GatewayRedbirds.com

trill wrote:

JackofDiamonds wrote:

trill wrote:Is there really anyone here who hires people that would count a few, reasonably tasteful tattoos against a job candidate, all things being equal?

Define reasonably tasteful?

Not obscene, modestly placed and capable of being covered up by clothing if the situation calls for it.

Chief Wahoo on the inside forearm?

JackofDiamonds wrote:

trill wrote:

JackofDiamonds wrote:

trill wrote:Is there really anyone here who hires people that would count a few, reasonably tasteful tattoos against a job candidate, all things being equal?

Define reasonably tasteful?

Not obscene, modestly placed and capable of being covered up by clothing if the situation calls for it.

Chief Wahoo on the inside forearm?

That's a great example actually. It's visible most of the time, it displays questionable awareness of sensitive issues and is a dumb thing to have on your body, but I understand why that person got it (assuming they are an indians fan and not just a racist).

I wouldn't have a problem hiring that person if they were the most qualified candidate.

Tasteful Tattoo:

If an applicant has a big Chief Wahoo tattoo on his forearm and wears long sleeve shirts in the office, no problem. If qualified, they're hired. I won't even know it's there.

At the University of Phoenix Advanced Bigotry course, they taught you how to hide your opinions about tattoos by referencing other, more generic types of negatives. We all know people with tattoos are imbecils right? But you can't say that since that gets into special needs and the whole people-with-disabilities laws, etc. But you can say the applicant appeared "anti-social", "intimidating" or something as simple as "they smelled bad."

So there's ways to deal with it.

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:At the University of Phoenix Advanced Bigotry course, they taught you how to hide your opinions about tattoos by referencing other, more generic types of negatives. We all know people with tattoos are imbecils right? But you can't say that since that gets into special needs and the whole people-with-disabilities laws, etc. But you can say the applicant appeared "anti-social", "intimidating" or something as simple as "they smelled bad."

So there's ways to deal with it.

Just call them Dollar General customers. That seems to work as a great, offensive, ignorant catch-all.

I sometimes shop at Dollar General, I have a large tattoo on my upper right arm/shoulder and I don't have the same net worth as other posters.

So yeah, go ahead and stereotype me.

Fat_Bulldog wrote:I sometimes shop at Dollar General, I have a large tattoo on my upper right arm/shoulder and I don't have the same net worth as other posters.

So yeah, go ahead and stereotype me.

Your limiting your potential. Although getting shampoo at a dollar a bottle, which is kind of smart.

IMADreamer wrote:

Fat_Bulldog wrote:I sometimes shop at Dollar General, I have a large tattoo on my upper right arm/shoulder and I don't have the same net worth as other posters.

So yeah, go ahead and stereotype me.

Your limiting your potential. Although getting shampoo at a dollar a bottle, which is kind of smart.

I just buy Oreos and Doritos at Dollar General. My kid needs to eat.

Fat_Bulldog wrote:

IMADreamer wrote:

Fat_Bulldog wrote:I sometimes shop at Dollar General, I have a large tattoo on my upper right arm/shoulder and I don't have the same net worth as other posters.

So yeah, go ahead and stereotype me.

Your limiting your potential. Although getting shampoo at a dollar a bottle, which is kind of smart.

I just buy Oreos and Doritos at Dollar General. My kid needs to eat.

Absolutely. I understand Mr. Bulldog, I really do. And, BTW, some of my best friends have tattoos. GREAT people. I'd do anything for them. I would just never hire them, you know? Or - OK - let them marry my daughter. But I firmly believe they deserve to be treated no less a person than anyone else with a disability, God bless them.