Body Art

Aaron Rodriguez

Watson

Am Lit

February 6, 2014

Body Art

  Visible body is a popular fashion and is accepted in pop culture. However this is a hindrance in the workplace and an employer should have the option to have the decision to not employ an applicant due to body art.  This creates a distraction and can create problems for a company who is looking to create a clean image for their business. This trend is however seen through much of the world.

Amy Judd says in her statement that facial piercings and tattoos are becoming more common. I agree with this statement. Body art is a fashion in the world that is trending and is all over the media. Many famous people have been a part of this trend and this has been a cause of its spread in society. Some examples of this are Lil Wayne and Mike Tyson. These people are seen as people who are “cool” and are enjoying their life. This has become an art that many people enjoy and accepted artistic form. Even though this is all true employers should have the right to not employ an applicant because of body art.

            Body art has definitely become a popular fad. However, this is a hindrance in the workplace and should be a reason for an employer not to hire a potential employee. This assumption that I have made is because an employee of a company is a representative of the company. If the employee is displeasing to another company executive and they are offended by their body art then this may be a deal breaker because this may give a perception that the company is dirty. This assumption will be often made because of the gap between ages of executives and new employees. Most executives are old and in their generation most of the people who had tattoos were in prison or in a gang. This may cause executives to question their security with this person because they don’t know the employees history. This causes a bad impression and the one that is in the meeting with this employee may be distracted and not  fully understand the proposition made by the employee. This can all be avoided by not employing a person with visible body art in the first place. The image of a person is possibly the most important part of a deal.  We use an image of someone as an assumption of their values. Body art projects an image of shadiness and makes others feel insecure about being around them. If someone walked into an interview in basketball shorts and a T-shirt and it was a suit and tie meeting I would think they were unprofessional. I also will not take them as serious. This is the same with body art. This can cause people to feel uncomfortable and can cause a deal to fall apart. This risk can be avoided by not employing the person with body art in the first place. Unemployment of an applicant with body art will not hurt a company and cause them to loose a valuable employee because the job market is a competitive field. There is someone out there who has the same skill set but looks clean and is acceptable in the workplace. This is what Judd is saying in her statement.         

            The statement made by Judd is controversial but I do agree with her. She is accurate when she says that body art is trending and is more common. She is also accurate when she says that because this is trending this doesn't mean it is acceptable in the workplace. Visible body art shows unprofessionalism and immaturity. Employers should have the right to not employ an applicant because of body art because it can be perceived in a bad way by others in the workplace. This will cause a company to loose business. In conclusion, visible body art should be a reason to not hire an applicant for a job.