I Rejected a Finalist Because of Tattoos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outside Hire. EVP. Terminal Degree Required. Role paid 320k salary, ~100 bonus every year, full medical, no deductible, 401 matching to 6%, 5 weeks PTO- really, as much time 'off' as you need, just be reachable by call and you could pretty much live on vacation.

Search was 4 months long. Interviewed 18, narrowed to 2.

Second round of interviews today was a lunch. Candidate took off his coat and I saw that he had a bunch of trashy mid- aughts/late 90s tattoos like barb wire, flames, scrawled names.

The second I saw that I mentally removed him from the position and just settled into a nice lunch.

Just an observation I thought some of you all might want to know about.

The truth is, whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, is that when it comes to job interviews and considerations for a job it is subjective. It just is. OP and anyone else who conducts job interviews and has input into whether to hire someone has the right to use their own lense in doing so. If a person wants to attend a job interview, they have to know that anything they say, do or show can be noted and evaluated. Articulation in how you speak, your clothes you select to wear, what fork you use during an interview lunch and, yes, tattoos you choose to be visible on your body are all fair game. It is all part of the equation. And for those that think that it should not be, well, you are extremely naïve.

There are roles where that stuff matters and roles where it doesn't, but there aren't senior, well-compensated roles where the person who happens to be doing the interview that day gets to make that call. That's a fantasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good lesson in the potential opportunity cost of being judgmental. Who knows what you miss out on.

Or what bullet you dodged. Every single dude I've ever known to have a barb wire wrap tatoo has been a raging alcoholic, a whore, and an abuser of women. Every. Single. One.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked at a hospital once where one of the top surgeons had entire sleeves of visible tattoos (and plenty more elsewhere if some of the gossip was to be believed). Dude made over $500k yearly.

"yearly"?

LOL. Yeah, we believe you and your story about 'top surgeons'

This is the stuff HS drop outs write.

[Anonymous]

Well, la-de-dah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked at a hospital once where one of the top surgeons had entire sleeves of visible tattoos (and plenty more elsewhere if some of the gossip was to be believed). Dude made over $500k yearly.

And?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked at a hospital once where one of the top surgeons had entire sleeves of visible tattoos (and plenty more elsewhere if some of the gossip was to be believed). Dude made over $500k yearly.

I don't believe this. And if there is any truth to it, the hospital was a lower level facility and/or bad area and they were in desperate need of whoever they could get. But I would also say he wouldn't be a top surgeon (maybe new surgeon) as the number of years in school, medical school, residency, fellowship to become a top surgeon makes him too old to have been in the wave of guys getting entire sleeves of visible tattoos.

My take away? This didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they weren’t inappropriate tattoos I don’t see what the big deal is. The way you described them, you just cut a candidate for choices that were made 20 years ago. People grow and change.

The decision to get them may have been old news but the decision to display them in an interview was made today.

I've done hiring in a couple different offices where the person who has the final say on new hires would rule out anyone with visible piercings anywhere but ears and any visible tattoos. They didn't say it out loud but but no one with those attributes ever made it all the way through.

[Anonymous]

DH is C-suite and has three tattoos on his biceps. Two were to cover a scar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH is C-suite and has three tattoos on his biceps. Two were to cover a scar.

Does he show them? I'm guessing no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they weren’t inappropriate tattoos I don’t see what the big deal is. The way you described them, you just cut a candidate for choices that were made 20 years ago. People grow and change.

The decision to get them may have been old news but the decision to display them in an interview was made today.

I've done hiring in a couple different offices where the person who has the final say on new hires would rule out anyone with visible piercings anywhere but ears and any visible tattoos. They didn't say it out loud but but no one with those attributes ever made it all the way through.

This. I can't get over that the guy took off his jacket and showed them. I mean, what kind of a shirt was he wearing to an interview that they didn't show while wearing a jacket, but did show after removing jacket? He either has poor judgment, clueless, or he was testing the waters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked at a hospital once where one of the top surgeons had entire sleeves of visible tattoos (and plenty more elsewhere if some of the gossip was to be believed). Dude made over $500k yearly.

"yearly"?

LOL. Yeah, we believe you and your story about 'top surgeons'

This is the stuff HS drop outs write.

Jealous?

[Anonymous]

This is exactly why I tell people to show their real personalities in job interviews. You are better off not getting the job if your boss is just going to judge you and hate the real you. Look for a place where you are appreciated. Now, I wish that was easier to do!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they weren’t inappropriate tattoos I don’t see what the big deal is. The way you described them, you just cut a candidate for choices that were made 20 years ago. People grow and change.

The decision to get them may have been old news but the decision to display them in an interview was made today.

I've done hiring in a couple different offices where the person who has the final say on new hires would rule out anyone with visible piercings anywhere but ears and any visible tattoos. They didn't say it out loud but but no one with those attributes ever made it all the way through.

That's not remotely plausible. Hiring is expensive. Why would they keep wasting the organization's time by passing them to the final stage? Unless this was one person imposing their own preferences, in which case, you noticed but no one else did? Across multiple offices? Where there was a single person who got hiring approval across all new hires?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they weren’t inappropriate tattoos I don’t see what the big deal is. The way you described them, you just cut a candidate for choices that were made 20 years ago. People grow and change.

The decision to get them may have been old news but the decision to display them in an interview was made today.

I've done hiring in a couple different offices where the person who has the final say on new hires would rule out anyone with visible piercings anywhere but ears and any visible tattoos. They didn't say it out loud but but no one with those attributes ever made it all the way through.

That's not remotely plausible. Hiring is expensive. Why would they keep wasting the organization's time by passing them to the final stage? Unless this was one person imposing their own preferences, in which case, you noticed but no one else did? Across multiple offices? Where there was a single person who got hiring approval across all new hires?

OP said they weren't visible until he took off his jacket. I'm guessing he didn't show them until then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they weren’t inappropriate tattoos I don’t see what the big deal is. The way you described them, you just cut a candidate for choices that were made 20 years ago. People grow and change.

The decision to get them may have been old news but the decision to display them in an interview was made today.

I've done hiring in a couple different offices where the person who has the final say on new hires would rule out anyone with visible piercings anywhere but ears and any visible tattoos. They didn't say it out loud but but no one with those attributes ever made it all the way through.

That's not remotely plausible. Hiring is expensive. Why would they keep wasting the organization's time by passing them to the final stage? Unless this was one person imposing their own preferences, in which case, you noticed but no one else did? Across multiple offices? Where there was a single person who got hiring approval across all new hires?

OP said they weren't visible until he took off his jacket. I'm guessing he didn't show them until then.

Cool story, that wasn't a response to OP.