Bountiful City Policy

People discuss the issue of hiring tattooed people. When I read this article ‘bountiful city policy’, I think this is unfair to restrict hiring tattooed people. Some people say that they feel scared of looking at tattooed people on the street because they seem to threaten other people and tattooed people have more possibility of committing crimes. I think, however, tattoo on people doesn’t matter on working in their field and they just present themselves on their way.
I don’t think tattooed people have low interest in business. Their tattoos don’t make them less professional in what they do. My friend who has visual tattoo on his body has worked in wall-mart since he graduated high school. What he worked is that he sells his assigned product and earns interest of how much he sold. Even if my friend has tattoo on his body, he explains his product effectively and persuasively to customer and achieves high interest. I think the way employer judge people is how much a person can make interest to their company not what they look like. Also, they just present anything on their body. I think they just like to express something such as love, culture and believing on their body. I don’t think tattooed people like someone interfere theirs expression. I think we are not qualified talking something to tattooed people because they don’t damage people to do something.

Bountiful City policy to restrict hiring of people with tattoos

I would say this new employee policy in Bountiful is quite reasonable. It is a fact that very first impression of somebody is by his or her appearance, and no matter we judge them wrong or not. If a person is trying to get a position that interacts with the public or with people from other companies, those other people could be judgmental about tattoos that are visible outside the clothes. If you are coming to work for me, I expect you to look like a professional, considering you are now representing my company when you are on the clock, or in my uniform. So the tattoos that are offensive would need to be covered up, and some of the visible piercings will have to be removed, or studded. Moreover, the policy says: “No visible tattoos and no piercings, that's the new standard if you want to work for the city of Bountiful.” I don’t really consider this policy as a banning. Get as many piercings as you want, but Fred Moss, he is just clarifying that they can take them out. If they have earrings types of things, they can take them out during the day. What they do on their private time is up to them. Lastly, if I see as a business owner, I have an image to uphold, and if you don't meet my standards for upholding that image, you need to make the necessary changes or leave.

Bountiful City Policy

I think everyone has their own right to show their personality by tattoo on their body, the people who has tattoo that doesn’t mean they are freaks or gangsters. Some people tattoo on because they think it is cool or maybe there is some meaning, or tattoo is their interests. I had seen so many people who have tons of tattoos but it didn’t bother me, so why do we have to discriminate those people? There are so many NBA players who tattooed on their arms, legs and neck, does it really matter? As I know, their tattoo has a meaning for them. For example, Allen Iverson’s best friend passed away so that he tattooed his friend’s name on his arm to cherish the friendship. However, the issue is talking about the policy to restrict hiring of people with tattoos, this is kind of a two side issue and each side is reasonable for me, but I tend to stand on those people who tattooed on the body, because I don’t think tattoos relate to their capability. When government has policy to restrict hiring of people with tattoos, this is unfair, I think capability is more important than appearance, isn’t it? This is just a stereotype of people with tattoos; I think the government should have this kind policy, don’t make the decision with just appearance and give everyone a fair chance to get a job.

Bountiful city policy

Everyone has different taste, and they have right to choose things what they like. When i read this article 'Bountiful city policy', I thought this is unfair to restrict hiring of people with tattoos first, because the people who have tattoo or piercing are the same as any other people. They are just same people but just have tattoos in their body. Whatever the reason they have tattoos, they are same as other people and tattoo is just visual things.

This is just what I thought in their right, however, I agree with this bountiful city's policy. Whenever I see the people who have tattoos, I feel like scary and avoid them. I mean not the small and cute tattoo; the people who have tattoos that cover their body. It can give others an unpleasant feeling, especially when they are employees. It is hard to come up first. Honestly, people who have tattoos looks some kind of scary to me, and I think some other people think like me. If you have to choose one person among two people for your business, one has a tattoo on his whole arm; who do you want to choose? I fell more comfortable with the person who does not have tattoo. It is just my prejudiced, but some people think like me, to. To restrict hiring people with tattoos is to the bountiful city advantage to do so. Thus, I think this policy is fair to their city if the bountiful city want to present professional image.

