Professional dress code and Tattoos Business Tips by Burleson Consulting

With today's young people going into "Body Art", the question arises about how these people can advance within American professional careers.  Some corporations maintain a strict policy against visible tattoos, especially companies that must make a good impression of the general public. 
 

Here is a photo of my good friend, Dan Shaw.  Dan is blind and the victim of bad peer pressure.  Dan has no idea how ugly his tattoos are, especially when they extend to the back of his hand where they cannot be hidden, even by a long-sleeve shirt. Dan wonders why no companies will hire him . . .

Tattoos have a curious history

• 1850 - 1900 - Tattoos used to be the bastion of carnival freak shows, with people flocking to the circus to see the amazing tattooed Lady.
   
• 1900 - 1950 - Tattoos in the early 20th century indicated a Sailor or Marine.  In these cases, they did not have any social stigma, except that tattoos were generally indicative of enlisted men.  Few Navy or Marine officers dared to draw on their body.
   
• 1950 - 1960 - In the early 1950's, tattoos became popular with the criminal element, mostly outlaw bikers, social outcasts and the mentally ill.  It was during this time tattoos took on a more ominous reputation.
   
• 1960 - 1990 - This was the age of "prison tats" where having a tattoo indicated to some people that you were a tough, ignorant, convicted felon.
   
• 1990-2008 - Today we see hordes of low-class young people drawing on themselves with free abandon, (almost 30% of people in the 1980's).  These people do not understand that a tattoo may effectively prohibit them from pursuing a professional career, regardless of their other qualifications.

Today, a prejudice still exists within corporate America about tattoos, especially since there is a clear and direct correlation between income, education and the percentage of those populations who have tattoos.  It's no surprise that tattoos are more popular among the poor and under educated.

Don't kid yourself about the importance of hiding or removing tattoos.  If you look at middle management and above in any of the Fortune 50 companies, you will hard pressed to find any managers that have tattoos, hidden or otherwise.

Corporate Dress Codes and tattoos

A study by Careerbuilders shows the perils of tattoos for aspiring professionals, and confirms the conventional wisdom that tattoos are a sign of immaturity, bad judgment and bad taste:

• Over 42 percent of managers said their opinion of someone would be lowered by that person's visible body art.  Personally, I think that the actual figure is much higher.
   
• Three out of four respondents believe that visible tattoos are unprofessional.

You don't have look hard to find hundreds of corporations which have banned employees with tattoos.  San Bernardino County California, bars all employees from wearing denim, having visible tattoos, and any piercing in the nose, lip, or tongue that contains jewelry.

In sum, tattoos send a message to corporate America that you are ignorant, low-income, that you have have bad taste, and worst of all, that you may have a criminal record.

Hiding tattoos is important in corporate America

Many tattooed people think that they are protected by their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression.  Unfortunately, this is not true in the workplace. 

Corporations have every right to discriminate against "optional" appearance-related traits, and many large corporations ban long hair, beards and visible tattoos.

As a corporate manager myself, I've seen that hiding a tattoo is not enough.  I've seen cases where an employee reveals a tattoo at a company softball game to the horror and disgust of their manager, who, in turn, find other reasons to terminate the employee.  If you live in an employment "at will" state, remember that you can be fired for no reason at all.

First Amendment Freedom of Expression and Tattoo laws

This article titled "Body art in the workplace" confirms that companies have a constitutional right to ban employees with tattoos:

Companies can limit employees' personal expression on the job as long as they do not impinge on their civil liberties. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), employers are allowed to impose dress codes and appearance policies as long as they do not discriminate or hinder a person's race, color, religion, age, national origin, or gender.

There is a strong legal basis for discriminating against the tattooed, especially if the employers fears that having tattooed employees might hurt their professional image:

In the landmark court case Pik-Wik Stores, Inc. v. CHRO, the Connecticut Supreme Court established the standard for reviewing dress codes under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act.

In Pik-Wik, an employee complained about a grooming standard that required men to wear their hair "off the collar and above the ears." The employee argued that the policy discriminated against him on the basis of gender because women were not subject to the same standard. The court rejected the argument concluding that the grooming standard was non-discriminatory because it did not deny equal employment opportunities on the basis of an immutable characteristic, e.g., sex, race, national origin, disability or religion.

This Kentucky case verified that employers can fire employees who have exposed tattoos:

A dress code that required tucked-in shirts and covered tattoos for Kentucky State Parks employees did not violate the civil rights of three fired maintenance workers, a federal appeals court ruled.

However, regardless of the legalities and rights of people to look like a convict, many states have "at will" laws.  These statutes allow you to quit at any time, for any reason, and allows corporations to fire employees at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all.

Are attitudes towards tattoos changing?

