It’s been all over the news that Starbucks is re-evaluating its dress code. This includes Starbucks taking another look at their policy that partners (Starbucks calls their employees ‘partners’) may not have visible tattoos. The current policy requires that tattoos must be covered.
First off, I don’t think this is a straight-forward or easy topic. Anyone who says “everyone should think this way or that way” is simply not able to see that we are not at a place of consensus in this country.
For some people, tattoos do have a negative associations, such a strong association with non-law-abiding behavior. I’m not saying that’s right, but to say that all negative associations with tattoos are gone is just silly. (The tattoos that show up on ugly tattoos blogs don’t help this perception.)
Another common thing I see is that many partners assume that because nobody confronts them about their tattoos, there’s general acceptance. This too is silly. One cannot assume that silence means approval. In fact, we live in a society highly trained NOT to confront others. I don’t walk up to strangers and say, “wow that blouse is cut too low; or your jeans are too tight; or your blonde highlights look horrible…” We just don’t do this to each other. Likewise, nobody is going to walk up to a barista and say, “your arm looks really weird as a complete green and blue arm.”
We are not at some national place of consensus. I would have to guess that it some more conservative cities, a sleeve of tattoos is more frowned upon than in some more liberal regions of the country.
And above all, there’s the age-old debate, “who can possibly decide what’s offensive?” Probably there’s something to be said about where the tattoo appears. It’s likely that neck and face tattoos are less accepted (generally speaking) than arm tattoos.
I would also say that when Starbucks originally envisioned that tattoos policy, likely they assumed that partners would cover tattoos with clothing: this is the only professional means to do so. It’s true that a band-aid looks horrendous. If Starbucks wanted to revisit the tattoo policy, they could make it stricter: They could say clothing must be used to cover tattoos.
I think there’s still some question whether all the stores would necessarily have the same dress code. Perhaps an Evenings Starbucks should have a different policy than a regular Starbucks?
Having said all of the above, my own personal views on tattoos has really evolved and changed over time. I’ve met plenty of kind-hearted, generous, and wonderful partners who are heavily tattooed. I will be the first to say it: If you give me a choice between picking between (1) a kind, sincere, warm, friendly barista with tattoos or (2) an easily-angered, just-in-it-for-the-paycheck barista with NO tattoos, every single time, I’m going to want the kind and gentle person with tattoos.
It is, without a doubt, meeting the sweet partners with great hearts that has led me to believe that the tattoo policy should strongly be revisited. I’m not bold enough to even think that I know the right answer for a sixteen-billion dollar Fortune 500 company. This would be one of those situations where the more I know, the less I know. Speaking only for myself, I do strongly think there’s a lot of room to relax that tattoo policy and allow for visible arm tattoos – but again, figuring out how to do it is super tricky. I don’t have the answers!
Thank you partner Jason for volunteering your arm for this article!
It’s your turn to weigh in. Comments written to be nasty or attacking others will be deleted. It’s okay to have strong opinions, but always remember reasonable minds may differ. Please civil in the comments. I know this is a hot topic.
37 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Socialize
The Tattoo Policy is very tricky. It’s hard to define what is an “acceptable” or “non-offensive” visible tattoo. Like you mentioned, tattoos are not necessarily accepted by everyone. My grandmother still asks me every time I visit her, “When will you wash that junk off your skin”… the concept is hard for her, I guess. She’s just from an older generation where tattoos were deeply frowned upon.
I admit, I do not think my cherry blossom and “c’est la vie” on one wrist and stars on my other wrist are extremely noticeable. In fact, I’ve had partners who have seen me without my wristbands and still never realized I had tattoos. I get lots of compliments from customers who see me off the clock and notice them. I think in this day and age, tattoos can be more of a talking point and making that connection with customers. “Where did you get that done? It’s fantastic!”, etc. can help generate local artists.
But again, this is my opinion and experiences. I can only hope that one day I can work without having to cover my artwork.
