Maori tattoo doesn't cut it at Air NZ

[xor]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10886641

Murray, such a crackup.

[spigalau]

Correct Tattoo, not a Moko.

'What's the difference between moko and tattoo?
'Tattoo' is the English version of the Tahitian word tatu. Tattoo is the tradition of marking the skin with ink and needles, whereas moko is the practice of scarring and marking the skin to reflect the whakapapa (genealogy) of the Māori wearer. Moko can be seen as a cultural affirmation. '

Will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

[Pimp-X]

This just in: Companies are not allowed to have policies that might make maori feel butthurt.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Pimp-X

This just in: Companies are not allowed to have policies that might make maori feel butthurt.

Pretty much.

"a person of Maori descent may not be denied employment, entry to premises, or declined service because they wear moko visibly"

Next up, legally defining "moko"

[spigalau]

Far from it, they didn't deny her employment, AirNZ offered her a back end role instead of a front line customer facing one.

[Lightspeed]

Pakehas and their rules.

[fixed_truth]

I'm sympathetic to Air NZ being allowed a no visible tattoos rule. Though I also think that where possible Maori should be free to participate in their traditional cultural practice without it effecting employment opportunities.

[Ab]

Seems a bit hypocritical when the company in question uses Maori designs and people bearing Maori tattoos to generate business. "We want to use the darkies to get customers, but we don't want the darkies to actually serve the customers. They might eat them!"

[Pimp-X]

I laughed

[xor]

The provider wants to be able to control their image. If you let all Murray jump on board dishing out peanuts and hot towels with full moko's then airnnz wouldn't be flying for long.

p.s Biomag

[Golden Teapot]

Seems like the interviewer was inept to me. A person with a brain would have said this was not an issue, finished the interview, and then fairly assessed the candidate against all relevant criteria.

I have noticed following the interview methodology of my employer that it is often obvious after a few seconds that a candidate isn't going to make it. My approach is to always carry on but in a condensed format. I do this to be both nice and to recognise that an organisation with a thousand roles might have something else that the candidate would be good at even if my role isn't a starter. Being other than nice to people is generally speaking not a good idea.

[Golden Teapot]

Of course there are exceptions - I am occasionally extremely and deliberately not nice but never without a fair and justified purpose that can't be delivered upon by other methods.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Seems like the interviewer was inept to me.

Agreeing with GT. What's that about?

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Seems like the interviewer was inept to me. A person with a brain would have said this was not an issue, finished the interview, and then fairly assessed the candidate against all relevant criteria.

I have noticed following the interview methodology of my employer that it is often obvious after a few seconds that a candidate isn't going to make it. My approach is to always carry on but in a condensed format. I do this to be both nice and to recognise that an organisation with a thousand roles might have something else that the candidate would be good at even if my role isn't a starter. Being other than nice to people is generally speaking not a good idea.

Indeed it was startling that they actually said it would be an issue in the interview. You can not give someone a job for any reason you want, you just can't *tell* them that reason...

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Agreeing with GT. What's that about?

he has a very rational and honest quality.