Appearance of theme park workers - does it matter?

[Lofty]

I don't think Hair Colour/Style matters whatsoever. I HATE how strict some parks are on what their staff look like.

Another one that REALLY grinds me up is Tattoo Acceptance - Or, rather lack of it. If it's a ridiculous tattoo thats of an obscene nature, I totally understand why a park wouldn't allow anybody to have it on show. But when it's actually a piece of art, it's kind of pathetic. There's a really big movement at the moment of 'Tattoo Acceptance in the Workplace'.

 

[Kata1]

Re: Appereance of theme park workers - does it matter?

[Actually, appearance is a lot.

Care to elaborate?

If I came outside your house, with saggin pants, tatoo's all over my body, a cap on my head and I'm wearing a black T-shirt. You would think I'm some gangster or something. Samething. If you had employee's who did not put on matching clothes or something. You would think they're freaks. Gives a bad impression.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I actually think Six Flags uniforms are good, because you can always spot employees amongst the crowd. And that, no doubt, is the point. It conveys to me that the chain wants people to think it gives a damn about customer service. And, this is irrelevant but everyone hates on SF an dI feel like I should give them credit where due... That "visual scan" thing they do, that's a great H&S procedure that actually makes sense, yet they are the ONLY one's who always 100% of the time look around before giving the okay to dispatch a train.

Same thing with behaviour. Employers tend to praise or encourage behaviour that I, as a customer, DETEST.

Like what, I'm intrigued ;]

Like when waiters and waitresses keep asking if everything is okay, when theme park staff literally force interaction on you or fake over the top smiles and greetings over genuine relaxed attitudes.

The main thing is forced interaction though, I hate it. Absolutely hate it. If you say hello to someone and they don't sound enthused, and then you ask how their day is, and you're getting one word answers... LEAVE THEM ALONE! It's NOT rocket science! Entertainments are especially bad at getting up in everyones face and not realising when people don't want to be interacted with. And for god sake do NOT compromise efficiency in the name of "fun" when the queue is an hour long!

 

[Smithy]

Same thing with behaviour. Employers tend to praise or encourage behaviour that I, as a customer, DETEST.

Small talk, asking personal questions (so who is this for etc...) and stuff like that?

I just like being able to pay and get out of there tbh.

As for appearance. The article is hilarious, as with Ian I first cracked up at the '', who is black'' line.

Unfortunately appearance is vital in setting a first impression, and even if the interviewer makes no comment or acknowledgement of their appearance being a deciding factor on their decision, it's very difficult in many cases to prove as such.

I don't mind piercings, tattoos, hairstyles for people working on rides, although I'd probably be slightly more aware of these things if they were within a food outlet.

 

[Hyde]

When I was at 6F, we got 2 shirts. We had to pay for them. The park I'm at now didn't charge for basic uniform items, but only gives us one.
Seriously? I have to to laundry every day just to wash my uniform shirt? Lame.

What makes me laugh is that despite the dress and grooming code, SF have completely vom uniforms that make people look they are construction labourer or a traffic controller:


SF Uniform

Traffic Controller

Word.

Though Cedar Point female ride ops had a pretty awful stint in these bad boy onesies for the last couple years - thank god they have finally shifted to a much better looking unisex polo.

 

[gavin]

If it's a ridiculous tattoo thats of an obscene nature, I totally understand why a park wouldn't allow anybody to have it on show. But when it's actually a piece of art, it's kind of pathetic. There's a really big movement at the moment of 'Tattoo Acceptance in the Workplace'.

It's all completely subjective though. What you might see as a "piece of art", I might see as a horrendous piece of s**te. As with hairstyles, I couldn't personally give a **** about tattoos, but if an employer doesn't want them on display, then so be it. You can't say it depends on the tattoo because there's no way of actually measuring their "appropriateness". It's really a case of allow them all or cover them all up.

I very, very rarely get on any high horse about minority rights, but as a homo, the idea of a "Tattoo Acceptance Movement" actually almost offends me. Again, as it's purely down to the way that somebody has chosen to present themselves. It's NOT something innate that can't be helped or controlled.

Somebody posted some **** on their Facebook recently that was all "Don't stereotype me because I'm a Goth",or some other such bull ****, and taking the whole discrimination angle. Again, I'm sorry, I personally don't give a **** how you dress, and I'm smart enough to know that dyed black/pink hair and too much eyeliner doesn't mean you're a suicidal devil worshipper, but if you're choosing to, in essence, stereotype yourself with your "unique" (yeah, that's a **** ing laugh in itself), look then you have to deal with the reactions you might get.

How **** ing DARE YOU equate it to a civil rights movement?!

 

[Lofty]

Equating it to a civil rights movement is going a bit far, but not being able to even fully apply for a job because you've got a tattoo that means something to you, is absolutely pathetic.

An example I know of is below; A friend of mine went to promote my friend's business at an open day in a Costco near my house. Costco refused him entry to the building to promote because he had a large tattoo that was visible. They wouldn't allow him to promote because, "There was Children present in the room and their policy is to not openly promote skin art of any kind to minors". This is all a 100% factual story. The thing is, what they don't know it, the guy was actually a Guard at Buckingham Palace. After a LOT of fuss between my friend and Costco, they managed to get the policy over-written at Costco, just for a moral stand-point.

