Army's new tattoo policy

[esmith]

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.

There doesn't have to be a legitimate business reason for an employer to set what they consider acceptable appearance for their employees. When you apply for a position at a business they will inform you if there is a dress code. If you do not wish to comply with that dress code you do not have to accept the position; However, if you do accept the position, then you are expected to conform to that dress code, if not you are subject to dismissal. Do you not agree?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There doesn't have to be a legitimate business reason for an employer to set what they consider acceptable appearance for their employees. When you apply for a position at a business they will inform you if there is a dress code. If you do not wish to comply with that dress code you do not have to accept the position; However, if you do accept the position, then you are expected to conform to that dress code, if not you are subject to dismissal. Do you not agree?

No, I don't agree. IMO, the only demands that an employer should put on an employee are work-related requirements. As I said earlier, the employer doesn't own the employee; they've only contracted for the employee's labour. If some job requirement is legitimately related to that labour, or to the wider legitimate needs of the business, then it's fine to impose them on the employee. Otherwise, it's inappropriate.

 

[Aquitaine]

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

Forgive me, I was under the impression that's what Tarheeler was suggesting:

I'd say that's the gist of it. They've been trying to reign in the image of the tattooed soldiers and Marines wreaking havoc in the local bars for years. Soldiers serve as the face of military, and often the US government by extension, both at home and oversees. They're trying to get the military in line with the image they want to put forward.

 

[Aquitaine]

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.

Just for the sake of interest, did you ever watch that Gangland episode about gangsters in the US military? If I remember correctly, it wasn't a major problem but I do remember a former White Supremacist in the episode coming forward and talking about how the Army relaxed it's gang-tattoo standards as they needed more manpower for the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations.

Check it out if you're interested, dunno how accurate it is but it was interesting to say the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYuSgG9lQc0

..... And no, this isn't some attempt to bash the military, I was just reminded of it in this thread.

 

[Skwim]

There doesn't have to be a legitimate business reason for an employer to set what they consider acceptable appearance for their employees. When you apply for a position at a business they will inform you if there is a dress code. If you do not wish to comply with that dress code you do not have to accept the position; However, if you do accept the position, then you are expected to conform to that dress code, if not you are subject to dismissal.

Couldn't be put much plainer.

Corporate culture often dictates that male employees wear a suit and tie to work. Don't want to wear either? Then don't go looking for work there.

Hooters requires its female wait staff to wear orange shorts and a revealing T-top. Don't care to show off your assets or lack thereof? Then don't apply at Hooters.

Are you a female lawyer who wants to try a case in Murfeesboro, Tenn in front of Circuit Judge Royce Taylor? Then you had better know how he expects you to dress.
source

Think you'd like to work with customers at Swiss bank UBS AG? Then you'd better get a hold of its "43-page code dispensing advice on how to impress customers with a polished appearance."
source

Thing is, just as a person is under no obligation to take a job, an employer is under no obligation to accept one's choice of presentation. They can make any rules of employment they want, as long as they don't break the law.

No, I don't agree. IMO, the only demands that an employer should put on an employee are work-related requirements.

That may be, but it's not how the real world operates. Don't like it, then it's best not to apply for those jobs that require you to change.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Couldn't be put much plainer.

Corporate culture often dictates that male employees wear a suit and tie to work. Don't want to wear either? Then don't go looking for work there.

Hooters requires its female wait staff to wear orange shorts and a revealing T-top. Don't care to show off your assets or lack thereof? Then don't apply at Hooters.

That's not how the law works everywhere. Here, for instance, this is the rule:

An employer should be prepared to prove that any sex-linked differences in the dress code are bona fide occupational requirements. Do not subject female employees to more difficult requirements than male employees, and do not expect them to dress provocatively to attract clients. It is discrimination based on sex to require female employees to wear high heels, short skirts and tight tops.

7. Pay, benefits, dress codes and other issues | Ontario Human Rights Commission

We do have Hooters here, but I'm not sure how they abide by the law.

Actually, seeing how many Hooters around here have closed recently, maybe they didn't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That may be, but it's not how the real world operates. Don't like it, then it's best not to apply for those jobs that require you to change.

That's how the part of the real world I live in operates. It's also how it works in most places where the law respects the rights of workers (i.e. not most of the US).

 

[Skwim]

That's how the part of the real world I live in operates. It's also how it works in most places where the law respects the rights of workers (i.e. not most of the US).

