Tattoo Policy

[bellesotico]

Its a no tats policy in my building for drivers, but I'm thinking there is a double standard.
One of the air drivers I work with cannot wear shorts because of his tats, but a female air driver has a large visible tattoo running up her calf and she wears shorts without a problem.

[UpstateNYUPSer]

All of this talk about tattoos and the policy, whether written or unwritten, regarding visibility reminds of the movie "An Officer and a Gentleman", in which Richard Gere arrived at pilot training school with a bandage on his bicep to cover up a large tattoo.

I am not sure as to which approach I would favor--allow those with visible tattoos to simply continue what they were doing or ask them to cover them up which would simply draw attention to that which they were trying to avoid having attention drawn to.

I am not a tattoo person but would not impose my beliefs on anyone else (at least on this issue). I would simply advise that these tattoos not be visible or in any way limit that person if they were to seek employment in a professional setting. My daughter has several and I simply advised her to make sure that they would not impact her in her career goals as she hopes to be a teacher some day.

[New Englander]

Originally Posted by UpstateNYUPSer

All of this talk about tattoos and the policy, whether written or unwritten, regarding visibility reminds of the movie "An Officer and a Gentleman", in which Richard Gere arrived at pilot training school with a bandage on his bicep to cover up a large tattoo.

I am not sure as to which approach I would favor--allow those with visible tattoos to simply continue what they were doing or ask them to cover them up which would simply draw attention to that which they were trying to avoid having attention drawn to.

I am not a tattoo person but would not impose my beliefs on anyone else (at least on this issue). I would simply advise that these tattoos not be visible or in any way limit that person if they were to seek employment in a professional setting. My daughter has several and I simply advised her to make sure that they would not impact her in her career goals as she hopes to be a teacher some day.

The problem lies in that who is going to decide what is deemed presentable and what crosses the line?

You can't. so if UPS is going to enforce this - it's got to be none showing for everyone.

[UpstateNYUPSer]

Originally Posted by New Englander

The problem lies in that who is going to decide what is deemed presentable and what crosses the line?

You can't. so if UPS is going to enforce this - it's got to be none showing for everyone.

The problem with that is the one that Trpl brought up, that is, is it fair to those who were hired with visible tats to now be asked to hide them? They could solve that with a grandfather clause but then how would you determine who was allowed and who would not be allowed.

There needs to be a written policy in place which then needs to be distributed to all employees with the standards and enforcement policy clearly spelled out.

[New Englander]

Originally Posted by UpstateNYUPSer

The problem with that is the one that Trpl brought up, that is, is it fair to those who were hired with visible tats to now be asked to hide them? They could solve that with a grandfather clause but then how would you determine who was allowed and who would not be allowed.

There needs to be a written policy in place which then needs to be distributed to all employees with the standards and enforcement policy clearly spelled out.

I exactly agree with the policy printed and handed out. Obviously some leeway needs to be given to those who have been working as is for quite sometime now with no problems.

They will need to tell people though that at some certain date......it's in full effect.

[wadep]

No need for policy, there's law. In Canada it's the Freedom of Expression in the charter of rights. Inthe U.S. of A it's the freedom of rights in the constitution.

[drewed]

Originally Posted by wadep

No need for policy, there's law. In Canada it's the Freedom of Expression in the charter of rights. Inthe U.S. of A it's the freedom of rights in the constitution.

'
Wow, I wish I could be sooooo ASSuming, you could assume that if you were required to work at UPS, youre not, so in the USA its what UPS says goes

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by drewed

'
Wow, I wish I could be sooooo ASSuming, you could assume that if you were required to work at UPS, youre not, so in the USA its what UPS says goes

I'm pretty sure even UPS can not trump The Constitution of the United States. The biggest problem with that defense would be in getting the USSC to hear the case and the expenses of fighting the issue that far.

[dannyboy]

You guys are not listening very well. The right of the employer to set standards for the employees to meet has been upheld by the supreme court. Many times. So sue away, you have lost before you pay your first dime.

They have the right to set standards, and you have the right not to work there. Working there is an option, not a right.

You can express yourself all you want in your personal life, but at work, you must conform or they dont have to hire/work you.

d

[New Englander]

Some people will never understand that, no matter how hard you try.

[dilligaf]

Originally Posted by New Englander

I exactly agree with the policy printed and handed out. Obviously some leeway needs to be given to those who have been working as is for quite sometime now with no problems.

They will need to tell people though that at some certain date......it's in full effect.

The problem with this is, once put into effect (again), eventually somewhere it will not be enforced and the company will be right back to where they are right now. It does no good to put a policy into place and then not enforce. We have many of those now, including our contract.

[bellesotico]

Originally Posted by dannyboy

You guys are not listening very well. The right of the employer to set standards for the employees to meet has been upheld by the supreme court. Many times. So sue away, you have lost before you pay your first dime.

They have the right to set standards, and you have the right not to work there. Working there is an option, not a right.

You can express yourself all you want in your personal life, but at work, you must conform or they dont have to hire/work you.

d

I was going to say the same thing.

Regardless, tattoos are not a protected form of speech, therefore they are not covered by the Constitution.

