Got my ear pierced - Should i be worried?

LirW

LirW wrote: »

How about women with short hair and black studs then? Had short hair myself and for some reason random people found it incredibly important to share their thoughts about my haircut, which wasn't offensive or anything, just a normal short haircut.

What about headscarves? I know they can be a pretty controversial topic. If you know your company has a very conservative Irish client base, would it really make sense to put a woman with head scarf in a costumer facing position? Most likely not when you're having a problem with a man wearing a stud in his ear, after all religion (or tattoos or haircolour) should be a private decision, right?
Hell, some people even refuse to deal with female tradespeople because they are so judgemental.

IF you're going to a company and the assigned service person you're facing seems to do a good job and you're getting along with them, and suddenly you'd realize that they are having a stud in their ear, would you like to be assigned to another person then? Genuine question.

You already have my answers to all those questions. I will never discriminate against someone based on a disability, religion, gender etc etc etc. That's pretty straightforward, so how about we stop trying to undermine my position using these underhanded tactics?

You can either take the point I'm making for what it is or you can disagree, but let's stick to the facts:

• Piercing your face with studs, rings or bars is a decision you make.
  
• It's clearly visible. If it's hidden, there's no issue.
  
• YOU put that stuff there, so you can't blame someone for a negative reaction to your decision to put holes in your face and stick bits of metal or plastic there.
  
• It's not a headscarf worn for reasons of faith. It's not a disability or a scar. It's a decision you make, which can have negative consequences, in some cases.

You're not protected by law from somebody looking at you, deciding the artificial stuff you've stuck in your face disgusts or repulses them and that they'd prefer not to have to deal with you face to face. That's the real world, as hurtful as you might find it. Some businesses will not respond to their customers objection favourably, but many will. It very much depends on the industry, the company or the customer base. It's up to them to decide what's okay. You've no legal right to freedom of expression through body piercing. That's not a thing, even if YouTubers somewhere suggest it to be.

Danonino.

eeguy wrote: »

It's a general boards policy not to inquire about the identity of a poster. Don't know why you're pushing this.

Oh I wasn’t pushing to know, I was just commenting in general. I get both sides. I just found the earlier post about holding a performing employee back over what ‘used’ to be ear piercings laughable and can not relate in any way or understand. The employee would be better off knowing that their career is being held back, and be allowed the dignity and right to find a job elsewhere where they can be judged correctly on performance and ability. The fact that the employee is good enough to keep on the pay role but deemed unsuitable for progression behind his back is wrong.


I’ll be off.

Sparko

I wonder how the meeting went.

Danonino.

Danonino. wrote: »

Oh I wasn’t pushing to know, I was just commenting in general. I get both sides. I just found the earlier post about holding a performing employee back over what used to be ear piercings laughable and can not relate in any way or understand. I’ll be off.

No, don't go anywhere. No problem here with anyone who wants to disagree. We can't all relate to each other anyway, that would be pretty boring, right?

Francie Barrett

So what happened here?

Danonino.

JayZeus wrote: »

No, don't go anywhere. No problem here with anyone who wants to disagree. We can't all relate to each other anyway, that would be pretty boring, right?

Sorry I edited my post after you replied.
I get where your coming from, I really do. But. I cannot agree with the previous post about the employee with the previous ear piercing marks.

That employee deserves to know that no matter how good his performance, his ability to do the job or to exceed in his role he will never be deemed ‘suitable’ for promotion or progression due to his previous piercings and his appearance.

That employee deserves to be able to tell his employer to stick it and find a job where he can be properly judged on his performance and ability.

circadian

JayZeus wrote: »

No, don't go anywhere. No problem here with anyone who wants to disagree. We can't all relate to each other anyway, that would be pretty boring, right?

It's absolutely ridiculous to hold him back for having minor marks from piercings he got when he was younger. I'm sure if he found out you were discriminating him on appearance then you'd quickly find yourself in a spot of bother over that, and rightly so too.

Danonino.

Danonino. wrote: »

Sorry I edited my post after you replied.
I get where your coming from, I really do. But. I cannot agree with the previous post about the employee with the previous ear piercing marks.

That employee deserves to know that no matter how good his performance, his ability to do the job or to exceed in his role he will never be deemed ‘suitable’ for promotion or progression due to his previous piercings and his appearance.

That employee deserves to be able to tell his employer to stick it and find a job where he can be properly judged on his performance and ability.

