Army's new tattoo policy

[Aquitaine]

If you want to discuss the Army's new restrictions on tattoos, I'm game.

If you want to bash the military, you can talk to yourself.

Obviously those individuals are not representative of the entire USM. What I'm trying to highlight is that, outside of the USA, people see stuff like this as far more important than some ink stains on soldier's limbs.

This is about "improving the image of the US Military overseas" right? I'm not bashing the military for the actions of those few individuals, what I'm saying is if you think tattoos are going to be important, then you're in for a surprise.

Behavior is far more important than tattoos. The only tattoos that should be considered are gang tattoos, in my opinion, because it shows loyalty to a gang.

 

[Koldo]

First, people don't have to be "without tattoos"; they have to be tattoos free in areas visible while in uniform.
And I'm not sure where lowing anything came in?

We are talking about tattoos on visible areas, so i don't need to repeat myself on that part over and over, do i?

Either way, they aren't separated issues; collectively they make up the entrance requirements for the US Army, and a potential recruit must meet all of them.

What you have to understand is that the military is an all-or-nothing outfit. It sets out requirements that cover just about everything: height, weight, grooming, intelligence, mental stability, physical fitness, criminal history, contact with certain classification of foreigners, etc. If you want in, you meet all of the requirements.

It isn't anything like a civilian job; you literally become a government asset while in service and can (and sometimes are) treated like their property. And I admit that many of the restrictions seem ridiculous to people who have never served; we advocate individualism and free expression in just about everything in the civilian world. But military service is about conformity, cohesion, and following orders; you have to fit the mold, so to speak, or you're cut.

But what is the purpose of this given mold?
This is what is coming into debate.

Are you willing to argument that people without tattoos in visible areas make up for better soldiers? Because if you are not, then how can you defend this mold over another one?

 

[Falvlun]

Not just looking neat and professional.

You can still look neat and professional with a visible tattoo. It really depends on the tattoo.

My employer thinks differently. We must cover visible tattoos. We are also only allowed up to 2 piercings in our ears.

That's right.
However, there is a large difference between employment done by the government and the ones done by private businesses.

I don't see what the relevant difference in this particular case is.

Your argument is that tattoos are not relevant to a person's ability to do the job that needs to get done. This is just as true of civilian jobs as it is of military jobs.

Seeing as it's a common requirement in civilian jobs, then I see no reason to get your underwear in a bunch when it's extended to military ones.

 

[Tarheeler]

We are talking about tattoos on visible areas, so i don't need to repeat myself on that part over and over, do i?

Sorry, amigo. You switched the language, and I questioned it. It's not a big thing either way now that you've clarified. And there's a big difference between no tattoos in visible areas and no tattoos at all.

But what is the purpose of this given mold?
This is what is coming into debate.

Are you willing to argument that people without tattoos in visible areas make up for better soldiers? Because if you are not, then how can you defend this mold over another one?

The reason for the mold is to produce the soldier the Army wants. Plain and simple. It's the same reason any company uses a QC inspector to make sure they produce exactly what they want. Soldiers, when you get down to it, are tools. And, like every other tool, it must meet the criteria set for it. In this situation, the Army has decided it wants it new tools to have clean arms.

As for the mold, I'm not defending it. Personally, I think the regulation is fairly silly. But I also know that the military works much differently than the civilian world, and it is that difference that I am trying to explain. You, me, and the 90% of the rest of the population might see this as a ridiculous regulation, but the military sees merit in it and I can understand their reasoning behind it.

I may not agree with it, but I can understand it.

 

[Koldo]

My employer thinks differently. We must cover visible tattoos. We are also only allowed up to 2 piercings in our ears.

I don't see what the relevant difference in this particular case is.

Your argument is that tattoos are not relevant to a person's ability to do the job that needs to get done. This is just as true of civilian jobs as it is of military jobs.

Seeing as it's a common requirement in civilian jobs, then I see no reason to get your underwear in a bunch when it's extended to military ones.

Typical employers are allowed to hire and fire their employees using nearly any paramater they desire. These are private matters.

However, when the government decides to create arbitrary parameters to hire their employees then it becomes an endorsement to this attitude.

Imagine how problematic it would be if the army suddenly decided to deny all applications made by blond people, just to cite an example.

It is worth of note that arbitrary parameters are no less arbitrary when they become common.

 

[Koldo]

The reason for the mold is to produce the soldier the Army wants. Plain and simple. It's the same reason any company uses a QC inspector to make sure they produce exactly what they want. Soldiers, when you get down to it, are tools. And, like every other tool, it must meet the criteria set for it. In this situation, the Army has decided it wants it new tools to have clean arms.

