Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think the thing about investment banking is that it's not really customer facing.

That said, I do wish the public was more accepting in general.

When I worked at gamestop, hair had to be ponytailed if it was longer than shoulder-length, you couldn't have died hair, etc.

Chezcat I dunno about changing the hair, mebbe changing the whole head would be best.
Seriously just make it neater and enjoy hair while you can.
I am firmly in the "I wish the general public would relax a bit" camp.

 KiloFiX wrote:
I think the thing about investment banking is that it's not really customer facing.

Well, my job is client-facing - we get client visits etc.

nkelsch wrote:

I also don't hide from my 'flaws'...

I sincerely doubt that.

nkelsch wrote:

...but "you shouldn't search that stuff' is not a defense and it is not only regularly done but common practice...

I never claimed otherwise.

nkelsch wrote:

...especially in companies with HR departments who literally have people with full time jobs which do nothing but google incoming resumes and background check new hires.

There is a massive difference between a Google search and a background check.

nkelsch wrote:
Sounds like even your company checked your social media and questioned you about it during your interview.

How does it sound like that? Please explain.

nkelsch wrote:

You would be surprised how many people lie about credentials and freak out when the first thing upon being hired is submitting to a background check to verify criminal record and university degrees. Social media is just the tip of the iceburg.

No, I wouldn't. Because I am not (and never was) a lazy boss, but I also never gave a damn about anything an employee did outside the workplace.

 dogma wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

I also don't hide from my 'flaws', but "you shouldn't search that stuff' is not a defense and it is not only regularly done but common practice, especially in companies with HR departments who literally have people with full time jobs which do nothing but google incoming resumes and background check new hires.

There is a massive difference between a Google search and a background check.

nkelsch wrote:
Sounds like even your company checked your social media and questioned you about it during your interview.

It never came up, because the company I work for isn't terrible.

nkelsch wrote:

You would be surprised how many people lie about credentials and freak out when the first thing upon being hired is submitting to a background check to verify criminal record and university degrees. Social media is just the tip of the iceburg.

No, I wouldn't. Because I am not (and never was) a lazy boss, but I also never gave a damn about anything an employee did outside the workplace.

what if he was shooting up heroin while wearing a "I work at XXX place" shirt?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

what if he was shooting up heroin while wearing a "I work at XXX place" shirt?

Was he sober when he came to the interview?

 Albatross wrote:
I work for a major investment bank and there are dudes with long hair in my office. It's 2015. I'm occasionally surprised at how puritanical Americans can be...

I also work for a bank (a top5, nonetheless) and there are men with pony tails (mostly in IT, coincidentally) and plenty of men with beards (myself included).

However, all the executive management I've had the good fortune to meet/work with all are clean shaven with very similar haircuts.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And what happens when the plumber and the milkman both arrive at the same house at the same time?

I've seen plenty of videos that answer that exact question, and it doesn't seem to be a huge problem logistically until the pizza man arrives.

 Ouze wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And what happens when the plumber and the milkman both arrive at the same house at the same time?

I've seen plenty of videos that answer that exact question, and it doesn't seem to be a huge problem logistically until the pizza man arrives.

Three pegs and it keeps the box from getting soggy.

 djones520 wrote:
Your best bet is to trim it up a bit. That first impression is the most important.

Folks can cry about the injustice of it all, long hair, crazy tattoos, 2" wide holes in your ears, etc... but in the end you are asking to for someone else to give you money, so it never hurts to present them the best image that you can.

You had me until "... asking someone else to give you money."


I'd say that's not correct. You're trying to convince someone (or several someones) that you're the best person to trade money for work with. Appearances can be part of that decision, sad as it is. This notion that businesses grace us with a donation of cash and benefits is just as incorrect as the notion that a business "owes" an employee something automatically. It's an exchange ; service for compensation in various forms. This argument is the opposite side of the entitled employee coin.


For instance, i'm in construction. Specifically business development (financials, bidding, finance) and management (execution, profitability, mitigation). I have the numbers at my disposal to prove that I make my company in net profit many hundred times over per year what it costs to retain me. They don't "give" me gak. They compensate me to a degree that keeps me happy and not too tempted to have a wandering eye, and i keep returning double digit growth to them year after year, despite two of the last five years having slight or moderate market sector contractions.


So businesses don't just "give you money". The company compensates you for the work you do for it. It's an exchange, a trade, not a donation.




Back on topic...

Depends on industry, region, and many other factors. Sad to say, but cutting your hair, covering tattoos, taking out piercings, etc., only ever make things easier, never harder. If you're in IT or construction (industries where there's more leeway the further you are from the boardroom level), it might not be an issue. If you're in finance or mergers and acquisitions, or corporate law.... yeah. Get a haircut.