To be fair, he does technical design work and he's very good at that. He could also be really good with some customers as he's a nice guy and easy to get along with on a personal level, but he's just not been given the chance for the past 4 years to get in front of them and it's primarily because of how well he polishes up. A good haircut and some tidy clothes is one thing, but you can't exactly hide a row of holes in his left ear of the bit of his eyebrow that's missing where a ring clearly came out somewhere along the way. It's not my fault he did that to himself.

There are lots of places it wouldn't matter a bit but that's not the case in this company. He's good at what he's doing now as I said so he gets to keep doing it. Not everyone is a superstar anyway, vital to be involved and all that, so we just found someone else who could polish up a bit better and put them in front of customers on the project team instead. They get really good bonuses too, which you don't get doing the job this guy does now. It'd make a real difference to him.

He hasn't asked for it but I know he'd jump at it if he was given the chance. I'd have taken him in a heartbeat except for the fact that some customers wouldn't be impressed with his appearance. He can't do anything about that, but neither could I. It is what it is.

circadian

circadian wrote: »

It's absolutely ridiculous to hold him back for having minor marks from piercings he got when he was younger. I'm sure if he found out you were discriminating him on appearance then you'd quickly find yourself in a spot of bother over that, and rightly so too.

Yeah, he's not so much held back, more not moved forward. He'll find out some day when he pushes it himself. He'll find somewhere else that will give him the move, just not in this place. It's up to him, but it would have been easier if he didn't go sticking stuff in his face in the past.

JupiterKid

This is ridiculous. I've worked with an earring since my early 20s with no problems, but I work in academia.

It's 2017, not 1981.

JupiterKid

JupiterKid wrote: »

This is ridiculous. I've worked with an earring since my early 20s with no problems, but I work in academia.

It's 2017, not 1981.

I know fellas who wear worn out T-shirts, combat/cargo pants and dirty boots to work every day.

Would that be acceptable in Academia? Ridiculous, right?

I see the point you're trying to make, but it's not a valid argument. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

c6ysaphjvqw41k

This post has been deleted.

Elise Scary Stepson

Elise Scary Stepson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not really interested in getting into discussions about the peculiarities and mandated practices of different faiths. However I will say that, while wearing facial piercings is absolutely not a requirement in hinduism (it's cultural, not religious in any case), I believe most people would be more accepting of a hindu man or woman having a nose piercing. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with people being more accepting on that basis, at their own discretion.

The objection results from the aesthetic appearance of the piercing. I understand what you're trying to say, but you're missing the mark; it doesn't support your argument. I can discriminate against somebody who has piercings I find objectionable. You can't do anything about that. It's up to me to decide if the things you stick in your face raise an objection or not.

As for muslim headdresses, yes, it's a choice for some but certainly not for all. Either way, I'd gladly hire a muslim woman who wears a khimar or hijab, but not if she wore a niqab, burka or chador or had her nostrils, septum, eyebrows, cheeks, tonque or whatever else on her face pierced with something that I didn't find acceptable.

Is it really so difficult to understand that employers get to decide if your appearance is acceptable, for many roles? There's nothing at all wrong with that.

SusieBlue

I don't think the issue is with employers getting to decide if your appearance is acceptable, I think everyone will agree that this is the case.

The issue is with not putting a staff member forward because of 7 year old healed piercings he had before he started the job. Presumably, the piercings weren't noticeable enough to be seen during the interview stages, or he would never have gotten the job. It was only awhile later that you actually noticed. I just don't see how you can pass over someone who is good enough to hire, good enough to stay employed, for something so trivial it wasn't even noticed at the interviews.

I agree that you should tell him so he can move on and find employment somewhere where he is respected for his quality of work, rather than judged for an ear piercing he had nearly a decade ago.

This thread has given me a lot to think about, though. I have a slight scar on the side of my nose from a particularly bad bout of chickenpox as a child. I wonder have I not been put forward for promotions because my boss might deem it to be a healed nose piercing? I certainly hope not, because I would have no interest in working for such a company.

WhiteRoses

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I don't think the issue is with employers getting to decide if your appearance is acceptable, I think everyone will agree that this is the case.

The issue is with not putting a staff member forward because of 7 year old healed piercings he had before he started the job. Presumably, the piercings weren't noticeable enough to be seen during the interview stages, or he would never have gotten the job. It was only awhile later that you actually noticed. I just don't see how you can pass over someone who is good enough to hire, good enough to stay employed, for something so trivial it wasn't even noticed at the interviews.

I agree that you should tell him so he can move on and find employment somewhere where he is respected for his quality of work, rather than judged for an ear piercing he had nearly a decade ago.