As for the mold, I'm not defending it. Personally, I think the regulation is fairly silly. But I also know that the military works much differently than the civilian world, and it is that difference that I am trying to explain. You, me, and the 90% of the rest of the population might see this as a ridiculous regulation, but the military sees merit in it and I can understand their reasoning behind it.

I may not agree with it, but I can understand it.

This means that it wants a soldier with no visible tattoos.
That's all. You speak as if there was something extra related to tattoos.
We are way past the time when only gang members and rebels had one of these.

 

[Tarheeler]

This means that it wants a soldier with no visible tattoos.
That's all. You speak as if there was something extra related to tattoos.
We are way past the time when only gang members and rebels had one of these.

No, nothing extra. The Army doesn't want visible tattoos on its soldiers, and I've been over the reasons behind it.

Besides, gang tattoos have been no-no's in the Army for a very long time.

 

[Koldo]

No, nothing extra. The Army doesn't want visible tattoos on its soldiers, and I've been over the reasons behind it.

Besides, gang tattoos have been no-no's in the Army for a very long time.

I must have missed it somewhere then. Because all i remember you saying is that the reason behind this criterion is because... just because.

 

[esmith]

I will try and give you a couple of examples of why grooming( which includes tattoos), military bearing, manners, and intelligence is important in today's military. Prior to and during WWII enlisted personnel were basically seen as crude, unintelligent, and a few other unflattering terms, this attitude continued for a few years and slowly changed. In 1966 I was waiting for my next command to return to port in the Philippines so that I could report aboard. A group of us were told to report to a building, upon arriving we were individually talked to and basically screened. I along with a few other enlisted sailors were told that we were being assigned to special duty. We were given a cash allotment and told to purchase presentable civilian cloths. We were then taken to Manila and each given individual rooms at one of the finer hotels. We were to be assigned as liaison for transportation of reporters, officials, and other dignitaries attending the Manila Conference. President Johnson was also attending the conference. During this period of time I and the others were direct representatives of the US and I would say that most of the people we interacted with knew we were members of the US military. Jump forward about 12 years, we were in Papua New Guinea. The ships officers and senior enlisted were invited to attend an informal luncheon, in uniform, hosted by the US Ambassador to New Guinea. Needless to say we were representing our country, and the US Navy. Appearance was only one of many attributes that we had to present. During my military career I had other opportunities to attend other events of this nature. Now I am not saying that tattoos mark you as uncouth or not presentable in society; However, your appearance and overall military bearing definitely reflects on your country, your service, and yourself. Look at those that are walking post at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. What would the opinion be of visitors that saw one of these guards with a visible tattoo?

 

[Tarheeler]

I must have missed it somewhere then. Because all i remember you saying is that the reason behind this criterion is because... just because.

Yep, then I guess you missed it.

 

[Koldo]

I will try and give you a couple of examples of why grooming( which includes tattoos), military bearing, manners, and intelligence is important in today's military. Prior to and during WWII enlisted personnel were basically seen as crude, unintelligent, and a few other unflattering terms, this attitude continued for a few years and slowly changed. In 1966 I was waiting for my next command to return to port in the Philippines so that I could report aboard. A group of us were told to report to a building, upon arriving we were individually talked to and basically screened. I along with a few other enlisted sailors were told that we were being assigned to special duty. We were given a cash allotment and told to purchase presentable civilian cloths. We were then taken to Manila and each given individual rooms at one of the finer hotels. We were to be assigned as liaison for transportation of reporters, officials, and other dignitaries attending the Manila Conference. President Johnson was also attending the conference. During this period of time I and the others were direct representatives of the US and I would say that most of the people we interacted with knew we were members of the US military. Jump forward about 12 years, we were in Papua New Guinea. The ships officers and senior enlisted were invited to attend an informal luncheon, in uniform, hosted by the US Ambassador to New Guinea. Needless to say we were representing our country, and the US Navy. Appearance was only one of many attributes that we had to present. During my military career I had other opportunities to attend other events of this nature. Now I am not saying that tattoos mark you as uncouth or not presentable in society; However, your appearance and overall military bearing definitely reflects on your country, your service, and yourself. Look at those that are walking post at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. What would the be the opinion of visitors that saw one of these guards with a visible tattoo?

It has been said already on this topic.

The US government needs to worry a lot less about how their soldiers look like and a lot more on how they, and the military as a whole, behave.

Most of us couldn't care less if the US soldiers had tattoos all over their bodies.

 

[Koldo]

Yep, then I guess you missed it.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My employer thinks differently. We must cover visible tattoos. We are also only allowed up to 2 piercings in our ears.


I don't see what the relevant difference in this particular case is.

Your argument is that tattoos are not relevant to a person's ability to do the job that needs to get done. This is just as true of civilian jobs as it is of military jobs.

Seeing as it's a common requirement in civilian jobs, then I see no reason to get your underwear in a bunch when it's extended to military ones.

