Employment related question - Dreadlocks

[Surface Interval]

Get the job then grow the dreadlocks.

This was my line of thinking.

Have you been able to make a decision on what you're going to do?

I'm also wondering how the water will affect your choice of hairstyle, more out of curiousity than anything else.

 

[rstofer]

Off topic but... If your customers prefer attractive white male heterosexual employees, is that what you hire?

Yes! It's not politically correct and it's probably good that I don't own a business, but yes, I would hire to meet my presumed desires of my clientele, whatever it might be. And so would every other owner of a sole proprietorship whose business survival is based on happy customers.

I would also like to avoid the feeling that my business had become a lawsuit minefield for whatever inappropriate things I might say, do, or laugh at. I would want to be comfortable in my own shop.

Actually, I probably wouldn't hire any employees, I would rent them through an agency. Personnel problems would be their problems, not mine. I don't even need an excuse to just call up and tell them to send someone else. That's why you see so much outsourcing and temporary employees. Nobody wants to hire a 'permanent' employee any more. Heck, they don't even call them employees, they're associates. There are good legal reasons why this is true.

So, it's good that I'm retired, not required to be PC, and don't own a business. I think my 1950's worldview is out of touch... But I liked the Mickey Mouse Club and Ozzie & Harriet.

Richard

 

[Jax]

Off topic but... If your customers prefer attractive white male heterosexual employees, is that what you hire?

Any ways, back to the OP: It should be clear that the world is full of narrow-minded people who will judge your ability to keep them safe and instruct them based on matters of personal appearance that are functionally irrelevant. It should also be clear that there are people who will claim to be above such things but use chasing the almighty dollar as an excuse to participate in discrimination. Govern yourself accordingly.

Speaking of governing, here is a picture of a couple who at the time this was taken were wearing hair styles that would have barred them from employment with many establishments:

Reg, you have some good discussion, but now it seems you wish to bend this to a discussion of 'rights' vs privilege. Please don't.

Back on topic:
Let's look at it from another point of view. Those that choose to flaunt looks (dreadlocks, pants falling off, whatever) or their homosexuality, or whatever, are saying:
"I want a job from you, I want a good salary from you, I want to advance in your ranks, but you have no right to ask me , and damned if I am going to, dress like you, to act like you, to meet your standards of Norm."

Hello . . . Why would anyone want you to join their team, if you don't want to be like them? It's a free world, go find a job elsewhere.

And Oh, BTW . . . that couple would not be hired into my organization, IJS . . .

 

[nwbrewer]

Reg,

Skin color is not a choice, Homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice. Therefore I don't believe it's right to use either as a discriminator. Dreadlocks are a fashion choice. They are an attempt to make a statement, as all fashion choices are. Therefore I have the right as an employer to disagree with an applicants choices, and not hire them. You're arguments about discrimination don't hold water with me.

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

Reg, you have some good discussion, but now it seems you wish to bend this to a discussion of 'rights' vs privilege.

In Ontario, there is no right to any particular fashion choice that is purely elective. However, if it turns out that the prospective employee is a Rasta, or a Sikh, or Hassidic, or what-have-you, there will be trouble if you discriminate against them. By far the safest course of action is to hire based on merit, and to have a written dress or appearance code with a clearly stated exemption if doing so conflicts with the employee's religion.

So no, I do not think I am discussing rights here at all. If you want to hire in your own image, you will do so. It has a particularly bad taste in my mouth, but I'm just one person with one opinion.

 

[sibermike7]

Off topic but... If your customers prefer attractive white male heterosexual employees, is that what you hire?

Why not? I am personally SICK to death of government interference in the private sector! If my customers want black, white or polka dotted I should be FREE to give them what they want!

If the customers don't want "attractive white male heterosexual employees" but I insist on hiring them anyway, guess what? I'll lose business. THAT is the FREE market system!

I think divers are a totally different ball of wax. As a group, I'd say that they are pretty tolerant of other people's appearances as long as the person can dive safely, or in the case of an instructor, if he is a good instructor, most divers couldn't care less what he looks like.

Back to the OP, the question (and the various wide-range answers) show that the answer is controversial. Do you want your appearance when hunting a job to create controversy????

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

Reg,

Skin color is not a choice, Homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice. Therefore I don't believe it's right to use either as a discriminator. Dreadlocks are a fashion choice. They are an attempt to make a statement, as all fashion choices are. Therefore I have the right as an employer to disagree with an applicants choices, and not hire them. You're arguments about discrimination don't hold water with me.

Discrimination is, broadly, choosing whom to hire or not hire based on things that are not based on expected job performance. Some forms of discrimination are illegal in some jurisdictions. Some are not.

Basically, you are saying you don't want to hire someone who isn't like you. If you believe that's the right thing to do, carry on. But back to the OP: It should be very clear that people will jump to all sorts of conclusions about your character and moral probity based on your hair style. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[scubadada]

(Pls move if in the wrong section I was unsure where to post as employment section is unavailable for such questions)

I am currently a DM and studying to go upto IDC staff instructor with trimix gas blending. I want to get dreadlocks but unsure whether the stigma attached to the hairstlye would affect my possibilities for employment. Is this a realistic threat to employment.

Back to the OP. Yes, I think dreadlocks may very well reduce your chances with some employers for reasons that many have already pointed out. I think this was already clear to you from the flavor of your post.

On the other hand, if you are extremely competent in your skills, not only in diving but also with people, this effect may be minimal. As others have pointed out, we've all dived with pretty scruffy looking DMs or instuctors that were highly competent, nice people, and good communicators. It's the dive business.

I applied to medical school in the late 70s and cut my long hair and lost my beard to improve my chances of acceptance. I always wore ties in the hospital because my patients appreciated it. It's common sense, not rocket science.

Best of luck to you and good diving, Craig

 

[toddthecat]

Also back to the OP - It depends on who you are trying to work for. I don't know why there is a prominent negative attachment toward dreadlocks (but I frequent the Caribbean a lot too)...I'd hire someone with dreads so long as they had the necessary experience and qualifications and had a good, positive attitude with customers. Then again let's face the truth...some shops are more strict than others.

 

[Mopar]

One day someone will scream discrimination if they are not qualified for the job. I really dont care what someone looks like but are you qualified or not. But like someone above posted big brother needs not to make it to tough for the private sector. A fine line between the employer loosing his or her rights and the applicant loosing theirs.