Oh goody, EA hasn’t had a face-tattoo post for a while. I think we can make short work of this one.
That’s Ash Putnam above, a Tik Toker who’s “annoyed” because she applied for a job with the discount retailer and was told via email saying had been rejected. She strongly suspects it might have been her tattoos and body piercings that ruled her out.
Gee, what would make her think that?
Ash just doesn’t understand why that would be the case. Some of the most “intelligent people” she’s ever met, she told the New York Post, were covered in “tattoos and piercings.” Everything is relative, however: I’d suggest that Ash needs to hang out with a smarter crowd. “I just feel like this is something that needs to be talked about,” Ash says. “It’s so annoying.”
Sure, dear, I’ll talk about it. You can mutilate and decorate yourself any way you like, but such choices have consequences. I, for example, would question your maturity, common sense and judgment. Such impulsive conduct without consideration of how it might affect future relationships, professional and otherwise, strongly suggests rampant narcissism, and—-how should I put this?—cognitive impairment. T.J. Maxx has a decidedly conventional, middle-America market: no manager in his or her right mind would put someone with Satanic tats on her neck in a position involving contact with customers.
Discriminating against someone’s appearance when there is little he or she can do about is pure bias and needs to be controlled. Making reasonable judgments about someone’s character, stability and trustworthiness based on how they choose to present themselves is a different matter. I suspect that this distinction is among the myriad facts of life that Ash has yet to grasp.
I suspect that Ash will have problems finding work for the foreseeable future, unless she’s willing to work in carnivals or for a Ripley’s Believe it or Not! museum. I, meanwhile, don’t think people who deliberately render themselves unemployable should receive taxpayer-funded unemployment and welfare benefits. Why should I have to pay for the consequences of Ash’s idiocy? If she blinded herself on a whim or cut her thumbs off because it seemed like a good idea at the time, my reaction would be the same.
It’s annoying, all right.
Ethics Alarms 
It took me three or four separate looks at that photo to realize Ms. Putnam’s hair was two different colors. Distracted?…I guess so. She should apply at a Walgreens or CVS. She could really drive up business by standing outside and making people sick.
That’s probably a bit harsh, but I’m just writing what I’m sure others are thinking.
…and what’s tragic – at least in my mind – is…take away all the ink and all the metal and she’s a beautiful young woman. Why she decided to do this to herself is a great mystery.
^^^ +1
Joel wonders: “Why she decided to do this to herself is a great mystery.”
Her body blemishes, err, decorations. are a protest against the Patriarchy.
See, not so mysterious after all.
It has been observed many times that the left hates beauty.
If Putnam is able to obtain an audio recording or email with the manager stating her rejection was based on her body decorations, does that make TJ Maxx vulnerable to a viable discrimination lawsuit?
Jack, or anyone else.
If no tats/piercings and only the dyed hair remaining; would you hire her if otherwise qualified?
A discrimination suit would suggest that body decorations are considered a protected class, like gender. That doesn’t sound right to me, but I’ve been wrong a few (million) times in my life, so…
Minus the artwork (and with the hair), I would hire her if she was qualified to do the job.
Body piercings are like permanent clothing. If she had no piercings, but came to a job interview with a ‘Fuck the police’ T-shirt, a ‘White People Suck’ hat, and pants that said ‘Embrace Satan’ on them, would you hire her? She has decided to permanently do that to herself.
I remember a ‘tattoo guide’ from years ago. It said
Ankle tattoo of butterflies or unicorns – she thinks she is ‘edgy’
When it got to throat tattoos, it said “only employable at tattoo parlors, vape shops, and carnivals’
Facial tattoos- ‘Will never have a job that pays taxes’.
Facial tattoos- ‘Will never have a job that pays taxes.
Unless you’re Mike Tyson.
Putnam could instead be carrying around a sign that reads “LOOK AT ME” which can be layed aside when necessary, and now she is trying to extend her 15mins by going on TIKTOK requesting feedback. She seems nice. It’s her body and she can decorate it however she wants, but how does one not anticipate issues with employment? I would love the opportunity to discuss her thought process around it all to see what’s up.
When I worked for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, my boss told me to shave my full beard off using exactly the same argument, that it was the equivalent of a “Look at Me!” sign. I must say it was a damn fine beard, and Grace loved it, but I only grew it because I hatehatehate shaving.
Of course, there weren’t four Presidents with face or neck tattoos….
The only tattoos that have “protected status” are those that are religious requirements of a “sincerely held” religious belief. Employers may also require that tattoos be covered in the work environment. I am sure that there are platoons of progressive lawyers working feverishly to get Title VII protection for people like Ms. Putnam.
I dealt with this issue among law enforcement applicants (and some already employed) in the last decade of my career. We allowed no facial or neck tattoos, and arm tattoos required wearing a long-sleeved shirt year-round. Agencies desperate to fill vacancies have begun to relax those standards; now I regularly see officers – male and female- with heavily tattooed arms poking out of short sleeves. I’m sure facial tattoos and piercings are soon to follow.It is still very off-putting for me to see full-length tattoo “sleeves” on uniformed law enforcement officers, but I come from a time when only combat veterans and former prison inmates had extensive tattoos.
This situation will eventually lead to all who are confronted such individuals in the course of us living out our lives.
Of course I would attempt to interact with said person in a dignified manner, but does the triggering effect of such appearance permit me to request another service person. or would it be unethical for me to ask for another service person to assist me or wait on me in a restaurant?