If you have any doubt at all, then I recommend a cut, and let it grow back in once you land a job you think you'll stay at for a while. Usually once you prove yourself on a job, they pretty much don't care what your hair looks like if you are a producer for the company, and you take even a minimum amount of effort to take care of it.


For what its worth i feel your pain. I used to have long hair, i have 5 tats, two of which are visible in short sleeves, and a few piercings.

The hair is now quite short, the tats are mostly covered up when i'm at the office, and the piercings are long since taken out. BUT... not all for business reasons.

It does seem an attitude particularly common among US people, that an employer should be allowed to do almost anything they like and the employee suck it up and be grateful they were even given a job. Employment is a contract that goes both ways, you do a task and are compensated for it. It's not charity so why the attitude that you should be endlessly grateful for 'being given money' and not question your treatment? Bizarre.

Right on brother!

But in real world corporate culture, get your hair cut and wear the smartest suit you can afford, make sure your tie doesn't clash with your shirt, which is to say wear a white shirt. Fit in with the culture you are joining.

You can let our hair grow back after you get the job, of course then you'll be he scruffy non conformist who doesn't get promoted while slick looking smucks get the nod.

It's work in an office, we don't do it because we love but because it pays.

In London long hair is for women, poshboys who are having midlife crisis' and IT menials.

Welcome new drone, may your paperwork be never ending!

Personally I wouldn't have long hair as there too much risk of catching headlice off the children I work with.

 dogma wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

I also don't hide from my 'flaws'...

I sincerely doubt that.

Nice snarky backhand insult. Very smart.

nkelsch wrote:

...but "you shouldn't search that stuff' is not a defense and it is not only regularly done but common practice...

I never claimed otherwise.

So you admit is is regularly done, but claim people shouldn't work for employers who do it... and then when I say that leaves a shallow pool of prospective employers and limits your options you try to say "But But! I have a fantastic job and make more than you!"... Are you hiring? Can everyone who has bad social media footprints work for you maybe? Or maybe they need to be conscious and realize employers regularly check that stuff.

nkelsch wrote:

...especially in companies with HR departments who literally have people with full time jobs which do nothing but google incoming resumes and background check new hires.

There is a massive difference between a Google search and a background check.

So checking if someone has a criminal background is ok... but checking if someone posts about how they hate their employer or is a raging bigot is 'evil' even when both tendencies directly impact the workplace?

nkelsch wrote:
Sounds like even your company checked your social media and questioned you about it during your interview.

How does it sound like that? Please explain.

How do your potential employers know your 'flaws' unless they egosearch you? They literally know nothing about you outside your resume and what they investigate about you. A good HR should at a minimum verify your employment and get references which by its very nature can overlap with social media.

nkelsch wrote:

You would be surprised how many people lie about credentials and freak out when the first thing upon being hired is submitting to a background check to verify criminal record and university degrees. Social media is just the tip of the iceburg.

No, I wouldn't. Because I am not (and never was) a lazy boss, but I also never gave a damn about anything an employee did outside the workplace.

So Background checks to check for criminal history is ok... but checking if someone brags on social media openly about playing hookey or hangover days is 'unfair'? What about the wide array of raging bigots on the internet? You want to hire someone with a history of public bigotry via social media or is 'personal life, personal life'? You can make personal calls about what you do or do not care about, but often actions 'done outside the work place' directly impact work and are relevant and companies check this stuff both to protect themselves but their other employees as well.

If you don't want to censor yourself on social media, and don't want to be held accountable for your actions on the net... Your job opportunities are going to be limited severely in today's age where the economy is weak, jobs are scarce and it is so easy for HR departments to research you and your actions. Blaming companies for checking social media and invading your 'privacy' won't pay your bills.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It does seem an attitude particularly common among US people, that an employer should be allowed to do almost anything they like and the employee suck it up and be grateful they were even given a job. Employment is a contract that goes both ways, you do a task and are compensated for it. It's not charity so why the attitude that you should be endlessly grateful for 'being given money' and not question your treatment? Bizarre.

Because you sign away your rights in exchange for employment here, and in most states you can be fired at any time, for virtually no reason with no recourse. And salaried employees, where you are not on an hourly wage, the company does extend its control because often they own all your 'working time' because you are salaried. This means no overtime, working after hours, not selling your personal time to other employers. You can question your treatment, and be fired or conveniently 'laid off' next downsizing and there is nothing you can do about it in most cases.

And in times of employee scarcity, employees can push back. In times of job scarcity, if you don't like the terms of employment, someone else will. I remember late 90's when shorts and flipflops in the office made a comeback because good employees were hard to find and were given latitude. Those same offices and employees are wearing different clothes 15 years later.

I blame the 80s. But railing against 'how things are' doesn't get you a paycheck.

nkelsch wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It does seem an attitude particularly common among US people, that an employer should be allowed to do almost anything they like and the employee suck it up and be grateful they were even given a job. Employment is a contract that goes both ways, you do a task and are compensated for it. It's not charity so why the attitude that you should be endlessly grateful for 'being given money' and not question your treatment? Bizarre.

