Originally Posted by cheflayne
The previous poster has given me some great ideas for new questions that I will include in future interviews of employment candidates. I am always on the outlook for creative and opened minded people, especially for kitchen positions. I consider myself to be a very out of the box thinker and I appreciate like minded staff.
While the previous poster did spark the intellectual process, they probably wouldn't be hired though because I sense closed minded preconceived ideas, which are not valued qualities in my kitchen.
Oh yeah, by the way, I am probably what would be considered an old person and or chef.
So, I am closed minded and have preconceived ideas, but people who wouldn't hire someone with tattoos are not? Weird logic....
I probably shouldn't have made such a blanket statement that seemed to ruffle feathers. I probably should have said that chefs "of a certain age" are "more likely" to care about tattoos than a younger generation chef. Tattoos are extremely common nowadays, and no longer represent someone who is a criminal or otherwise dysfunctional as a human. That is a holdover attitude of an older generation that will, likely, largely die out in the next couple of decades, if not sooner.
Originally Posted by foodpump
Oop, got cut off.
But Someday, I really see a lot into your statement about old people people.
Who needs them anyway? It's not like their opinions matter
They're finished, washed up, a zero to society, right?
I may be 47 but I'm not old, never will be.
Who needs Old people? Who needs their prudently invested money? Who needs their wisdom? Who needs thier expertise in their various fields?
Sure glad you'll never get old, Someday
"Old" in and of itself wasn't meant as an insult, it's a statement of my opinion. My inkling is that people from an older generation than my own are more likely to think less of a person who has an excess of tattoos. If you guys object to me using the word "old" then I apologize. Again, it wasn't meant as an insult, just a statement of fact. You seem to think somehow that, by sole virtue of me using the word "old," that I somehow am disrespectful or otherwise hateful towards people older than me.
Those are some pretty big assumptions and accusations based on me using the word old, don't ya think?
I would wager that if you polled a group of 50+ year olds, and polled a group of people aged under 25, and asked them if visible tattoos were "a bid deal" or otherwise grounds, in and of themselves, to not hire someone for a job, I would wager you'd get two vastly different results. It probably wouldn't be 100% either way, but I'd wager the vast majority of younger people would think it was no big deal, while the older people would think it was.
It's the same phenomenon with a lot of different things--rock and roll music was once looked on as some sort of "devil's" music. Nowadays, its tame compared to things like hop hop and gangsta rap. Television, movies, etc, all have discrepancies about what the older generation thinks is acceptable.
In 20 years (maybe less, mabye more) I'm guessing that tattoos will be like Elvis...my grandmother might not like them, but they are considered common and no longer a big deal.
Originally Posted by panini
not picking on you kiddo.
like an excess of visible tattoos, but the young, talented hip chef downtown who run a buzzy, trendy kitchen probably wouldn't care. In fact, he/she probably has some too.
I also think there is a misconception that inked people are talented and creative.
Hey tatts are as old as time.There are 10000s of reasons for them. I jest alot about them.
I have to tell you that my first experience with a tattoo left an indelible picture in my mind. Chefed will probably remember.
As a kid, I used to sneak over to the corner candy store in Brooklyn to help Bernie sweep up and recieve a few snacks maybe a couple of tokens.
I asked him all the time about his tattoo. He always brushed me off.
One day he took me in the back where they practically lived. His wife did sewing. A TV, little range, etc.
I'll never forget it. It started to rain. He explained to me what the numbers and letters on his arm meant. And that he stood up to people, and how that was so important, which meant he went to a different camp. I sat there just listening while I heard his wife weeping in the other room. Not another word was ever said about it, didn't need to.
I don't think that someone who has tattoos is more creative than someone without them. I don't know where you got that info. In fact, I would say the VAST majority of tattoos are stupid and probably will someday be regretted by the wearer. That is not the issue. The issue is exclusion based solely on tattoos, which I think is an old-fashioned viewpoint likely to go away in the next 20 or so years. But the simple truth is, there are a lot of young chefs out there with tattoos. That was my only point.
That is a nice story about the holocaust survivor, but I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. Tattoos like that are probably off limits for this discussion by simple fact that the wearer obviously had no choice in the matter. And I would hope, no matter what preconceptions or generational biases might exist, that Bernie was never turned down for a job based on that tattoo.
Originally Posted by PeteMcCracken
This reveals far more than your attitude concerning tattoos.
Best of luck in your future endeavors.
Because I used the word "old?"
Your negative reaction to that word also reveals a lot about you and your sensitivity levels. No where in my post did I use old as a disparaging word, it was meant only to highlight the age gap between people who are likely to care about this sort of thing and those who don't. Old is not a bad word, though it seems a lot of you are choosing to take it that way.
Originally Posted by chefhow
This is funny, because I owned one of those hip trendy places 15 years ago and I didnt hire or allow anyone in my OPEN kitchen to have visible tatts or peircings other than in their ears. PERIOD!!! YOU are an impression on MY customers and they see you as an ambassador to MY establishment. If I hired you and you went out and got one where it couldnt be covered than sorry but you had to go. I was a smallish place that couldnt afford to have a side show of a line cook infront of people, no matter how educated, talented or nice they were empressions are lasting and they are forever. 1 unhappy guest tells 10 people...... you know the story.
And for the record I was in my late 20's when I owned my place and had it for 4 years until I closed up shop and moved to the Islands...
You kind of prove my point. Given your timeline, I would suppose that you are pushing 50. I would argue that you are in the lower percentile of the age range of people who find tattoos dis-tasteful. As would my parents. As would, I'm guessing and giving my opinion here, most people over the age of 50. The fact that you owned your restaurant 15+ years ago doesn't mean much, as a lot has changed since then, tattoos have become much more common in the last 15-20 years, and your attitudes on the subject are unlikely to change and are probably the same as they were 15 years ago.
Your post would be different if you were under the age of, say, 30 now, owned a trendy spot downtown, and absolutely loathed tattoos in your kitchen. But hey, all I'll say is that I'm around 30, have worked in kitchens for about 9 years, though I dabbled a bit when I was in high school in the late 90's. And tattoos are quite common amongst kitchen staff, really aren't a big deal, and probably won't be in the future.
Again, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if chefs don't want to hire people because of tattoos, that is their business of course.
By the way, if you guys want to see some hideous tattoos and wonder what the hell people are doing to their bodies, check this site out. http://ugliesttattoos.failblog.org/ I wouldn't hire a lot of these people because they are stupid, not because they have tattoos. Well, I guess stupid tattoos. But not all tattoos are stupid.