Post: #1

Saw this linked on facebook today. Basically some woman had a job offer withdrawn after the company saw her in real life (they did the interview over the phone for some reason).

They said it was because the tattoo on her hand/wrist could 'cause offence', however it's obvious they've just said this to try and let her down gently- she even has a tattoo on her neck.

I'll quote the best parts of the article, full link will be posted at the bottom.

Quote:A woman who landed her 'perfect' job was fired half an hour later after the company learned she had a tattoo on her hand.

The tattoo in question:


And yes, she looks exactly how you expected. WNB, would deserve place in 'most busted lizard you ever poked' thread.

Quote:Clearly impressed with her experience, the firm offered her the position after passing a telephone interview with 'flying colours'.

However, after discovering that Claire had inkings on her hand - which would be difficult to cover up - they backtracked, saying they could not hire her as the design may 'cause offence'.

Are they taking advantage of PC culture to reject this hamster because of 'cultural appropriation' or some bullshit like that?

Quote:'I'm shocked that people still discriminate against visible tattoos. I just didn't think this happened any more. I'm totally disgusted.'

Tried not to laugh

Quote:Claire's rant has been shared nearly 2,000 times and re-tweeted by American plus-size model Tess Holliday, who is a fellow ink devotee.

Ah, where have we seen or heard of Tess before? Sorry for no trigger warning.

Quote:After seeing the Facebook post, Dee Set backtracked on their policy and offered Claire the job again.

No surprise here, they caved in to the pressure and offered her the job. She rejected it though.

Quote:She hopes her experience will help highlight discrimination in the work place and remove the stigma surrounding people with tattoos.

She's almost making it sound like it's an actual issue.

Full link:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3248706/Woman-fired-30-MINUTES-given-dream-job-company-feared-intricate-tattoo-hand-cause-offence.html

Post: #2

There is no country in the world that prohibits discrimination on the basis of tattoos. If you want a decent job, don't get a tattoo.

Post: #3

When will we stop discriminating against people who have visible evidence of poor decision making skills?

Post: #4

I find it funny Ms. Piggy has a tattoo of herself on her arm.

Post: #5

Why would you ever give a job to someone without meeting them in person or at least Skype.

That model Tess needs some more ink. Talking gallons.

Post: #6

Did she apply for a low paid call centre job? They usually telephone interview first .

Post: #7

I'm always torn on stories like this.

That woman's tattoos look completely shitty and are obviously a sign she has poor decision making abilities. I hate that she feels entitled to be hired when the company doesn't feel she would be a good fit in their culture.

On the other hand, it's shitty for the company to retract their job offer on this basis if they felt she was otherwise qualified. I hate employers who feel they should be able to dictate their employees' behavior, personal lives, and freedom of expression when it has no bearing on the employee's job performance.

I think I just hate people in general.

Post: #8

So now they will push for tattoo shaming, and being against companies not wanting to hire idiots who tattoos parts of their body they can't cover up.

What is wrong with her face? Are those eyebrows made with sharpies? How much filler does she have in her lips? Why is she oompa loompa colored?

Post: #9

They should've doubled down and said hey we don't want to offend anyone, especially our clients and lose money. We've got a strict policy in place that EVERYONE follows.

Jesus Christ this fatty reminds me of your standard white or mexican bro hoe in Southern California.

-Fat
-Works at some shitty medium level clothing store or some secretary for construction
-Hardcore Duck Face
-Big ass french tips nails
-Bad Acne
-Covered by tons of make up
-Shitty tattoos - usually a tramp stamp, sleeve, nautical stars, feathers, some shitty script writing
-Bandannas
-Painted on Eyebrows

I'll put money on that she smokes, drinks, and parties on the weekdays and weekends.

I'll also bet she spends all her money on "clothing" and designer brands and she's broke as fuck.

These bitches literally have nothing going for them and hop from dick to dick - until they get pregnant then get super fat and have some idiot of a man locking them down for the long haul.

Post: #10

(09-25-2015 12:39 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  I'm always torn on stories like this.

That woman's tattoos look completely shitty and are obviously a sign she has poor decision making abilities. I hate that she feels entitled to be hired when the company doesn't feel she would be a good fit in their culture.

