When I was growing up, we watched a lot of NCIS. One of my favorite characters was Abby, who did all the lab work and kept up with the witty banter and general tomfoolery. I remember learning that her character had seven tattoos, and four of them were actually the actress'.
We have several teachers in our school that have tattoos. Luckily, our teacher handbooks says as long as they aren't "overly large" (subjective to principal) or offensive in any way, they don't have to be covered up. So I see tattoos on wrists, feet, ankles, and arms quite frequently. I don't think of them less as teachers because of it.
There is a person that I am friends with on Facebook who constantly posts about working people with tattoos and how they shouldn't be prohibited to work because they chose to express themselves through tattoos.
To this I both agree and disagree. I think there's a difference between having a doctorate and being an expert in your field and having tattoos versus going for a minimum paying job and having tattoos. I think there's a difference from being one of a select few who are qualified for your job, and you have tattoos, versus going for a job that everyone is qualified for, and you have tattoos. While I believe that a person should not be judged--as a person--for their choice to have tattoos, when you have several candidates who are equally qualified, I can understand the appeal of going with the candidate who appears more professionally without them then the one who doesn't.
Now my sister goes back and forth about getting a tattoo, and she says if she did she would make sure it was in a position on her body where it could be covered up. When you're going in for an interview, you are supposed to appear as professional as possible. If you are going for a position where you think your tattoos would potentially harm your chances, you should wear something in the interview to cover them up. Then it becomes a nonissue, and you can be as tatted as you want.
I suppose that's where my disagreement comes into play, if you made the choice to get a tattoo on a body part that cannot be covered up (neck, face, high chest, hands, etc), then you have consciously excluded yourself from jobs that will chose more professionally appearing, though equally qualified, candidates.
I think a person's qualifications speak for themselves. If you have a spider web on your neck but are the best at what you do, I don't think your tattoo is going to stop you from obtaining a career. If you're going from job to job multiple times a year because of one reason or another, I don't know how qualified you are and that's where your tattoos could be used to judge you as a person. You're struggling to be qualified for minimum jobs but yet you're fine spending $50-$100 on a tattoo that you can't cover up and therefore are moving yourself down the line for ideal job candidates. I don't know about you, but $50-$100 is my electric bill. I'd rather keep my electricity on another month than get ink on my face. Not to mention $50-$100 could buy some really nice clothes that could look super professional and hide your current tattoos in an interview.
SHOULD it be a nonissue? I don't know. The professional world is a conservative one. That's a fact that those of us trying to get into the professional world need to understand. I don't think you should be surprised if you get passed up for your lack of professional ability: YOU didn't play by the rules. There's a reason why top business people where suits, don't have unkempt hair (facial or otherwise) and are clear of general debris (thank goodness for lint rollers). I'm sure several business people have tattoos, wake up with bed head, and have pets that leave tiny hairs and fuzz all over things. But they know how to be taken seriously, and they take the time to do so. They are winning the game, now the question truly is: are you willing to play?
