Let me start out by stating that I do not have any tattoos. Not a one. None the less, I am affected by the ban on tattoos because it is a right that has been taken away from me, and my co-workers, regardless if we choose to exercise it or not.

The ban of tattoos in the workplace leads to clear discrimination, and uncomfortable working situations for Baristas.

It is a practice of Starbucks, as it is of many companies, not to hire personnel that are known to have tattoos. This is discrimination. Tattoos are a very personal expression of one's self, and a part of one's identity. No one should have to hide their identity to be hired.

Tattoos do not make Baristas unreliable, they do not imply incompetance . They do not make anyone any less efficient at their job, nor do they keep Baristas from connecting with customers.

In my experience, most of my co-workers have tattoos and hide them. They are told to wear long sleeve shirts to cover their arms, and put band-aids on their wrists and hands.
This may not seem like a big deal, until you work as a Barista.
Wearing long sleeves behind the bar is more than an inconvenience to my fellow partners, it is uncomfortable and unsanitary. The frequency and speed required for washing pitchers, blenders, spoons, etc. while on bar, usually means that sleeve become soaked. Not only is it unhealthy for a Barista to wear wet sleeves for an 8-hour shift, it also constitutes a surface that cannot be regularly washed, that comes into contact with clean dishes, and could possibly inadvertently contaminate beverages or pastries.
Also, the temperature BEHIND the bar, and BEHIND the register, is usually a lot higher than the rest of the store. It get's pretty darn hot in the back, and working with long sleeves in such an environment breeds inefficiency, fatigue, and an over-all misery that makes it VERY difficult to maintain rapport and a positive attitude with customers.

Band-aids on your hands also have their problems. Besides the risk of them falling off, they are incredibly expensive. Anyone on a Barista's pay knows that buying enough band-aids to wear everyday is a financial burden.

Some argue tattoos are offensive. Offensive to who?
The idea that somehow seeing permanent body art on someone else somehow harms your piece of mind is out-dated and horribly prejudiced.

Anyone has the right to not like tattoos, to not to want to get a tattoo themselves. It is some kind of arrogant to believe you should have a say whether another grown adult has control of their own body. It has no impact on job performance.

The fact that it is a CHOICE to get a tattoo has no baring on the validity of the prejudice. It is ALSO A CHOICE to get a short haircut, or grow it long, or even dye your hair ("un-natural" colors are currently banned by Starbucks). The point is that SOME people still think long hair on men is offensive. That does not give Starbucks, or any company the right to only hire men with short hair. nor does it give them the right to only hire people without tattoos. If Starbucks is to continue the policy of disallowing tattoos, they might as well take our right to choose our own hairstyle, which I think we can agree, would be quite silly.

I ask you, support the repeal of the ban on workplace tattoos, not only because it has become a workers rights issue, but also because it is good for business.

Starbucks is founded on the principles that when partners are happy, customers are happy. Let's keep it that way.