On the other hand, it's shitty for the company to retract their job offer on this basis if they felt she was otherwise qualified. I hate employers who feel they should be able to dictate their employees' behavior, personal lives, and freedom of expression when it has no bearing on the employee's job performance.

I think I just hate people in general.

They're not dictating her personal life. They discovered new information about her that made them reconsider their job offer. Look at her. She had her natural eyebrows burned off, and had these cartoonish ones put back on. She's got ink on her hands and neck. These are all big corporate no-nos. She doesn't realize that most people view these things as poor choices.

Post: #11

(09-25-2015 12:53 PM)kaotic Wrote:  They should've doubled down and said hey we don't want to offend anyone, especially our clients and lose money. We've got a strict policy in place that EVERYONE follows.

Jesus Christ this fatty reminds me of your standard white or mexican bro hoe in Southern California.

-Fat
-Works at some shitty medium level clothing store or some secretary for construction
-Hardcore Duck Face
-Big ass french tips nails
-Bad Acne
-Covered by tons of make up
-Shitty tattoos - usually a tramp stamp, sleeve, nautical stars, feathers, some shitty script writing
-Bandannas
-Painted on Eyebrows

I'll put money on that she smokes, drinks, and parties on the weekdays and weekends.

I'll also bet she spends all her money on "clothing" and designer brands and she's broke as fuck.

These bitches literally have nothing going for them and hop from dick to dick - until they get pregnant then get super fat and have some idiot of a man locking them down for the long haul.

and had an abortion or two.

Post: #12

(09-25-2015 12:59 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 12:39 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  I'm always torn on stories like this.

That woman's tattoos look completely shitty and are obviously a sign she has poor decision making abilities. I hate that she feels entitled to be hired when the company doesn't feel she would be a good fit in their culture.

On the other hand, it's shitty for the company to retract their job offer on this basis if they felt she was otherwise qualified. I hate employers who feel they should be able to dictate their employees' behavior, personal lives, and freedom of expression when it has no bearing on the employee's job performance.

I think I just hate people in general.

They're not dictating her personal life. They discovered new information about her that made them reconsider their job offer. Look at her. She had her natural eyebrows burned off, and had these cartoonish ones put back on. She's got ink on her hands and neck. These are all big corporate no-nos. She doesn't realize that most people view these things as poor choices.

Hence why I included "freedom of expression" in my list. Yes, visible tattoos are big corporate no-nos. But should they be? The only thing that should matter is an employee's job performance.

I keep hearing throughout the Manosphere about becoming self-employed, and one major reason given for that is due to bullshit like corporations strangling employees from expressing their individuality.

The Manosphere rallies behind men who are fired for telling jokes about big dongles, writing "sexist" Tweets, or donating money to the "wrong" political groups. Many of us post anonymously here, because we know expressing thoughtcrime in the workplace, or even publicly, could get us fired. Again, should it?

Political incorrectness, even off-the-clock, is a big corporate no-no, as well, and one could argue many people view those men's behaviors as poor choices as well. But the Manosphere is right to support those men, because all that should matter is how well the employee is doing their job.

I don't see this woman deciding to sport a tattoo as any different. Yes, her tattoos are stupid and ugly, but if it doesn't affect her job performance, firing her for them is as ridiculous to me as if a man were to be fired if his company discovered he had a RVF account.

Post: #13

(09-25-2015 01:31 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 12:59 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 12:39 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  I'm always torn on stories like this.

That woman's tattoos look completely shitty and are obviously a sign she has poor decision making abilities. I hate that she feels entitled to be hired when the company doesn't feel she would be a good fit in their culture.

On the other hand, it's shitty for the company to retract their job offer on this basis if they felt she was otherwise qualified. I hate employers who feel they should be able to dictate their employees' behavior, personal lives, and freedom of expression when it has no bearing on the employee's job performance.

I think I just hate people in general.

They're not dictating her personal life. They discovered new information about her that made them reconsider their job offer. Look at her. She had her natural eyebrows burned off, and had these cartoonish ones put back on. She's got ink on her hands and neck. These are all big corporate no-nos. She doesn't realize that most people view these things as poor choices.

Hence why I included "freedom of expression" in my list. Yes, visible tattoos are big corporate no-nos. But should they be? The only thing that should matter is an employee's job performance.

I keep hearing throughout the Manosphere about becoming self-employed, and one major reason given for that is due to bullshit like corporations strangling employees from expressing their individuality.

