Lets say that you are an HR person and you had to hire someone for a basic office job. You have 3 equally qualified candidates  to choose from.  First is a guy with numerous tattoos he has sleeves but they are covered by a suit and a few of the tattoos are visible above the collar.  Second is a chain smoker that breaks every hour to go smoke and always smells like smoke.  Third  is a morbidly obese person, i am not talking about someone a little hefty but the people that are wider than they are tall (you all know what i'm talking about)   this person takes for ever to walk anywhere and slow to work because of his size.   POLL INBOUND

I would post another job opening on monster.com and hope for some more qualified candidates.

I would hire the minority that Im legally required to.

I would keep taking applications until a girl with a nice ass applied.

The chick in the mini skirt showing the bottom of her ass.



I had a girl apply with that on and a halter top.



Didnt hire her for that though

Strange, around here when a basic office position like that comes up we often get bunches of people without tats, who aren't obese, and don't smoke.

The area where you're hiring must be really limited.

simple.  the tattoo guy.  the fatty and the chimney are going to cost you more in the long run.  Their increased medical bills will drive up your group insurance rates.

Tatto guy.



I have tats myself

So you chose the obese person then.... that wasn't a mini skirt it was a tarp

I would hire the obese tattooed guy who smokes.

No brainer.  As long as the tats are not visible when in proper work clothes, good to go.  Smoker or obese = more cost to the employer.  Sick days, health issues, healthcare costs, etc.

proof they can handle the pain i am about to become in their life .

cry baby mommas boys that don't like tats should shot themselves know.


just my 2fing cents and cool story bro for the 87th time hid the fing dog.

i got your tats.

Sorta of off-topic, my cousin works an emergency room and when they get in OD's and gunshot victims, the general rule is the more tattoos and the less teeth, the more likely the patient is to survive.


So you have to hire the tattoo guy because he is a survivor and will keep health care costs low.

Bingo.

Tattoo guy. Smoker and land whale will cost you more ins. wise in the long run (as stated above). Contrary to popular ARFCOM lore, having tattoo's does not make one less capable anymore the having an "assault rifle" makes you 30 seconds from a shooting spree.

Sorry, couldnt resist.  

How do you know they are not qualified???  By physical appearance?

And I guess the drug use or mental counseling that the tattooed person will need won't.

Why don't you take a poll and ask how many drugs tattooed people use or how many mental issues they carry with them. It's like reverse cutters in many instances. This is coming from someone that gave a tattooed woman a chance BTW. She might even still be with me but snorting pills is something I don't do so in this case our interests were like way totally different. And her habit was mostly supported by the VA.

Option 4

Renew my "Help Wanted" ad.

The tatoo guy obviously is an indipenant thinker, has motivation, self discipline, and is able to form a plan and carry it through.

The other two lack these qualities and probably have personality problems that would eventually cause trouble in the workplace.

Is it a customer service related position?

Would that change any of your answers?

What kind of business is it?  Am I hiring for a dentist's office that specializes in little old ladies or am I hiring for a motorcycle repair shop with a clientel made up almost exclusively of 1%ers?  

If I have to Judge people just from their looks I am going to hire the morbidly obese guy.  Mainly because I think I will lose to much productivity from the smoker always sneaking out to smoke and the guy with visible tattoos may be a little wild which in my mind translates into having problems in his personal life that may get brought to work.  Fatty however probably has no friends or life due to most peoples predjudice against the way he looks.  I would exploit that and gain a very loyal employee by showing him some respect and a sense of belonging.

Damn is that a FAIL....





They quoted Jules wrong.





It's-  "ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT!?!?!"
 
 

"Don't hire any of them and wait for more applicants."

Unless there was an urgent need to immediately fill the position, I would keep looking.

what of all those vets that had jump wings tatted on thier fore arm?

"well you freed the world but you can not sell shit to pig farmers in Oklahoma" says op.

All applicants must pass a drug screen before an offer letter goes out, so that's a nonstarter.

Boy, talk about painting with a wide brush.

From those 3 choices, the tattoo guy.
I hate smokers that have to take a break for 10 minutes every hour.

This

The tattooed applicant is a herd animal; following the crowd.

He is also delusional. He believes he is somehow different due to his "body art". Cap it off with his obvious poor taste and you have an unstable person.



The smoker probably has the fewest emotional issues...He is simply an addict.



The obese person would have self esteem issues like the tattooed applicant.

However, the obese person can change through will power and hard work. The

tattooed applicant is screwed up forever.



Hope this helps.

Tattoo guy is an independent thinker how?  Because he got tattoos like everyone else?  Sounds more like a follower.

But, of those three, he's probably the least drama and cost.  Lessor of three evils gets the job, if that's all available and the work couldn't wait.  He might work out just fine.  I'd probably keep the ad running for a while just in case, because I believe in statistics.