I totally agree with you Gavin about the subject of opinion on a piece of art and total piece of ****. I've got enough to know both kinds of tattoo

 

[ATTACKHAMMER]

Re: Appereance of theme park workers - does it matter?

f I came outside your house, with saggin pants, tatoo's all over my body, a cap on my head and I'm wearing a black T-shirt. You would think I'm some gangster or something. Samething. If you had employee's who did not put on matching clothes or something. You would think they're freaks. Gives a bad impression.

I think you mean trousers

Anyway was at Thorpe today a ride op on Vortex had one of those massive ear strenghy things, did I care? No he was a laugh and did his job well.

 

[Mike]

I am quite a big fan of the "Disney Look", although wouldn't go as far as caring about which undershirt someone was wearing.

Generally, I hate going up and talking to people, but if I have to, then I'd feel far more comfortable if that person was approachable. If I had to pick between talking to someone who had long and thick dyed hair, tattoos all over their body and metal sticking out of their face, versus someone within the "Disney Look", then I'd choose the latter every time. If it turns out the latter is a bit of a **** and the former is the nicest person in the world, then so be it, but I may still not be comfortable approaching them just based off their looks.

Saying that, I think I would be a little bit more leniant for girls, and as with the news story, if the girl really has been denied the job just based off her hair style, then that is a bit ludicrous. As long as the hair can be put into a hairnet or tied back, as with other people with long hair, then there should be no problem... Although from the way this girl has instantly gone off ranting and complaining about discrimination makes me think the hair wasn't the only thing that lost her the job...

 

[Mack]

I don't think Hair Colour/Style matters whatsoever. I HATE how strict some parks are on what their staff look like.

Another one that REALLY grinds me up is Tattoo Acceptance - Or, rather lack of it. If it's a ridiculous tattoo thats of an obscene nature, I totally understand why a park wouldn't allow anybody to have it on show. But when it's actually a piece of art, it's kind of pathetic. There's a really big movement at the moment of 'Tattoo Acceptance in the Workplace'.

NO.


You have to remember that parks are visited by people of all countries. In many countries the only reason you'd have a tattoo is because you are a convicted criminal who has been in prison. If they see any tattoo, they will think you are a criminal who has been to prison.

Parks are private businesses, and their goal is to make money. There are plenty of un-tattooed people out there to hire who won't shock their international clientele. You wanna get hired by all businesses? Don't get a f--king tattoo. That was your own choice, and to many from countries around the world, a tattoo is shocking and unacceptable. They will think the park has convicts working the rides.

 

[Chaz7]

^completely agree as above.

The only thing I learnt in A2 History was from my teacher's advice. Want to get a decent job? Never get a tattoo than can be seen when your in a short-sleeves shirt.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?tepnv0

 

[CoasterfanSWE]

It is about as important as the inner colour of ones shoes.

I couldn't care less what a ride operator looks like as long as they are clean and is keen on what they are supposed to - riders safety. My homepark isn't very strict what I can see, as I've seen both one and three piercings, tatoos and whatnot, eventhough that is more exception than common. I've observed a very minimal sagging on pants once (about two inch viewable, which they pulled up ten seconds later anyhow), and it had the same amount of impact on me a falling leaf has.

 

[nadroJ]

Silly CFers.

A MASSIVE proportion of theme park goers are young people with disposable cash. Also, guess what bracket of people in the UK has the most tattoos? Yep, young people. As a generation it's pretty much a given that we don't really give a **** when it comes to tattoos as they're more of a fashion thing now than anything else. Yes, people from other countries may find them offensive, but there are also countries where women showing their forearms is seen as offensive, or men having a clean shaven face is offensive, etc, etc. To give the 'other countries may find it offensive argument' is completely pointless because of all the cultures in the world who MAY visit a theme park surely there's a plethora of things that could be seen as offensive?

Basically, times are changing and believe it or not, tattoos are becoming MORE acceptable, especially by places such as theme parks that mostly hire younger people. Businesses aren't stupid and they know to change their guidelines with the times. Just look at Disney. In the not so distant past men with facial hair were NOT allowed in the park, because just like the tattoo is was a sign that you were an unruly and possibly dangerous person. The general conception of facial hair changed, and thus Disney adjusted that rule.

There will ALWAYS be somebody, somewhere, who may find what you are doing/wearing/saying offensive, because of the diversity and difference of culture around the world. What businesses do is tend to adjust their rules and guidelines to fit with the general consensus of what their primary target audience wants.

 

[Lofty]

NO.


You have to remember that parks are visited by people of all countries. In many countries the only reason you'd have a tattoo is because you are a convicted criminal who has been in prison. If they see any tattoo, they will think you are a criminal who has been to prison.

I'm sorry, but that's just pathetic. If people are that narrow minded, the world should just end right now. Saying that people who have tattoos are basically prisoners is just ludicrous. Thomas Edison had one for **** sake.

