Tattoo Discrimination in the Workplace - Annotated Bibliography Example

Thesis ment An analysis of workplace-related literature suggests that, whilst tattoos and piercings are becoming more common overall, there is still a high degree of workplace discrimination with respect to body modification. Are tattoos and body modifications looked down upon in the professional workplace? What are the reasons why tattoos may be less popular with employers? Are tattoos and body modifications becoming more common? If so, are employers reacting to this change? What can employers do to be less discriminatory towards tattoos in the workplace? Introduction Body modifications, particularly visible tattoos, have often been a contentious issue in the workplace. This may be because tattoos have often been a symbol of rebellion (Bekhor, Bekhor & Gandrabur, 1995) and thus may be associated with those who are not necessarily going to be the most reliable of workers. Tattoos are also associated with the punk movement, which is often thought of as being rule-breaking and anarchistic (Bekhor, Bekhor & Gandrabur, 1995), something not particularly appealing to a prospective employer. These associations and stereotypes may, however, not be particularly useful as generation Y moves into the workplace – this generation have a more general relationship with tattoos and other body modifications (Hawkes, Senn & Thorn, 2004). Additionally, research shows that almost a quarter of individuals between 18 and 50 living in the U.S. have at least one tattoo (Kosut, 2000), meaning that employers that are restrictive on this front may be losing out on a significant proportion of the potential workforce. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the current research on appearance in the workplace, with a particular focus on tattoos and other body modifications to uncover if and why tattoos are looked down upon in the professional workplace. Additionally, a focus will be held on what employers can do to become less discriminatory towards those with tattoos and why this move may be desirable or even essential. Overall, an analysis of workplace-related literature suggests that, whilst tattoos and piercings are becoming more common overall, there is still a high degree of workplace discrimination with respect to body modification. Body Modifications: An Introduction The history of tattoos is an interesting one. The term “tattoo” refers to the use of indelible ink to insert a permanent (or sometimes semi-permanent) design into the dermis of the skin (Trautner & Kwan, 2010). This practice has several origins within several cultures, and can still be found amongst indigenous hunter-gatherer populations today (Trautner & Kwan, 2010). However, many believe that the origin of tattoos comes from either Polynesian tribes or Ancient Japanese culture (Trautner & Kwan, 2010), and many tattoos found in popular culture today draw their roots from these traditions. Since the 1960s and 1970s, tattoos themselves have been a popular form of body modification in the West, with some defining tattoos as an “art form” and others defining them as “graffiti”. Despite this, there is evidence that body modifications are growing in popularity amongst Westerners, with almost a quarter of Americans having a tattoo and one in seven having some form of piercing (Bekhor, Bekhor & Gandrabur, 1995). Like tattoos, piercing is an ancient ritual that has roots in various different tribal groups (Kramer, 2006), and is now part of popular culture in the West. Piercings are more common in women than men (Trautner & Kwan, 2010), which may affect the way that they are viewed as part of workplace dress codes. Much of the difference between the ways that piercings are viewed (compared with visible tattoos) is that they are usually smaller and more discreet, and cannot contain bad or malicious language (Sklar & DeLong, 2012). However, there is still evidence that those with tattoos experience a degree of discrimination against them by employers and perhaps even customers in public service industries (Trautner & Kwan, 2010). The modern history of tattooing is complex, but does help to unearth the reasons behind some of the popular stereotypes of individuals with tattoos. Tattoos and piercings became extremely popular with the punk movement of the late 1970s and early 1980s, with many members of this sub-culture using a tattoo (or multiple tattoos) as a way of rebelling against traditional appearances (Sklar & DeLong, 2012). Many of the stereotypes against those with tattoos may have been a result of this early link with punk sub-culture. Punk is traditionally associated with rule-breaking and anarchy (Sklar & DeLong, 2012), not necessarily something which is desirable for employers. Additionally, punk dress is associated with dark colors and ripped clothing (Sklar & DeLong, 2012) – not necessarily the most ‘professional’ of dress types. Many women, too, began to use tattoos (previously more associated with maleness) as a way of expressing their individuality and going against the traditional mould (Kramer, 2006). As explored later within this paper, the result is that many women with tattoos experience a higher level of discrimination than many men, as they are rebelling against both gender norms and workplace norms (Bekhor, Bekhor & Gandrabur, 1995). An interesting distinction is made in much of the literature between “visible” and “non-visible” tattoos. Visible tattoos are evidently those that are on view when wearing “typical” dress, which would differ between workplaces and occasions. These visible tattoos are generally the most frowned upon in the workplace, which is evidently because these are the ones that can be seen in the office (or by the customer in customer service-related industries). Non-visible tattoos are not stated to pose such an issue (Bekhor, Bekhor & Gandrabur, 1995), which means that it is not necessarily having a tattoo which is frowned upon in the workplace. There may be a difference in stereotypes between those who choose to have their tattoo on show (and those that do not) when it comes to