Edit:  Londo beat me on the herd thing, but we came to seperate conclusions anyway.

2nd Edit:  And don't throw tattoo'd ex-military guys in the mix.  OP said NOTHING about vets.  I'd give them them extra consideration for their service, and the fact that they have already demonstrated the ability to function in the kind of screwed up environment I'd be hiring them for.

So because I have tats, according to you, I used drugs and or need medical couseling?  WOW!!!  Guess I shouldn't have access to weapons or vehicles or even the job I have.  Comments like this amaze me, simply amaze me.  

If I ran a carnival I'd hire all 3

Your living a clean life and being an upstanding member of your community does not negate the statistical connection.  That's why we interview on a case by case basis, not in groups.

I 100% will hire the one that doesn't scare customers away.

Since I am in construction that would be smoker and possibly tattoo guy.

LOL

No shit.

There is absolutely no way that your only three choices are 100% identical in every respect save the distinguishing features mentioned.

This means they have equivalent schooling, equivalent experience, equivalent attitudes, equivalent pesonalities... not going to happen.

Attitude and personality can matter a lot - would you rather get somebody who is better by the numbers but is an arrogant prick, or somebody who still meets the base technical requirements but has a strong work ethic and is happy to work together with others?

So how does that differ from my points above?  Let me rephrase it - you have a CCW or just own a weapon so you are a killer or will go postal by the wide broad brush painted above.  Statistics can be made to portray anything you want, it's all in presentation and the data/numbers used.

Take your best existing employee, give them a $8 an hour raise and transfer the job responsibilities to him.


Within a month, he will have bought a new truck with his raise and be financially enslaved to you since he could never find another job paying as much.



Bwaaahhhahahhahahhahhha!!!

If this is a job that require alot of face to face interaction with customers over a whole cross section of society.   Obese person gets the job.  Now this is based off of that tatted guy cannot cover up his tattoos w/ clothing required by the dress code.  If he can, he'd  be fine for the job.  

My company has similar circumstances that I lay out.  i got hired with a guy and still work with him everyday.  He always wears a long sleeve button up shirt that is well pressed and generally always looks sharp.  Keep in mind our company dress code is "business casual" which per our HR means, Khaki's and a polo, you are good to go.  They also have a stipulation that NO tattoos can show in the attire that you wear to work.  about 2 weeks after we start i go to grab lunch with him, we sit down at the table and he unbuttons his cuffs and rolls his sleeves up 2 or 3 folds.    A bit to my surprise he has sleeves of tattoos on both arms.  I asked him about them and where he gets them done.   It actually turns out he is part owner of a tattoo shop up in Denton.  He also tells me that his back is completely tatted as well as his one of his legs.  The fact of the matter is that if any of those tats were visible or if he was unable to cover them up on the job duringing the interview he would not have been hired.

just my experience.

ETA: in case it wasnt clear.  I do not care if you have tattoos or not.  I personally would not want a tattoo and thats just mainly because I got better things to spend money on than ink being put into my skin and i think i'd look stupid with one.  But as a business person, If i think you having visible tattoos on your body will cost me even ONE customer, you have to make sure you can cover them up completely.  If you can't or refuse to.  You wont have a job.   You may be qualified and an excellent worker, but if the customer doesnt even want to give you a chance to interact with them because of appearance that is unacceptable to many business folk.  

Unfortunatly tattos do have a stigma attached to them by certain customers.  Be it right or wrong.  if you dont want them as your customers then feel free to not attract their business.  Most major corporations wont have that viewpoint though.

With the coming collapse of capitalism in the Unites States of America, I would not hire anyone.  I would have to work with whomever I am assigned by the Federal Department of Human Labor.

All hail the Great Obama, giver of life.  We bow to his superiority.

Id hire the black guy. Just to be safe.

According to my buddies in  HR, visible tatoo guys go to the bottom of the list, then smokers, then fat folks.

This!!

Smokers - leave their post/desk to go smoke.  That's uncounted down time and loss of productivity.
Obese peeple - slow response time.  More down time due to health issues.
Tattoos - most can be covered up with long sleeve clothing.

Sounds about right from my experience.  My wife, who does have tattoos, had to cover them up in her new job and removed several piercings as well.  Financial institutions like a conservative appearance even if you are not dealing with the general public.  



Oh, and discriminate against any of them and you will lose.



 

I would hire the tatoo guy unless he had "fuck the world" across his forehead.
Then I would go with obese..
Then the smoker.  Every smoker I have ever worked with uses the smoke area to spend half his damn day.

None of the above.

In todays job market, I would finally get to choose between the healthy pristine MBA applicant or the healthy pristine experienced office manager applicant to give the opportunity go sort scrap metal.