This thread has given me a lot to think about, though. I have a slight scar on the side of my nose from a particularly bad bout of chickenpox as a child. I wonder have I not been put forward for promotions because my boss might deem it to be a healed nose piercing? I certainly hope not, because I would have no interest in working for such a company.

No, this guy was hired to perform a particular low level task in the factory. His appearance didn't matter at all. He could wear a onesie if he wanted. He's likeable, has great technical aptitude and in the space of about 10 years he was trained up on difference machines, then learned how to program those machines, then use the design tools and moved into the office. All good for him.

The decisions he made which have permanently impacted on his looks are one of the things that will now limit his progress in this company. That's a pity, but it's not my fault or anyone elses that he chose to do those things or doesn't realise himself how people like me, my colleagues and our customers judge his appearance. If he didn't do that to himself I'd have pushed him forward many times. I really like him, just not how he looks. I can understand why you don't like that, but that's how it goes. He won't be told, unless he asks to be put in front of customers or asks me why he's not being offered that chance. It's up to him, not me.

NutmegGirl

Jay Zeus , entertaining and all as it is reading your opinions, the further on you go the more identifiable you and your employee are becoming. You have now said what his job is and where specifically his piercings are. Skimming back through your previous posts I can work out approx what age you are, where you went to school, the area you grew up in, what your interests are, where you've previously travelled to, your opinions on certain topics, so you are making yourself more identifiable to anyone reading this who might now suspect they are the employee or knows who that person is. Ireland isn't that big that someone following this can't now identify themselves, a family member/friend or you.
I hope your employer, assuming you are not the boss, is aware what you are discussing online, has deep pockets for legal representation and compensation when this employee works out or is informed why they haven't been promoted or offered opportunities they are capable of, and you yourself have just stated you'd take him on if he looked different.
I'm not remotely tech savvy, and if I can work this out with a quick search what could someone who actually knows what they're doing find out? A potential client who can work out who you both are from your descriptions? A good solicitor who specialises in employment law might like to have all this info to work with?

WhiteRoses

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I don't think the issue is with employers getting to decide if your appearance is acceptable, I think everyone will agree that this is the case.

The issue is with not putting a staff member forward because of 7 year old healed piercings he had before he started the job. Presumably, the piercings weren't noticeable enough to be seen during the interview stages, or he would never have gotten the job. It was only awhile later that you actually noticed. I just don't see how you can pass over someone who is good enough to hire, good enough to stay employed, for something so trivial it wasn't even noticed at the interviews.

You are assuming that it wasn't noticed during the interview. It might well have been noticed and not have impacted the hiring decision for that role.

He has said it is impacting his progression rather that his current job.

@nutmeggirl
Which of the following grounds do you believe they are falling foul of?

He has outlined a career progression from the factory floor to the office which would be a good defence against any discrimination claim.


Gender
Civil status
Family status
Sexual orientation
Religion
Age (does not apply to a person under 16)
Disability
Race
Membership of the Traveller community

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

You are assuming that it wasn't noticed during the interview. It might well have been noticed and not have impacted the hiring decision for that role.

He has said it is impacting his progression rather that his current job.

Sorry but that's a cop out, the marks can't be so horrendous that they justify him not being progressed further or paid more, but not severe enough that they would hire him even so, if they noticed the marks. That's contradictory.

Also the OP says he has worked there for 10 years and got the piercings 7 years before he started working there, meaning the healed marks are at least 17 years old. I sincerely hope the poor man realises what is being done to him and goes to an employment solicitor because OP wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

NutmegGirl

NutmegGirl wrote: »

.....

It's easy to make the mistake of thinking what you can see is true, representative and informative about the poster. I can assure you, the details have been changed to protect the innocent.

I wouldn't be in the least bit worried what a co-worker thinks in any case. But thanks for your concern.

WhiteRoses

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I sincerely hope the poor man realises what is being done to him and goes to an employment solicitor because OP wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I'm not the OP. As usual, the OP in this kind of thread comes in un-regged and sits back to watch everyone lose it!

Also, you need to understand that the thing holding back the guy I gave as an example (the one who came to mind immediately when I saw this thread in the first place) is a decision he made, not me or any of his colleagues.

If you decide to drop out of school, that can have a consequence down the line.
If you don't get an honours degree, that can limit your career options and progression.
If you shave off one eyebrow or dye your hair purple, people can decide not to hire you.
If you get a tattoo or a piercing in a visible place that people won't like looking at down the line, you're responsible for the consequences of your own bad decision.

This isn't illegal discrimination. There's no legal penalty for someone deciding you look like a junkie, for example.