Amen to your post Jordan! Especially the picture

 

[Nic]

Lets begin by saying that I completely agree with the argument that "if that's what the regulations are, then shut up and put up, or find another job". The company doesn't HAVE to hire you. They're not obliged. If they decide to impose regulations on your appearance, then either meet those, or don't work there. Your choice.

I've worked places where I've had to remove my piercings, but it's never bothered me. It's part of the job. In the same way that, if I'm required to wear black trousers and shoes at that workplace, then I wouldn't dream of turning up in jeans and white trainers, for example.

However, I do think such regulations are more appropriate in some places than in others. Do I care about the appearance of a ride host? As long as their uniform is presentable, they're clean and they're not wearing anything obviously dangerous, then, no, I don't. As others have pointed out, other situations (eg food outlets) are a different situation. It's all about finding what's appropriate for your line of business.

In this specific case, the 'issue' is "dreadlocks". Now, if we're talking about corn-rows/braids, that kinda thing, then I don't really see what the problem is. I don't associate them with being untidy, unclean or unpresentable. However, if we're talking proper back-combed, unwashed, crusty juggler dreadlocks, then I don't think I'd be too impressed at seeing those in a food outlet. Hmmm, dunno.

My current job has probably the least prescriptive dress-code of any I've ever had, which may surprise some considering I work for a County Council. Generally, people are grown up enough to manage to dress appropriately on the days they need to (important meetings etc), but if they're just sat at their desk in the office, does it matter if they rock up in jeans and a t-shirt? Apart from the exhibitionist twat in our office that insists on wearing a kilt to work purely because he knows it'll get him the attention he seeming needs to survive, people are usually pretty sensible about it. There's also one girl who's got purple hair, tattoos everywhere and more piercings than Taylor's had hot dinners. She scrubs up well on the rare occasion that its required of her, so what does it matter?

 

[Ethan]

I +1 Jordan's and Nic's posts, hit the nail on the head!

 

[JJLehto]

Yeah, this is pretty much a non issue it's so ridiculous.

I thought this was going to be about uniforms and general appearance (not looking like a hobo for example) but something like being denied employment over hair?
Or anything like that....just sad, and obviously wrong.


Edit: You say people are generally grown up enough to know the appropriate dress for a situation but honestly, I've been shocked at the things I've seen out there :lol:
People at work looking like they came from a gym or were in their sleeping clothes...
Hell, at 23 I dressed better than some of my managers, and that was just a khakis and polo shirt!

 

[Mack]

My current job has probably the least prescriptive dress-code of any I've ever had, which may surprise some considering I work for a County Council. Generally, people are grown up enough to manage to dress appropriately on the days they need to (important meetings etc), but if they're just sat at their desk in the office, does it matter if they rock up in jeans and a t-shirt? Apart from the exhibitionist twat in our office that insists on wearing a kilt to work purely because he knows it'll get him the attention he seeming needs to survive, people are usually pretty sensible about it. There's also one girl who's got purple hair, tattoos everywhere and more piercings than Taylor's had hot dinners. She scrubs up well on the rare occasion that its required of her, so what does it matter?

Well, in the United States, a kilt would probably get you dismissed or ordered to go home and change, but that's another issue.... (actually, that kind of drives my point home).

Anyway, my point is, the reason Disney has the super-conservative Disney Look is because Disney is a destination for SO MANY people from SO MANY cultures and SO MANY countries. So it's best to just be as conservative as possible. Like I said before, there are PLENTY of people with acceptable haircuts and without piercings and tattoos to hire. I'm sure the stack of applications practically reaches the ceiling. Why take a chance? There are plenty of candidates.

 

[nealbie]

Our resident optometrist has dreadlocks, she's fab <3

 

[LiveForTheLaunch]

I agree with the majority of people. I think that if you keep your uniform tidy, have a good attitude, and know what you're doing, then things like hair, tattoos, piercings, and nail polish don't really matter. I mean, if you're keeping your hair gross and greasy and your nail polish all chipped, that's one thing, but if you have nicely kept pink hair, piercings on your face, and normal nail polish, it's not going to ruin my day at a park. Basically as long as you're making some sort of effort to not look like trailer trash, then it's fine by me.

I just see it as discriminatory and oppressive of individuality when places say that their "professional" appearance excludes whacky hair colours or any other body modifications. Working at McDonalds, they use to be VERY strict (a little more lax now at mine thank goodness). I wear heavy makeup and I use to have a crapload of piercings at one time, and every time I would go in I would get told off for it saying I didn't look professional, and even now they won't train me to work on service or anywhere in public (I do get out of janitor duty though so I'm happy for that) because of how I look. It makes me feel bad, because I'm always at work with a tidy uniform, my hair up above my shoulders, no nail polish, but because of the way I choose to wear my makeup I wouldn't be able to move forward in the company if I wanted to.

So yep, TL;DR- As long as you look presentable, I don't care if you have odd hair, tattoos, and piercings. As long as you rock the look and don't look like a greaser, and do your job good, it's fine.