I know you're implying that most of the world has laws of employment and dress code substantially unlike that of the USA, but I'd have to see the evidence to agree.

 

[Koldo]

Let's be fair though.
We are not talking about a dress code.

 

[Skwim]

Let's be fair though.
We are not talking about a dress code.

No, but we are talking about how one chooses to appear and whether or not an employer is justified in using it as a criterion for hiring.

 

[Koldo]

No, but we are talking about how one chooses to appear and whether or not an employer is justified in using it as a criterion for hiring.

That's correct. In a way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, but we are talking about how one chooses to appear and whether or not an employer is justified in using it as a criterion for hiring.

And I think it's worth pointing out that even when it's legal, "it's legal" is not the same as "it's justified".

 

[esmith]

Let's be fair though.
We are not talking about a dress code.

If you are saying that tattoos are not part of the US military dress code then you are mistaken. As far as the US military is concerned dress code addresses clothing, facial hair, hair, adornments (which include items such as jewelry and tattoos) If you like you can download the following PDF file for the Army
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=sdGEHAXMe3XuNBKm2L8Fgw&bvm=bv.53371865,d.cGE

US Navy
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=x7VvXFBZhZepXdS3OBPLCA&bvm=bv.53371865,d.cGE

USMC
http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/si...m regs chapters/chapter 1_files/chapter 1.asp

USAF
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=CgBxMxCOleZvuyBPrMyo-w&bvm=bv.53371865,d.cGE

 

[Koldo]

If you are saying that tattoos are not part of the US military dress code then you are mistaken. As far as the US military is concerned dress code addresses clothing, facial hair, hair, adornments (which include items such as jewelry and tattoos) If you like you can download the following PDF file for the Army
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=sdGEHAXMe3XuNBKm2L8Fgw&bvm=bv.53371865,d.cGE

US Navy
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=x7VvXFBZhZepXdS3OBPLCA&bvm=bv.53371865,d.cGE

USMC
http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/si...m regs chapters/chapter 1_files/chapter 1.asp

USAF
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=CgBxMxCOleZvuyBPrMyo-w&bvm=bv.53371865,d.cGE

According to the first link:

(5) Existing tattoos or brands on the hands that are not extremist, indecent, sexist, or racist, but are visible in the
class A uniform (worn with slacks/trousers), are authorized.

Although it must be said regardless that it is rather silly to include ( permanent ) tattoos on a document titled 'Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia'. Go figure.

 

[esmith]

According to the first link:

(5) Existing tattoos or brands on the hands that are not extremist, indecent, sexist, or racist, but are visible in the
class A uniform (worn with slacks/trousers), are authorized.

Although it must be said regardless that it is rather silly to include ( permanent ) tattoos on a document titled 'Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia'. Go figure.

I point you to the following article to clarify the new standards for the Army

Soldiers told new rules governing tattoos, grooming standards on the way - Army - Stripes

Why do you think it is silly to mandate what is acceptable and not acceptable in the document referenced. That document sets forth regulations for the personal appearance of all members of the Army. Obviously you have never served in the military and have no understanding of the military. You may not like it, but if you ever are governed by it you will comply. Enough said.

 

[Koldo]

I point you to the following article to clarify the new standards for the Army

Soldiers told new rules governing tattoos, grooming standards on the way - Army - Stripes

Why do you think it is silly to mandate what is acceptable and not acceptable in the document referenced. That document sets forth regulations for the personal appearance of all members of the Army. Obviously you have never served in the military and have no understanding of the military. You may not like it, but if you ever are governed by it you will comply. Enough said.

Read the title of the document. Seriously.

 

[esmith]

Read the title of the document. Seriously.

what point of the article do you not find germaine to the original topic being addressed?

 

[Koldo]

what point of the article do you not find germaine to the original topic being addressed?

I don't comprehend what you meant to ask here.

 

[averageJOE]

Read the title of the document. Seriously.

It all falls under the AR 670-1.

 

[averageJOE]

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

The reason is because the Army is in a position to be as picky as it wants to be about who can join. As well as who stays in.
US Army To Cut 80,000 Soldiers By 2017, Scrap $400 Million Worth Construction Projects In Massive Restructuring Plan Due To Federal Budget Restraints

Also, the Army didn't just create this policy. It's an old policy that they are going to start to enforce. So in the threads title the word "new" is technically incorrect.