Body Modification and Workplace Acceptance Crucial to Economic Success

Body Modification and Workplace Acceptance Crucial to Economic Success

Beautifying the body by means of tattoos and body piercings is an ancient practice that has become progressively common. Once considered radical embellishments body modification has grown into a culture that is now widely accepted. Brian Elzweig and Donna Peeples discuss in their article “Tattoos and piercings: issues of body modification and the workplace,” the perception of these alterations in the modern world and the legality of discrimination. Andrew Timming addresses the same subject in, “Visible tattoos in the service sector: a new challenge to recruitment and selection.” Timming’s article explains the prejudice hiring practices in the service industry. Hiring managers and owners are turning away extraordinarily skilled and eager young professionals for cosmetic reasons. It is time the corporate world has caught up with their own consumer’s attitudes and views. Countless studies are conducted in this area in an attempt to spark change in industries standard dress codes by presenting quantifiable data supporting the idea that body modification in any form is no longer perceived negatively.

Hiring managers are likely to discriminate against candidates who have visible tattoos and piercings. Timming’s article suggests that hiring managers prejudice towards tattoos and body modification play a significant part in the selection process. “Recruiters expressed varying levels of derision and distaste toward visible tattoos. Even the three hiring managers who admitted to being tattooed imputed negative behaviors onto visibly tattooed job candidates,” (Timming 68). “Body modification is considered mutable or alterable characteristic and does not receive any special legal protection. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has no prohibition on company policies that dictate aspects of employee appearance. Therefore, a general company policy that bans or limits tattoos or body piercing in a private corporation will be upheld, unless it is a violation of a constitutional right of an employee" (Elzweig). A change in hiring practices on views of body modifications may be a favorable option for the future of businesses survival if focused on candidate's demonstrated ability, potential, work ethic, and character rather than skin and body adornments. “A 2008 Harris Poll indicated that 32% of people aged 25 to 29 had a tattoo, 25% of those aged 30 to 39 had tattoos" (Elzweig). With these modifications on the rise in many age groups “in the future, this may indicate that employers will be less likely to discriminate on the basis of tattoos because more people with tattoos may be doing the hiring” (Elzweig). Elzweig’s study questioned those without tattoos on their views of the rebelliousness of tattooed people and their professionalism. Fifty-four percent in 2008 stated that a tattoo made a person more rebellious and thirty-two percent considered them to be more deviant. Those with tattoos who were polled on the other hand indicated that only twelve percent were likely to be deviant. “This data could suggest that as a greater percentage of the population has tattoos (and by inference piercings as well), they will be considered to be more acceptable to the general population” (Elzweig).