Tattoo Policy

[drewed]

Id say driving is an opt in just like management is; those job have proffessional appearance guidlines....if you had full sleeves or tats on your neck or whatnot youd have a trouble getting any proffessional job at the pay youre making....

second thought, if you want to be tatted up and not follow the rules, go drive for dhl while you can

 

[trplnkl]

IT still isn't right to change the rules after the game starts.

 

[New Englander]

IT still isn't right to change the rules after the game starts.

Rules need to be modified from time to time. If you want to compare this to a game. Most major sports have rule changes all the time.

 

[dilligaf]

trplnkl,
I can't speak for other districts but my old district has a no tat showing policy. Not sure if the policy is region wide, but my guess is it is region wide.

It is my understanding that dress code is company wide, not ctr or district or even region.

 

[brownIEman]

It is my understanding that dress code is company wide, not ctr or district or even region.

Think of it more like the National Master and local riders. The basic policy is nationwide, but there is some room for local variations...

 

[UPS Lifer]

It is my understanding that dress code is company wide, not ctr or district or even region.

This is true - however, there are regional variations of a general guideline due to climate etc. For example, in some districts, it is OK to wear certain types of jackets or headgear as well as shoes in other districts, the outer wear would be inappropriate and frowned on. (1st hand knowledge). I worked in a district that had mountains and snow and also desert similar to AZ. Things change by climate zone.

Also - as a company we have had to adjust to various changes in our workforce that influence appearance, such as popular or current fashion grooming guidelines, women, religious beliefs and now with the X & Y generations - tats, as well as safety issues!

Regions are given broad guidelines from the corporate level and interpretations are made by the Region HR team along with the staff. Regions feed info back up to corporate and adjustments are made.

These changes feed back downstream through posters, PCM's, meetings, training sessions and new procedures during the hiring process.

Each district & operation handles infractions from the local perspective. Some operations put more emphasis on training and/or discipline.

 

[UPS Lifer]

Ok... so with all of this discussion back and forth about what is being enforced and not enforced... fairly or unfairly... I still can't seem to figure out if there is an actual written policy regarding tattoos. Our center just recently started making drivers cover up tattoos... No one has officially said anything to me and the only reason I know about the new policy is that one of the full time on road sups had a bandage covering his and I asked him about it... He said to me that if I am "visible and dealing with the public" I couldn't have any visible tattoos, but since I usually drive only on Saturdays it wouldn't be a problem because there aren't any full time sups around to enforce it (one of my jobs with UPS is as an air driver on Saturdays.). Should I just keep going as usual and leave my tattoos exposed?

I understand your problem... It is called staying under the radar. If you ask HR or a supervisor you will probably not hear the answer you want to hear!
Tell me I am not right on this one? !! This should guide you on what to do.

HOWEVER, my advice looking at your perspective, would be to keep your EYES and ears focused on what you notice about tats in your area. Use that info as your guideline and stay very low key with the tats. AND if in the future, someone approaches you about a policy than that is the time to surface and get a definitive answer.

Stay low key and usually you do not get a lot of flack!

 

[Storm723]

I agree that a Tat on the forearm is easily covered, but is that really reasonable in AZ. TX, NV, SoCal? I don't think so. It gets too freakin' hot in those locations.
Until about 5-6 years ago, I had never heard of UPS's Tattoo policy, I'm not even sure it existed. We had several drivers that had visible Tats in various places and nothing was said to them. Then all of a sudden people were being told to cover them or find another job. The union as far as I know did nothing to stop this push, IMHO they should have shut that down.These drivers were hired (in most cases) WITH the tats and were not told they were not allowed. I know I was never told and this is something that should be shared BEFORE hiring or promoting. To enforce this after the fact is wrong.
Because he wanted/needed to wear shorts we had one driver go through several very painful and expensive laser sessions to remove a tat from his calf that was present the day they hired him, all the time he was in training and the day he made seniority. It was no secret that he had the tat and no one said boo to him about it for 3 years. Now I don't really think the company should pay for the laser thing, that was really the drivers choice, but. What IF the previous tat had been in a place that could not be covered and had to be removed for the driver to keep their job? IMO, that would possibly fall under the second policy I posted.

OH and BTW, I only have noe small tat that would never show unless I went shirtless, and that aint gonna happen. Also, I don't plan on getting any other tats. So that's not my interest in the subject.

There has been a no tat policy forever...
but this is cool....one of our sups wears a band (looks like a new black athletic sockthat was cut) over his upper forearm...it doesn't look bad and he can still wear short sleeves..

 

[WhatPCM]

I made a point of looking at all the drivers that i know who have tats in my center this morning. None of them have them covered up. So i dont know if it hasn't gotten to our little center yet or our center manager just doesn't care.

 

[trplnkl]

Rules need to be modified from time to time. If you want to compare this to a game. Most major sports have rule changes all the time.

The rules don't change while the clock is still ticking.

 

[New Englander]

I guess I don't understand your point.

 

[trplnkl]

I guess I don't understand your point.

From one of my previous posts:

Until about 5-6 years ago, I had never heard of UPS's Tattoo policy, I'm not even sure it existed. We had several drivers that had visible Tats in various places and nothing was said to them. Then all of a sudden people were being told to cover them or find another job. The union as far as I know did nothing to stop this push, IMHO they should have shut that down.These drivers were hired (in most cases) WITH the tats and were not told they were not allowed. I know I was never told and this is something that should be shared BEFORE hiring or promoting. To enforce this after the fact is wrong.

This is my point

 

[dannyboy]

Its not so much that the policy has not been there, there is an explosion of people that have become covered. And the more area covered, and the more visible the tat, the better the wearer likes it. And the greater the chances of having management step in and say enough.

In my experience, some people like to keep pushing the "line" to see where management draws it. And when finally they do draw the line, and you have crossed it by say 30 feet, and they require you to back up to the line, why are you so suprised?

And why is it such a big deal to wear long pants and shirt. Up until the 80's, that was standard.

Bottom line is that tats are an optional decoration that You decided to wear. UPS says no. So you are faced with a choice. Stay and not have a tat, or get plastered with art and leave or cover up.

I dont see UPS changing the policy on tats, and expect the stepping up of the enforcement across the board.

d

 

[dilligaf]

Dannyboy oh Dannyboy...

Yes the policy has been effect for forever, and if the company had enforced the policy from the get-go we would not be having this conversation today. It is the same with many of UPS's policies. Sometimes it's the driver pushing and sometimes it's the company pushing.

I agree that there are those that have to push the issue just to see how far they can go. It is the nature of mankind to test their limitations. And in doing so, someone or something is going to push back.

 

[Storm723]

Dannyboy oh Dannyboy...

I agree that there are those that have to push the issue just to see how far they can go. It is the nature of mankind to test their limitations. And in doing so, someone or something is going to push back.

As a loader/unloader I wore sleeveless shirts..and I had tattoos that showed...when I got promoted I was told that I can not have any tattos show. That if I got any more and they were visible I would have to wear long sleeves all year.

I know another sup that was promoted and had a tat on their forearm, one day they tried to get away with short sleeves and wre called into the office. That is how strict they are in my building. The drivers w/ tat's are all in long sleeves or pants as well.

 

[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(Ret)]

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]

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(Ret)]

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]

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.