UK.gov would pay to have benefit claimants' tattoos erased The government has confirmed that it is prepared to pay for plastic surgery for tattoo-emblazened benefit claimants – if the inked-up individuals get a job offer first. The unemployment eraser plan was confirmed in a Commons answer yesterday. David Ruffley MP had asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions "what …
So I'm so fucking stupid I got "MIM" or "GRIM RAEPER" misspelled tattoos inked on my face when I was 17 and now I'm 35 and the Gov want to get of my arse and start earning, someone else has to pay to have them removed so I can get a job?! FUCK OFF!!
Tough luck, you'll have to wear long sleeves, gloves and balaclavas to cover the tats when you go to the interviews!
Appreciate your suggestions for the recovering heroin addict I met who was trying to turn his life around but unfortunately had the word "C**T" emblazoned across his forehead - he has no idea when/why he did it. He was 6 months clean and doing well, but unsurprisingly finding it difficult to find work. But maybe he should be punished for all eternity eh?
I can understand both the ire of people who object to being forced to fund the undoing of the stupidity of the inked, and the desire to get the inked off the unemployment roles and into (tax-)paying jobs.
What about this: offer the person a low interest loan, to be paid back from the proceeds of the job? That should address the issues of both sides nicely, as well as discouraging the abuse of the system.
"That doesn't mean public money should be spent on his tattoo removal. Family, friends, religious charities. He has to make a case to people who know him."
You've never dealt with heroin addicts then, recovering or otherwise. Most have no friends or families who want to know them and find it very difficult to fit back into society - they're not all Russell Brand. As for "religious" charities, you'd be surprised how few religions (ironically) are keen to help the really needy. I'll leave it to you to argue whether desperate people should be shepherded into organised religion. But maybe anyone who has made a wrong or misguided choice should be left to kind-hearted people (charities) - let's put smokers with lung/heart diseases into that category. Or AIDS/HIV sufferers. After all, they're both groups of people who have diseases that could be prevented.
If he is getting a job as a result this should be a loan.
If the youthful indiscretion of going to a university is punished from your salary until you pay back, I do not see why the youthful indiscretion of having something moronic tatooed where customers can see it should not be punished as well.
Just give him a loan at standard university loan conditions and collect it back the same way (but with lower salary limit). Case closed.
The way I read the article was:
Suppose someone applies for a job serving customers at McDonalds. They have lots of experience in the fast food business, a great attitude, McDonalds would love to hire them. But they have something objectionable (maybe "I love Burger King") tattooed on their forehead. So McDonalds say "we'll hire you IF you get that tattoo removed, but we can't hire you with the tattoo". In that case, the Jobcenter will consider paying for tattoo removal.
(All details are obviously fictional...)
As far as using taxpayer money goes... remember, this is someone who's already being paid unemployment benefit from taxpayer's money. So the question is whether this is value-for-money for taxpayers - i.e. is it likely to save more benefit payments than it costs.
Somebody is going to get that job at McDonalds and come off benefits (or leave a different job for someone else to take). A bunch of other people won't get the job and will stay on the dole.
In the big picture, it doesn't make the slightest difference *which* person gets the job, so why the hell do the government spend money on helping particular people get jobs - for everyone they help, someone else loses out.
Especially annoying if the person is being helped out of a situation brought about by their own stupidity.
Yeah, sure, let's cultivate a group of young men with no investment in our society whatsoever, rather than going to a little extra effort to find them something to do that's less problematic than stealing cars, breaking into houses, or mugging people. No way that can go wrong.
why would they need their tattoos removed?
Maybe employers could be just, I dunno, maybe 5% less fascist and recognise that some people possess skills other than the ability to appear visually pleasing.
How many jobs actually require you to look good? I work in a dark office in a backwards town full of inbreds, why should I not have a tattoo? Incidentally, I don't, nor do I want one, but the point stands.
You could argue "well it shows they have poor judgment blah blah blah" Why does it show poor judgment? Because they should have known that you wouldn't hire them with a tattoo? And why wouldn't you hire them with a tattoo? Because it shows poor judgment? Circular bullshit logic it is for sure, but it's terribly convenient for denying jobs to people you "just don't like".
Fucking hell, can't have a guy or girl with tattoos, they might also have some interesting stories to tell and we can't put up with that kind of shit in a work environment. Everyone should just shut up, dress how I say, and enjoy their minimum wage.
That's freedom.
It does show stupidity if you get a really awful tattoo that's spelled wrong, or has the wrong date on it, or generally looks as if you didn't bother telling the guy what you wanted before he started injecting dye in your face. But there are jobs even idiots can do, so in some sense a guy with a tattoo like that is perfect to mix cement all day on your construction site. Give people a fair chance to do something is all I'm saying.
At the very least...why aren't they offering to take the tattoos off of them once they've paid 6-months of tax and national insurance into the system?!
This is f--king stupid. Get a job OFFER and then get paid to take off your tattoos? Since I had 10 offers the last time I was looking for a job do I get entitled to something I haven't worked for as well?
