Am I just old fashioned when it comes to dress code?

The_Banker said:
The law is open to debate. That is why we have lawyers. If it wasnt we would not need so many lawyers.
If I got my arms tattoo'd and was told to cover them up I am sure I could get a lawyer who could argue my case in front of a judge and I would have a chance of winning. Maybe not in front of every judge but certainly in front of some.

My point is, you as an employer cant bend me to your will. If you try to I can bring a case against you. I may win, I may not. But if I put up a determined enough case/fight it will cost you more money (plus time and headaches) than me.

Still want to force me to cover my arms?
Click to expand...


What's your point? I could ask you to do anything and you could bring a case if you were so inclined. What does that prove? Doesn't change the fact that employers are allowed to have a dress code. If you want to be a rebel, that is up to you.
 
The_Banker said:
The law is open to debate. That is why we have lawyers. If it wasnt we would not need so many lawyers.
If I got my arms tattoo'd and was told to cover them up I am sure I could get a lawyer who could argue my case in front of a judge and I would have a chance of winning. Maybe not in front of every judge but certainly in front of some.

My point is, you as an employer cant bend me to your will. If you try to I can bring a case against you. I may win, I may not. But if I put up a determined enough case/fight it will cost you more money (plus time and headaches) than me.

Still want to force me to cover my arms?
Click to expand...

It's not exactly right to say the law is open to debate. How much "point of law" and a debate on the law versus the amount that is whether or not an offence was committed or a duty satisfied. The latter isn't debating law.

You could bring a case if you could identify a specific protected right within the legislation that is breached by asking you to cover your arms. The links Sunny provide state that there isn't such a specific protection.

So yeah, if I were an employer and I felt tattoos on display was an issue, I would ask you to cover your arms because I am at liberty to impose uniform or dress codes as long as I do not discriminate on the very specific grounds provided in the legislation.
 
beffers said:
No, I think that if they are not appropriately dressed, it can be one factor for borderline candidates that might tip them over into the No box of job candidates. In large companies, the front line of people that are assessing prospective new employees are not assessing their abilities to to job. They are faceless people from HR who are assessing the applicants for the their suitability to mesh with the company in general, and fit in with its corporate ethos. If they have to weed through 500 CV's to fill 5 positions, that probably means whittling down the 500 to the 50 that will be called for an initial phone interview, called in for a first real interview with HR, called back to come in and take an aptitude test, and called back again second interview. If you make a mistake during any of those steps, you will not get to go on to the next one. Wearing something overly casual or inappropriate during an aptitude test could very well be considered to be a mistake that scuppers your chances. Fair or not, it happens !
Click to expand...

Well, in my experience, which is Public Sector only, the purpose of the exam is to test your aptitude in various areas in order that candidates with no or low aptitudes in key skills are not interviewed. That is the sole purpose of the exam and how you dress doesn't come into it. Once you are called for an interview you would then be judged on experience and how you present yourself.
 
Sunny said:
Employers can impose a dress code on employees as long as it doesn't discriminate and that includes asking people to cover up tattoos or not wearing flip flops to work (there isn't an actual law outlawing specifically that either in case you were wondering). You may not agree with it but that is the way it is.
Click to expand...
Employer's cant change terms and conditions retrospectively without agreement from employees.
 
Complainer said:
Employer's cant change terms and conditions retrospectively without agreement from employees.
Click to expand...

Never said they could but most contracts of employment or staff handbooks in business organisations contain sections on appearance and dress code requiring you to look business like. Most normal people don't think a guy in a short shirt showing off his latest 'I love Lucy' tattoo looks business like. You are free to get them but the company is free to ask you to cover them. Just as they are free to ask you to remove piercings from your face. Just because something is not explicitly forbidden in a contract doesn't mean it is allowed.
 
Complainer said:
Employer's cant change terms and conditions retrospectively without agreement from employees.
Click to expand...

That would only apply if "dress down" was explicit in the contract of employment. If it isn't explicitly stated and is a "non-contract" policy, then other factors would come into it but wouldn't necessarily require agreement.
 
Sunny said:
Never said they could but most contracts of employment or staff handbooks in business organisations contain sections on appearance and dress code requiring you to look business like. Most normal people don't think a guy in a short shirt showing off his latest 'I love Lucy' tattoo looks business like. You are free to get them but the company is free to ask you to cover them. Just as they are free to ask you to remove piercings from your face. Just because something is not explicitly forbidden in a contract doesn't mean it is allowed.
Click to expand...


Exactly... Ask being the operative word.

If a company tried to make you cover them then there could be a problem.

Say I worked in a cake shop. Did so for 18 months and was doing a great job. My uniform was short sleeved. I wanted and got a tattoo on my arm. My employer decided I should now wear a long sleeved tunic. Then I think we could have a problem.

Also, people do not confine tattoos to just arms anymore. Cheryl Cole has artistic design tattoos on her hand. Lots of females are copying this (rightly or wrongly). Do you now insist that they wear gloves?

Fergal Quinn had a programme on RTE recently where he helped people get their retail outlets in order by giving them advice etc... One girl who was a baker and had her own cakeshop had small tattoos behind her ear. Should she be made wear a balaclava while serving customers? Or should she be fired for getting them if she was an employee? She seemed pretty competant too...
 
The_Banker said:
Exactly... Ask being the operative word.

If a company tried to make you cover them then there could be a problem.

