Hi there BUTCH...

In principle I do agree with much of what you say, some of these young people have no intention of seeking work and will no doubt sabotage any and all efforts the authorities make, in order to find and get them suitable work. In fact, the more 'visually' unemployable they endeavour to make themselves, the better it is, according to their own meandering logic? Believe me Butch, I've had a lot to do with this particular demographic over the years, and I still haven't got much of a remedy, of how society should deal with with them! Though police were not known as being particularly sympathetic nor forgiving, either of their behaviour or their provocative method of bodily adornment!

However, there are many other young people who are similarly just as heavily inked and pierced, and who do have full time employment, holding down their respective jobs with considerable pride. When asked why they choose to 'ink-up' and 'hole-up' to the excess, they simply reply it's all to do with contempory fashion. And as the man said, fashion is all in the eye of the beholder, and who among us can legitimately argue with that?

"There are certain standards of dress in our society that are
considered rebellious, counter cultured, distracting,
thuggish, or they bring to mind lower social status."

I agree Foxy but in this day and age the above statement doesnt include tattoos, piercings and dyed hair.

Not saying I would do it but each to their own and as long as they do a good job then its their life, body, skin to do what they want with.

It is all, "Look at Moi, look at Moi!".

Of course questions arise and rightly so about the maturity and judgement of an attention-seeker who has paid large sums of money to have his/her skin look like the graffiti-abused wall of a Council dunny.

Body modification and 'inking' are reliable signs of stupidity, narcissism, ego problems, oppositional defiance disorder and many other problems you wouldn't want to import to a happy, productive workplace.

Likewise for example I wouldn't recruit or retain flirtatious, superficial people. Not intended as an 'equal' comparison, but worthwhile stating the obvious fact that the workers have a vested interest in a harmonious workplace too. Who needs someone with 'issues' to cause problems?

Employment is a competitive market. The costs of poor selection can be horrendous and long-lasting even after the problem has departed.

Things have changed: even on a construction site the workers are generally into healthy lunches; they don't appreciate some idiot around them who takes risks with his own and their safety; the blue language has been toned down with the 'chicken-lipped' few being told not to show up for the next day or next job; and generally speaking anyone who is not mature and willing to do his job on time every time and get along can find a job elsewhere.

It is all about managing risk in a very tight market. Contrary to what the left leaning probably publicly-employed types believe, the business margins are most often slim. It only take one self-centered idiot to upset a job or a customer and spoil the exceptional work of many others. Average doesn't cut the mustard with clients and the business is judged on its last job/service.

Abusing one's body and attention-seeking are NOT reliable indicators of professionalism and having one's life in order.

In the current employment climate, thanks to our lefty & green mates, it can be a very expensive business getting rid of a bad employee. In a retail business such as rehctub's, a bad choice can alienate a lot of your patrons very quickly.

Any employer who does not vet his prospective employees carefully & well will soon be out of business.

In the Whitsunday island resorts with a high turnover of working holiday types, there were plenty of good people to go round. However there were plenty of the type who believed the boss owed them a living, & not that they owed the boss.

In the hospitality industry, where profits are often slim carrying bludgers is not easy. One thing I found was that the staff were much quicker to spot the wrong people. Rather than the union attitude in many industries of protecting the bad one, Our staff were quick to make life unpleasant for the slacker who threw an extra load onto them. Undesirables were usually gone before any management action was required.

Wouldn't it be lovely if this applied in the education industry.

When it comes to standards many of the old conservatives on here are content to stick to the 1950's business model of conformity, and expect young people to do the same. The 1960's gave rise to a counter culture of disobedient youth, who rebelled, many young people rightly questioned the values and standards of that older generation, they were about to replace. some youth were eager to determine their own social values, which were not those of their parents. Young people are doing much the same today, exactly what many of today's respectable bankers and lawyers etc did back then. I think there is no choice other than to live with it, I have no problem, but others do.