Because you sign away your rights in exchange for employment here, and in most states you can be fired at any time, for virtually no reason with no recourse. And salaried employees, where you are not on an hourly wage, the company does extend its control because often they own all your 'working time' because you are salaried. This means no overtime, working after hours, not selling your personal time to other employers. You can question your treatment, and be fired or conveniently 'laid off' next downsizing and there is nothing you can do about it in most cases.

And in times of employee scarcity, employees can push back. In times of job scarcity, if you don't like the terms of employment, someone else will. I remember late 90's when shorts and flipflops in the office made a comeback because good employees were hard to find and were given latitude. Those same offices and employees are wearing different clothes 15 years later.

I blame the 80s. But railing against 'how things are' doesn't get you a paycheck.

And that is why we need the government to protect us from the evil employers. Like in the Netherlands, where there are a lot of legal obligations a employer has to fulfill before they can check their potential employee's social media.

nkelsch wrote:
Nice snarky backhand insult. Very smart.

I didn't intend my comment as an insult. Rather I was observing that your argument is predicated upon hiding flaws.

nkelsch wrote:

So you admit is is regularly done, but claim people shouldn't work for employers who do it... and then when I say that leaves a shallow pool of prospective employers and limits your options you try to say "But But! I have a fantastic job and make more than you!"... Are you hiring? Can everyone who has bad social media footprints work for you maybe? Or maybe they need to be conscious and realize employers regularly check that stuff.

No, I don't. I admit that it is done , but I would say that it isn't done regularly enough to leave a "shallow pool of prospective employers".

nkelsch wrote:
So checking if someone has a criminal background is ok... but checking if someone posts about how they hate their employer or is a raging bigot is 'evil' even when both tendencies directly impact the workplace?

That isn't what I said. To clarify: if a job requires a background check it is usually laid out upfront, much like a job that requires the passage of a drug test, or the passage of a physical. I suppose that an employer might add "Must pass social network examination." to a job listing, but that seems rather intrusive.

nkelsch wrote:
How do your potential employers know your 'flaws' unless they egosearch you?

By reading my resume, complete with cover letter, and interviewing me.

nkelsch wrote:

A good HR should at a minimum verify your employment and get references which by its very nature can overlap with social media.

Why would an HR department try to acquire references that aren't provided? You're making it seem as though most jobs require something akin to security clearance, which is false.

nkelsch wrote:

What about the wide array of raging bigots on the internet? You want to hire someone with a history of public bigotry via social media or is 'personal life, personal life'?

Sure, so long as he does his job to an acceptable standard. As has been well documented the way people behave on the internet is very different from the way they behave in real life. For example, I highly doubt you're as hyperbolic IRL as you seem to be here.

nkelsch wrote:

Blaming companies for checking social media and invading your 'privacy' won't pay your bills.

Well, that really depends on how creative you are.

 KiloFiX wrote:
When I was volunteering at a clinic on weekends I'd see tons of people come in for company mandated pre-hire drug testing - from truckers, to auto plant workers, to even investment bankers.

This was in the US.

Funny thing was that many people would ask me directly if there was a way to avoid pot showing up on the tests.

I told them, from what I heard, it really didn't matter if pot showed up. (I actually did hear from one of the banks, and one of the plants that they didn't really care about pot).

My job had a building wide drug test the week after 4/20

4 Employees dropped out of 200~ lol




Great thread btw - informative

If I'm right, there has to be a certain amount of pot to disqualify you.

If everyone doing pot would be fired, a lot of high tier managers would be unemployed pretty darn fast. Quite a few of the people I know regularly smoke weed to calm down after work.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If everyone doing pot would be fired, a lot of high tier managers would be unemployed pretty darn fast. Quite a few of the people I know regularly smoke weed to calm down after work.

Its a lot less stringent over in the Europe no?

Anyway those guys that dropped out probably didnt know and just assumed they should drop

 Desubot wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If everyone doing pot would be fired, a lot of high tier managers would be unemployed pretty darn fast. Quite a few of the people I know regularly smoke weed to calm down after work.

Its a lot less stringent over in the Europe no?

Anyway those guys that dropped out probably didnt know and just assumed they should drop

I don't think there's much of a difference between the US and EU, at least not from the people I know. US managers often claim, however, that the EU is a lot more lax about drugs in some parts. We often have meetings in Amsterdam / Den Haag and..well...*wink*

It mostly boils down to "getting away with it", imo. I've seen interns getting shouted at by superiors because they smelled the weed, but in end, I'd say it was the usual "Look at me, I can shout people down, I'm important!" behavior. Marking your territory n' stuff. Frazzlin' it. Woof.