Facial piercings and looking for work, AIBU to think that they do matter.

[RosesAreBetter]

A good friend of mine has quite a few unusual facial piercings, but she doesn't wear metal jewellery in them, most of the time she just wears clear retainers.
But still the piercings are quite obvious.

She has recently been told that she is going to be made redundant and had been looking for another job, but is struggling because most employers take one look at her and say she will have to take out the piercings or she won't even get an interview (her words).

I have just listened to her rant for an hour about how unfair it is.
She is a lovely person, really pretty and friendly. And she is definitely qualified for the jobs she is applying for, BUT she should accept that most employers are not going to be impressed by multiple unusual facia piercings, no matter how hidden they are by the clear jewellery.

She thinks that it since she wears retainers they should not be an issue.

She is 29, almost all of the piercings can not be taken out for more than a few minutes before the begin to heal (so taking them our for work would b impossible).
She has had most of them for over a decade and thinks they are acceptable with retainers in them.
Tbh most of them are virtually invisible. They just look like scars. And I they would look almost exactly the same without the platic retainers in as the scars will still be there.

But at the end of the day she chose to get them/chooses to keep them so she can't expect them not to be an issue.

29 is getting on a bit to be still having facial piercings.

Good grief, Hammy.

As long as it was evident that someone had made an effort appearance-wise, I couldn't give a monkey's about piercings or tattoos. Nor would my colleagues for the most part.

I work in a very conventional area.

I'm sure we would all agree that tattoos and piercings are a matter of personal preference.

People can express their preference by having tattoos and piercings, or not.

Employers express their preference through dress codes, and choosing or not choosing to employ people with tattoos and piercings.

It's entirely up to the individual.

But if you have tattoos and piercings as a matter of personal choice, it's pathetic to moan about employers expressing their personal choice.

Good points olgaga

More fool them. the employers, that is.

I'm glad my place of work values ability and actual contribution, rather than physical appearance.

I'd feel the same if a tattoo parlour turned their nose up at an awesome tattoo artist for looking too pedestrian. Of course these things are a matter of choice, but really dismissing a capable individual on the basis of their looks isn't a million miles away from preferring to employ people who are pretty, male or thin. It's equally short-sighted, anyway.

aufaniae. How exactly are you proposing that he op's friend "challenges the status quo"? If you mean continuing to turn up for interviews wearing her piercings - the interviewers are not interested and they are in the driving seat.
It's not ideal, but it is the reality. You have to have extreme talent, something really exceptional to get people to look beyond the obvious and sadly it sounds like op's friend is nothing special really. She can buck the system all she wants, but is the employer says no, it's all just a little bit sad and futile rather than rebellious and radical, really.

As for employers being "short-sighted" - well some people would say people with tatts and piercings were rather short-sighted about how their choices would inevitably affect their future employability. Indeed how it would affect the perceptions of people they will go on to meet outside their circle of body art friends.

That lack of vision in itself is enough to put off most employers.

Let's face it there is no shortage of perfectly able applicants for any job who don't have visible tattoos or piercings. Even during a boom rather than a recession.

It's simply a matter of personal choice, which you cannot expect potential employers to share.

" I have a vision in the future of being forced to conduct interviews blindfolded... "

Good luck with that but why would you want to be forced to be blindfolded?

Good question, Pendeen.

Anyone recruiting who has an ounce of sense wouldn't need to be.

This whole thread is daft as everyone knows people judge by appearance.

If a bloke turned up for an interview without metalwork on his face but wearing a vest with his hairy armpits on show and yesterdays gravy stains i doubt even the most liberal employer is going to be falling over themselves to offer him a job.

And you can argue he is just showing his individuality in the same way the person with piecing is

cantspel that's a terrible analogy. Wearing a vest with gravy stains shows a total lack of care about one's appearance.

Wearing piercings is a style, and it shows that they have thought about their appearance. It may not be a look you like, but it's certainly not the same as not giving a stuff.

I would rather employ someone with piercings who was smartly dressed than someone with none wearing a stained vest!

What a silly comparison!

The stained vest could well he their style thinking the man is more important than the wrapping and what they choose or dont choose to wear is immaterial.
They could still be more than capable of the doing the job and have all the qualities that would make them an good employee but you are judging them in the same way as others with judge a face full of metal work.

Floggingmolly the OP's friend is challenging the status quo by having piercings in the first place.

