A recent study has found that having a visible tattoo may impact on an individual's chance of getting a job, notwithstanding how qualified they are for the job on offer.Researchers at the University
A recent study has found that having a visible tattoo may impact on an individual's chance of getting a job, notwithstanding how qualified they are for the job on offer.
Researchers at the University of Saint Andrews interviewed hiring managers with an age range of 30 - 60 years old across a variety of organisations, including a bank, hotel, prison and university, to ascertain views on visible tattoos. It appears that negative connotations still exist amongst employers about visible tattoos and the perceptions that surround them. Most of the managers agreed that visible tattoos were not acceptable and would impact on recruitment decisions.
One manager commented that "subconsciously [visible tattoos] would stop me from hiring them" and the words used to describe tattoos included "repugnant", "abhorrent" and "unsavoury" and "untidy". The overarching concern, rather than being the dislike of the employer itself, was the perception customers might have of visible tattoos, and in particular, that customers might develop a "negative service experience based on stereotypes that tattooed people are thugs and druggies".
Visible tattoos, however, appeared more acceptable in a role that is not public facing. In fact, one manager responded that tattoos on prison guards can be "something to talk about" and help to make a connection with the prisoners. Furthermore, the negative attitude did not apply to tattoos that were concealed and the study suggested that there is becoming greater acceptance of tattoos in society.
Under the Equality Act 2010, tattoos or body art or piercings are not protected characteristics and in respect of disability discrimination, tattoos are expressly stated as not amounting to a disability for the purposes of a disability discrimination claim under the Act. Employees are an extension of a company's image and if you reject a candidate on the grounds of a visible tattoo in order to protect your company brand, it is unlikely there would be basis for a claim under UK employment law. The only way there could be potential grounds for a claim would be if the tattoos were due to a cultural or religious requirement but in such circumstances, a company may be able to argue that a policy against hiring employees with visible tattoos is objectively justified on that grounds that it protects the company's corporate image.
There does, however, appear to be a wider acceptance of tattoos within the public and particularly as a result of the number of celebrities donning visible tattoos. The study suggests that in the future, society is likely to be more accepting of tattoos and therefore, maybe tattoos will in time become less of a taboo amongst recruiters.
Researchers at the University of Saint Andrews interviewed hiring managers with an age range of 30 - 60 years old across a variety of organisations, including a bank, hotel, prison and university, to ascertain views on visible tattoos. It appears that negative connotations still exist amongst employers about visible tattoos and the perceptions that surround them. Most of the managers agreed that visible tattoos were not acceptable and would impact on recruitment decisions.
One manager commented that "subconsciously [visible tattoos] would stop me from hiring them" and the words used to describe tattoos included "repugnant", "abhorrent" and "unsavoury" and "untidy". The overarching concern, rather than being the dislike of the employer itself, was the perception customers might have of visible tattoos, and in particular, that customers might develop a "negative service experience based on stereotypes that tattooed people are thugs and druggies".
Visible tattoos, however, appeared more acceptable in a role that is not public facing. In fact, one manager responded that tattoos on prison guards can be "something to talk about" and help to make a connection with the prisoners. Furthermore, the negative attitude did not apply to tattoos that were concealed and the study suggested that there is becoming greater acceptance of tattoos in society.
Under the Equality Act 2010, tattoos or body art or piercings are not protected characteristics and in respect of disability discrimination, tattoos are expressly stated as not amounting to a disability for the purposes of a disability discrimination claim under the Act. Employees are an extension of a company's image and if you reject a candidate on the grounds of a visible tattoo in order to protect your company brand, it is unlikely there would be basis for a claim under UK employment law. The only way there could be potential grounds for a claim would be if the tattoos were due to a cultural or religious requirement but in such circumstances, a company may be able to argue that a policy against hiring employees with visible tattoos is objectively justified on that grounds that it protects the company's corporate image.
There does, however, appear to be a wider acceptance of tattoos within the public and particularly as a result of the number of celebrities donning visible tattoos. The study suggests that in the future, society is likely to be more accepting of tattoos and therefore, maybe tattoos will in time become less of a taboo amongst recruiters.