Bountiful City (Tattoes, Percing)

So now it is no secret, if you want to be hired at Bountiful City, it’s best not to be tattooed or pierced !We live in a country where individual freedoms should be globally respected and where we should be able to do whatever we want and dress as you want. But unfortunately, the reality is quite different because of the social conventions that exist; so, often you can say what you want, you are not the strongest. Yet, the time when people with tattoos and piercing were view as "hooligans", the "outlaws" is long gone! Today, many tattooed people are very respectable and have a great personality. The thing is that the majority of those who have business are people over 45/50 years. They also represent the vast majority of people for who tattoos and piercings, is not suitable to the world of business. . Employers are looking for what their customers want and obviously the customers are uncomfortable purchasing items from tattooed people. At the other hand, it is being unfair for those who have been tattooed and pierced for good reasons. Some people want to mark an event that has been really important for them. When you come and tell them that they need to hide these tattoos it is also telling them to be ashamed of who they are or of what they have been through. Some of you will see that as discrimination, but I truly think this is misunderstanding this category of people. Of course, this law regarding the people who have got tattoos and piercing in bountiful city is unfair .If there is discrimination toward them it is coming from those picky purchasers who think that they can evaluate the product being sold through the seller.

Bountiful Tattoo Policy

A question comes to mind after reading and watching that article. What's more important; the freedom and right to be able to express yourself freely as you please, or having a certain standard of professionalism in society in order to have success? Let me pose other questions that will make my views and opinions on this topic obvious. Since when did the outward appearnce of someone determine their success and potetial? Can you establish and come to a conclusion in your mind whether or not somebody is professional, successful, and intelligent just by their outward appearance? Who has that right to judge a person right off the bat just by what they see on the outside? I feel very strongly that our outward apperance shouldn't have such a determining factor on who we really are. I found it very interesting that in the video, they showed basketball players from the NBA who had tattoos. Not just any basketball players, but what we call Professional basketball players. Do they're tattoos make them any less professional in what they do? Many of them, i suppose, already had the tattoos that they have on now even before they were in the NBA. Were they not able to play professional basketball because of they're tattoos? Of course not. It doesn't make them any less professional at what they do. Therefor, I feel that this should apply for any type of career or job. Tattoos and piercings are just ways of expression. Some tattoo's are just for style. Some have different meanings and symbolisms of culture, beliefs, or even losses of loved ones. Consider all of the people that know to be successful and professional; Bill Gates, Leonardo DaVinchi, George Washington, etc. If we were to learn that these people were to have tattoos or piercings, would we think differently of them? would that make them any less successful or professional? I think that the answers to many of my questions are obvious. We live in such a controversial world as it is where judgement on our outward appearence is placed whether we like it or not. In order for us to have peace and happiness, we need to think twice before placing judgement on anybody. Now lets ask ourselves the same question as stated earlier; What's more important?

Ink Barely Dry

Personally, I do have two untraditional tattoos, in my theory. My eyeliner and lips are colored with permanent cosmetics. This is visible on my face and would be quite difficult to cover up if asked to do so; eyeliner more than lips. Most would not guess that I have this pigment placed in my skin and who would care. I find that to put such strong restrictions on personal expression or convenience, in my situation is unfair and confusing.

My comment doesn't follow completely parallel to the article. In summary, I understand the reason for wanting to have a standard of city employees. I do not agree with the singling out this ban might catalyze. Everyone should have the right to express themselves freely but a boundary should be allowed to be set by employers. As much as I don't like or want to logically agree with wearing panty hose as a teller there is a traditional standard employers want to maintain. Which is also the business's right. If a personal with tattoos doesn't want to cover up for a few hours a day, in conjunction with the employers code of dress, then maybe that person should find a job where it is acceptable. To have the final decision in the cities hands for all business may be over stepping boundaries. However, the city is the employer of city employees; therefore, stretching this thought, the city has the right.

Another thought, I would not want to be pulled over by "lizard man" or a police officer covered in tattoos. I would think a convict stole a police car. After speeding away I would call the police to report what I had imagined. This is an extreme example but in my mind makes a reasonable point.

