Alarming News

June 27, 2007

A neck tattoo is called a “life-ruiner”

And with good reason:

His tattoos cover his right and left arms and hands. There is a spider in a web crawling up his neck.

“It goes back to Sir Walter Scott, ‘Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.’ It reminds me not to lie,” he explained.

On his left arm, the faces of old-school horror movies: Boris Karloff, Lon Cheny, Bela Legosi. Those were his father’s favorites. When the fingers of his right and left hands intertwine, it spells ‘Hound Dawg.’

“That’s my nickname,” the 29-year-old said proudly.

On the inside of his elbow the scripture, ‘If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out.’

Long story short, this inked up guy can’t find a job so he’s fighting the system and taking on the man. So far, though, no one cares about his discrimination claim:

But Russell’s trying to change that. He’s organized a small grassroots advocacy effort called ‘Tattoo’ with friends Shaun and Tiffany Blayer, local tattoo shop owners, and others to get change.

“I want it to be where people like me, good people who deserve the job and are qualified – more qualified in some cases – can get the job,” he said.

He’s tried the EEOC and the Department of Labor with no luck. Now he’s turning to local lawmakers

Of course, when asked if he would resist tattoing so many visible body parts if given a do-over, Russell said “I don’t regret any of ‘em. I wouldn’t go back and not get any. A person’s gotta be themselves.”

That’s true. Job-less and freakish, but themselves.

Posted by Karol at 03:23 AM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

People need to understand the consequences of their actions. If you are going to be out in the public, you are a representative of that firm. Somehow I cannot see a theme park hiring a guy that is painted up to help buckle kids into the Tea Cup ride.
By getting all the tatts, he has carved out a small niche of jobs that he will be accepted at. He should learn to be a tattoo artist, bartender, bouncer, or welder. Self employment is his best bet.
Curiously, the article does not mention any job skills or education he may have. He may have been turned down for employment because he cannot do the jobs.

Posted by: StB at June 27, 2007 at 8:54 am

With his sense of “entitlement”, there’s gotta be a place for him in the DNC somewhere.

Posted by: E@ at June 27, 2007 at 9:17 am

Love the neck tatoos, but a discrimination claim for such a life choice? Oh, common. That’s worse than a mail stripper filing a claim cause his willy is too small.
I’ve been resisting that strong desire for a Price Albert since 97′ in hopes that someday I’ll still get the chance to sleep my way to the top or somehow advance my non-sexual career with a stellar sexual performance. With such ambition, I have the sense not to get a prince albert. You’ve gotta be practical with your grooming/body-art choices people.

Posted by: toby at June 27, 2007 at 10:21 am

Toby didn’t know what a prince albert was so I googled it.
two words.
ewwww gross.

Posted by: PAUL at June 27, 2007 at 10:40 am

Great thing about America. You have the right to get tattoos all over your body. Employers have the right not to hire you. Two way street.

Posted by: Brennan at June 27, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Paul, if you really want to see gross look up ’shrimping’ in the urban dictionary and spend a couple hours looking around at stuff.
People, they do the craziest things. Makes the world great. Employers, with few exceptions, can hire and fire based on what they find professional. Makes the world great.

Posted by: Toby at June 27, 2007 at 12:57 pm

“with few exceptions”
I know that that is the case… but I’d be interested to see if people agree with the exceptions (protected classes).
Just putting it out there:
This guy chose to get tattoos… didn’t have to. But an employer can tell him that while he has the tattoos, they don’t want him as an employer.
What about a guy who chooses to engage in homosexuality? (not “chooses” to be gay… as I don’t wanna waste time in a made/choice debate… but actually doing homosexual stuff is a choice. Same with straights. I’m straight but acts of sex are still choice.)
What about someone who chooses to belong to a specific religion?
Does the employers “right” to choose who to hire have to be justified based on how the employer feels it will impact job performance?
(eg: is there any burden on the employer to draw a connection from the tattoos to how it will affect sales, etc?) Or is it solely the employers choice to make and nobody can second guess him?
And if it is solely the employer’s choice to make at whim – why can’t he also arbitrarily decide not to hire someone who chooses to do homosexual stuff or chooses to prqactice a specific religion?

Posted by: E2 at June 27, 2007 at 1:11 pm

E2,
I would submit that religion is a no-go as a deciding factor due to the 1st Amendment. However, the employer has a right to limit your ability to witness / proselytize on company time _provided they do this equally_.
The rest is open to interpretation, but tie goes to the employer. The employer has a right to his/her property, well-being, etc. as much as the _potential_ employee has to the right to have tats. If I own a law firm, I should not have to hire someone who has a swastika (or, for that matter, Star of David) tattooed on their forehead, even if I live in the most liberal city in the world. When one starts dictating what employers _have to do_ with their property (once again, excluding specific protections in the Constitution) you come dangerously close to socialism.
As to sexual orientation–well, quite frankly, I’m of the opinion that one should have no bearing in the hiring process. Why? Because that’s not something you should be discussing with your employer during the interview process. (”I’m seeing someone…”) Now, you want to bring suit because after the company Christmas party your boss belatedly realizes that “Sue” is the man from the country song (or that “Joe” is Josephine for the vice versa), that’s a different bailiwick and argument.
Bottom line, if it’s not specifically protected in the Constitution or US Code, i.e the matter is done by choice, I don’t think the potential employee should have a leg to stand on as the employer has a right to their property that _is_ specifically protected.

Posted by: James Young at June 27, 2007 at 2:18 pm

does 1st apply?
and if so, can’t this guy say that “freedom of expression” is also covered just like “freedom of religion”… or that tattoos are “speech” or “press”.
Course 1st amendment wasn’t intended to apply in these instances AT ALL, but its a HUGE uphill battle to try and convince people of this nowadays.

