Should employers be allowed to discriminate against fatties?

[indra]

The burden of healthcare shouldn't be on employers in the first place.

Non-issue.

What about the potential of understaffed facilities?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

What about the potential of understaffed facilities?

Then they should hire more fatties. (sorry, let me think about it before posting a real answer)

 

[Xann]

(Nikola) Tesla could be harsh at times and openly expressed disgust for overweight people, such as when he fired a secretary because of her weight. He was quick to criticize clothing; on several occasions, Tesla directed a subordinate to go home and change her dress.

If the father of modern technology did, who are we to object? Personally I'd take Tesla's word on the matter to be far more elucidating than some opinionated elephant.

 

[Poki]

(Nikola) Tesla could be harsh at times and openly expressed disgust for overweight people, such as when he fired a secretary because of her weight. He was quick to criticize clothing; on several occasions, Tesla directed a subordinate to go home and change her dress.

If the father of modern technology did, who are we to object? Personally I'd take Tesla's word on the matter to be far more elucidating than some opinionated elephant.

Lol. Only biography I ever read. A genius that had so many quirks you could make him go insane in a heart beat

 

[SpankyMcFly]

If a company had to fly employees to a meeting/seminar and the plane crashed in the Andes, the fattest employees might outperform the skinniest employees in areas of survival.

A strategic reserve for sure. Oh and LOL at 'outperform', brilliant.

 

[BadOctopus]

(Nikola) Tesla could be harsh at times and openly expressed disgust for overweight people, such as when he fired a secretary because of her weight. He was quick to criticize clothing; on several occasions, Tesla directed a subordinate to go home and change her dress.

If the father of modern technology did, who are we to object? Personally I'd take Tesla's word on the matter to be far more elucidating than some opinionated elephant.

Tesla also hated women's jewelry and was in love with a pigeon. He may have been a genius, but he wasn't the most balanced individual.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Tesla liked shitty metal.

 

[BadOctopus]

Tesla liked shitty metal.

Wrong Tesla, dear.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Wrong Tesla, dear.

Wait, which one invented electric guitar?

Was that Einstein?

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Disagree.

M'kay

There ARE jobs out there where appearances are everything and you really cannot avoid blatant discrimination. I do agree with the idea that if you want to work at "Tallywackers" novelty-use-men-as-a-piece-of-meat-and-eye-candy restaurant, you should really be a dude when you apply. And strip clubs shouldn't be getting railed for not hiring less-than-desirable girls in their market.

We are in agreement on this for sure.

But truly, the buck has to stop somewhere. I've seen at-will used waay too many times by bigots and assholes to by-pass discrimination laws for women, blacks, disabled people, even military members, etc.

These are protected 'classes' of people and it is illegal to discriminate against them on the basis listed. There are plenty of free government resources that people have access to in order to seek redress.

Truly, the more discrimination there is in the job market, the more you open up your taxes to welfare and unemployment and shit.

Potentially a good argument, albeit data or a link or something would be useful.

And you get assholes with jobs complaining that people without jobs just 'aren't trying' when they're getting pushed out left and right.

Hmmm, I don't think assholes & assholery should be legislated per se, unless you are suggesting making 'weight' a protected class. Which now that I think about it could be easily extrapolated to lil people and 'biggins', as in those 7'+ folk. Getting pushed out right and left? Well they are likely replaced, which is a zero-sum game.

It's easy for someone with money to relocate, but the less money you have the more time you spend trying to get your life together. I've always spent far more time and money trying to get a job than I ever did maintaining one. And, having switched jobs on a sometimes monthly basis for various reasons, that time between paychecks is killer.

See, freedom is awesome, the freedom to say 'take this job and shove it' or whatever floats your boat. From a management perspective there goes time & $$$ invested in finding, interviewing, training etc. of said employee. Just as people have the freedom to come and go as they please, employers also need freedom.

I don't think at-will should be as liberally used as it is, and it hurts minorities, promotes stereotypes, and most importantly kills the welfare pool with legitimate but completely avoidable unemployment and welfare numbers...