workplace issues. Whilst this will be discussed in more detail in the relevant sub-section, it is interesting to note that the distinction is not “having a tattoo” vs. “not having a tattoo”, and the debate may be much more complicated than this simple scenario. Workplace Attire The workplace has always been associated with a more professional style of clothing. This can be for many reasons. The first main reason particularly affects those in the customer service industry. In these areas (such as hospitality, catering, real estate) the customer buys a product on the advice and skill of the salesperson. This means that the salesperson has to project a mature and sensible version of themselves to appear more trustworthy and reliable (Miller, McGlashan Nicols & Eure, 2009). In this sense, tattoos (with their punk or outside the mainstream association) are not part of this projection. There is research to suggest that customers may trust workers with visible tattoos less than those who keep their tattoos hidden or those who do not have tattoos at all (Trautner & Kwan, 2010). The research suggests that even knowing that the individual has a tattoo may ensure reduced sales for the individual working (Trautner & Kwan, 2010), something which is not desirable for employers or those working towards a shared goal in their team. It is interesting to consider the possible reasons why tattoos are not considered to portray a ‘trustworthy’ individual, as they have their roots in traditional culture. Goldner (2010) suggests that attitudes towards workplace appearance are changing. This research suggests that there are more men who are opting out of wearing suits at work, and more women opting for trousers over skirts. This reflects a rejection of traditional workplace values. Goldner (2010) also suggests that there is a need for employers to change their attitudes, particularly as newer generations who are more open-minded towards attire become the majority of the workforce. Other research also suggests that a restriction on dress may prevent generation Y and Millenials from working at certain institutions or may even cause these individuals to leave the job (Bekhor, Bekhor & Gandrabur, 1995). This is something for employers to consider when writing or re-writing their dress code (Goldner, 2010), as alienating these groups could cause a severe reduction in the number of individuals available to work. It may also prevent the brightest and the best individuals from working for a company, something which would be represented in profits in the long-term. As the statistics suggest, tattoos are a firm part of new generation attire and therefore should be considered as part of workplace regulations, regardless of the opinions of potential customers (Goldner, 2010). Fisk (2005) also raises some interesting points with respect to workplace attire. This research suggests that regulations on workplace attire can be considered an invasion of privacy because an individual’s choice of dress is so inextricably linked with their personality. Additionally, there are many restrictions on discrimination in the workplace (for example, discriminations based on race or disability) which Fisk (2005) suggests cannot be completely separated from discrimination based upon attire. In fact, many of the legal cases brought against employers by those who have suffered from tattoo-based discrimination are often brought using arguments for freedom of religion. Although tattoos are not directly related to religion as such, the fact that they can be linked to a distinct sub-culture (such as punk [Sklar & DeLong, 2012]) means that some of the restrictions against discrimination can still apply. Fisk (2005) also suggests that tattoos and piercings are becoming more common and thus it would pay for employers to consider these body modifications when creating a sensible and approachable dress code. As these modifications become more and more common, there are suggestions that the stereotypes will become less appropriate and may fade away, and employers that are ahead of the game in this sense could ultimately win out. Attitudes towards Tattoos 600 words Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace 600 words Conclusions 250 words Bibliography Bekhor, P. S., Bekhor, L. and Gandrabur, M. (1995), Employer attitudes toward persons with visible tattoos. Australasian Journal of Dermatology, 36: 75–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-0960.1995.tb00936. Fisk, C.L. (2005) Privacy, Power, and Humiliation at Work: Re-Examining Appearance Regulation as an Invasion of Privacy, La. L. Rev. 1111(66). 256-231 Goldner, H.M. (2010). You’re going to wear that? Appearance in the workplace. HeinOnline, 1(1), 21-17. Hawkes, D., Senn, C. Y., Thorn, C. (2004) Factors that influence attitudes toward women with tattoos, Sex Roles 50 (9-10), 593-604, doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000027564.83353.06 Kosut, M. (2000) Tattoo narratives: the intersection of the body, self, identity and society. Visual Sociology 15(1) 79-100. doi: 10.1080/14725860008583817 Kramer, R.J. (2006) Generation Y: Tattoos, Piercings and Other Issues for the Private and Public Employer, Urban Law 38(1) 593-600 Martin, C., Cairns, S. (2013) Why would you get that done?! Stigma experiences of post-secondary women with piercings and tattoos (Master’s Thesis). University of Calgary Vault Miller, B.K., McGlashan Nicols, K., Eure, J, (2009) Body art in the workplace: piercing the prejudice?, Personnel Review, 38 (6), 621 – 640. doi: 10.1108/00483480910992247 Sklar, M., DeLong, M. (2012) Punk dress in the workplace: Aesthetic expression and accomodaton, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 20 (4) , 285-299. doi: 10.1177/0887302X12467848 Trautner, M.N., Kwan, S. (2010), Gendered appearance norms: An analysis of employment discrimination lawsuits, 1970–2008, in Christine L. Williams, Kirsten Dellinger (ed.) Gender and Sexuality in the Workplace (Research in the Sociology of Work, Volume 20), Emerald Group Publishing Limited: United States,.127-150. doi: 10.1108/S0277-2833(2010)0000020009 Read More