The Manosphere rallies behind men who are fired for telling jokes about big dongles, writing "sexist" Tweets, or donating money to the "wrong" political groups. Many of us post anonymously here, because we know expressing thoughtcrime in the workplace, or even publicly, could get us fired. Again, should it?

Political incorrectness, even off-the-clock, is a big corporate no-no, as well, and one could argue many people view those men's behaviors as poor choices as well. But the Manosphere is right to support those men, because all that should matter is how well the employee is doing their job.

I don't see this woman deciding to sport a tattoo as any different. Yes, her tattoos are stupid and ugly, but if it doesn't affect her job performance, firing her for them is as ridiculous to me as if a man were to be fired if his company discovered he had a RVF account.

We're not talking about white collar corporate here, we're talking about some tattooed blob managing at a retail store.

She made shitty decisions in her life that led her here than a desk in a office.

I get what you're saying, I see the other side of the coin, but I think this is comparing apples to oranges a bit.

Post: #14

(09-25-2015 01:31 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  Hence why I included "freedom of expression" in my list. Yes, visible tattoos are big corporate no-nos. But should they be? The only thing that should matter is an employee's job performance.

Personal expression isn't her goal here. Attention whoring is. Her appearance was cultivated to provoke distraction and nothing else. That kind of shit is a problem in the workplace.

Post: #15

delete, dupe.

Post: #16

The hand tattoo was used as the excuse - (ie: you'll be shaking hands etc). What really killed her, the scumbag "tell", was the neck tattoo.

(09-25-2015 01:31 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  Hence why I included "freedom of expression" in my list. Yes, visible tattoos are big corporate no-nos. But should they be? The only thing that should matter is an employee's job performance.

I keep hearing throughout the Manosphere about becoming self-employed, and one major reason given for that is due to bullshit like corporations strangling employees from expressing their individuality.

The Manosphere rallies behind men who are fired for telling jokes about big dongles, writing "sexist" Tweets, or donating money to the "wrong" political groups. Many of us post anonymously here, because we know expressing thoughtcrime in the workplace, or even publicly, could get us fired. Again, should it?

Political incorrectness, even off-the-clock, is a big corporate no-no, as well, and one could argue many people view those men's behaviors as poor choices as well. But the Manosphere is right to support those men, because all that should matter is how well the employee is doing their job.

I don't see this woman deciding to sport a tattoo as any different. Yes, her tattoos are stupid and ugly, but if it doesn't affect her job performance, firing her for them is as ridiculous to me as if a man were to be fired if his company discovered he had a RVF account.

I found both your points great, but IMHO, there is a "line" to be drawn. What happened to this lizard wasn't even that bad.

I know of college kids who had their facebook profiles, set to private, dug into (apparently you can contact Facebook and get records on the individual to hire), and had their offers retracted from all sorts of very minor, sometimes even innocuous, things - I had one friend who had a girl sitting on his lap making out with him with her skirt hiked up to her panties in a club - in a private picture only certain friends could see, and that was used against him.


The difference here is that this chick is wearing her personality on her sleeve. Literally. They don't even have to do unwarranted digging into her life. And let me state, this digging WAS unwarranted.

I personally would be much more skeptical over someone who expresses "freedom of expression" via body tattoos (not including religious tattoos) much more than someone who expresses "freedom of expression" in posting unpopular opinions. I can address Mr. Unpopular opinion and tell him to "Dial it back while you're working for me." Or "put your Facebook on private, and don't add clients to your facebook. Use LinkedIn instead in professional networking." OTOH, I can't tell this lizard "go get your tattoo removal surgery" as easily.


And let me be brutally honest in the tattoo stance - the past two companies I have worked for have had major issues with women with visible tattoos. They weren't related to losing business from the tattoos, they were from the type of behavior these women were getting up to. You could probably guess what this type of behavior was.


There is also the "dress for the job you want, not the job you have" going on here. In an "ideal" world, no one would judge on appearance, but when you, as a male, set foot in the door to have an interview, you are being JUDGED. I have played gigs as a musician, but I would not wear my piercing or the "urban" clothes I wear to my gigs to a job. That's just stupid. I'll put on a fresher suit than the person interviewing me instead. Be honest with me man, take one good long look at her and tell me what you see. Because I see a bimbo.