Bountiful City policy

We live in this country where we have a lot of luxuries and when we are denied one of these luxuries, I would like to believe that every thing would be alright, but the fact is that people get annoyed, and they have to do some thing about it. Just to think about how you are being discriminated against is wrong; we need to think about how the company that we are going to work for will be affected by our presents if we have a tattoo, or a body piercings. It is sad that businesses are affected by something that really doesn’t matter, but the truth is that it does. The way the business looks on the outside and the inside, the atmosphere in the business, and the employees all make a very real difference in how effective that business is. If I was running a business that needs to be professional then I would make a policy not to hire people with visible tattoos or body piercings. That should be my right as the employer and if you don’t like that you should go work somewhere else because there are plenty of opportunities out there. It is not my right though to not give some one a job because they are not hot, or because of the color of there skin. That is where the line should be drawn. If you are born with something business can not discriminate against you, but if you make a chose that is a different matter.

Choices and consequences.

I have always believed that every choice has a consequence. Our good actions are often rewarded, and I like to think that our dumb choices come back around to us. The important thing is that we learn from them. Now with tattoos, you know what you are getting in to. You made the choice of what is tattooed and where the ink is laid into your skin. While I don't think that tattoos are bad in of them selves, I think that people need to put a little more thought into whether a tattoo is right for them or not, and maybe stop living in the moment.

On that note, I feel that Bountiful's choice is within their rights. Any employer has the right to pick and choose who is best fitting for the job, and if somebody with a visible tattoo would hinder the productivity or profitability of any company, its their right to not hire them. I would imagine a lot of the jobs that Bountiful city have deal a lot with the public. I wouldn't want somebody who has visible tattoos representing my city either.

Bountiful Tattoo Policy

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so here is mine. No I do not think it is fair, for many people getting a tattoo is a way for them to express themselves, and for some people a way of remembering. I have known people who have gotten tattoo's for no other reason than to remember an event or a person in their life. If someone wants to get a tattoo who am I to stop them or tell them they can not get a job. I understand employers have standards, and maybe a tattoo is just not what they consider the right standards. But, that does not mean they should tell someone they are not right for the job just because they have tattoo's. Now I am not saying that they should just give jobs to people with tattoo's to avoid discrimination, if the person has tattoo's and is not qualified for the job then they are not qualified.

Now obviously this is just my opinion. I am not going to say I do not form my own opinions about people, because I do. I think everyone when they meet someone forms an opinion about them, whether it be good or bad they do. But on a business level, and even on a consumer level your personal opinions should not matter. If they can sell the product or can do the work effectively, it should not matter how they look.

Get over your self people, and stop being selfish.

Everybody seems to want to have their cake and eat it too. People with tattoo's want to be able to freely display their personality on their skins, but they also don't want to be discriminated. However, having prejudices is a unavoidable part of the human psychology. Not only is it natural to judge somebody's personality on how they look, but when a person displays their personality on their arms, they're are allowing people to form a prejudges opinion on a deeper level.

One the other hand, the new law in Bountiful that prevents people with tattoos or piercings from having a job with the city government is increasing the unemployment rate. One third of the people who apply for a government job in the city of Bountiful are turned down because of tattoos or piercings. Since there are so many people out of work these days, there is no shortage of people without tattoo's, who really need a job, to fill the position. So I can't say that is doing harm to the overall economy, but it is making people of a certain group far more susceptible to poverty. Let's not be coy, prejudices have driven entire races into poverty. Look at the African and Hispanic American communities, a majority of them struggle to make rent, living in broken down violent neighborhoods this is, and very small percent of these people will rise above poverty. The way someone displays them selves will always be big factor when it comes to getting a job, but that should remain a unspoken rule, not a written law. So someone might walk in the office and see a employee with tattoo's, that person can think what ever they want to about the employee, they may think that the employee is the scum of the earth if they please, but just because someone might think that doesn't justify making that person ineligible for the job. Get over it people, stop thinking that your personal opinion matters enough to force your will on other people just to make sure you don't have to see anything you don't agree with.

Bountiful City Tattoo Policy

Tattoo's, are of course, a way of expressing ones self. If I personally were rejected a job because of a form of expression I used, I don't think I would want to work there at all. I wouldn't fight for something where, once I get it, I am still discriminated against. This happened. And if people with visible tattoos are allowed to have these jobs again, the situation is still recognized. Some people just do not let these things go!
I have nothing against tattoos. So in my mind, this is bringing up the struggle to choose your self expression or a job. I am studying to be a high school teacher, so I choose not to go out and get the tattoos that I had wanted since I was a little kid. I want to be more accepted into my career. My job requires things from me, and society is there to support these things if I like it or not. And if a job requires a professional look, that is just as important as anything else that is required.
If you absolutely have to get a visible tattoo, look for a job that doesn't care. I have nothing against people who may fight to work where they please, I do support those that do that. But the job is what it is.