She will challenge prejudiced people by not conforming to the stereotypes they have about people with piercings, so those of them who get to know her by chance (perhaps by working alongside her, or meeting her socially) will lose the fear of the unknown as they get to know her, and realise (if they've an ounce of sense) that their preconceived ideas about people with piercings were wrong. The poster above who things that people with piercings can't do teamwork might reassess her view after working alongside her in a team for many years, if she's a great team member.

Of course she will find it more difficult to find a job, that's not up for debate. There are lots of prejudiced people out there sadly. But not all employers are so staggeringly narrow-minded thankfully, and there are many employers who employ people based on talent and ability to do the job rather than their ability to conform. This is evidenced by the people on this thread who say they'd employ people who had piercings, and also the many, many people with piercings who have jobs!

"some people would say people with tatts and piercings were rather short-sighted about how their choices would inevitably affect their future employability. "

I would think most people (unless they are very dense!) would be aware that getting tattoos and piercings will affect their employment opportunities!

However if it's affecting their employment ops when it's nothing to do with their ability to do the job, and it's purely because of prejudice and narrow-mindedness, then they're well within their rights to complain IMO.

Yes, it's to be expected, but I'd still have a good old moan bout the stupid people who can't see beyond the current cultural ideals of conformity, if I was in that position!

trockodile the world would be a better place with more people like you.

Hope we get there one day :)

Wearing piercings is a style

Yes - as are other forms of dress, hair etc. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't. Employers are free to express their preferences for this sort of thing, just as everyone else is.

However if it's affecting their employment ops when it's nothing to do with their ability to do the job, and it's purely because of prejudice and narrow-mindedness, then they're well within their rights to complain IMO.

Of course they can complain - no-one said they couldn't. But they can't expect their complaints to be taken seriously.

Those who have tattoos and piercings may feel "cultural conformity" is an issue but that isn't the reason most people are averse to tattoos and piercings. Most people would describe their aversion like this: "Ugh". It's just a matter of personal choice.

Let's be realistic. Very few jobs attract just one applicant. In those circumstances, an employer might well feel they have no choice to overcome a personal dislike of tattoos and piercings and employ the applicant anyway.

However, if you are an employer who has just sifted 200 job applications and shortlisted six equally well qualified and experienced applicants for interview, and they all do strong interviews, then you have to decide between them somehow.

You cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, disability, sexuality, religion or belief - that is unlawful.

It is pretty obvious that if an employer doesn't like tattoos or piercings, in those circumstances a tattooed, pierced applicant is always going to lose out.

You are free to exercise a personal choice to have tattoos and piercings, and other people are free to like it or not.

"You are free to exercise a personal choice to have tattoos and piercings, and other people are free to like it or not."

Well of course. People are free to like it or not. But actually basing decisions about who to employ on style preferences is short-sighted, and the business will lose out ultimately IMO. The individuals will find employment elsewhere with more enlightened employers.

There's all sorts of looks I don't like, but I wouldn't be as shallow as to not employ someone based on their personal style (unless it got in the way of the job they needed to do of course).

I would hazard a guess that the organisations that employ people on talent as opposed to prejudice are the more successful overall.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

You're missing the point, and completely ignoring what I said about equally well-qualified candidates.

When there is an abundance of well qualified candidates, personal choice has to be exercised. For example, you might decide to go for one candidate over another equally well qualified candidate because they live closer to the place of work. You are perfectly entitled to discriminate - indeed if you have more than one excellent applicant for one job you have no choice but to discriminate between candidates. On lawful grounds, of course.

The way a candidate presents themselves will always come into that. If you can't abide dirty nails, you won't employ someone with dirty nails. If you can't abide tattoos and piercings, you won't employ someone with tattoos and piercings.

Interesting that you think it's shallow to do that - a lot of people think that adorning your body with tattoos and piercings is a pretty shallow thing to do too, and a common reason for disliking it in addition to the "Ugh" factor.

Employers already 'discriminate' by, for example throwing scruffy CVs in the bin, or those with spelling mstakes, or poor grammar, or any number of other equally arbiitrary decisions.

The more candidates there are then the greater the chance that more and more of these tactics will be used.

Shallow, prejudiced, short-sighted, call it what you will, personal appearance is just another factor used to make decisions and, as several others on here have already explained, first impressions and appearance do count for a lot.