Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This needs to be said: Not hiring someone because they have tattoos is anti-progressive. [View all]Llewlladdwr
(2,175 posts)16. Were these the responses you expected?
Sorry, but given the choice between two equally qualified individuals I would chose the one without tats based on my belief that an individual with tattoos is generally less likely to work well in a team, follow precise instructions and follow company policies and rules than a person without tattoos. Not every position requires a free-spirited non-conformist.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This needs to be said: Not hiring someone because they have tattoos is anti-progressive. [View all]
Gravitycollapse
Oct 2013
OP
I'm sure this guy appreciates your endorsement of his "progressive" life choices.
Decoy of Fenris
Oct 2013
#12
No, they're criticizing the *reasons* that person didn't want to hire someone.
cui bono
Oct 2013
#33
If I know the employee smokes pot, it's because it got in the way of the job.
lumberjack_jeff
Oct 2013
#25