I too will be blunt. We are working class and not in the least bit ashamed of it. And as quickly as tats have become common place even the "professional class" will become ok with it.
Sorry.... the "professional class" isn't OK with it. There is even more conformity required within professional classes than within working class occupations. Tattoos are seen as a direct affront to conformity - that isn't a "good thing" for potential professionals or for those working in a support role to them.
In the time I've left Express, I've sat in on interviews for potential new-hire support staff and had to give evaluations of their responses to interview questions. In the post interview meetings, INVARIABLY, interviewees with visible tats were red-lined for the position.
In all honesty, those with tats didn't perform the best in the interview or didn't have the highest qualifications coming into the interview, so there wasn't a direct case of "tat discrimination". However, any visible tat on an interviewee was brought up in the post-interview meeting, and I can tell you, even if that candidate was in the "final two", they would've been non-selected solely on the basis of having a visible tat.
The class system is alive and well, no sense in trying to deny that. For those with goals of trying to move into a professional class position (or support positions in a professional setting), possessing a visible tat is a virtual "death sentence" as far as trying to get hired into one of these positions. People are judged by their appearance in these settings, having a visible tat is a "game ender" for most professional or support position interviews.
The company I work for goes as far as having interviewees remove any business jacket in order to "feel comfortable" during the interview (the company interviewers and evaluators are in shirt and tie with no jacket, the interviewee is instructed to remove their businees jacket and drape it over the chair they are going to sit on). We go so far as to turn up the heat in the room to 78 degrees, just to make the interviewee a bit uncomfortable. Any tats that become visible are IMMEDIATELY noted by everyone in the room, and in the vast majority of cases, results in a shortened interview (or an interview where in-depth evaluation of a person's interpersonal skills is cut short).
Interviews require that the prospective employee put their "best foot forward" within 30-45 minutes. The individual is assessed based on experience, educational background, interpersonal skills, appearance, ability to reason, ability to react to unexpected situations and general impression as to ability to fit into the corporate culture. Visible tattoos are a big negative when it comes to appearance and ability to fit into corporate culture.
If someone wants to move into a professional occupation or support role, they'd be best advised to NOT have any visible tats - cold, hard truth.