Posted by: E2 at June 27, 2007 at 2:24 pm

E2 – you call yourself a libertarian and then ask those questions?
The answer on all – yes.

Posted by: Tatyana at June 27, 2007 at 2:32 pm

the last question wasn’t yes or no.
Also, how does asking questions give you any information about me? Don’t assume that I don’t already know the answers.

Posted by: E2 at June 27, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Also I don’t see how answering “yes” to both of these makes any sense at all:
“(eg: is there any burden on the employer to draw a connection from the tattoos to how it will affect sales, etc?) Or is it solely the employers choice to make and nobody can second guess him?”

Posted by: E2 at June 27, 2007 at 2:49 pm

In a perfect world, employers can hire or not anyone depending solely on where that person would help their business. This would include any reasons at all. I don’t see why homosexual perversion should not be hold against a person if the employers think that an employee open practice of homosexual act would be bad for business. The same goes for religions, color, race and ethnicity.
If the employer make the decision base on his personal believed, and business do not suffered for it, then that is no ethical problem. If it hurt his business, that the employer have to decide how much his personal believed would cost him and whether he is will to pay it. Again ethical question solve.
This would not violate any constitutional rights. The Bill of Righ, prevent the government from make laws or take actions that would unreasonably infrince of religions, speech, press and customary legal protections. Employers are not the government, they are not bound by the Bill of Rights to respect any citizens’ believes, practices or morality.

Posted by: Anh at June 27, 2007 at 2:56 pm

I agree 100%.
Especially about the part about the Bill of Rights being directed against the GOVT.
I can choose to enter into a contract (for cash, or a job contract, or verbal contract) where in exchange for something, one of the things I give you is my word that I wont say certain stuff….
This isn’t a violation of my 1st amendment!!!! I freakin’ traded you that right… it was still mine and nobody forced it from me.

Posted by: E2 at June 27, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Okay, show me the part where _Congress_ is making the law abridging this expression? Oh, wait, they’re not–the employer is making a choice to safeguard his property / livelihood. Ergo, the 1st Amendment doesn’t really apply here.
To wit, the 1st Amendment just means the _government_ cannot curtail your right to express yourself. In other words, they can’t through you in jail for having “Death to the (insert minority group here)” tatooed on your forehead. Your employer, however, is free to set company policy that says said inscription is contrary to their mission (i.e., minority outreach)–ergo you can’t work there.
Speech _is_ free–but it doesn’t pay the rent.

Posted by: James Young at June 27, 2007 at 3:01 pm

lol… yeah James.. I agree with you.
I asked: “Does the 1st apply?” and I honestly meant it rhetorically…
I fully agree (as you see from the cross posts).
Its not a freakin 1st amendment issue.
So then why can religions use it!?? Honestly… if the NBA can say that the terms of their private group giving you an employment contract (that you can choose to accept or not) can specify that accepting a job there means you CAN NEVER disparage the officiating on or off the field… why can’t a law firm give you a similar contract saying that the terms are you can never attent a temple, on or off working hours?!?!?
Is there some burden on the law firm to “prove” that the restriction is somehow “job related”?
Or can the employer make any restriction that the potential employee can choose not to abide by with a simple solution: DON’T ACCEPT THE FREAKIN JOB!

Posted by: E2 at June 27, 2007 at 3:09 pm

If there are really freaky-looking people selling stuff in a retail environment, I usually don’t patronize the place.
Freaky=anti-society=anti-social=more likely to spit in my food or something.
That’s how I see it.
Closed-minded of me, yes, but not unreasonable. I’m sure a lot of folks think similarly as well, even if they haven’t thought it out.
As such, businesses would be foolish to hire these freaks.

Posted by: Sean at June 27, 2007 at 4:34 pm

He’s looking in the wrong places. Perhaps a job on the entertainment side of a carnival might suit him. Or the restaurant biz.

Posted by: Venomous Kate at June 27, 2007 at 5:09 pm

People fail to understand that fitting an image the company wants to project is part of being qualified for the job.

Posted by: Ed Z at June 27, 2007 at 8:46 pm

A Rebel Needs to Fit In Too

Ok Kids, let’s play the entitlement game.  Get tattoos all over you body and when nobody wants to hire you, start a advocacy group and…

Posted by: The Broken Chair at June 27, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Okay, whomever suggested I google Prince Albert is going to hear from my lawyer for mental cruelty! Aiiyeeeeee!!!

Posted by: James Young at June 28, 2007 at 8:05 am

I think my grandmother should sue the Los Angeles Lakers for not hiring her to be their starting center !

Posted by: BadBoyInASuit at June 28, 2007 at 11:48 am

This guy along with soooo many people of this generation, primarily the teens of the 90’s, is paying the price for all their tattoos. Look at how many young people in the 90’s got boldly tattood. He may not want to admit or even see his regret yet but in the future he will. Look at how many girls got those tattoos on their lower back. They thought it was so sexy. Now that tattoo is called the Tramp Stamp, lol. I bet there’s some regrets there, eh. The ‘if you don’t like what you see, don’t look’ attitude is really paying off for you guys now, eh. lol.

Posted by: EasTCaLi at July 10, 2007 at 8:31 pm

Hi, my i live in london and almost 21, im in my last year of university and was thinking of getin a written tattoo on my neck, not very big just the words “Colombian Till I Die”. i was doin research about tattos and came across this post, i was wondering if it could affect my job life, i dont have a job atm, but i want to get one when i finish university , so im not sure if it would really affect my employment side plz email me

Posted by: Jose David at August 6, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Post a comment