Bountiful Tattoo Policy

I think that they should get rid of the law in Bountiful concerning employees having tattoos. For most people, tattoos and piercings are a way of expressing who they are and what they love. Personally, for me, I wouldn't ever get a tattoo or piercing because of my religious beliefs, but I'm not against those who have them. To me, they are still people who have the potential of becoming whatever they want to be, they are still people that shouldn't be discriminated against. However, I can see the employer's point of view as well, they want to maintain an official look for their business and in their eyes tattoos and piercings just don't make the cut, but the old saying still stands true, you can't judge a book by its cover. When we judge others by their outward appearance we are losing the chance to know them as people.
If this law is allowed to continue it would be promoting discrimination. What will our kids think when we say discriminating against people is wrong, except if they have tattoos and piercings? I think that if one law allows discrimination, then eventually more laws will be made that allow discrimination and then where would we be? To me, this law in Bountiful is there because people know that it is wrong to discriminate but they feel that if there is a law saying that they can reject employment because of tattoos then it is okay to discriminate and I completely disagree.

Bountiful City Tattoo Policy

To have a tattoo is a choice, everyone knows that. As Americans we have that right. For a city to make a law of that kind is discriminating; any law that restricts according to how you look is such. Some may consider tattoos to be different because one who has a tattoo chose to put it there; a tattoo also has a message with it no matter what the tattoo is. Any potential employer can look at that tattoo and see the message it puts across. I think that the message is far more important than weather or not they have a tattoo. Many of the tattoos that I have seen do not put the best messages across; often it really is not that pleasant to look at. So in that case I would say that there shouldn't be a blanket law or policy stating: If you have a visible tattoo we won't employ you. Rather a policy that if your visible tattoo gives a message that the employer feels is offensive, or will discourage costumers from coming to the store, that can be grounds not to hire, or even grounds to fire a person. I am the kind of person who does not like the concept of tattooing so in my opinion any tattoo is not a good idea.

Bountiful Policy

The new Bountiful policy might fly with those who are lds, but not everyone in Utah carries those same beliefs and they shouldn't be forced to either. It seems that with this new law they're trying to do that. I am lds myself, but i also believe people should be able to be themselves and be judged on personality for things like employment. Why would you deny such capable people that have tattoos when they can possibly be much more capable than those without tattoos! It defies the logic of best man for the job. It is also not too far from racial discrimination or prejudice.
It also seems that they will get many more arguments out of this law than they will benefits. They created this law to create a higher caliber of employees as far as image-wise, but are we really trying to teach the youth of today to really on superficial ideals? Schools try to teach us now to get rid of stereotypes and not judge people by their appearance because in the long run that's not what matters or should matter. So having the law go against that is not only a contradiction but in many cases a step backwards. How can we ever progress as people if we hold onto such old-fashioned bias'?
I realize that they're not fully banning tattoos in the workplace,but it's not far from it. If they can have tattoos, the employers should not have control over what part of their body is tattooed.

Bountiful Policy

I think that what the City of Bountiful is doing is against our civil liberties. People shouldn’t be judged by whether or not they have tattoos; to me, that’s like saying, "We won’t hire you because of your skin." At that point, when will it stop? This will set us back, not keep us going forward. I do agree that if someone has a tattoo that is offensive, like a big swastika on your face, then obviously they have a valid reason in not hiring them. But what’s the harm in someone having a peace sign on their hand, or anything else? This also makes me wonder about the people that have the wedding rings tattooed on their finger. If a husband wanted show his wife how much he loved her by getting his wedding ring tattooed onto his finger, then it's possible he couldn't get hired for showing how committed he is in his relationship? Sorry if my comments offend anyone; I just feel very strongly about this. I guess I should say that, in their defense, it probably is difficult to keep the professional appearance if you have a worker like Lizard Man, who is covered in tattoos from head to toe. I know that they are just trying to make business more efficient, and that they believe that this is the best way to do this, but I think that there have to be other ways of accomplishing this; if not, then the policy has to be modified. However,in a place like Utah, I don't know whether this will be modified, or if it will just be forgotten about.