Hey I am going to fully support Starbucks here from the 20-something age group that thinks tattoos are a stupid trend. Please keep your policy of covering tattoos! My friends and I hate them! People with tattoos are under the delusion it’s some kind of pretty artwork all of the world is aching to see, but the rest of us wish to keep our appetite for coffee unmixed with the images of needles, blood, immune problems, and higher risk of hepatitis and transmittable diseases. You are a food service after all. No one is going to stop buying your coffee just because you ask that ink be covered. Duh!
I am a 4 year partner with the company based down in Portland. I have plenty of tattoos that are visible to everyone when I am OFF the clock. As much as I would like to not have to worry about covering up my tattoos by wearing a cardigan to work every day (even those 90º+ days) I think it might be necessary. Starbucks has been creating and working on this ‘image’ for over 30 years now. We, as a company, work on maintaing our brand by wearing our mostly black clothing and green, some black, aprons. This is a conversation that I have been having since starting with the company. At first, I was bitter that I couldn’t show off my body art. I thought that the whole point of working in a coffee shop was to express yourself. Starbucks is not your typical coffee shop, though, and we are known for maintaining a certain level of professionalism. So in regards to this possible change of dress code, if it happens, then I will support the decision, but I will probably still cover mine up for the sake of trying to retain that professionalism.
I agree the level of professionalism is what brings me in to a store in any city.
Starbucks is now a fast food chain with all this breakfast and lunch items they keep adding. The name tags as well make it feel more like a fast food restaurant. I’ve been a partner for 9 years and Starbucks needs to revisit a lot of things and not just the tattoo policy… Starbucks has downgraded its self by adding all this extra garbage that has nothing to do with coffee.
It’s a difficult topic, and another comment here said it perfectly. What’s “acceptable” and what’s “offensive”?
I worked over two years at Starbucks and that entire time I was debating to get a tattoo then, or wait until I quit the company. I was in no rush, so I waited until after I quit.
My store was filled with partners who had tattoos; my ASM in particular had begun to get tattoos all over her body. Most partners, including my ASM, had what I thought were harmless tattoos: flowers, quotes, zodiac signs. However, two people had tattoos which I thought were very controversial. Both were guys who got their tattoos because they thought it looked cool, but one is a symbol of death/hell and another affiliates to a gang.
I can’t really figure out how Starbucks could phrase a new tattoo policy where only some tattoos are acceptable. It would bring up a new childish debate – if they can show theirs, we can show ours. The only thing I can think of is managers approving your tattoo based on a set of regulations. (A previous job of mine made us do that if we wanted to wear nailpolish)
I prefer no visible tatoos. That is one of the reasons I go to Starbucks. I like a clean look.
I’ve only worked for Starbucks about a year and a half. For so long i’ve always saw Starbucks as that one company that was okay with their employees expressing themselves with piercing. Tattoos and colored hair. But once I got hired all of that just seemed to be one big lie. I remember watching the news when Starbucks stood up against chik-fil-a . Starbucks perceived themselves as this big company that doesn’t discriminate against your lifestyle. And yet we are forced to closet ourselves if we have visible tattoos. I love all the customers that come through even if they are rude. But the one thing that shouldn’t matter is if they call complaining about “the barista that made my drink had a tattoo on his/her arm”
Us having visible tattoos does not affect our drink making, our attempt to connect with a customer ( sometimes talking about a customers tattoo actually helps us connect better), it sure doesn’t stop us from inspiring people from when they start in the parking lot to when they are greeted and so forth. I think we should all be able to express ourselves.
I don’t have any tattoos personally, but I’m hopeful that this policy will be relaxed. I think this is a great chance to show the world that tattoos don’t need to be offensive; there’s a lot more to someone’s personality than the color or designs on their skin. This is another opportunity for Starbucks to lead.