I haven't seen any numbers about how many people are fired each year, but as I mentioned above, it's a zero-sum game, unless you are in a recession. Which if you are, you are merely removing the 'chaff'. Unemployment is insurance that employees pay into along with there employers, it's a state thing and mostly pays for itself, unless there is a large spike. As an employer your rates can and do go up based on your 'churn' so there is incentive for companies to NOT fire people because their mom dresses them funny or whatevs.

...added for the convenience of, "I don't like their tie." Implement a dress code if you don't like the tie.

See asshole/assholery above.

I'd like to suggest looking into data on countries that have 'onerous' employment laws (from a management perspective) and see how that's working out for them, as a whole.

I'll give you a quick example off the top of my head. Mexico, around 50% of their GDP is from the 'underground' economy, mostly self employed family run businesses that have no employee's (other than family members) and those who work under the table. Imagine what their country could do if their government had the money these tax evaders don't pay. It's a complicated mess of reasons, but at the top of the list is their very socialistic laws regarding employees. Following is a short list of some of them;

The following minimum benefits, which cannot be waived or contracted out: Practical Law

Profit sharing. Employees are entitled to a share in their employer's profits, currently fixed at 10% of the company's pre-tax income;

Paid public holidays. The FLL requires employees to be paid during public holidays (see Question 11);

Holiday bonus. Employees are paid an extra 25% of their salary during their holiday (see Question 11);

Christmas bonus. Employers must give each employee the equivalent of 15 days' salary as a bonus by no later than 20 December of each year (see Question 30);

You are also guaranteed a severance if you are dismissed for ANY reason, even if it's the employee's fault, i.e. quits, absenteeism etc.

Spain has an unemployment rate of 22% for all people and over 50% for 'youth' Unemployment statistics - Statistics Explained Again, similar reasons. When you restrict companies and create benefits that outweigh the cost of replacing employees companies simply stop hiring. Too expensive and/or risky.

 

[Tellenbach]

So if you were fired tomorrow because your boss didn't like your tie, you'd be ok with that?

Market forces will weed out the bad business models. If your cat doesn't like one of your employees and you're the owner, you should be able to fire that person. In Europe, this is not allowed; there are regulations against arbitrary firings and the result is that businesses are loathe to hire people (especially women and young people) and the universe of jobs shrinks. Businesses are much more likely to hire people if they know they can fire that person if things don't work out.

Spain suffers form 23% overall unemployment, the highest rate in the developed world. Even worse, nearly half of its workers under 25-years old don't have a job. Europe has its problems, of course, but how in the world are these numbers so astronomically high?

Second, Spain's labor laws make it cumbersome to fire employees, which scares companies from hiring workers when times are rocky. As a result, Spain relies on temporary workers -- rather than full-time, long-term employees -- who don't count as officially employed. Low barriers to hiring and firing makes it more attractive for employers to hire. For analogy, imagine you're buying a car with limited means. Would you rather lease a car with the option to switch sedans after a year, or pay more for a car that might be a lemon and costs extra money to turn in before five years? You might choose to lease. Spanish employers are doing the same thing.

Why Is Unemployment in Spain So Unbelievably High?

 

[Lark]

Market forces will weed out the bad business models. If your cat doesn't like one of your employees and you're the owner, you should be able to fire that person. In Europe, this is not allowed; there are regulations against arbitrary firings and the result is that businesses are loathe to hire people (especially women and young people) and the universe of jobs shrinks. Businesses are much more likely to hire people if they know they can fire that person if things don't work out.





Why Is Unemployment in Spain So Unbelievably High?

Yeah, a bad business, if you're hiring and firing as easily as that you're and for as frivolous and trivial reasons as that you're liable to have a shite business.

Although as you say "market forces" do indeed support and reinforce that.

Its precisely why "market forces" cant be trusted because its always victors justice.