Bountiful City Policy

I think that this is a very interesting topic of discussion. Being someone who does not have any tattoos I find it hard to relate to those that do. I feel like this has been an issue for many years and it continues to cause a lot of controversy. The question with the policy that I have is what does someone having a tattoo show about who they are as a person. I find nothing wrong with wanting to be classy, or to present yourself in a way that appears upstanding. I sometimes wonder why people who willing pierce or tattoo their bodies feel like it is wrong for someone not to want that to represent them. That however does not mean I feel it is right to not hire someone based on an assumption of what having a tattoo or a piercing means, or shows about a person.

I think that if the reason they are making this the policy is because they feel that those with tattoos are not as hard of workers or some other type of stigma that follows tattoos then I feel like it is a sad day for people with tattoos and piercing. In my opinion the way you judge a person or in this case the way you evaluate someone is by who they are not because of what they are. Each of us has a picture in our mind of what people are without really even knowing the person. From my experience I have learned that people can look a certain way and they can actually be very different. I have only learned that by getting to know the person and actually seeing who they are. I believe that as a society whenever there has been what I call blank statements placed upon people there is never good results.

Bountiful City's ban on visible tattoos

I think this is definitely a two sided issue and on each side there is a reasonable argument. I can see the point of view of the employee feeling discriminated against because of his or her physical appearance, specifically tattoos and piercings. Physical appearance and many other factors sometimes play an unfair role in the decision process of an employer selecting future employees. No one wants to have unfair or incorrect judgments or stereotypes placed on them that would label them as less qualified for a particular job.
In this argument it is also important to see the point of view of the employer. An employer wants his employees to reflect the place of business. Many of the things we do are done in following a trend of culture. Culture influences many of the things we do every day, is different everywhere you go, and can even change over time. In our culture visible tattoos and piercings tend to carry connotations contrary to a professional atmosphere however accurate or inaccurate they may be. Everyone has heard the common motto of many employers, “the customer is always right!” Many times an employer must do things for the sole purpose of pleasing his customers. Some customers will not buy a product from someone with tattoos and piercings. However wrong the customer’s judgments of the employee may be, the employer simply cannot afford to hire him. Although I believe judging someone based on physical appearance is wrong, I believe it is not always our employers, but in many cases our culture that makes these judgments.

Link For Friday's Blog

There is a blog assignment for Friday. In order to write the blog entry, you will first need to read/watch the KSL News story on Bountiful City's ban on visible tattoos. You can do that here.

As your assignment schedule explains, you need to comment on the posts of two of your classmates in addition to writing an original post. Your response should largely focus on the content of the piece, not its rhetoric. This is a dialectic exercise, so I am mainly interested in a discussion. How do you feel about the law? Is it fair? Is it a violation of an individual's rights? Try to consider the point of view of both a potential employer and employee.

Also, the assignment schedule says to read the first 1/2 of Chapter 6, but then it lists the page numbers for the entire chapter. For Friday, you only need to read pages 109-126.

Thanks.

Sorry to use class online space to show off my baby girl.

But check her out, isn't she awesome.

9 lbs, labor took a toll of my wife,

I'll be staying with her in the hospital while she recovers.

See you guy's in class ASAP.

-Eric

Updated Reading & Assignment Schedule

There is now an updated reading and assignment schedule posted to the documents site. Please use the updated schedule from now on.

See you tomorrow.

Class Cancellation 5/19

I apologize for the short notice, but we will not be having class today. My daughter has been trying to see a specialist, and there was a cancellation today. I have to go when I can or else I won't be able to get her in for months.

I will be posting a revised assignment schedule today or tomorrow, but in the short term, please just push everything back a day. Bring your ads on Friday. The Visual Rhetorical Analysis peer review will be on Monday, and the final draft will be due on Wednesday. In other words, what is on the schedule for today will now be Friday. What is on the schedule for Friday will now be Monday. You get the idea.

Please email me with any questions. I will see you on Friday.

