Tattoo policy needles Los Angeles City firefighters

This is just the stupid city official way of dealing with things, backassward. But you have to say, at least the mayor is enforcing it on himself, you know, to hide his brown pride white fence tats.

But seriously, the city hires people from the military and now they think the employees should hide them. What a bunch of ninnies we have as city officials, they should all be replaced on the next election. Fools all of them and the citizens that vote them in every time. They can't take care of the serious things so they pass stupid requirements to make themself feel like they did something next to eating at tax payers expense in expensive restaurants.

What a bunch of nonsense...
Do the tattoos prevent them from doing the job they were hired to do? Do they make them any less effective when it comes to putting their lives on the line to protect people and property?

Personally, I wouldn't have ink that far down my arm. Mine is easily covered by a short sleeved shirt and long pants. But, if they choose to do that, I don't see a problem. If they were hired, based on qualifications, no problem. I don't think that the city should make an issue out of ink.

I have chosen to get tattoos that can be covered by a t-shirt. However, that's my choice. For those who choose to get more in more prominent areas, that's a matter of self-expression. I have to agree with Dino. Everyone has to hire based on qualifications and not race, handicaps, religions status, etc.. I am a former member of the military, so I undersand a little of "appearance standards," but, especially for those who have served for 20 years and only now are they being persecuted for appearance, I find that pretty offensive. Legally, you cannot be held liable for actions made prior to the passing of a law (i.e. wasn't illegal when you did it). I guess an "administrative rule" trumps the law, now, right?

I think some on a man is ok....Its the young girls and boys
putting them all over there bodies I think is awful
Its not pretty and someday they will all be sorry.....
its getting worse every day ...

This approach would be known as "heavy handed" if a private company were to re-implement a policy this way, or enforce an existing policy that had been ignored. "Heavy handed" can be, at times, a civil rights issue or a workplace environment issue. In this case it is the latter. The fire department has been so lax in enforcing its own rule that it has, by its own behavior, altered the rules regarding tattoos. If the FD wants to return to previous rules or raise the standards regarding tattoos's it must restate their regulations at a date that does not effect the personnel who "illustrated" their bodies during the period of neglect and leniency. Those who get "tats" AFTER the rule enforcement deadline would be subject to disciplinary actions. Those who already have them would be "grand-fathered" and eventually be referred to in the station house as "Pops".

Cover them nasty things up...

I question the right of the city to require it's employees to hide part of their anatomy. Having said that, it is also true that persons having tattoos are less trusted that those who don't - even by individuals who have tattoos themselves (per a recent study).

I guess it can be hard to distinguish between tattoos in honor of important events and/or persons, and those that indicate gang affiliation or just an extreme lack of judgement.

As long as it doesn't affect their ability to save your life, who cares if firemen have tattoos...

Firemen are hot anyway you look at them!=)

I'll be the first one to say that I don't like tattoos (nor body piercings) but what is this--the sixties? Tattoos have no bearing on the job and this policy should be revoked. Who is behind this?

That doesn't seem right! I would say as long as the tatoo's are appropiate they should be ok. Or at least have a policy for the existing LAFD employees who already have tatoos and restrict the new recruits. And making the employees keeping the tats covered at the station, they are crazy. I don't know what the correct answer is, but times have changed and I don't see tatoo's as a problem if they are appropiate. The LAFD needs to focus on real dept. issues like alcoholism, not tatoo's.

I am torn by the policy...
On one hand, I agree with John O'Conner. I am not able to see his tattoo's, however if they are symbols or colorings inline with good taste, then fine.
However I would not want my child to see some of the tattoo's on a public employee (while wearing a uniform) that I see on alot of people in Melrose, Venice & other counter-culture hangouts. I feel that you must represent your organization well while one the "job".
One can see then that a "good taste" policy would be subject to interpretation and that would lead to conflict. So the city must choose one side or the other.
With all that said, if my child is pulled out of a fire by these brave people, I don't care if they have nipple piercings, spiked hair, or even horrendous tattoos.. I appreciate their dedication to duty & public good.
Let's stop making rules and regulations. Instead let's teach tolerance and good society concepts.