I’m a 5 year partner. I have 2 tattoos on my ankles. I agree w/ your blog 100%. It’s a very difficult topic. I wish at times, esp during warmer months that I could wear capri pants or shorts. However, I have always understood / respected the dress code. I have a customer who currently finds any tattoos offensive, but other customers who love them. It’s a tricky line. Esp, as some people have pointed out that what is considered offensive is different for everyone. I would like to see some changes around piercings or even hair color! Hair color seems like the “safest” change. Piercings I know are hard as well, because a simple small nose ring is very different than a lip ring.
I’m glad that Starbucks is evolving and willing to look at the dress code. However, I realize that it’s a hard topic for a company of this size.
I don’t think there is a fair way to relax the policy. It’s more than somebody asking “What is offensive and what isn’t?” Problems will arise because of who decides what is offensive and what isn’t? That is considering that opinions on tattoos vary so much. Are SM’s and DM’s going to decide it? Do they have tattoos or not? Are their tattoos offensive or not, and who decides that? If the policy is at the discretion of those within a store or a district, is it fair to tell a partner their tattoo is found to be offensive here, but not at another store or in another district? I just don’t see how they are going to have any control without opening a huge can of worms for themselves.
This is why I have always believed it is safer to have a policy where it is the same across the board for everybody. Covering up tattoos is a safe business choice. When you have too many people interpreting their opinion on a policy and it varies, how long before Starbucks is confronted with discriminatory lawsuits over what is offensive and what isn’t by Partners with tattoos?
I love art, although I am no artist. I find so many tattoos to be cool even if some are offensive. Just because I have an eye for something, doesn’t mean my opinion of it is popular! Or unpopular! My daughter who is gifted with many artistic talents, has designed tattoos for people. A few of those people did get her design tattooed on their bodies in visible places. I’m not talking small here. And yet my daughter would never think about putting one on herself. I just don’t see any fair way to police the policy, unless all tattoos are allowed. Then the problems will begin….. IMHO of course.
Isn’t there a bigger issue here? According to the Seattle Times the reason behind this is Starbucks is trying to boost employee morale.
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2024508750_starbuckstattooxml.html
Does this have anything to do with the minimum wage debate and its impact on the compensation rates of fast food employees? Howard opposed the rate hike in Seattle. I’m sure Starbucks is feeling some pressure, especially as they continue to report higher profits.
The over-hyped upgrade to the iPhone app this past Spring was positioned to partners as a way to get more tips with the built in tipping feature (and was thus a way to get customers to increase the barista’s pay so the corporation wouldn’t have to). According to the article Starbucks is looking to extend it to android phones.
While tattoos are a hot button issue, is it really the one thing Starbucks could do to boost morale?
I would be interested in hearing from partners about what would help boost their morale. Higher compensation? Visible tattoos? Free food during shifts?
After all, demotivated employees don’t make the connections with customers as easily as motivated ones do.
Denise, there are several things Starbucks can do to boost morale. But, from experience, *every* time I hold a store meeting, and ask for questions, someone brings up tattoos. Nearly every time I interview someone, they question the tattoo policy. I think this would have one of the biggest effects on *my* team’s morale, as well as most of the teams in my district. I’m not sure I entirely understand why, but, it is what it is 🙂
The other thing that would boost morale for my partners would be flexible benefits – many of my partners have benefits coverage through other means, and would love to be able to choose to receive an extra amount per hour/pay check instead of full medical/dental, or perhaps accumulate sick/personal days instead of things like massages. There is some level of choice in our benefits today, but it’s more like “choose which level of medical you’d like” as opposed to “choose between these options.”
My store got to participate in a test of ‘sales bonuses for hourly employees’ a couple of years back, and honestly, it did not motivate any of my team, even the ones that made a couple hundred dollars out of it.
I think the key to boosting partner morale is having the change make a *daily* difference to the partners.
