I Rejected a Finalist Because of Tattoos

[Anonymous]

I bet he had a couple visible on his wrist and then someone else at the lunch asks about them and he rolled up his sleeve to show them off to the other person.

[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?

These were for pretty niche roles, rather specialized, and low turnover, so not a massive hiring operation. For the one I spent the most time at, for entry level position there might have been like 100 applicants, 10-20 phone screenings, a next round of phone it video interviews and then 4 finalists brought in for in-person interviews. Sometimes piercings or tattoos would escape notice until the on person

The head honcho wouldn't see them until near the end of the process. He wouldn't say it was appearance based. He'd find something else to disqualify them.

The irony was that his favorite pet employee had a rather large "tramp stamp"and a navel piercing, both of which I only saw when we ran into each other at a club. Neither was ever evident in the workplace. We eventually became friends and she was the one who pointed out the boss's prejudice.

[Anonymous]

There is a stretch of young Gen X/older millennials for whom tattoos were a very, very common rite of passage. They were mainstream in a way that they weren’t prior to that or since. That’s the age group that would be a prime candidate for this kind of role (if it indeed exists). So it seems like awfully dumb criteria for judgment.

[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?

These were for pretty niche roles, rather specialized, and low turnover, so not a massive hiring operation. For the one I spent the most time at, for entry level position there might have been like 100 applicants, 10-20 phone screenings, a next round of phone it video interviews and then 4 finalists brought in for in-person interviews. Sometimes piercings or tattoos would escape notice until the on person

The head honcho wouldn't see them until near the end of the process. He wouldn't say it was appearance based. He'd find something else to disqualify them.

The irony was that his favorite pet employee had a rather large "tramp stamp"and a navel piercing, both of which I only saw when we ran into each other at a club. Neither was ever evident in the workplace. We eventually became friends and she was the one who pointed out the boss's prejudice.

What are you getting from this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Of your illiteracy?

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a stretch of young Gen X/older millennials for whom tattoos were a very, very common rite of passage. They were mainstream in a way that they weren’t prior to that or since. That’s the age group that would be a prime candidate for this kind of role (if it indeed exists). So it seems like awfully dumb criteria for judgment.

I'm about as Gen X as it gets (1972) and this is simply just false amongst the educated set of Gen X. Sure, the guys who didn't go to college and worked restaurants and trades got barb wire tats and military insignia if they served, but those of us that went to college and grad school did not get any tattoos. They have always been trashy and still are today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems like rage bait for sure. It reads like one of those LinkedIn posts that's like, "I was coming into my office when a man in the parking lot cut me off. That guy? My 9am interview. He started to apologize but it was MY turn to cut HIM off. Guess who didn't get the job 😈"

I hate tattoos. The woman I share an office with has like 50 stick and poke tattoos on her one arm (she's 28, I'm in my 30s) and I think it looks sloppy but she's good at her job so I guess just wear long sleeves at client lunches.

LOL, nice parody!