Initially, I thought I could see both sides of this debate.
Here's the deal; on one hand, a person has the right to look as they choose, and their personal hair styles, body decor, etc. does nothing to change the quality of work they do, so why should they have to change?
On the other hand, companies have every reason to want to promote a positive image to their customers. They certainly don't want to frighten homeowners when the tech first rolls up to the door.
I got to thinking about this, and thought to myself, hey, some people ARE disturbed by tattoos, and long hair, and don't want people like that in their homes, for whatever reason. This would concern management, of course.
However..... There was a time, not so long ago, that some folks were "uncomfortable" having different ethnic groups enter their home. Would it be ok in today's world for them to call the company sending the tech out and say, "I can't believe you sent this (choose your ethnicity) out to my home!" That would be considered descrimination in a heartbeat. A company would not DREAM of firing someone, or not hiring them, based on that, or face some pretty serious consequences.
SO, my question is, what's the difference? If one has long hair, a beard, tattoos, etc., arrives at the home, clean, and polite, and does good work, does a company really have the right to deny them work? Can they choose not to hire them simply on this basis? There are some belief systems out there that do not allow for their followers to cut their hair or beard, and there are some pacific islanders who wear tatoos as part of their spiritual set. It seems to me that policies that enforce a dress code that does not allow for this ARE descrimination, plain and simple.
As a homeowner, you can refuse to allow anyone entrance to your home, but as a company, I don't believe you have the right to make that choice for them.
Thats just my 2 cents.
Re: tattoos, beards, long hair...
There are 4 replies to this message