This might be a cultural difference between the US and other places.

The strictest dress code I ever had was at the place where I had to wear a tie. One prospective employer I applied to for a summer job as a university student had a "no facial hair" policy - this was so different from other employers that I was taken aback.

Overall, my feeling is that when it comes to matters of conscience, employers should allow the employees freedom unless there's a very compelling reason not to. I would include tattoos in this: after all, most people don't permanent mark themselves unless it's something they feel very strongly about.

I think the personal importance that people place on their tattoo should be respected by employers... and since it takes zero effort on the part of the employer to accommodate it, except for very extreme cases (e.g. particularly offensive tattoos, gang symbols, etc.), they should be allowed.

... and I'm not sure the fact that the disrespect for employees you describe is common in the private sector should make it okay for the public sector to do it, too.

 

[esmith]

It has been said already on this topic.

The US government needs to worry a lot less about how their soldiers look like and a lot more on how they, and the military as a whole, behave.

Most of us couldn't care less if the US soldiers had tattoos all over their bodies.

The key word here is "most". There are those that may have a different opinion than you do and a "generic" appearance is sometimes called for. I also agree with your statement "as a whole, behave". Have you ever heard the term "Ugly American". If not, it does not mean the personal appearance, it is the behavior. I don't know how many times I have been in a foreign country and the most outlandish behavior are those of civilians. In the most part military members, at least during my period of service, tried to respect the people and customs of our host country. Yes, I have seen some military members that were "Ugly Americans" but if they were junior to me in rank I always corrected them. That is one thing about the military, if you are given a "suggestion" by someone senior to you, you had better damn well obey the "suggestion" or suffer the consequences.

 

[esmith]

This might be a cultural difference between the US and other places.

The strictest dress code I ever had was at the place where I had to wear a tie. One prospective employer I applied to for a summer job as a university student had a "no facial hair" policy - this was so different from other employers that I was taken aback.

Overall, my feeling is that when it comes to matters of conscience, employers should allow the employees freedom unless there's a very compelling reason not to. I would include tattoos in this: after all, most people don't permanent mark themselves unless it's something they feel very strongly about.

I think the personal importance that people place on their tattoo should be respected by employers... and since it takes zero effort on the part of the employer to accommodate it, except for very extreme cases (e.g. particularly offensive tattoos, gang symbols, etc.), they should be allowed.

... and I'm not sure the fact that the disrespect for employees you describe is common in the private sector should make it okay for the public sector to do it, too.

You say tattoos should be respected by employers since it may be of a personal importance to that person, how about the personal importance of the employer who has a "dress code". Or is it that you may be one of those that only cares about themselves and could care less about what others think. If you were working for me with this type of attitude you would be looking for a different job.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You say tattoos should be respected by employers since it may be of a personal importance to that person, how about the personal importance of the employer who has a "dress code".

If there are legitimate business reasons to have a dress code, fine. If there aren't, then it's not fine. Employers don't own their employees.

Or is it that you may be one of those that only cares about themselves and could care less about what others think. If you were working for me with this type of attitude you would be looking for a different job.

What makes you think I would've applied to work for you in the first place? I do my best to avoid working for employers who don't respect their employees.

 

[averageJOE]

This is about "improving the image of the US Military overseas" right?

No it's not. This policy has absolutely nothing to do with their image overseas. Where did that come from?

 

[esmith]

If there are legitimate business reasons to have a dress code, fine. If there aren't, then it's not fine. Employers don't own their employees.


What makes you think I would've applied to work for you in the first place? I do my best to avoid working for employers who don't respect their employees.

Aw, now I see, you want the employer to respect the employee but do care if the employee doesn't respect the employer. You do realize don't you that there has to be mutual respect? I as an employer can set a dress code, if you do not wish to adhere to that dress code then maybe, no you should look for another place to work.

 

[averageJOE]

I'm for anything that could potentially reduce the number of god-awful tattoos I have to see on clueless people who hire talentless tattoo artists. The popularity of tattoos has far outpaced the supply of decent tattoo artists, and the results of this are clearly visible on all the unfortunate people who proudly display their highly visible aesthetic disasters on their limbs, faces, and necks. It's a good time to invest in tattoo removal technologies.

This post I agree with!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aw, now I see, you want the employer to respect the employee but do care if the employee doesn't respect the employer.

On the contrary. I have great respect for my employer.

You do realize don't you that there has to be mutual respect? I as an employer can set a dress code, if you do not wish to adhere to that dress code then maybe, no you should look for another place to work.

As I said earlier, if there's a legitimate business reason for the dress code, fine. Otherwise, it's an arbitrary restriction on the worker and "mutual respect" is not present, since the employer is not showing respect for the employee.