I'm so sick of this molly-coddling pathetic attitude. Stop giving people free stuff all the time when they've never raised a finger to work. We should have the adage 'We will not let you starve, and not let you freeze, nor die out in the rain, but we will not fund you a lifestyle - that's yours to earn'.
Shall we stop clearing up the litter from your street, maintaining your local park and all the other "free stuff" you get as well then? Are you actually saying that people who cannot work because of health issues should not have the right to have a "lifestyle". Yeah, all the severally disabled people with life limiting conditions will be over joyed hearing that, knowing that they will be fed and housed but can get to hell if they think they are entitled to a little money so that they can leave their home now and then for a day out or to visit family or buy a computer to use the interwebz.
Most people who don't work actually don't work because there are not enough jobs or they cant work. Daily Mail is that way son. Go read it if you want to believe all the myths about benefits claimants. You'll probably love it.
> would it make more sense to make money available to remove claimants' tattoos BEFORE they actually have the job interview?
A few problems with that:
Firstly, tattoo removal might not actually help them get a job. (Either they don't get a job, or they get one that doesn't care about tattoos). In that case, you've wasted taxpayer money. If you wait until they have a job offer that is conditional on a tattoo removal, then you don't waste money.
Secondly, there are probably jobs available that don't care about tattoos. They may be lower-paying jobs, but society needs people to do the lower-paying jobs. If an individual chooses to have a tattoo, then that individual should accept the consequences of their choice. They shouldn't expect taxpayers to pay when they change their mind. (If the individual wants to pay for tattoo removal, they have that choice too). Obviously, there can be exceptional circumstances where it's justified for the taxpayer to pay for tattoo removal, but this should not be the norm.
Thirdly, providing tattoo removal more widely would tend to force people to have tattoos removed, even if they don't want to. To get unemployment benefit, you have to show you're looking for work. I can imagine the argument that: "Oh, you have a visible tattoo. That reduces your ability to find work. So you should get it removed, or else we'll have to reconsider your unemployment benefit". (I'm sure that wouldn't be government policy, but I can imagine some Jobcenter workers using it anyway). While I don't have any tattoos and would never get any, I support other people's right to have tattoos.
and don't think this is much of an idea.
Stop bashing an entire political system because of one thing you don't like.
I can think of much greater injustices dealt out by the capitalist system .... (and to paraphrase the old saying about communism 'if you like capitalism so much, why don't you move to the U.S.A.')
Apologies for deriding your favorite 'ism'. Personally I'm not that keen on any of them.
Following up your discussion about moving to the U.S.A I assume you would be posting from China, Cuba etc..... I did think that socialism fell out of favour a litte, what with Tony and Gordon?
In my opinion Titus Technophobe, those who trott out the "hard working families" line are usually selfish idiots who don't actually work hard at all. You think you work hard but compared to some people in this world, your life is so easy. If you don't like it then you can stop sending you kids to state school, stop using the NHS and getting all your prescribed drugs for free, stop using the public road network - you get the idea, all that "socialist toilet" stuff you use all the time. You're probably depriving a family that works harder than you do of its use.
I agree I don't work as hard as some people in the world. That said I do work harder than some idiot sitting on the dole, and don't really sympathize if they can't then get a job because they have chosen to disfigure themselves with a tattoo.
In part it comes down to being accountable for your own actions........
We're told that 90% of jobs are never advertised at all, or some other frighteningly large percentage I can't currently remember.
People are constantly trying to ram home the value of "networking" to find your next job. Well what if you hate networking, what then? You're fucked aren't you.
In my day we called it "brown nosing".
Local Rag stopped beng local years ago when it was borged in to a natonal collection of 'locals'. Not so much as a gradual downhill slide but a ski jump slope.
Local journo's were on strike recently as the mega-corp decided that junior staff was all that were neded to answer the phone to local peope with local problems - reporting is out, another page of 'massage' adverts looms on the horizon.
The local journalists will be soon joining the inked at the Lack of Jobs Centre
I'm a UX practitioner for one of the largest media agencies in the UK and I'm inked all over the place (As well as pierced). Never had an issue finding work because of them, even with the stupid dots on my right knuckles that I did when I was 14 (Now 36).
I used to have issues with U.S. clients about 10 years ago, but know it's generally acceptable to have tatt's/piercings and other modifications (Within the realms of sensibility).
Obviously if you have C**T on your forehead, then tbh, you really don't belong in normal society anyway,
A UX practitioner, indeed. You're in a field where *not* having visible tattoos or piercings is almost as contemptible as owning any computer but a Mac, and you honestly believe that this conversation has anything even remotely to do with you or your situation?
Don't get out much, do you?
For those who are unaware of the tattoo removal process. It doesn't leave a perfect area of skin afterwards. In most cases, you're left with a scar shaped like the tattoo that was there before, but more like a white brand mark. In some cases, the scarring from removal can be worse than the tattoo itself.
Obviously, it's far more sensible to keep paying them the dole than it is to actually let them take up a job offer. Idiots.
Many jobs will not employ you if you have visible tattoos. (No, wearing a balaclava will not circumvent the restriction.) I thought this used to be the case for the police but I recently met a police woman with one of those tacky "celtic" bands around the bicep - plainly visible in the short sleeve uniform top.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