This WSJ article titled "Tattoos and Piercings
Come Out at the Office", notes that attitudes in corporate America may be changing to become more tolerant of tattoos in the lower ranks, and the prejudice towards tattoo owners is also fading, but "discrete" tattoos still remain the most popular:

"Mr. Hempel, the Inverness lawyer, says he "doesn't flaunt his tattoos around the office." According to a 2001 survey on tattoos in the workplace from the Internet site Vault.com, which deals with work issues, the most popular placements of tattoos are areas that can be hidden: the backs, arms and legs."
 

COMPANY	TATTOO POLICY	COMMENT
Boeing Chicago	"Non-offensive" tattoos permitted	"I've seen people at all levels with tattoos and piercings," says spokeswoman Barbara Murphy.
White & Case New York City	None	"There are undoubtedly people who have tattoos (but) it's certainly not conspicuous," says spokesperson Roger Cohen.
Wal-Mart Stores Bentonville, Ark.	"Non-offensive" tattoos OK to show	"If they're not offensive, I don't see it as an issue," says spokesman Thomas Williams.
Tenet Healthcare Santa Barbara, Calif.	None	"The key point in our policy is that the appearance must be appropriate to the position," says spokes-person Steven Campanini. "What we do is rely on local hospitals to enforce what is appropriate."
Ford Motor Dearborn, Mich.	"Non-offensive" tattoos permitted	"It's left up to people to use their own discretion," said spokeswoman Anne Marie Gattari.
Subway Restaurants Milford, Conn.	Discrete tattoos permitted	Company literature specifies: "Non-dangling earrings in the ears only. Any other visible parts of body may not be adorned with jewelry."

This article it also talks about a senior executive at Inverness Medical Innovations Inc. who has tattoos and is rather proud of the fact.

For more insights, please see my related notes on Professional Dress Code, Professional dress and Tattoos, Professional Perks, etiquette requirements, Cross-Cultural Guidelines, forum guidelines and obfuscation requirements, Inappropriate corporate sponsorship of charities,  professional golf etiquette  and Professional Corporate Tipping tips

---

Tattoo Comments:

Hello my name is jack, and I run a watch dog company to check in on people who use general stereo-types to push their moral majority agendas on the general public. With your very generic article you have offended a number of my clients, some of which are rather high ranking police officers in my city.

The officer that directed me to your site actually has quite a few more tattoos than me. If you would like to have such narrow minded, completely ignorant, opinions towards people who are different than yourself maybe you should get on your high horse and head out because we are going to be the majority soon and you will be fading away like an old sunburn.

And that's going to feel great because sunburns are only irritating for a short while, and then they're gone.

Jack Thrasher

---

12 August 2008

First things first, I found this entire page to be completely stereotypical, derogatory, and very narrow-minded. The fact that this author keeps repeating only poor, uneducated criminals have tattoos is wildly false. No one I know with body art, myself included, have any kind of criminal record. Furthermore, we are all college graduates (which would definitely prove that we are in fact well educated).

As far as being poor is concerned, what does that have to do with being hired at any job? It is unfair to discriminate against a potential employee because he/she does not drive a brand new car, so why should the unfounded association between tattoos and poverty even be an issue???

Many companies today are being much more accepting towards people that choose to express themselves through body art/modification. I, personally, work for a fast growing nano-chemical company. They are very accepting of my lifestyle choice and do not discriminate against other employees for the same reasons. I think from now on we will see more of these forward-thinking companies that realize it is no longer 1945 and the same standards do not apply.

Jenny Aumiller

And our response:

I'm sure that you noted from the article title that the audience for this article is Corporate professionals (managers, executives, VP's, and lawyers). It only reflects on the status of tattoos in Corporate America, not the general working population. Also, it's a survey or Corporate policies, not my personal opinions, as the author. I think you got them confused.

Did you know that over 80% of the American prison population is tattooed, while only 15% of the general population has tattoo's . . . You may not like it, but tats are far more popular with the poor than they are in corporate America.

In my experience in corporate America, I see prejudice against body art getting worse! Even police departments are now requiring officers to cover their tattoo's at work:

---

Dear Sir or Ma'am,

I "stumbled" across your web site while doing a research paper on corporate dress codes.  Particularly in regards to tattoos in the work place.  I must say that I was repulsed by the stereo types that your web site publicly claimed for those who have tattoos.  I quote. "Its no surprise that tattoos are more popular among the poor and uneducated."  Not only would I be considered a successful woman, I am also highly educated.  This statement is offensive and I venture to say that the individual who wrote it is the uneducated one.  As you will find a beautiful piece of art, on the body or other wise, requires an educated artist and a client with a large wallet.

Sincerely,

C.E.Popham
11/16/2008

And our response:

Dear Ms. Popham,

Thank you for your glowing praise for our web page.