~Daniel

Believing and Doubting

I will explain the Believing and Doubting assignment in class on Wednesday, but below are the statements you may choose from. (Note: You may also write your own statement as long as it is problematic, significant, and interesting.) This assignment (2 pages) is due on Friday when you come to class.

1. Home schooling is just as beneficial to a young person as public schooling.
2. It should be illegal to use a cell phone while driving.
3. To help fight terrorism and promote public safety, individuals should be willing to give up some of their rights.
4. College students who know what they want to do for a career should be able to skip general education requirements.
5. Students and teachers should not be allowed to communicate with each other via social networking sites like Facebook.
6. In recent years, advertising has made enormous gains in portraying women as strong, independent, and intelligent.
7. There should be a tax on unhealthy foods, similar to current taxes on tobacco and alcohol.
8. Potential employers should be able to reject job candidates because of tattoos, piercings, or extreme hairstyles.
9. Drivers of high-consumption vehicles (SUVs, muscle cars, big trucks, etc.) should pay an energy tax.
10. In order to decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil, we should increase drilling off-shore and in the ANWR province of Alaska.
11. If there is a law I believe to be immoral or unjust, I should refuse to follow it.
12. High schools should censor what kind of reading material is available to students.
13. Performance-enhancing drugs should be legalized and regulated in professional sports.
14. Grades are an effective means of motivating students to do their best work.
15. Child vaccinations for measles, chicken pox, hepatitis, H1N1, etc. should be mandatory.
16. We should be able to adapt the United States Constitution to meet the needs of the 21^stCentury.
17. Illegal immigrants should be deported.
18. Testing medications, beauty products, and weapons on animals is cruel and should be banned.
19. Whoever gets the most votes in a presidential election should be elected. We should do away with the electoral college system.
20. In order to save money, we should cancel the space program and focus on our own planet.

Problematic, arguable question.

Should death penalty be abolished?

Problematic, Arguable Question

Should legal driving age stay at 16?

Problematic Question

Should parents be allowed to sell their babies for money?

Problematic, Arguable Question

Should students get denied financial aid because their parents make too much money?

Problematic Question

Should gay couples have the same rights as other couples, when it comes to children?

Problematic Question

Should the government regulate how many kids you should have?

Problematic Question

Should our internet service remain neutral, or should internet service providers be able to limit our access based on a tier/subscription model?

Problematic Question...

Should there be free education for anyone that wants it?

Arguable, problematic question

Should foreign language instruction begin in kindergarten?

PAQ

Should parents who have committed several felonies have their parental rights terminated?

Problematic Question

Should the United States retire the space shuttle, leaving the U.S. reliant on other country's to get our astronauts to and from the Space station?

Problematic questions

Should a sex offender's criminal record be open to the public or protected?

Problematic Question

Should the legal drinking age be lowered to 18?

controversial question

Should marijuana be made legal for recreational use, and regulated like alcohol and tobacco?

Problematic Question

Should teaching about contraceptives be allowed in high school, or should we primarily advocate abstinence?

Question...

Should medical doctors, by law, have to help their patients understand that chemotherapy is not FDA approved?

Problematic, Arguable Question

Should not regular compus activities be performed in the UVU library to make quiet study area?

Arguable, Problematic Question

Should Arizona officers be given the authority to stop suspected illegal immigrants and demand proof of citizenship?

Question

Are mandatory minimums for crimes like drug possession just when many violent crimes don't carry such strict punishments?

Welcome to Our Class Blog

Welcome to our online community, a public forum for continuing discussion.

Please check the blog daily, even on days when there is no required post. I will often post announcements or schedule changes here. For example, in the event that I have to cancel class for any reason, I will announce that here.

Please be aware of the following: The cut-off time for posting is one hour before class starts. Like all work in this class, blog responses cannot be made up. If you post late, I will delete your post.

In order to join the blog, you must register. To do this, send me an email (dwestover@uvu.edu) from the account you would like to use. Please include your first and last name in the email, as well as your section number (A08). In return, I will send an invitation to that same email. Accept that invitation by following the appropriate links and becoming a contributor. Blogging is a required component of this course, and you will need to contribute right away, so please register today.

Thanks! I'm looking forward to a great summer.

-Daniel