Now I know this is just anecdotal, and anecdotal evidence be damned, but there are certain "risky" activities that are riskier WRT safety, that are far less detrimental to business than getting a tattoo. Like hang gliding, gear-less rock climbing, etc. Is there a chance I have to pay out disability checks for an X-period of time? Yes, but at least these people aren't bringing in bad business. They aren't bringing ruin to the reputation of the company I run.

Post: #17

I ain't that mad... but please put a warning next time my friend!! The FIRST picture ALMOST made me appreciate the second one of the Fat Bitch. Thank god this was only a 2 second momentarily lapse since both of them are WNLA for me ( Would Not Look At)

Post: #18

Ha! Comedy gold.

People wonder why aliens never visit...

Post: #19

Thread title 9/10. Would dupe.

Post: #20

Do you have any evidence of the part in bold below? I am hugely skeptical of anecdotes like this. It'd be far more likely that a potential employer would social engineer access to the potential employee's Facebook by having a fake profile of an attractive girl to friend request the guy with (or vice versa).

(09-25-2015 03:05 PM)ManVsMachine Wrote:  I know of college kids who had their facebook profiles, set to private, dug into (apparently you can contact Facebook and get records on the individual to hire), and had their offers retracted from all sorts of very minor, sometimes even innocuous, things - I had one friend who had a girl sitting on his lap making out with him with her skirt hiked up to her panties in a club - in a private picture only certain friends could see, and that was used against him.

Post: #21

(09-25-2015 01:31 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  Hence why I included "freedom of expression" in my list. Yes, visible tattoos are big corporate no-nos. But should they be? The only thing that should matter is an employee's job performance.

I keep hearing throughout the Manosphere about becoming self-employed, and one major reason given for that is due to bullshit like corporations strangling employees from expressing their individuality.

The Manosphere rallies behind men who are fired for telling jokes about big dongles, writing "sexist" Tweets, or donating money to the "wrong" political groups. Many of us post anonymously here, because we know expressing thoughtcrime in the workplace, or even publicly, could get us fired. Again, should it?

Political incorrectness, even off-the-clock, is a big corporate no-no, as well, and one could argue many people view those men's behaviors as poor choices as well. But the Manosphere is right to support those men, because all that should matter is how well the employee is doing their job.

I don't see this woman deciding to sport a tattoo as any different. Yes, her tattoos are stupid and ugly, but if it doesn't affect her job performance, firing her for them is as ridiculous to me as if a man were to be fired if his company discovered he had a RVF account.

Nonsense. First, a tattoo is something that is visible at all times, including during business hours. This creature cannot just leave her ink at home. And "job performance" is not some abstract notion that is distinct from the person as a whole -- for many jobs, maintaining a certain appearance and complying with social norms is part of what constitutes "performance". By virtue of having a tat this female will always look trashy and distasteful, and there is no reason a company where appearance plays a role should be obliged to tolerate that. There is absolutely no comparison between this situation, and firing a man for opinions and beliefs expressed on his own free time outside of the workplace.

Second, and more importantly: the problem with today's society is not simply the fact that it has norms; the problem is that the norms are increasingly absurd, demented, and out of touch with reality. While our great Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all, a private firm is under no particular obligation to tolerate employees whose views are considered beyond the pale; some will be more tolerant than others, but none is required to show perfect forbearance.

The problem, rather, is that the Year Zero ideologues that increasingly shape our public discourse are attempting to put beyond the pale opinions and beliefs that would have been considered entirely reasonable, indeed a matter of common sense, just yesterday. It is one thing if you are ostracized by some private company for holding and expressing truly extreme ideas; it is another if what would just recently have been thought of as calling a spade a spade is now, almost overnight, held to be sufficient reason for excommunication. It is this that sticks so much in our craws, not the mere fact that certain expressions of opinion have social consequences.

In fact, this notion that a firm absolutely must not refuse to admit this branded cow into its shed is in itself an absurdist Year Zero idea that is seeking to overturn completely reasonable social conventions and, seemingly overnight, become entrenched as a quasi-religious commandment. Today a corporation might be able to get away with it, but if the Year Zero ideologues have their way, refusing employment on this basis will be illegal -- and men will be fired for any remark that makes the Inked Queen "uncomfortable". That is how it goes.

