Sometimes employers quire covering up of tattoos and sometimes employers do not mind, depending on the type of employment. A number of companies frequently perceive tattoos as a label for criminals and Individuals who operated outside the normal society. Employers are becoming more accustomed to hiring employees with tattoos. Tattoo Issue with Newton I would not consider Newton a problem employee but I would consider this a problem issue because if everyone had tattoos and they were allowed it would be fine.
But the policy says no tattoos showing out from under the uniform where they an be seen. Even though Newton considers his tattoos as an expression of art and speech, the united States Supreme Court considers tattoos not as speech, but just an expression of art. Complaint In accordance with policy at this law enforcement agency, there Is no policy forbidding tattoos while displaying the police uniform, specifically provocative tattoos, so no action Is taken.
Many companies would have a tattoo policy in place conveying how the tattoos are to be covered under the uniform or clothing attire, but the current law enforcement agency has no policy In effect. Officer Newton Is not necessarily a problem, but the tattoos could very well be an issue. Many individuals have tattoos, but in law enforcement the officers are perceived as role models and should display themselves as someone that other individuals can look up to or children can emulate when grown.
Appearance When there is no policy covering the Issue of tattoos management really cannot really confront the officer. The only option upper management would have Is to appropriate a new policy regarding tattoos In the workplace. In the mean, the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards the officer as a freedom interest and the First Amendment safeguards the officer because he or she has the right to express one- self. Tattoos are considered an art form with many individuals. Tattoos express a thought and commonly serve as a method of self-expression (FBI, 2007).
Disciplinary Actions Adolescently actions may vary such as a notice to Inform the employee of the situation that has risen, the chance for the employee to be heard by management, investigation if necessary or if the issues is not known, punishment if employee does to comply with the policy at hand, but the punishment must fit the incident, and provide the employee the opportunity to appeal the decision or policy. Policy Implementation The rule would not discriminate against Newton, although Newton would visibility of tattoos while displaying the uniform.
Tattoos represent many things in an individual's life from mishaps in childhood to issues in adult life. Tattoos are not considered as speech, but as a form of expression or as expressive art. New tattoo policy implementation must go through the upper management (Examiner, 2010). The management would need to write the policy regarding tattoos and have a conversation with anyone who the policy directly affected. Answer any questions anyone has about the implementation of the new policy. Then follow up with the policy by asking some employees to see what he or she thinks about the policy.
Support for the policy must be gained in order for the policy to be implemented. The implementation of the policy must be written on a document and signed off by management and employees (H. R. , n. D. ). Potential Issues or Ramifications Ramifications from disciplining an employee could be considerably illegal or deadly. An employee may become agitated and cause problems within the agency or business. Ramifications could be anything from threatening the management to causing disruption to the rest of the workplace.
Ramifications against the offensive employee would be detainment until law enforcement arrives or firing the individual. U. S. Supreme Court decisions Courts have accepted an individual's desire to render preferences concerning his or her appearance; the courts have in addition endorsed restrictions on free expression when such choices affect other individuals, as well as the damage to characters, company function, or community stability (Defibrillator, 2007). For instance, the United States Supreme Court recognized that appearance criteria and additional limitations.
For example, obligations for law enforcement officers to salute the flag, wear his or her uniform, and no smoking in public, invades on a law enforcement officer's preference in particular concerns (Defibrillator, 2007). On the other hand, the United States Supreme Court declared that a law enforcement agency must have a test of whether or not a statute is constitutional and inquiring if the ruling has a rational association to attaining an appropriate and statutory purpose. One such case is Riggs v. City of Fort Worth (Defibrillator, 2007).
The Riggs v. City of Fort Worth case concerns a law enforcement officer who had extensive tattoos and by the policy in place, had to cover them while on duty. Law enforcements officers believed that the tattoos were in fact not against the First Amendment. The officers thought they had every right to have tattoos according to he First Amendment. For example, a police officer who worked bicycle duty which he was instructed to put on clothes which would conceal his tattoos after his superior determined the tattoos took away from an authority persona.
The uniform policy described in the agency's handbook did not include a stipulation exclusively referring to tattoos (Defibrillator, 2007). The law enforcement officer was removed from his current duty and demoted after experiencing from overheating, which happened because of wearing clothes to cover his tattoos. The officer contended that his tattoos r a few of his tattoos should be safeguarded under the First Amendment.
He claimed one of his tattoos were of Celtic Tribal design, which portrayed his cultural heritage (Defibrillator, 2007). The United States Supreme court overruled his statement that his Celtic tattoo was a form of self-expression, but that is was beyond were protected under the First Amendment, the department's policy states stricter specification limitations on law enforcement officer's freedom of expression by the United States Supreme Court (Defibrillator, 2007).