Swadley's

[emtefury]

This is causing a major firestorm on social media and there was just a story on KFOR about it.

“Swadley said, visible tattoos are generally a disqualifier for employment as well. "We don't allow people who don't exemplify respect for themselves."

https://www.enidnews.com/oklahoma/ne...55815fa77.html

I don’t see the issue. It is his business, his money and his decision. If one does not like it then don’t go there.

[mugofbeer]

Even if that`s exactly what he said, there are a great many businesses dealing with the public that aren't exactly symbiotic with tattoos. My old employer is a national company that still does not hire customer facing employees with visible tatoos.

[catch22]

Even if that`s exactly what he said, there are a great many businesses dealing with the public that aren't exactly symbiotic with tattoos. My old employer is a national company that still does not hire customer facing employees with visible tatoos.

Mine has the same standards. Any front line customer facing position requires no visible tattoos (there are extremely limited exceptions such as a very small heart or cross behind the ear, an initial on the ring finger, etc.). For managerial positions even those not interacting with customers the policy applies as well.

[BBatesokc]

I'd like to hear the actual interview if it was recorded. A look at the original article shows a deliberate and selective use of quotation marks around direct quotes by the author, followed by non-quotes. This could have led to a misinterpretation of what was actually said - or, maybe not.

[mugofbeer]

I really don't see the controversy. Some people don't like tattoos and look at them differently. Its simply diversity of opinion and image.

[OSUPeterson]

I think its more of the way it was said. Its his business, his rules for sure, but the tone and way he chose to explain it makes it as though he is judging the moral and spiritual value of a person, not just wanting to have a certain brand.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter at all since its a private business. Just seems alot of people these days should choose to speak less rather than more.

[BBatesokc]

I think its more of the way it was said. Its his business, his rules for sure, but the tone and way he chose to explain it makes it as though he is judging the moral and spiritual value of a person, not just wanting to have a certain brand.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter at all since its a private business. Just seems alot of people these days should choose to speak less rather than more.

But.... is the way it was printed the way he actually expressed his opinion? They've butted up direct quotes with non-direct quotes. I'd like to hear what was actually said. Plus, he obviously wasn't talking about all tattoos. Sounds like he was talking about people who decide to get tattoos on parts of their body that cannot later be concealed.

[MikeLucky]

Whether the context was properly conveyed or not... the policy alone will mean I will personally never spend another penny in his establishments. I know, he's not going to miss my business, but it is his right to run his business the way he wants and it's the consumer's right to decide which ones to spend their money in. I would find more respect if he had said he hires the best people, regardless of appearance. It's just a better way to run a business, in my mind. But hey, to each their own.

[GoGators]

I generally find it very odd when companies use religion as a marketing technique. The pandering comes off as slimy to me. Just my opinion of course.

[BBatesokc]

Whether the context was properly conveyed or not... the policy alone will mean I will personally never spend another penny in his establishments. I know, he's not going to miss my business, but it is his right to run his business the way he wants and it's the consumer's right to decide which ones to spend their money in. I would find more respect if he had said he hires the best people, regardless of appearance. It's just a better way to run a business, in my mind. But hey, to each their own.

So, you think a business owner should hire people who willingly choose to put tattoos of offensive images, language or symbols on their bodies in places that cannot be concealed while on the job?

Obviously many people have exposed tattoos that are not generally offensive. But, a business would most likely have to have an "all of nothing" stance to avoid some sort of lawsuit. I personally can't imagine anyone having an issue with their policy.

[Zorba]

Whether the context was properly conveyed or not... the policy alone will mean I will personally never spend another penny in his establishments. I know, he's not going to miss my business, but it is his right to run his business the way he wants and it's the consumer's right to decide which ones to spend their money in. I would find more respect if he had said he hires the best people, regardless of appearance. It's just a better way to run a business, in my mind. But hey, to each their own.

Lot's of businesses have this policy, including airlines, day cares and theme parks. A long list of places to boycott.

[SoonerDave]

Love Swadley's and we will continue to go there.

[MikeLucky]

Yeah, I guess I have a knee-jerk reaction to the PC things we are seeing in this country right now. In retrospect I understand the policy but have a bad taste in my mouth from his comments and how they look regarding this issue. Again, they could have been taken out of context. Part of this for me is the general feeling still in Oklahoma regarding tattoos. It's 2019 and a lot of Oklahomans still believe anyone with a tattoo is a criminal or some sort of miscreant.