Post: #22

(09-25-2015 06:08 PM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  Do you have any evidence of the part in bold below? I am hugely skeptical of anecdotes like this. It'd be far more likely that a potential employer would social engineer access to the potential employee's Facebook by having a fake profile of an attractive girl to friend request the guy with (or vice versa).

It appears that your skepticism is correct, as my friend could have threatened litigation over the offer retraction!

The courts in 2013 determined that your private posts cannot be gleaned from employers:
http://www.employerlawreport.com/2013/08...s-frenemy/

My friend lost his offer in the same year.

But connecting your phone number does give the employer a vector to snoop into your profile, should they have access to it:
http://www.repnup.com/blog/2015/09/09/em...o-private/


What I believed happened was one of three things:
1) the employer snooped into a friends Facebook who has his profile set to public. If he had "liked" any of these dirty pics from a night club in PV, that would be visible. There are tons of loop holes in the privacy settings.
2) the employer had my friends phone number and found a way in that way.

(less likely 3) Not sure about his password security, but some will try to hack into the account by various means: http://work.chron.com/can-employer-look-...10226.html

AFAIK he didn't get friended by a fake account. But I've fallen victim to #1 before so thats where my money is on how he was found out. We can't ever tell if employers can use a POC at Facebook, because if that were ever made public, litigation would follow.

Post: #23

Passed interview with "flying colours" = met EEOC (or equivalent) requirements

Had offer retracted because of "a tattoo on her hand" = we are unwilling to invest our money in an employee that will frighten all our clientele that isn't one of the homies in cell block 6.

People with forethought understand that presenting an attractive appearance is part of gainful employment and those who have the gold get to make the rules. Feel free to your freedom of expression, but know that, as an employee (especially a woman employee), a pretty face is likely what got you in the door and it's the first thing a customer or co-worker sees. If you choose to minimize this asset in any way, it becomes an objection that must be overcome with other abilities. If you go to great lengths as a woman to destroy your natural beauty, the pussy pass expires early or is outright revoked. Back of the line, bitch. Maybe Hot Topic is hiring.

I would also be willing to bet that she has been rejected countless times and this was the "perfect job" because they actually said "you're hired". Her hamster won't realize she is trying to put a square peg into a round job application.

Post: #24

(09-25-2015 11:49 AM)Kdog Wrote:  I find it funny Ms. Piggy has a tattoo of herself on her arm.

Those are tattoos? I thought it was a vehicle wrap!

Post: #25

Jesus fuck...walking hoodrat stereotype:

- Spray tan of the face a full shade darker than the neck.
- Bandana.
- Ridiculous lipstick + duckface combo.
- Sharpie eyebrows.
- Nose piercing.
- Blue Contacts.
- And of course the stupid neck tattoo...what does it say?

I've posted my stance on tattoos before - something small and discreet in a fairly tucked away place (hip, ankle, upper back etc,.) is acceptable...if you get a tat on your neck or your hand, you're an attention whore, simple and plain.

2/10, would not hire because I know that having her interact with my clients would lower me in their eyes.

And telephone interviews - I'm sorry, but they are shitty, for reasons precisely as this. I deride that it's already hard enough to get a job as it is, but a telephone interview should just be used to weed out inferior candidates, before then proceeding to the real interview.


And as for that fat 'model'...



- 5'4, 275 lbs.
- According to Wikipedia she's 30 (and actually 5'5, 280...I was close)...looks 40.
- Also the almighty Wikipedia states that all she's really accomplished is being named by Vogue as a 'top plus-sized model'...no shoots for any high-end lines, but...right!?
- One of those stupid line piercings in her ear.
- Wall-to-wall decals...I mean, tattoos, which include Miss Piggy, what looks like Farrah Fawcett and a Wizard of Oz themes job on her leg.
- 10 lbs. of sausage in a 5 lb. bag arms.
- Sticks her nose into things where it doesn't belong...I wonder if this happened to be a man with neck tats and hand tattoos would she care?

Not enough people know this but more should...but Corporations in America aren't really bound by the same rules as the public is in the Constitution. We don't like what you say, who you associate with or how you look? Get the fuck out! This company had zero obligation to hire this toad, even after a 'stellar' phone interview (looking how she looks, imagine how she talks?).