Nowadays, ink can get you fired from your job as easily as it can get you an interview for one. The ink on a job application being considered more appropriate than the ink on people’s bodies has become the foundation of a growing debate. Workers getting fired from their job for inked images on their body, employers disqualifying employees applying for a job because of facial piercings, and employees having to hide changes to their appearance to fit company dress codes all exemplify aspects of this issue regarding the treatment of body modifications in the workplace. On one side of this issue, there are those who do not find tattoos and piercings appropriate in the workplace, while on the other side, there are those who are impacted because
…show more content…
These statements made by Johnson outline his opinion efficiently but I felt that he did not go well enough in depth about why these views are justified. Summer Thomad’s online news article “Body Modifications Vs. The Workplace” for
Southwest Shadow does a better job arguing and justifying the opposing stance of Johnson’s regard to the professionalism point. In her article she makes the point that body modifications do not equate to how suited people are for their job. This is supported by her rationality that assuming an individual’s aptness based on “hair color or the ink on their skin” is just as silly as making judgments based on their inherent traits such as race or gender. She references Edward
Rangel, a dedicated and hardworking server who was blatantly fired for getting tattoos on his wrists, to further back her argument. I found that the logic and reasoning that Thomad included in her article not only strengthened her case but it effectively countered the bias that was hardly supported in Johnson’s opposing article, as well.
Another matter addressed within both articles pertained to body
These statements made by Johnson outline his opinion efficiently but I felt that he did not go well enough in depth about why these views are justified. Summer Thomad’s online news article “Body Modifications Vs. The Workplace” for
Southwest Shadow does a better job arguing and justifying the opposing stance of Johnson’s regard to the professionalism point. In her article she makes the point that body modifications do not equate to how suited people are for their job. This is supported by her rationality that assuming an individual’s aptness based on “hair color or the ink on their skin” is just as silly as making judgments based on their inherent traits such as race or gender. She references Edward
Rangel, a dedicated and hardworking server who was blatantly fired for getting tattoos on his wrists, to further back her argument. I found that the logic and reasoning that Thomad included in her article not only strengthened her case but it effectively countered the bias that was hardly supported in Johnson’s opposing article, as well.
Another matter addressed within both articles pertained to body