This post is in partnership with Fortune, which offers the latest business and finance news. Read the article below originally published at Fortune.com.
By John Kell
If your Starbucks barista had an arm tattoo, would it stop you from ordering your daily espresso?
Probably not, but Starbucks, at least for now, won’t allow baristas to have tattoos that are visible to customers. But the coffee giant is considering relaxing its dress code in the coming weeks in recognition that fashion tastes have changed.
Starbucks is part of a growing list of companies that are grappling with reality that their workforces and customers are increasingly tattooed, pierced and at home in casual clothes. For example, PetSmart recently started letting employees show off their tattoos at work while retailing giant Wal-Mart will soon let its workers wear black pants instead of just khakis.
Dress codes are a delicate balancing act for retail and food-service companies, which try to project an image to customers but not be so strict as to make employees quit. For instance, shoppers in Home Depot’s massive stores can easily spot employees wearing orange aprons, which also help to reinforce the corporate color scheme.
But err into too-strict territory and it could mean an employee exodus. Turnover is already high at retail stores and restaurants, which raises recruiting costs. Research suggests that the cost of replacing workers can reach as high as 50% to 60% of their annual salary because of the extra training required and time human resources spends setting them up to get paid and start their benefits, according to a report by the Society for Human Resource Management.
- The Fight to Save the Salmon
- Inside the World of Black Bitcoin, Where Crypto Is About Making More Than Just Money
- The 'Great Resignation' Is Finally Getting Companies to Take Burnout Seriously. Is It Enough?
- Suddenly, Everyone on TV Is Very Rich or Very Poor. What Happened?
- Colin Powell Reflects on His Mistakes in Unpublished TIME Interview
- Business Travel's Demise Could Have Far-Reaching Consequences
- If the U.S. Spends Big on Climate, the Rest of the World Might Follow