Targeting Tattoos

Targeting Tattoos

Name

Institution

Targeting Tattoos

In my view as per the question, I consider Newton a problem employee in the sense that with the idea in mind that this is a public service entity or organization, then, all employees are to embrace the set ethics and norms which govern the profession. The police Sacco is one very sensitive entity where all citizens want to see the police officers neat and well behaved for them to gather respect and boost their integrity and professionalism while at work.

As a police chief, I would advise Newton to embrace good morals so as to avoid tainting the image created by the police in the minds and eyes of the citizens. Police officers are just like any other public servant and remaining cultured and well groomed is given priority while at work. In so doing I will have to convince him by some of the negative impacts that come with tattooing the body as discussed below.

There is always a slight risk of infection or complications. Sometimes people’s bodies will reject certain colors or even expose the skin to dangerous diseases such as cancer. According to research, the ink used in tattoos may at times contain metals, especially blue ink, which has cobalt and aluminum. Red ink may have mercurial sulfide. Tattoos can cause localized skin reactions such as allergic reactions to the dye or lichenin. The increased risk in a tattoo causing skin cancer occurs when the tattoo covers a mole, making changes at that skin location difficult to detect. This is especially true if darker dyes are used and cover the mole area.

Secondly, tattoos also promote allergic conditions in the sense that, very occasionally, an individual is allergic to one of the pigments used. There will be swelling and itching, often in the red part of the tattoo. Allergy may not occur immediately and may develop months or even years after the tattoo was done.

What type of disciplinary actions, if any, would you take against Newton?

As the police chief I would take some actions as discussed herein, as per the City of Hartford (CT) in 1997, the chief of police has the authority to order personnel to cover tattoos that are deemed offensive and/or present an unprofessional appearance. Personnel shall cover the tattoo with either flesh-toned, navy blue, or white type material that matches the uniform shirt or wear a long-sleeve shirt in accordance with the winter uniform of the day standard. In this regard, Newton is to ensure that the tattoo is completely covered while he is in line of duty to avoid creating a negative effect among departments.

My other disciplinary action in this context would be to advice Newton to remove the tattoos from his body to ensure a professional uniform appearance to the public. The public expect to see police officers in an attire that describes who they are and that which identifies them everywhere and not discriminate any of them since displaying massive tattoos distracted from the uniform appearance necessary to good police work.

The first potential issue that I will be aware of in consideration to the disciplinary action is the legislators who don’t like tattoos and who think they’re immoral or wrong when done by people especially those in the public domain as the police officers. These legislators at times may use their influence to make tattoos illegal or put restrictions on them.

The second, and more common, reason is health concerns. In this, educating people or to be precise –Newton- will play a pivotal role since they risk contracting given diseases when they engage in the act. This is evident as shown from some health records which trace some of the ink used in the process may contain some small metals such as cobalt or aluminum which poses health hazards on an individual who exposes his/her body for tattooing. Blood-borne infections such as hepatitis C and B as well as HIV/AIDS cannot be overlooked in this event especially when not properly sterilized. Inks can also harbor viruses or bacteria when used by many people.

My decision to tell Newton to do away with the Swastka and naked woman tattoo would be pegged on the Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 US 742(1998) whereby employees may raise concerns in line with disparate treatment whereby displaying a swastika, displaying sexually offensive material or displaying racially offensive material is illegal at work place and may contribute to work place discrimination and a bad image the general public. Swastika symbol predates National Socialism.

In conclusion, tattooing of various parts of the body has in the recent times posed a great danger to the health of an individual who engages in the same act. As per the laws and regulations governing tattooing by the public servant such as the police, it is not to be displayed in the eyes of the public. In this case the display of a swastika alongside a naked woman will greatly stir negative emotions and ill feelings among the general public. The officer should ensure that the arms are well covered when on duty to avoid issues within the various departments or the citizens.

References

Christa de Cuyper, M. L. (2009). Dermatologic Complications with Body Art. Springer Science & Business Media.

DeMello, M. (2014). Inked: Tattoos and Body Art around the World . ABC-CLIO.

Graves, B. (2000). Tattooing and Body Piercing. Capstone.