Jones and Hobbes on Tattoos and Piercing in the Workplace
Jones and Hobbes point out that tattoos and piercing should be accepted in the workplace because they have become more common in the modern world. The authors explain that having a clear communication policy in the workplace is fundamental in fostering diversity in employees. The Equality Act 2010 inhibits discrimination and harassment of any kind in the workplace including segregation basing on tattoos and pierces. Some religions and personal beliefs allow tattoos and piercing and thus denying a person employment opportunities due to body art is rational. The article asserts that "If a tattoo, or a piercing, forms an integral part of a person's religion or belief, the argument could be made that any blanket ban would be indirectly discriminatory" (Jones and Hobbes 103). The document ascertains that policies should be clearly communicated to the staff and emphasize the importance of tolerating tattoos and piercing.
Challenging Policies on Tattoos and Piercing in the Workplace
The grounds for challenging the policies of piercing and tattooing whether direct or indirect in the workplace are limited in the current legislation. Tattoos and piercing have gained publicity, and due to this, the authors mention that Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has "provided updated guidance on dress code policies, which includes consideration of tattooing and piercing" (Jones and Hobbs 104). Tattoos have become more common and legal position, and public opinion has become the subject of debate. The article is important in arguing against an article that opposes tattoos and piercing as it informs that accepting tattoos and pierce is vital as they are prevalent in the modern society and discrimination in workplaces is not acceptable. Jones and Hobbes are significant in educating employers they have to formulate policies in a workplace which will foster diversity.
Work Cited
Jones Nick and Hobbs Matthew. Tattoos and piercings – are they compatible with the workplace? January 19, 2015. https://doi.org/10.12968/nrec.2015.17.2.103. Accessed February 18, 2018.
