Tattoo Policy

[soberups]

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.

So if we take this "logic" to its ultimate conclusion, then UPS should be able to decide at any time to arbitrarily change whatever rules it wants, irregardless of who might be affected. I can see it now; UPS decides that all employees shall be required to shave their heads bald because the company finds any visible hair to be "unreasonable." In other words...it is UPS alone that gets to decide what is "reasonable", and that definition can be changed, at any time, for any reason. Sorry, but if UPS wants to mandate significant changes to our conditions of employment, then those chanes need to be negotiated contractually.

[dilligaf]

Sober, I understand what you are saying, so I hope you don't mind me pointing this out. UPS already arbitrarily changes their policies to suit whatever needs might arise.

With the tattoo policy, though, it was already in effect. It just isn't enforced equally across the board. Like many of UPS's policies, it is selectively enforced. Here is a prime example. We have a senior (#1 in senionity) driver that has decided that he doesn't have to attend PCM's anymore. Instead he sorts his truck and is gone without checking the belt or his neighbors for misloaded air. Do you think anything is done? NO! If I were to chose to do this I would receive a warning letter post haste.

[bellesotico]

Originally Posted by soberups

So if we take this "logic" to its ultimate conclusion, then UPS should be able to decide at any time to arbitrarily change whatever rules it wants, irregardless of who might be affected. I can see it now; UPS decides that all employees shall be required to shave their heads bald because the company finds any visible hair to be "unreasonable." In other words...it is UPS alone that gets to decide what is "reasonable", and that definition can be changed, at any time, for any reason. Sorry, but if UPS wants to mandate significant changes to our conditions of employment, then those chanes need to be negotiated contractually.

Unfortunately the law says they can.

[dannyboy]

It's not protected by the Constitution. Under Employment Law, businesses may set and enforce whatever policies they choose provided they do not violate any anti discrimination laws.

Let me rephrase the answer.

While UPS's rights are not found in the Consitution, the rights that the do have have been challenged all the way to the supreme court as uncontitutional. And UPS's rights have been upheld, therefore declaired constitutional.

As for drivers being hired with tattoos, UPS needs to address that issue.

But it was not until a new wave of drivers, wanting to take things a step or two further, that this became a real issue. Up until a few years ago, the majority of drivers that had tats got them while in the military, and usually were not too obvious. Now with total body ink being something of a rage, including facial tats, they had to do something.

Question is where will they draw the line?

d

[hubsup255]

I wear an earring and I'm a ft sup...
I understand image is very important to our company but some of the rules are stupid!
Not sure about shirts with nipple holes though...

[filthpig]

Our CM gave a PCM yesterday about this. Essentially he said if you don't cover them, you're going home. Repeated violations will result in termination.

[bellesotico]

Originally Posted by dannyboy

Let me rephrase the answer.

While UPS's rights are not found in the Consitution, the rights that the do have have been challenged all the way to the supreme court as uncontitutional. And UPS's rights have been upheld, therefore declaired constitutional.

As for drivers being hired with tattoos, UPS needs to address that issue.

But it was not until a new wave of drivers, wanting to take things a step or two further, that this became a real issue. Up until a few years ago, the majority of drivers that had tats got them while in the military, and usually were not too obvious. Now with total body ink being something of a rage, including facial tats, they had to do something.

Question is where will they draw the line?

d

Danny-

I understand where you are going with this, but the answer did not need rephrasing. UPS does not have expressed Constitutional rights. I think that maybe you are misunderstanding my replies and perhaps you feel that I am trying to disagree when originally I was simply agreeing with you.


Obviously I was mistaken. I apologize if you felt I was stepping on your toes.