Also, that should say CD, not Denise…not really sure where that came from 🙂
I am a 6 plus year partner and love tattoos, I don’t have any but do like to see them. This would be a very tricky decision for Starbucks to say what is tasteful and what’s not.
The current policy says NO visible tattoos. Do we follow this as a company, as a district, as a store? NO we do not. So if the store managers and district managers can’t follow a NO show policy how would they ever follow what’s tasteful and what’s not.
We need to stay away from the head and neck area with tats and piercings this includes gages in the ears. I do find them discussing.
I don’t have tattoos, but I sure don’t have any problems with people who do… however, I don’t really understand piercings. I guess it takes all kinds to fill the freeways. The thing I REALLY object to is perfume and smells – thankfully, Starbucks has that covered.
I’m of 2 minds on this one. I’ve only had one partner who’s every had tattoos that I would consider remotely offensive (a tattoo sleeve involving several depicted acts of violence in bloody detail – I don’t understand why….oops, I digress) – indeed most of mine have things like their children’s handprints, or meaningful quotes, or stars behind their ears – all things that would enable them (and do already enable them, haha) to have great meaningful connections with customers. Also, I have a meaningful tattoo I want to get in honour of my grandfather, but it’s placement would be very visible, and I would not get it while working in a place that required me to cover my tattoos 🙂 I also agree that bandaids are horrendous for tattoo coverage. I’d love to never have to see another one again 🙂
However, as a store manager, our current dress code is much simpler to enforce. No one is playing judge and jury with what others is putting on/in their body – do whatever you want, just keep it invisible while at work. When it becomes ‘you can show your tattoo, but that partner over there can’t’, I’m not sure I like the consequences to partner morale :S Can I vote Yes and No at the same time? 🙂
As many mentioned this, the crux of it is how in the world would you ever have fair enforcement of the tattoo policy?
In my line of work, I SEE totally where the negative associations with tattoos come from. Come sit inside a courtroom with criminal proceedings and you’ll see the attorneys with very clean appearance, suits, on the one side, and it is the criminally accused who very often appear with visible tattoos – and I mean all over their neck, faces, hands, everywhere. I’m not saying these negative associations are right, but I see where it can stem from.
The attorneys very rarely appear tattooed. Very, very rare. Men are expected to wear a suit and tie and even if they had arm tattoos, I’d never know it. You don’t appear in court without a tie, long sleeves, and suit coat if you’re a man. And it doesn’t matter if it’s 100 degrees out. I recall early in my career watching a judge berate an older attorney because he appeared without a tie. And judges are known for things like this too:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/03/sockless-attorney-possible-sanctions/15029205/
There is no standard attire for female attorneys. In fact, there are plenty of times when I’ve thought that female attorneys have to court wearing slutty suits! Icky! A friend in my office wears dresses and skirts often, always with colored tights. One day she came to me in a panic needing new tights – asked if I had some in my office. It wasn’t until then that I realized that her dark tights are intentional to cover a couple of leg tattoos. She won’t appear in front of a judge with visible tattoos.
In fact, I prefer a strong professional appearance. It makes you look good. Which circles back to the problem of how to create a clean, crisp, uniform experience and dress code, and still maintain some freedom to show tattoos – after all, it is clear that long sleeves in the summer are not fun. I have all questions and no answers.
I think Starbucks should consider splitting the dress code between Evenings stores, the “super premium Reserve” stores that have been in the news, and the current normal non-reserve Starbucks.
And I managed to write 600 words on tattoos and never touched the subject of compensation. That could be an even larger issue. It’s really, really, really tough to survive on something like $10.26/ hour in the city of Seattle. The average rent is now over $1000 /month much of anything in the city. Compensation is low considering the high expectation of world-class service and beverages. That could be a second article in a series!
This is the biggest issue to me. All the hubbub on the SBux Partners FB page and the vast majority of the comments are about visible tattoos, hair color and nail polish. I’m so disappointed that there’s so little focus on labor/labor cuts and compensation.