NutmegGirl

pg633, not being an employment lawyer I wouldn't know, but I would imagine any decent lawyer could make a case. Reading cases in the paper, cases have been taken for less and won. At best what company wants the hassle of being dragged to a tribunal or court over an employee who has prejudices and has mouthed off about it at length online?
He might have a career progression which has been demonstrated but there is proof it has stopped purely due to someone taking a particular stance which he has expounded on at length. Has to leave to find promotion elsewhere, constructive dismissal, all the better is he is covered under any of the headings you stated above, lawyer would easily make a decent case.

AndrewJRenko

NutmegGirl wrote: »

Jay Zeus , entertaining and all as it is reading your opinions, the further on you go the more identifiable you and your employee are becoming. You have now said what his job is and where specifically his piercings are. Skimming back through your previous posts I can work out approx what age you are, where you went to school, the area you grew up in, what your interests are, where you've previously travelled to, your opinions on certain topics, so you are making yourself more identifiable to anyone reading this who might now suspect they are the employee or knows who that person is. Ireland isn't that big that someone following this can't now identify themselves, a family member/friend or you.
I hope your employer, assuming you are not the boss, is aware what you are discussing online, has deep pockets for legal representation and compensation when this employee works out or is informed why they haven't been promoted or offered opportunities they are capable of, and you yourself have just stated you'd take him on if he looked different.
I'm not remotely tech savvy, and if I can work this out with a quick search what could someone who actually knows what they're doing find out? A potential client who can work out who you both are from your descriptions? A good solicitor who specialises in employment law might like to have all this info to work with?

You're assuming that the story is actually true. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

JayZeus wrote: »

He hasn't asked for it but I know he'd jump at it if he was given the chance. I'd have taken him in a heartbeat except for the fact that some customers wouldn't be impressed with his appearance. He can't do anything about that, but neither could I. It is what it is.

There's no real need to continue to blame the customers. It is blindingly obvious that the problem is YOUR personal prejudice, not anyone else's.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're assuming that the story is actually true. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

There's no real need to continue to blame the customers. It is blindingly obvious that the problem is YOUR personal prejudice, not anyone else's.

The arguably unfortunate reality is that as a middle aged white heterosexual male raised and living in a western european country, my personal prejudice is in fact representative of the prejudices of the majority of our customers. And my colleagues. And our competitors. And most of the employees in the company. Holding those prejudices is not against the law, nor should or will it ever be.

Go on, go nuts with that. I can picture your head is about to explode reading that. It won't change a single thing. Not one tiny little bit.

AndrewJRenko

JayZeus wrote: »

The arguably unfortunate reality is that as a middle aged white heterosexual male raised and living in a western european country, my personal prejudice is in fact representative of the prejudices of the majority of our customers. And my colleagues. And our competitors. And most of the employees in the company. Holding those prejudices is not against the law, nor should or will it ever be.

Go on, go nuts with that. I can picture your head is about to explode reading that. It won't change a single thing. Not one tiny little bit.

I don't think anyone suggested that holding those prejudices is, or should be against the law. But thanks for confirming what was obvious all along. I'd imagine that 99% of your customers/colleagues/competitors are decent, sensible people who focus on ability to do the job, rather than obsessively scanning skin for defects from decades past. But hey, keep carrying that torch for the few bigots that you want to protect - they're in danger of extinction, don't you know.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't think anyone suggested that holding those prejudices is, or should be against the law. But thanks for confirming what was obvious all along. I'd imagine that 99% of your customers/colleagues/competitors are decent, sensible people who focus on ability to do the job, rather than obsessively scanning skin for defects from decades past. But hey, keep carrying that torch for the few bigots that you want to protect - they're in danger of extinction, don't you know.

That right there is the very problem.

There will always be those who, like me, would prefer not to have to look at somebody who had things stuck in their face. It’s really, really naive to think that it will never have a negative impact on you if you get facial piercings, tattoos and so on. It will.

The example I give is of a very real person, very good in many ways but with one failing which has a disproportionate effect on him with his current employer. He’s oblivious to it, which is good and bad for him. In the real world, people like me will make decisions and as much as you abhor it, I will never have to explain to this guy that his piercings make him objectionable, unless I choose to do so.

Maybe someone will read this in time to avoid the same sort of bad decision and the resulting consequences. Or not, whatever.

SusieBlue

JayZeus wrote: »

That right there is the very problem.

There will always be those who, like me, would prefer not to have to look at somebody who had things stuck in their face. It’s really, really naive to think that it will never have a negative impact on you if you get facial piercings, tattoos and so on. It will.