[BoulderSooner]

Yeah, I guess I have a knee-jerk reaction to the PC things we are seeing in this country right now. In retrospect I understand the policy but have a bad taste in my mouth from his comments and how they look regarding this issue. Again, they could have been taken out of context. Part of this for me is the general feeling still in Oklahoma regarding tattoos. It's 2019 and a lot of Oklahomans still believe anyone with a tattoo is a criminal or some sort of miscreant.

you deciding to boycott would be the PC thing not their policy

[MikeLucky]

you deciding to boycott would be the PC thing not their policy

It's actually just my exercising the free market system. The business owner is exercising his right to run his business to cater to what he feels is the most customers and I'm exercising my right to either support them or not with my dollars. I'm not going to spend money in someone's business when they automatically feel like I don't respect myself because I have tattoos. lol. He's doing the PC thing to keep more customers coming becuase they feel the same way he does. I'm choosing not to support that. Living in Oklahoma I would be doing the PC thing if I agreed with him.

[SOONER8693]

love swadley's and we will continue to go there.

ditto!

[thunderbird]

Yeah, I guess I have a knee-jerk reaction to the PC things we are seeing in this country right now. In retrospect I understand the policy but have a bad taste in my mouth from his comments and how they look regarding this issue. Again, they could have been taken out of context. Part of this for me is the general feeling still in Oklahoma regarding tattoos. It's 2019 and a lot of Oklahomans still believe anyone with a tattoo is a criminal or some sort of miscreant.

I don’t have a dog in this fight but I am curious what the numbers are in people with and without tattoos and their chances of having a past criminal record. I’m assuming this dude is older and in his time this was probably fairly factual information. But he should probably notice it’s no longer his time and get with the program.

[Rover]

There was a time where un or under regulated tatooing led to hepatitus and other communicable problems, so restaurants in particular had issues with cooks and servers being tatooed. The problem may have been overblown, but none-the-less, it was a fear. I don't believe you were allowed to give blood if you had recently been tatooed either, if I recall correctly. Before having tatoo's was "cool" it was associated with either not so savory characters or with sailors. LOL. We have "evolved" I guess where it no longer is a show of independence/rebellion/or devil-may-care attitude and now is mainstream and common. I doubt millennials even remember when tatoo parlors were illegal and that it was rebellious.

These days, even in OK, no one really cares what someone does to themself. And no one should care how other people react. Everyone doesn't have to love tatoos. Many people are turned off by them and that's their prerogative...not PC. That's just the way they feel.

[BoulderSooner]

It's actually just my exercising the free market system. The business owner is exercising his right to run his business to cater to what he feels is the most customers and I'm exercising my right to either support them or not with my dollars. I'm not going to spend money in someone's business when they automatically feel like I don't respect myself because I have tattoos. lol. He's doing the PC thing to keep more customers coming becuase they feel the same way he does. I'm choosing not to support that. Living in Oklahoma I would be doing the PC thing if I agreed with him.

i guess you won't be flying anytime soon either or renting a car or using your bank??

[GoGators]

Slightly off topic but it is interesting that the Oklahoma Highway Patrol updated their policy yesterday to allow visible tattoos.

[rezman]

^^^ OCPD did this as well, the reason being is that they can't find a decent selection of recruits that don't have tattoos. Many recruits come out of the military, and most of them have some form of visible body art.

[MikeLucky]

i guess you won't be flying anytime soon either or renting a car or using your bank??

If they come out and say tattoos are banned for their employees because it shows a lack of good decision making, then I won't want to use those companies if I can avoid it.

The fact is the tattoo perception is an antequated notion that will get phased out over time. There should be some common sense used to discern offensive tattoos versus non-offensive tattoos. It shouldn't be any different than not allowing employees to wear shirts with offensive language on them versus shirts with offensive language on them. You don't just ban shirts.

[mkjeeves]

If they come out and say tattoos are banned for their employees because it shows a lack of good decision making, then I won't want to use those companies if I can avoid it.

The fact is the tattoo perception is an antequated notion that will get phased out over time. There should be some common sense used to discern offensive tattoos versus non-offensive tattoos. It shouldn't be any different than not allowing employees to wear shirts with offensive language on them versus shirts with offensive language on them. You don't just ban shirts.

The quote in the story where the firestorm erupted from was "We don't allow people who don't exemplify respect for themselves."


https://www.enidnews.com/oklahoma/ne...UuElvJKQDCHGzw

[Stew]

I never realized you could tattoo a snowflake.

[chuck5815]

Sad to see how easily offended some folks are these days.

I love the idea of clean cut kids serving me piping hot slabs of BBQ.