihood of a person seeking employment.

An article from Salary.com states “ 23% of all those surveyed (2,675 people total) said they

specifically examine a company’s permissiveness regarding tattoos and piercings when deciding

whether or not to accept the job offer” (Salary.com). When individuals are looking for

employment, they are looking for a place that they will spend almost half of their time (assuming

they work approximately 40 hours a week). While key items such as salary, benefits, and bonus

structures are important, people are also looking for a comfortable place where they have some

peace of mind about who they are as a person. Glassdoor’s head of employer brand Kirsten
 Wilkerson 4

Davidson states, “ Labeling something taboo is dangerous for workplace transparency. When we

look at companies rated highly for culture & values on Glassdoor, we often see employee

feedback about feeling comfortable bringing their whole selves to work, or feeling authentic”

(Insight).

While tattoos are in demand now more than ever some people feel that tattoos should

never see the light of day, at least not in the workplace. These people feel that they promote

unproductiveness, unprofessionalism, or they all around just don’t want to look at them.

(Insight.) Of the 2,675 people that participated in the survey mentioned earlier, “42% feel visible

tattoos are always inappropriate at work” (Salary.com). But why is that? “Not surprisingly,

people 18-25 were the most accepting of tattoos in the office with only 22% claiming they are

inappropriate. That percentage jumps in each age group, maxing out at 63% of people aged 60

and older finding tattoos objectionable at work.” (Salary.com). The stigma of tattoos derives

from an older way of thinking when tattoos were not all too common, despite how far back the

practice of tattooing dates. Much like any other barrier between generations, from social habits to

technology, people tend to stick to what they know and are used to. Some also respond that it

depends on the nature of the tattoo, and it does. By no means is it acceptable to subject anyone to

a tattoo that promotes hate speech, vulgarity, violence, or anything that would not be covered by

the first amendment if it were to be put into words. But the argument is if someone gets a family

name, a meaningful angel to represent a lost loved one, or something as simple as a delicate

flower, that should not be a deal-breaker as to whether they qualify for a job. Even employers

such as the army have become more tolerant of tattoos, with a few limitations. If having a tattoo
 Wilkerson 5

does not even hinder your ability to serve our country, is it not fair to someone who has an

occupation such as customer service to be afforded the same freedom?

The idea that tattoos are taboo is a thing of our past. We have blown through so many

revolutionary changes from the advancements in technology, changes in fashion, strange

additions to our everyday language as we know it and so much more. Tattoos have been around

for thousands of years, dating back to origins “in the ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman

cultures” ( Rima). Despite this, there are still those who continue to be heavily opinionated on

the matter. It is time that that way of thinking changes to better the lives of everyone from

employers being exposed to great talent potential, opening more doors for individuals with

tattoos and improving the quality of life for those who are simply exercising the freedom of

expression. Have a conversation with your supervisor or HR department about their thoughts on

hiring those who have body art and open the conversation to help improve the outlooks of your

tattooed friends.
 Wilkerson 6

Works Cited
Gale. "​US Attitudes toward Job Candidates with Visible Tattoos, 2018.​" ​Gale Opposing
Viewpoints
in Context​, Gale, 2018. ​Opposing Viewpoints in Context​,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/YWIYFL043936555/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=O
VIC&xid=c53b4f82. Accessed 17 July 2019.
Pechman, Louis. "​Employers May Regulate Body Art on Their Employees​." Body Piercing and

Tattoos, edited by Sharon Bahadosingh, Greenhaven Press, 2007. At Issue. Opposing

Viewpoints in Context,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010480212/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid

=ed4b7c37. Accessed 17 July 2019. Originally published as "Keeping Up Appearances at

Work," New York Law Journal, 16 Dec. 2005.

Rima, Wendy. “​The Human Body: The Canvas for Tattoos; the Public Workplace: An Exhibit for

a New Form of Art?​” Drake Law Review, vol. 66, no. 3, 2018 3rd Quarter 2018, pp.

705–731. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=131746263&site=ehost-live.

“​Should Tattoos Be Allowed in the Workplace?”​ ​Salary.com​, 18

Mar. 2019, ​www.salary.com/articles/tattoos-in-the-workplace/​.

“​Tattoos in the Workplace.”​ Insights For Professionals, Dec. 2017,

www.insightsforprofessionals.com/hr/employment-law/tattoos-in-the-workplace.