HRD Canada forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
HRM CA | 25 Jul 2014, 11:14 AM Agree 0
Tattoos are becoming increasingly common, but for one company, an employee’s inked foot was a step too far.
  • Carrin | 25 Jul 2014, 02:07 PM Agree 0
    Curious, how did the small tattoo on the employee's foot affect performance. Clearly the organization that terminated the executive did not take into account the cost to replace an employee with intellectual property. On their own website they claim "applying fresh thinking, and old school credentials and new school thinking". Interesting, I suspect it is not just the tattoo.
  • Andrew J. Yu | 25 Jul 2014, 03:19 PM Agree 0
    Given Ms. Perkins’ executive position, there is a possibility that the tattoo was only a superficial excuse on paper to justify termination, with office politics being the real but “unofficial” reason.
  • Mary | 25 Jul 2014, 04:45 PM Agree 0
    I suspect Carrin is right; the point was the refusal to follow the directive, not the tattoo. If she can't be bothered to put on a little band-aid to work to appease her boss, what can they expect when a big issue arises? The cues are in the "she felt" and then she "suggested" - at no point did she just do as she was told.
  • Ann | 25 Jul 2014, 06:01 PM Agree 0
    What about pants with trouser socks or dresses with tights (instead of hosiery)? If your boss wants a conservative image, then he/she is entitled to your compliance, subject to religious or racial discrimination issues. Perhaps the issue really was the employee's attitude (i.e. the rules don't apply to me?)
Post a reply