Say I worked in a cake shop. Did so for 18 months and was doing a great job. My uniform was short sleeved. I wanted and got a tattoo on my arm. My employer decided I should now wear a long sleeved tunic. Then I think we could have a problem.

Also, people do not confine tattoos to just arms anymore. Cheryl Cole has artistic design tattoos on her hand. Lots of females are copying this (rightly or wrongly). Do you now insist that they wear gloves?

Fergal Quinn had a programme on RTE recently where he helped people get their retail outlets in order by giving them advice etc... One girl who was a baker and had her own cakeshop had small tattoos behind her ear. Should she be made wear a balaclava while serving customers? Or should she be fired for getting them if she was an employee? She seemed pretty competant too...
Click to expand...

Sorry, where exactly did I say that every company would have a problem with employees showing tattoos? If you are going to argue a point, make sure you are arguing the same point as everyone else.

You are arguing that employers have no rights to dictate anything. I am simply saying they have plenty of rights in this area.
 
Sunny said:
Sorry, where exactly did I say that every company would have a problem with employees showing tattoos? If you are going to argue a point, make sure you are arguing the same point as everyone else.

You are arguing that employers have no rights to dictate anything. I am simply saying they have plenty of rights in this area.
Click to expand...

I can argue any point I like.
 
Latrade said:
That would only apply if "dress down" was explicit in the contract of employment.
Click to expand...
Not true - you seem to be assuming that 'formal dress - no tattoos' is an assumed default in every contract of employment. This is not true. If an employer has a 'no tattoos' rule, they need to communicate this with employees during recruitment. If an employer wants to bring in a 'no tattoos' rule, they need to do this in consultation with their employees.
 
Complainer said:
Not true - you seem to be assuming that 'formal dress - no tattoos' is an assumed default in every contract of employment. This is not true. If an employer has a 'no tattoos' rule, they need to communicate this with employees during recruitment. If an employer wants to bring in a 'no tattoos' rule, they need to do this in consultation with their employees.
Click to expand...

Not what I was assuming or saying. I'm saying that if there is no formal statement of dress code within the contract of employment then it isn't as simple as needing individual agreement as a change of terms and conditions. If there is, then you're right, but I was pointing out that not all cases would require agreement.

If it is a policy and procedure issue rather than contract, then it is easier to introduce without agreement. Even if it is a contractual issue (again just how many state there is no dress code or that there is a dress down code?), where there are reasonable and justifiable circumstances, again there may be no need for agreement.

And also no one has said "no tattoos" what was being discussed was whether an employer could ask for tattoos to be covered up irrespective of dress code. And as it isn't a prescribed right to have tattoos on display, if it is entirely reasonable and justifiable, they can.
 
Complainer said:
Not true - you seem to be assuming that 'formal dress - no tattoos' is an assumed default in every contract of employment. This is not true. If an employer has a 'no tattoos' rule, they need to communicate this with employees during recruitment. If an employer wants to bring in a 'no tattoos' rule, they need to do this in consultation with their employees.
Click to expand...

You could look at it another way. If a particular employment specifies a particular uniform or way of dressing, then the employee would need the employers permission to display tattoos. There is no 'right' to wear a tattoo anywhere. People arent born with tattoos - they are free to display or not to display them, just like any article of clothing, jewellery, make-up etc. If you chose to get a permanent tattoo on your arm, you must accept that if you are in an employment that requires a short sleeved uniform, you may be in difficulties. No employee has the right to display logos, pictures, slogans, personal designs etc. at the workplace and in some instances they can be offensive to other employees or customers e.g. in the US, many employers ban the display of gangland tattoos.
 
Maybe I'm too conservative/conformist, but I think wearing tatoos on visible body parts is just another thing you can do to make life just that little bit more difficult for yourself.
 
Sunny said:
You are perfectly entitled to ask that tattoos be covered up.
Click to expand...

I agree but as other people stated there is nothing in the dress code stating no tattoos allowed and rightly so, what next no yellow nail varnish.

In the case of the guy I referred to, he was asked if he would mind wearing a long sleeve tunic and it turned out he didn't. He was given a short sleeved tunic to wear and he assumed he couldn't wear a long sleeved one. He told me afterwards he was afraid to tell us he had a load of tattoos in case we withdrew the offer - he was new to the public service.

Also there are some female staff who don't like showing their arms so they wear long sleeves so it wasn't a case of him being the only staff member with long sleeves.

So since then all new staff were asked if they want a long sleeve or short sleeve tunic.
 
JP1234 said:
Best of all was the girl next to me, resplendent in White cut of jeans, low cut vest top, numerous gold chains rattling round her neck and to cap it off, trainers on her feet.
Click to expand...

In Italy you would have spotted the winner in that way, that girl would have got the job straight from Berlusconi. :(

Hence why I'm very happy to live in Ireland. Great post btw! :cool:
 
the_banker said:
i think we as a people are too hung up on dress code. We put our children into uniform at the age of 4 or 5 to send them off to school. Why? Because that is the convention.
it was the convention in the 50s to be subservient to the catholic church. No one questioned it.

i love the educate together ethos schools. Kids don’t wear uniform. They are individuals. I cant get my head around the idea that kids should wear a uniform at 4 or 5.

i heard the stories about google and the cloths policy. This is the way to go in my opinion. It you can do your job competently then any clothes you wear should not matter one iota.

challenge conventions, challenge norms.
Click to expand...

+1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top