Tattoos and personal choice on the job

Back in the early 1970s, the Five Man Electrical Band had a song with a lyric that said: "And the sign said long-haired, freaky people need not apply.”

And, of course, the kid stuffed his long hair up under his hat and went in to ask the employer why.

In 2012, however, the kid applying for employment might have long purple hair, a facial tattoo and a tongue piercing. Such “body modifications” create issues for many employers concerned about safety, customer reactions and perhaps their own personal preferences.

According to one source, problems arise because many of today's hiring managers tend to be from a generation when tattoos were limited to Marines, bikers and gypsies. Non-earlobe piercings were almost nonexistent.

While many employees - mostly women - dyed their hair, it was likely not purple or green.

However, times have changed and many workers belong to the “modified community.” One study estimated that 40 percent of adults ages 18 to 40 now have a tattoo or non-earlobe piercing.

In contrast, in 1990 only 3 percent of the U.S. population had tattoos.

What is an employer to do?

First, do you even care? Does one's appearance have any connection to his or her ability to perform the job?

Some customers and co-workers, particularly older ones who dislike tattoos or piercings, could be turned off. Loss of business or concerns about your company's image are legitimate reasons to restrict the display of body art in whatever form it takes.

But are your customers really going to move their business to a competitor over body art? And do you really want to restrict your applicant or talent pool by such policies?

The safest thing to do is simply write an employment policy on it. This has created a firestorm of activity to create personal-appearance policies that include rules about tattoos, piercings and unnatural hair color.

But, again, as many employers and employment lawyers will tell you, it's not that easy without discriminating against certain classes of workers and without significantly reducing the size of the talent pool.

The website Modifiedmind.com lists companies and their policies on tattoos, body piercings and unnatural hair color. Despite all the talk from HR and management about the alleged unprofessional appearance of candidates, it appears around 36 percent of organizations surveyed by the Society of Human Resource Management had a policy for body piercing - and 22 percent had policies for body art.

That compares to 97 percent of organizations that maintained policies on clothing and 70 percent on footwear.

Iowa job candidates and employees often feel an employer has no right to restrict the display of piercings and tattoos and the color of their hair.

But that's not true. Companies can limit employees' personal expression on the job as long as they aren't discriminatorily applied or create a disparate effect on some protected class.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are allowed to impose dress codes and appearance policies as long as they don't discriminate against a person's race, color, religion, age, national origin, gender or any state-protected class status.

Companies faced with inked and pierced applicants can demand eyebrow rings or tongue rings be removed and tattoos covered during work hours to help project the desired image to customers.

But an employer's policies must be consistent and should not single out particular groups of people. Forbidding certain types of braids in hair, for example, may have a disparate effect on black employees.

And let's say you deem it OK for a female employee to have a maximum of two visible piercings, limited to the ear. However, you forbid male employees from wearing even one earring.

Does this open up the employer to gender discrimination?

What if an applicant's nose piercing is a legitimate part of their religious tradition? Does this exempt the employee from the policy? (It very likely should.)

To avoid litigation, employers should ensure that any policy is job-relevant and not driven by personal preference for or bias against certain races, genders or religions.

Finally, think ahead 10 years. As the younger tattooed and pierced employees age, move into management and start running more companies, views likely will change more than they have already.

Like policies against long hair for men and policies requiring skirts and stockings for women, tattoos and piercing policies one day likely will become relics of a bygone era.