As an aside – is the new commenting schema a result of the new format? I’m not used to threaded conversations….
I am mostly interested in hearing how they plan to loosen the policy, being as subjective as “non-offensive” is. I have a boot on my wrist to signify my first hiking trip, with plans to get more as I hiked other long trails. However, I personally don’t want tattoos covering my entire arms. I LIKE tattoos on other people and respect anyones personal expressions. I worked as a body piercer in college and was able to get free tattoos. I waited years after to actually get my first. As I said, I am very interested in seeing how corporate navigates any looser restrictions.
Why stop at tattoos? I’d love to see a loosening of the dress code to go beyond khaki and black.
Blue Bottle Coffee from the California Bay Area has a very professional appearance and yet baristas are permitted to wear jeans, plaid shirts, denim workshirts, etc.
As far as morale goes this would touch more partners that just updating the tattoo policy.
In Japan Starbucks has a concept called Inspired by Starbucks. Baristas there can wear jeans and button-down shirts without having to abide by the khaki/black uniform.
For Frappuccino Fridays my partners voted to wear plaid shirts and they loved not having to wear black or white. That simple little act really did boost morale.
I have no tats, but several fellow partners at my store do. I think that they are neither right nor wrong, but distracting from what folks are coming in for: coffee. As much as I’d like to believe that those who come in want to know me, those who do are rare. There’s not time for a discussion about the tats, so allowing partners to bare them could result in unnecessary prejudicial behavior, both on the part of the customer AND the partner, who could perceive someone’s look the wrong (or correct) way.
I realize it’s really inconvenient for some, but please, let’s not get let the policy devolve into subjectivity. Either all tats are fine or no tats are fine. That’s the only way it can be fair and clear.
We had a partner who only worked at the store about two months. She was made aware of the no showing tats policy before she was hired, then proceeded to balk it every time she came in. When the shift made her put a bandaid on her wrist, she did so and then proceeded to inform customers who didn’t ask that, no, she hadn’t tried to commit suicide. The company had just MADE her cover her tat. It was an uncomfortable situation for those on both sides of the counter.
Bottom line for me? I want to be taken seriously, and Starbucks isn’t just any coffee shop or fast food establishment. We DEFINED the experience, in part, by the way we presented ourselves to those who didn’t know a thing about coffee. For as many times as I want to roll my eyes at customers and say, “it’s just coffee,” the Starbucks experience is more than just coffee. This is why we wear what we wear and conduct ourselves like we do. We are knowledgeable individuals and, like it or not, when something cultural distracts your audience from the knowledge you possess, everyone loses.
I agree with you. I go to Starbucks for a coffee experience. I appreciate the professional look. I feel comfortable asking about coffee.
This is a Pandora’s Box issue that will only benefit the bottom feeding lawyers who represent those that feel that their tattoos and/or dress were wrongly judged.
Ohhhh, so many thoughts, mostly for not having visible tatoos….unless you’re a sailor! (or at least military, and generally, that the tatoo is military associated!) I can’t complain about that!
But, my biggest thought is: what in the world do these covered-in-ink people think they will look like at ~80, or so? Human skin generally does not stay the same as we age. Some of these images today are going to look pretty weird when these young people (or, not so young?) are ‘old’. Of course, barring some unknown miracle, I won’t be around to see it 😉
Just throwing another side into the discussion that doesn’t get brought up very often… hepatitis. Working in healthcare, it’s not a small concern or a thing of the past among people who get massive tattoos covering their body or who put their trust in a tattoo artist who may have had just one “bad” day somewhere along the line.
Standards are better today, and by no means am I saying that all tattooed people are risking being unhealthy – but that hasn’t always been the case, and it’s not always been about the visual debate. Covering your body with tiny injections can have health consequences for people if they’re not extremely, extremely careful where they go to get their tattoo.