>> I quote. "It's no surprise that tattoos are more popular among the poor and uneducated."

Yes, that is absolutely true. Over 90% of convicted felons have tattoos . . .

>> This statement is offensive

Well, perhaps you could start a movement to have tattoos removed from the poor and ignorant . . . .

>> I was repulsed by the stereo types . . . on the body or other wise

Since you are "highly educated", please be advised that "otherwise" and "stereotypes" are not two words . . .

---

I found your website while doing online research regarding public perceptions of people with tattoos. There were a few points which I agreed with. However, there were so many more points which I felt extremely offended by.
 
First, I would like to ask why you would even think that Charles Manson should be the poster-child for the tattooed individual of the twenty-first century. Charles Manson is an insane criminal who showed no remorse in his evil endeavors. The fact that he has a swastika tattooed on his forehead has no real correlation with the majority of people whom have artwork decorating their flesh. I could further argue that no one within the "X" and "Next" generations (the people now going into entry-level through executive-level positions in corporate America) even think, and sometimes do not know, about this tattoo Charles Manson has. You placed the photo of Charles Manson in at least two of your links, which indicates your belief that he somehow "inspires" people to get tattoos. Perhaps you should have chosen someone more pertinent to the times, not some lunatic from the 1960's (40+ years ago) that has no influence on society and nobody cares about anymore.
 
You are correct. There are some prejudices that still exist in corporate America with regard to tattoos. However, this prejudice is receding along with the hairlines of executives retiring to make way for a more innovative and open workforce. The research I have been conducting also led me to a research paper done out of Loyola University in New Orleans (Kahl, 2002). This paper showed that a random selection of people both with and without body modifications had little or no difference of opinion on specific personality characteristics when viewing photographs of individuals with or without various body modifications (including tattoos, body piercings and unnatural hair color). The people with body modifications shown to the participants scored much higher on the personality characteristic of "openness". Openness is believed to be a positive trait, which employers rank highly among individuals they wish to hire. Perhaps you would benefit from a bit of openness.
 
There were several references to the average tattooed person being poor and uneducated. Your article (if that is what you wish to call it) was riddled with unsupported rhetoric. I can assure you will not be able to find a reliable source to corroborate those allegations. Within the article, there was also a statistic which claimed, "Over 42 percent of managers said their opinion of someone would be lowered by that person's visible body art." What study was this statistic from? Do you believe you made it more impactful by saying that, "Personally, I think that the actual figure is much higher"? Perhaps you should support your opinions with facts, not with more rhetoric. There were no facts present within your fallacies and misrepresentations toward those whom feel the desire to express themselves through body art.
 
Lastly, I would like to discuss your, "Good friend, Dan Shaw." You do realize that those whom you surround yourself with speak multitudes about who you are? Your friend Mr. Shaw has shown a huge lack of good judgment with his hours of tattoo work. Then you exploited him by taking a photo of him and posting it on your website. Shame on you! Mr. Shaw doesn't even know what he looks like, and you are using him as a spectacle to make a claim. Now who is the one lacking in judgment? Perhaps you should look in the mirror - at least you are able to do so, unlike Mr. Shaw.
 
In conclusion, your rhetoric is filled with unsupported stereotypes. You have certainly not convinced me to get my ink removed. Oh, wait! I should be poor and uneducated. I should not be able to construct such complete and supported thoughts or own a computer because of my tattoos... Perhaps I should quit my high-level corporate position so that I can fit your assumption that I am poor, uneducated and ignorant, have bad-taste and have a criminal record. Conversely, I will never fit any of those stereotypes.
 
Sincerely,
 
Dani Bon

And our response:

>> First, I would like to ask why you would even think that Charles Manson should be the poster-child for the tattooed individual of the twenty-first century.   

Because violent felons, far-and-away, have more tattoos than any other demographic group.  

>> The fact that he has a swastika tattooed on his forehead has no real correlation with the majority of people whom have artwork decorating their flesh.  

No, as noted, over 90% of murders have tattoos.  

>> the average tattooed person being poor and uneducated.  

That’s quite true.  Among the ranks or corporate executives, for example, less than one-tenth of one percent admit to drawing on themselves.  

>> Then you exploited him by taking a photo of him and posting it on your website.  

No, Dan’s saving-up to have those ghastly things removed.  It’s expensive.  

>> unsupported stereotypes.  

Just visit any prison, you can see for yourself . . .  

>> I should not be able to construct such complete and supported thoughts or own a computer because of my tattoos...  

No, but it does say a lot about your self-esteem and choice of role models.  

>> I can fit your assumption that I am poor, uneducated and ignorant, have bad-taste and have a criminal record.  

No, you did that, when you chose to align yourself with these groups!