According to a recent YouGov survey, 40% of individuals in the 25 to 49 age range, have at least one tattoo and the percentage has been steadily increasing in recent years. But alongside the growth of individuals having a tattoo, is there also greater public acceptance? The answer most commonly is ‘it depends’.
So, the question that I’m attempting to answer today is which businesses could be potentially harmed by having a tattooed workforce, with the supplementary question being, does the size and placement of the tattoo make any difference?
Are there different standards for different job roles?
The first main group are the so-called professions, encompassing accountancy, the legal profession, doctors, banking and insurance et al. It also includes the many office jobs with public facing roles. These businesses tend to be a little more old-fashioned when it comes to appearance, especially when dealing with customers or clients, face-to-face.
Traditionally, men in this group were expected to wear smart suits and ties, with women expected to appear in modest dresses or suits, with tattoos being a definite no-no! However, dress codes started to change in the nineties and what was acceptable became gradually more relaxed. This was especially so in those situations where an individual would be unlikely to meet a customer/client face-to-face,.
Attitudes significantly changed again with the outbreak of Covid in 2019, with one of the side effects of the pandemic being to almost eliminate physical interactions with both colleagues and members of the public. Today, most individuals in this group have adopted the ‘smart casual’ look typically an open-necked shirt and chinos for men, with women having even greater flexibility, with pretty much the only items of dress frowned upon being very low cut tops, micro skirts and jeggings.
Workers in warehouses, factories, agriculture et al, have always enjoyed a far more relaxed dress code, especially as this group rarely has any interactions with the public, with tattoos not normally an issue.
The BBC asked the question
On 10th August the BBC published an article on their website entitled, “Could your tattoo stop you from getting a job? The article’s author, Social Affairs Reporter Eleanor Lawrie, argued that even extreme multiple tattoos, with a number of examples being shown, were no longer an impediment to getting a job. The article clearly implying that only prejudiced fuddy-duddies would make a fuss about inked skin.
Whilst Ms Lawrie’s view of tattoos and ‘face jewellery’ (studs, nose-rings and various other piercings), may well have some merit, especially in the more relaxed liberal environs of the media, are her conclusions the norm in ordinary businesses, especially those who directly interact with the general public?
Can a tattooed employee lose you business?
Personally, I can’t help thinking that the BBC’s conclusions are not quite how many managers in the so-called ‘professions’ or even the Civil Service see things. In the last millennium, you might expect that any employee in a client-facing role getting a visible tattoo would be heading out of the door in a hurry, such was the importance of being seen to be respectable at the time.
These days both the professions and businesses with customer facing roles are in something of a quandary. It is hard enough to recruit quality employees without ruling out many prospective candidates because they have a nose ring or a tattoo of their kids’ names are their forearms. This of course has to be balanced against genuine concerns that you could potentially lose customers who may well be put off by somebody with an obvious tattoo, say on their face/neck, especially so if they have lots of face jewellery as well.
In truth, if your potential client/customer is under 50, most will probably not be put off doing business with you just because your receptionist has a butterfly tattoo on their neck or a lip-stud, but the same cannot be said for the majority of individuals over 50. The YouGov survey clearly demonstrates that anti-tattoo prejudice clearly gets steadily worse with age.
Are double standards being shown?
Clearly, there is a big difference between not only ‘blue-collar and white-collar workers, but also between different roles in white-collar positions. These days, whilst many employers would personally prefer their workforce to have no visible tattoos, this is no longer a bar to employment or promotion, unless that employee is in a customer/client facing role.
The big question is, are some employers applying double standards? In relation to accountancy, the legal profession and many city jobs, the answer to the question posed by the BBC would almost certainly be a resounding ‘yes’. Tattoos will almost certainly come into any internal recruitment conversation and, if regarded as offensive, be definitive with decision makers.
A more interesting situation would be where a nice, clean-cut individual joins your firm, but after a period of time, this valued individual, begins to cover their body with tattoos. In that scenario, whilst any thoughts of disciplinary action would have ‘employment tribunal’ written all over it, its more likely that employers would quietly hint that their tattoos could well damage their promotion prospects.
What employers must do
Any employer with customer/client facing roles for employees and who believes that a member of staff in that role with visible tattoos, could potentially lose you business, cannot sack them unless there is a clause in their contract of employment, where they have agreed not to have such tattoos unless they’ve received written permission to do so.
At this point I can only imagine the reaction of a human rights lawyer, he or she would be screaming that this requirement is an infringement of the employees human rights and they would be correct. However, if the reason for this restriction was clearly explained in writing (i.e. in the employment contract) and the employee has agreed, by signing the contract, then you as the employer are on safe ground.
Accountant’s view
Four years ago, I recall interviewing a 24 year-old who I’ll refer to as Layla, to be our receptionist. Her CV was by far the best of the short-list of interviewees and I fully anticipated offering her the job, as she appeared to tick every box. However, when she sat down for interview I was surprised to see that she had various items of face jewellery, including 3 lip and two cheek studs, plus various tattoos that almost completely covered her hands, forearms and neck.
Layla had an attractive personality, wore sensible office clothes, was articulate and clearly intelligent, but the tattoos and studs were a surprise. It was therefore with enormous regret that I had to inform her that as a significant minority of our clients were both conservative (with a small ‘c’) and elderly, they were highly likely to be offended by her appearance.
As Layla was an outstanding prospective employee, I told her that we had an internal, non-client facing role coming up in a few months’ time and that she would be a shoo-in for the position. Regrettably, when the vacancy came up Layla was unavailable.
Do I regret not hiring her? With the benefit of hindsight the answer is yes, but at the time commonsense told me that however personable she was, there was very little doubt that the prejudiced attitudes of a significant slice of our existing and potential client base would have found her appearance, at the very least, off-putting and potentially cost us business.