If someone feels a need to be tattooed, that’s their decision. I have family who are tattooed, I’ve thought about it myself. But when there’s food handling involved and people who may or may not be aware of their health status (hepatitis can go undetected for a while), or in situations where you’re serving a demographic (like children) who may not understand why you have a devil peering out of your bicep or the side of your neck – there’s a business concern.
No matter what line you’re in – we all have personal things we sacrifice in order to keep our jobs. Office workers can’t wear jeans, they’re sent home if they show up sneezing. I don’t get why this is such an issue unless you’ve already gone “full body” and have no other prospects. When you’re serving the public at large, you’re held to different standards. It’s one of the things to think through before you say “yes” to a tattoo.
I work in an elementary school during the day, and my tattoo and piercings (non-traditional ears, and nose) are all considered within the standards of the dress code there. No one has seen me with a nose ring in years though, because it’s really annoying to change it out for Starbucks, so I keep the clear one in.
When I posted to the partner page, I suggested a rating system. If you think it would be considered above PG-13, perhaps it would still need to be covered.
I took some pictures tonight after thinking about the qasa standards.
My tattoo
The wristband I use to cover my tattoo (after one shift on bar).
I can wash my arm every time I splash something on it. I can’t wash that or a long sleeve shirt, until I get home.
Well said Jenn in GA.
I have no issue with tattoos or piercings unless it compromises sanitation (does it? prob not) I’d rather see the tattoo than a band-aid covering it. As the one poster said- she can wash her skin, but she has to wait to wash the wrist-band. Piercings… again, for the same of sanitary reason. I thought the shirts and aprons were the homogenized component of professionalism at Starbucks, that’s their look, and then of course cleanliness and safety should also be the top priorities.
Regardless of what you think of tattoos, I’m impressed with the caliber of the discussion here. A thoughtful conversation.
As long as tattoos don’t somehow advocate violence, hate, intolerance I don’t really care one way or the other. The PG-13 suggestion above is a good one too.
But, generally speaking, Starbucks employees appear more professional having a dress code and I hope dramatic changes aren’t made across the board. At my local Caribou (recently converted to Pete’s) the employees seemingly had no dress code and looked rather slovenly, as if they were just hanging out – and I wonder if that lax attitude is why the interior wasn’t kept up well either.
Related to this conversion, remember when Disney didn’t allow employees to have any facial hair?
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/24/local/la-me-disney-look-20120124
I always assumed that the tattoo policy was left to the discretion of the local managers. At a SB near my home, one barista has had colored hair and exposed arm tats every time I’ve seen her. Interestingly enough she’s the only barista who’s ever been professional with me during the times that I’ve visited. Her co-workers have been much more stand offish and act as though I’m bothering them for putting in my order.
I could respond to every single comment here. Hepatitis? Really? For all you know, your barista could have all kinds of diseases. After all, we don’t get sick days!
I don’t have the time or energy to debate this topic much anymore. Starbucks is “reconsidering” their tattoo policy and dress code. While I personally have no problem with the dress code, I do take issue with “NO VISIBLE TATTOOS”. Do you ever shop at Walgreens? They have no such policy and they manage to not make headlines with customers complaining about it.
Anyway, if Starbucks decides to keep their archaic policy, they can also have my green aprons back. I’m sure I can be paid better elsewhere and allowed to show off my “offensive” body art.
I had another response typed out, but deleted it and will instead just leave you with this thought: Attitudes like Kristen’s are why this conversation rarely remains civil. Good job Kristen.
So, someone can say I probably have hepatitis but I can’t say I don’t? Sheesh.
Anyway, if Starbucks decides to keep their archaic policy, they can also have my green aprons back. I’m sure I can be paid better elsewhere and allowed to show off my “offensive” body art.
This is what I object to. You knew the policy when you were hired, if you were not willing to comply with that, you should have never submitted your application. They don’t *owe* you any changes to their policy, archaic or not. If you want to take your ball and go home, then just go.