[dannyboy]

protected form of speech

So answer me this, is using foul language a protected form of speech?

Try it in front of a customer with kids and see how long your job lasts. Or at a school.

You can live your life as you see fit. That is your constitutional right. But UPS also has a constitutionally protected right to dictate how you will appear and act in dealing with our customers.

d

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by dannyboy

So answer me this, is using foul language a protected form of speech?

Try it in front of a customer with kids and see how long your job lasts. Or at a school.

You can live your life as you see fit. That is your constitutional right. But UPS also has a constitutionally protected right to dictate how you will appear and act in dealing with our customers.

d

Just curious , where is that right protected?

[UPS Lifer]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

Just curious , where is that right protected?

I will give you a link to the online version of the Constitution. I actually perused it for awhile. It then dawned on me about the timing!

This quote came from a section that interprets the language.
Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press

The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too). There are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and is suppressed. For example, freedom of speech can be and often is restricted in a work place, for example: employers can restrict your right to speak in the work place about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about Desperate Housewives. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments. For another example, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press. No newsstand, however, must carry every paper against its owners' wishes.
Thanks to Dave Pullin for the idea.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#exp

Whether you want to believe it or not ... this should settle this ongoing battle.

Employees don't have the right to express themselves any way they see fit and seek the protection of the 1st Amendment.

You do have the right to start your own business and compete with UPS and have Tattoos coming out your yin-yang! No offense! After all, I am just expressing my freedom of speech as long as Cheryl lets me! This is her website and her rules!

[dannyboy]

By several rulings made by the supreme court.

BTW,

No need for policy, there's law. In Canada it's the Freedom of Expression in the charter of rights. Inthe U.S. of A it's the freedom of rights in the constitution.

I'm pretty sure even UPS can not trump The Constitution of the United States. The biggest problem with that defense would be in getting the USSC to hear the case and the expenses of fighting the issue that far.

This reminds me of a discussion I had a while back. Involved a two year old that could not understand that "no, hot" was not a suggestion, but a warning that would save the two year old some painful experiences.

So what do you do? I guess let them find out the hard way?

d

[UPS Lifer]

As for this "retro" policy thing.... i.e. allowing those folks who think they were hired under the "it's OK to have a tattoo showing" policy or lack of one; those folks should not have any special allowances for tattoos. A reasonable accommodation should be made for any employee. Cover it up! Wear a flesh colored bandage or long pants and a long sleeve shirt... or a combination.

Don't forget the summertime - you won't die if you wear a long sleeve shirt. The shirt & pants actually protect you from the harmful affects of the sun and heat.

OH! Shame on those management folks who don't know how (or are too afraid of confrontation) to enforce the policy equally. Treat all your employees the same if you expect to get any respect!

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by UPS Lifer

As for this "retro" policy thing.... i.e. allowing those folks who think they were hired under the "it's OK to have a tattoo showing" policy or lack of one; those folks should not have any special allowances for tattoos. A reasonable accommodation should be made for any employee. Cover it up! Wear a flesh colored bandage or long pants and a long sleeve shirt... or a combination.

Don't forget the summertime - you won't die if you wear a long sleeve shirt. The shirt & pants actually protect you from the harmful affects of the sun and heat.

OH! Shame on those management folks who don't know how (or are too afraid of confrontation) to enforce the policy equally. Treat all your employees the same if you expect to get any respect!

I still don't think it's right to expect someone hired with visible tats twenty years ago and NOW they learn they have to wear long sleeves and get overheated (I have worn long sleeves when the temp was above 100 before so please save me the BS)or find another job. Oh granted UPS has the right to do anything they please, but it doesn't make it right in a fair sense.
I'm not gonna change my mind, I'm not gonna change your's....so I give....calfrope.

[UpstateNYUPSer]

Originally Posted by UPS Lifer

This quote came from a section that interprets the language.
Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press

The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too). There are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and is suppressed. For example, freedom of speech can be and often is restricted in a work place, for example: employers can restrict your right to speak in the work place about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about Desperate Housewives. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments. For another example, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press. No newsstand, however, must carry every paper against its owners' wishes.
Thanks to Dave Pullin for the idea.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#exp

I can still recall from my high school civics class the example that was presented which involved freedom of speech--"You do not have the freedom to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater."

Employment at UPS means adhering to a set of standards, to include appearance standards. These standards must be uniform and applied in a consistent manner across the board. Problems arise when these standards are not applied in a consistent manner. This is where the argument from those who were hired with visible tats comes in to play and, to be fair, may have some merit; however, the argument that these tats can easily be covered while at work also has merit. The argument that tattoos are a protected form of speech has no basis and can be dismissed.

I have a female co-worker who has the letters "L O V E" tattooed across the knuckles of her left hand and another word on her right which escapes me now. I think she had this done when she was much younger and think that she now regrets getting it done but, the point is, other than wearing gloves year round or having the tattoo removed, her tattoo will be visible. Now, does it have an impact on how she does her job--no, she is one of our better drivers. However, first impressions are usually lasting ones and it has taken me a long time to get past my first impression of her and to see beyond the tats to see what a nice pers