Current tattoo policies out dated?

[Che762x39]

Why do you care what anyone here thinks? Go apply and give it your best shot.
I see plenty of fire and police with visible tattoos.

The plenty of fire and police with visible tattoos are related to Chiefs, Commanders and Captains. When you see a fire or police person who is a total screw-up I could give you the #1 reason why. Or did you say nepotism? Correctamundo amigo

[Bobby Ricigliano]

I have a ton of tats as well as a bunch of my coworkers including most of my sgts. But for the sake of looking like a professional organization we all cover them up. I don't like shaving either, but i don't think they are gunna let me look shaggy just because i don't agree with the grooming policy. Ive never heard of anyone failing backgrounds because they have tattoos. Its the ones that have gang related stuff and tattoos that cannot be covered with a uniform that are the only ones who have trouble.

If I was in some other line of work, I'd have long hair, a beard, and lots of visible ink. Since I have to make a living, I adhere to the grooming standards at work. It is like so many other things in life:

"You don't have to like it. You just have to do it."

[Funtimes]

Since when did people with tats become a protected group?

I could see it being religious discrimination to make people like Hawaiian's and the like cover their tattoos. They were tribal rites of passage and what not. I think an argument could be made!

[WyattandDoc]

I could see it being religious discrimination to make people like Hawaiian's and the like cover their tattoos. They were tribal rites of passage and what not. I think an argument could be made!

Wrong. As a cop you have no 1st Amend rights or religous freedom.

[CBR_rider]

I could see it being religious discrimination to make people like Hawaiian's and the like cover their tattoos. They were tribal rites of passage and what not. I think an argument could be made!

And they'd probably say "Okay, but keep 'em covered!" I haven't seen a native Hawaiian with a tattoo on his/her face, but I suppose they may be out there.

[CinnamonBear723]

Wrong. As a cop you have no 1st Amend rights or religous freedom.

^^^^^this^^^^^

[five.five-six]

I could see it being religious discrimination to make people like Hawaiian's and the like cover their tattoos. They were tribal rites of passage and what not. I think an argument could be made!

Those always make me LOL, the pasty fat white guy with a "tribal arm band" LOL, what tribe are is he in?

[71MUSTY]

A "Professional" is someone who does something for pay. The only question is "How well, and how much?". Appearance doesn't have a thing to do with it. But people are people...

Except the Department's Policy clearly says the "HOW MUCH?" is zero if you don't meet their standards.

[71MUSTY]

Someone said Tattoo's make statements which I believe is true. Hopefully your ink makes the statements about you that you wanted. The real issue is that the employer wants employees that make the employer's statement not their individual one.

[Gawernator]

Coming from the "younger generation" you made the choice to get tattoos (especially visible) fully aware of the consequences...

I have a tattoo. I was also smart enough to not have one that shows in 90% of clothing. Not to put you down, but you just sound like you're whining. Uniformed professionals need to look professional. That's society. Fully covered in tattoos makes you look like you are perhaps criminal, low self esteem, bad judgement, not educated etc though it may not be true.

"Perception is reality" sorry bro

[Country_Jim]

Never go full retard....

Lol.

[ldsnet]

Most depts have a "No show" policy. Unless you have them on your hands, head or face it shouldn't be an issue .

^^Absolutely!
Law enforcement is all about image. Part of the way they protect that image is by uniform standards. If the uniform standard allows a long sleeve shirt year round and it sufficiently covers your tattoo, then it should not be an issue.

But if the uniform standard requires bare sleeves then that tat on your arm will be a problem.

As to tattoos on the hands or neck/face - you are asking to join a profession where at some point in your career you will end up on the witness stand. The department has laws they have to follow about discrimination and hiring; the Jury doesn't! Plenty of people don't care for tattoos and the presence of said ink could prejudice you with the Jury before you even speak.

[AregularGuy]

If LE depts become more up to date and progressive and allow tatted up officers to publicly represent them. Would flip flops and wife beaters also become acceptable duty wear?

Seconded. And where would the line be drawn? Neck, face tats o.k. too? Or would that be a bit much? What do you think a judge would say, or the jury you're giving testimony in front of?

[Funtimes]

Wrong. As a cop you have no 1st Amend rights or religous freedom.

That's what they tried to tell the military. Looks who's going to be winning now on head gear. It's possible that the individual could be informed to keep sleeves on / cover up makeup (which is what Honolulu Police Did), but not hiring or discriminating is likely going to lead to liability imo.

Not sure who told you don't have 1st Amendment rights as a cop; your rights are limited in your official capacity. There are many things cops have been told they can't do - like teach gun class, but were struck down as a violation of their 1st Amendment.

I'd also like to say that just because something hasn't been struck down, doesn't make it a legal or constitutionally compliant policy. Hawaii didn't let legal aliens own firearms since anyone can remember. But now, with a proper plaintiff, that law went down in less than one trip to the clerks office and court room.

[Funtimes]

And they'd probably say "Okay, but keep 'em covered!" I haven't seen a native Hawaiian with a tattoo on his/her face, but I suppose they may be out there.

I think the future is going to be changing a lot to uniforms, requirements, and the like. It's starting with the military; many things are going to be different in 10 years that were not acceptable today, or even just five years ago. It will start in Federal Court and then make its way down through to the States through similar decisions or discrimination cases / EEO rulings or whatever. I think we will see lots of different stuff. It wasn't long ago that Departments didn't really have any of these rules. The military sure didn't. Because it's becoming popular, rules will be made, but sooner or later I see it going away imo!


Re. Face: While living in HI for about 10 years I saw quite a few. Mostly on the arms and legs though.