The example I give is of a very real person, very good in many ways but with one failing which has a disproportionate effect on him with his current employer. He’s oblivious to it, which is good and bad for him. In the real world, people like me will make decisions and as much as you abhor it, I will never have to explain to this guy that his piercings make him objectionable, unless I choose to do so.

Maybe someone will read this in time to avoid the same sort of bad decision and the resulting consequences. Or not, whatever.

I would somewhat agree with you if he still had the piercings but it appears he removed them 17 years ago so I really don't know what your issue is.

circadian

Surely career progress should be based on attitude and ability. I fail to see how someone who has some minor scars is unable to progress. Effectively the company is at a loss of it is missing out on a good employee in a suitable position.

Also, your own personal feelings should not be affecting his career progression. It's highly unprofessional on your part.

I used to work for a Japanese company and regularly travelled there for business. I have multiple face and ear piercings. I would always wear low key jewellery and dress well. I got looks from people in the street, but once I was in the office it was down to business and nothing was ever said or detrimental to my career.

Japan is one of the most conservative countries I've been to in relation to a person's appearance, yet they could see past it because the quality of my work was more important.

AndrewJRenko

JayZeus wrote: »

That right there is the very problem.

There will always be those who, like me, would prefer not to have to look at somebody who had things stuck in their face. It’s really, really naive to think that it will never have a negative impact on you if you get facial piercings, tattoos and so on. It will.

It will have an impact for as long as you choose for it to have an impact, and for as long as you choose to indulge people's silly personal preferences.

If you find out one of your customers doesn't like looking at moustaches, are you going to ban men (and maybe women) with moustaches from customer facing roles?

It's a fairly ridiculous idea really.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It will have an impact for as long as you choose for it to have an impact, and for as long as you choose to indulge people's silly personal preferences.

If you find out one of your customers doesn't like looking at moustaches, are you going to ban men (and maybe women) with moustaches from customer facing roles?

It's a fairly ridiculous idea really.

I wear a full beard and have done so for over 20 years. When I go to visit one customer in particular in Asia (visit once or twice a year) I’m completely clean shaven until I’m sitting in the airport waiting to fly home.

If I didn’t shave the beard off for those visits the customer would request a different representative in my place. That’s our industry and our customers.

If I insisted on keeping the beard, the company would have sent someone else and left me to do the other things I was doing. It would have been my loss, my own fault. Commission from that account is about 20% on top of my base salary.

The guy with the holes in his ears can’t make that decision now. He also won’t ever meet that kind of customer or benefit from working with them, at least in this company. Not my fault, is it?

Edit: I think this has run its course now. I’m stepping out now before we end up going around in a circle again.

BnB

circadian wrote: »

Surely career progress should be based on attitude and ability. I fail to see how someone who has some minor scars is unable to progress. Effectively the company is at a loss of it is missing out on a good employee in a suitable position.

Also, your own personal feelings should not be affecting his career progression. It's highly unprofessional on your part.

That's all fine....and I agree 100%. If someone shows up to work wearing a string vest or a monkey suit, it shouldn't matter a tot..... but that's not reality.

In reality, you have to deal with how people perceive you, and no matter how open minded anyone likes to think they are, once someone looks at you, they will make certain assumptions about you. If you show up to work in an office with a nice neat haircut, a crisp white shirt etc etc... people will look at you and their first impression will be, this fella\gal is a serious operator and I'll have to take them seriously. So, even though you might be a complete Ape, you'll be starting from a point of people taking you seriously.

If on the other hand you show up in an old pair of hurling togs and a beer stained tee shirt, the initial impression everyone will get is, this guys a complete joker and make assumptions accordingly. Now, in time, you might prove yourself but their impression will always be.... yer man is a bit of a joker, BUT his work is good. And it will always be that way... It will always be in peoples heads.... His work is good...BUT he's a bit of an Ape.

And if it came down between the fella in the Togs and the chap in the nice shirt for the same promotion, given that their work is of the same quality, who is going to get the promotion...... White shirt guy every time. That is just a fact of human nature.

It works the very same the other way around. I remember going into a Rocker bar in Cork years ago with my boss straight from work wearing a shirt and tie. Talking to the girl behind the bar, I noticed she was a bit frosty. But after a few pints and the three of us chatting about music and sh1t she warmed up. She said at one stage "You don't really look like our regular customers" or something similar. i.e. We came in and she thought...."He's two office twats thinking they are cool coming in here...or something similar".... But after a few pints and a chat she could see that we were just a few rockers who happened to work in an office... If we had come in wearing jeans & a tee shirt, we would have been accepted straight away, because that was the dress code. But because we didn't look like we fitted in, we had to work a bit harder to prove ourselves.