ljwalters Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Client was required to remove a tatoo on her leg as hiring requirement. Would this be job search expense. She is a fireman. I said no. but she is insistant. Linda and buddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 >>a tatoo on her leg<< What could be more inherently personal than a part of her own body? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfling Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 True. Very personal. I simply cannot imagine any fire personnel having a leg exposed while on the job. Since clothes/gear would already be covering it removal should not have been necessary. Plus there are extremely good topical concealers on the market these days. Just my 2¢. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 >>I simply cannot imagine any fire personnel having a leg exposed while on the job.<< Why not, if she exposed it during tryouts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILLMAS Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 I think if her employer asked her to get rid of it with the condition of employment is discrimination, my wife works for large corporation and they are really serious when it comes to tattoos, don't show don't tell. I think she is trying to pull your leg and agree her with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 >>clothes/gear would already be covering it<< That gear just covers the wall until she puts it on. During that process, co-workers might well be offended if the tattoo has political, religious, or other social relevance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldJack Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 >>What could be more inherently personal than a part of her own body?<< This taxpayer thinks they are a tax expert. No deduction...No way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfling Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 >>clothes/gear would already be covering it<< That gear just covers the wall until she puts it on. During that process, co-workers might well be offended if the tattoo has political, religious, or other social relevance. True. But that is a personal issue. From a tax standpoint, I agree with no deduction no way. Socially, I've been called a bit of a liberal. Kids I work with call me a "biker chick." Most of our family do ride motocycles. My first husband (who died many years back) was the president of the Lost Riders Motorcycle Club PA chapter. He was the stereotypical bearer of cyclist tattoos. My current husband has a combination of native american and age of dragon tattoos. I have 6 tattoos myself, all birds, that most people think are rather pretty. All 4 of our daughters also sport very tasteful body art as do the sons-in-law. Most of the pieces are not exposed during the colder northeast winters, but we love letting them show during warmer months. It's part of who we are and we'd never consider removal. In fact, it takes many months, sometimes years, to decide on having a new piece added because each peice is very personal and is expected to be permanent. On the job front, being self-employed, I don't ever need to cover up my art. My office, my way. But other family members have been employed by outfits where tattoos are not allowed to be visible. That is easily accomplished via clothing or cosmetics, not removal. One of my favorite sayings applies here: Be who you are. Those that matter don't mind; those that mind don't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljwalters Posted March 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 She was asked at the interview if she had any tattoos. And then where they were. Only the one on her leg, above the sock line and below the knee was asked to be removed as a condition of employment. Fire fighters some times where shorts evidently. She is with Calfire. I did not give her the deduction but had to ask. He was hoping for a job search cost deduction. After she removed the tattoo, she got a job at another station in a different town. The cost was $1300. I can see why she went to the expense, a lot of cities are lying off police and fire, not hiring. Just a sign of the times I guess. Linda and buddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.