23-year-old Ash Putnam, who sports a bold appearance with facial piercings and tattoos, never imagined that her annoyance at being rejected for a job would become the subject of a global TikTok debate. Her video, in which she recounted how she was rejected for a job at TJ Maxx, provoked a contentious discussion on body art, hiring procedures, and the social definition of professional look in addition to pity.
Putnam described in her video how she applied for a job at TJ Maxx and was automatically emailed back to say that her application was rejected. Despite the email’s use of “insufficient training” as an excuse, Putnam couldn’t get rid of the impression that the decision was influenced more by her obvious piercings and tattoos. With obvious distress, she revealed, “It felt like a cold, impersonal response.” “They didn’t even bother to properly explain the reasoning, and I can’t help but wonder if my tattoos had anything to do with their choice.”
With thousands of views and a deluge of comments, Putnam’s TikTok video immediately became popular. While several users sympathized with her predicament, many others thought that the store’s choice might have been affected by her appearance, especially her facial tattoos. “I’ve had experiences like this,” a commenter stated. “I’ve been turned down for jobs because of my tattoos too.” Someone else said, “I believe they’re just being straightforward about what they expect from employees—appearance matters.”
Conversely, several people supported Putnam, claiming that a person’s professional talents shouldn’t be impacted by their body piercings or tattoos. “Why are we still judging people based on their appearance in 2024?” a user said. “Your ability to perform a job is completely unaffected by your tattoos.” Many people with body art are highly educated, smart, and hardworking, according to several respondents who voiced displeasure with antiquated assumptions. “Some of the smartest people I know have tattoos,” tweeted another TikTok member. “It’s time to stop associating body art with a lack of professionalism.”
In addition to being a personal setback, Putnam saw the rejection as a challenge to the way society perceives body art in the workplace. Although they are not “traditional,” she feels that a person’s abilities or character are not defined by their tattoos or body piercings. “I just want to be given a fair shot,” she stated in her recordings. “My abilities and work ethic are not conveyed by my tattoos.”
According to Putnam, body alteration like as tattoos and piercings are frequently viewed as a means of self-expression rather than a reflection of one’s ability. Body art should be viewed as an additional form of individualism rather than a factor that disqualifies someone from employment, she said, much like how people express themselves via their hobbies, music, or clothes. She added, “I believe businesses should reevaluate their attitudes regarding tattoos.” “I’ve met some of the smartest, most committed people, and they have tattoos and piercings. We must dispel these outdated preconceptions.
The ongoing discussion regarding body art in professional contexts has been fueled by Putnam’s experience. Many companies still have stringent grooming and appearance standards that forbid visible tattoos and piercings, despite the fact that tattoos are becoming more and more popular, particularly among younger generations. How body art influences employment decisions is a complicated topic in sectors including tech, retail, and even hospitality.
Maintaining a “neutral” or “polished” appearance, according to some companies, is crucial for representing the brand’s image and appealing to a wide range of consumers. According to some, professionalism should be assessed based on abilities rather than looks. In the comments, one business owner stated, “We hire people for what they can do, not for how they look.” However, it is evident from Putnam’s video and the discussion that follows that not everyone believes this, particularly in a setting where workplace culture is increasingly centered around diversity and inclusion.
The uproar surrounding Putnam’s story serves as a reminder of a profound societal change that is gradually taking place. Businesses may eventually become more tolerant of body art as more people with tattoos and body piercings join the workforce. Some businesses, especially those in the creative industries, have already adopted a more laid-back approach toward appearance, but others are still mired in antiquated notions of what is “appropriate” in the workplace.
However, it’s feasible that the workplace may need to change as societal perceptions continue to shift and younger generations call for a wider acceptance of diversity in all its forms. Employees who feel free to be who they really are at work are often happier and more productive, according to research. As a result, more businesses may eventually reevaluate their rules and realize that professionalism and talent aren’t determined by a person’s appearance.
Putnam’s story illustrates how workplace diversity is evolving, as does the viral reaction it received. Companies are expected to start reevaluating their hiring criteria as more people come forward about their experiences with body art prejudice. It is more important to prioritize abilities, experience, and work ethic than looks.
Putnam stated in a subsequent video, “I don’t want to feel like I have to hide parts of myself to fit in.” “Anyone should be able to apply for a job and still be accepted for their true self, tattoos and all.”
In the end, Putnam’s TikTok video inspired a conversation about a lot more than tattoos. Inclusion, the belief that professional success should be based on one’s abilities rather than one’s appearance, and the continuous change of workplace culture are all important. Although the argument is far from done, Putnam’s story has unquestionably accelerated the discussion of diversity, inclusivity, and the nature of labor in the future.