I wonder if a survivor or victim of one our nation's latest floods say "Stop, let me look at your arms. Do you have any tatoos? If so, I don't want you near my home, family or pets."

A tattoo whether politically, nationally, spiritually or personally motivated is a person's right of speech and a representation of whom he/she is. It does not make him/her a bad person.

Leave the tatoos alone! And thank you men/women for putting our lives and the lives of our families/friends above yourselves and your own families.

Yay to comment #9!

Tattoos look cheap, and there is a reason for this new law. This is MY opinion, and I have a right to MY opinion, just as people have a RIGHT to express themselves by getting tattoos all over their bodies.

Just remember, when you get old and your skin wrinkles up, how will your tattoo look then?

That’s the most ridiculous city or state government rule I’ve ever heard. Do our city; state, or federally elected officials have anything more important to do than care whether this countries hero’s have a few tattoos on their arms?

The article said the LAFD officials came up with this, is this standard nation wide? When a great number of our nations firemen and police officers served in the military protecting our freedom, who are we, or the “Top Officials” to say what a man or woman can or can’t have tattooed on their arms.

Let me say this, when one of those brave tattooed hero’s are pulling one of your children out the window of a burning house to save their life, do you really care if they have an American Flag, Globe and Anchor, Bulldog, or the coordinates of their child’s grave tattooed on their arm? When we or the officials feel they have the right to tell these men and women who are brave enough to want to risk their life everyday, what they can and can’t have tattooed on their bodies (as long as it’s not offensive, naked ladies or a swastika) we’ll soon have a serious shortage of hero’s and brave men and woman to fill the jobs.

We obviously have overpaid officials and government agencies, with too much time on their hands and budgets to spend on minutia

Unbelievable. I don't know anyone who has refused assistance by a tatooed fireman.

They are getting so frickin petty...and majoring in the micro.

They are supposed to have a "rough, tough, macho" image. Yes, that's right. And what's wrong with a rough, tough, macho guy? Nothing! I'm not saying they are supposed to have tatoos - I'm sayin that when my house is on fire, I don't expect a guy with a suit and briefcase to come out of one of those firetrucks!

And, public perception aside, I absolutely believe they should be able to expose them in the firehouse. Goodness, these men are family and live there 24 hours a day.

Just another attempt to turn men into women.

Hold on to your nuts guys - you know owning a pair will one day be considered a crime.

They are not a sign of higher intelligence even though they are more popular now than ever. I used to think only low class folks had tattoos, other than military people. Now, I back off on that but still I don't feel thay are anything to be proud of. What, a decision made by most at the spur of the moment that you later regret?

Then do us all a favor and refuse service or protection from any uniformed person with tats. It will free them up to help people with gratitude.

Bubbles wrote:

Tattoos look cheap, and there is a reason for this new law. This is MY opinion, and I have a right to MY opinion, just as people have a RIGHT to express themselves by getting tattoos all over their bodies.
Just remember, when you get old and your skin wrinkles up, how will your tattoo look then?

Tattoos are permanent signs of temporary insanity.

While these vain firemen may like to display their matching tribal tattoos such markings may offend some persons they are SUPPOSED to be here to serve.

Covering up is easily done with a'nomex' sleeve.

If they would rather have the tattoos then they can always become tow truck drivers or tile setters - there's not much else being a fireman prepares you for.

When did civil servants become such a bunch of whiners and little girls. The vanity and self concern they now display is disgusting.

Of course they will say, but we are Americas heroes ! They all act like they were in NY on 9-11 to get the benefits of hero worship vicariously.Not every firemen was in NY on that sad day. Most here in California were sitting in the lounge chairs at the fire stations watching it on TV.

For gosh sakes just be men, be workers, and be competent.

Tatoos for people in uniform !? Whooey !!!!!