 

[Bush]

Man, that video goes off the rails at about the 6 minute mark -- Katie Hopkins, you rascal! But Hopkins does point out that this particular woman also has a large unemployment gap and that, in her opinion, she hasn't been trying as hard as she should to go out and get something. That's not generalizable, of course, but it puts the video into context.
__

I'm sure that most believe that, if someone can perform a job, then they ought to be able to be considered. But virtually everything about a person -- age, race, gender, birthplace, weight, culture, religion, medical condition, marital status, etc. -- contributes in at least a very, very microscopic way to how well they can perform on the job. The issue is, then, where the line should be drawn -- by the law or, pragmatically, by an employer. I tend to want the law to be lax, and for the employers to feel free to demonstrate their competency.. or lack of it.

Hiring and firing's expensive. There can be risks, then, associated with hiring someone. Employers need ways to screen employees. Perhaps their bad credit history could lead them to sell trade secrets. Perhaps their unemployment gap could indicate that others don't deem them qualified. Perhaps their skin color indicates to the employer that they're from a bankrupt culture, which could of course (rolleyes) bring down overall morale and decrease the whole team's ability to perform.

... yeah, any screen can be a good or a bad idea.

(Lots of jobs have orientation/probation periods. Can't handle the work? Can't continue on with us. That mitigates risk somewhat, and it makes the whole 'hiring' thing more performance-based by allowing the candidate to showcase their skills.)

Some mismatches are pretty obvious at the outset. You probably don't want a male Victoria's Secret model. You probably don't want a wheelchair-bound lifeguard. You probably don't want a convicted felon working a Top Secret clearance-level project.

An obese person may or may not be qualified for such-and-such a job. Employer hires him/her on. Turns out that his/her weight is an issue on performance, whether he/she can't run down a hallway to handle some emergency situation, he/she can't lift enough, he/she's missing too many days, and so on. So, the obese person gets let go -- not because of weight directly, but because he/she can't perform the job.

But for most jobs? I mean, in most cases... probably should not factor it in. Obesity as a potential risk because they may spend more time out of the office? C'mon. The line's well before that.

May as well screen based on their MBTI scores, no?

 

[miss fortune]

I'd like to suggest looking into data on countries that have 'onerous' employment laws (from a management perspective) and see how that's working out for them, as a whole.

I'll give you a quick example off the top of my head. Mexico, around 50% of their GDP is from the 'underground' economy, mostly self employed family run businesses that have no employee's (other than family members) and those who work under the table. Imagine what their country could do if their government had the money these tax evaders don't pay. It's a complicated mess of reasons, but at the top of the list is their very socialistic laws regarding employees. Following is a short list of some of them;

The following minimum benefits, which cannot be waived or contracted out: Practical Law

Profit sharing. Employees are entitled to a share in their employer's profits, currently fixed at 10% of the company's pre-tax income;

Paid public holidays. The FLL requires employees to be paid during public holidays (see Question 11);

Holiday bonus. Employees are paid an extra 25% of their salary during their holiday (see Question 11);

Christmas bonus. Employers must give each employee the equivalent of 15 days' salary as a bonus by no later than 20 December of each year (see Question 30);

.

I work for a large corporation which has been questioned for employee treatment a few times... also work in one of those states that doesn't give a damn about employees

we get paid time off/paid vacation time
we get stocks in the company
we get monthly bonuses based on production that are doubled around the holidays
we get paid federal holidays

the insurance for employees is pretty awesome and we can add on our SO even if we aren't married... education is also paid for and you can create your schedule based on your school schedule

they'll hire anyone who can pass a background check and drug test, but if you cannot perform to standards (which are pretty high) you will be fired. and it's no joke, you'll work your ass off to keep up to standards

we have quite a few overweight employees (we're a fat state... one of the top 10) and they keep performing right up to standards... we have plenty of employees who seem to be in better shape who CAN'T keep up and get fired

not sure that I want to spend the rest of my working life there, but the benefits are the reason that they manage to get people to work as hard as we do and can keep people wanting to work there...

 

[Showbread]

May as well screen based on their MBTI scores, no?

My current job actually does that. It's fundraising/sales/cold calling, so IxTx's rarely get an interview. Granted, not many actually apply for that type of position. They mainly look for ENFJs.

 

[Luke O]

Market forces will weed out the bad business models. If your cat doesn't like one of your employees and you're the owner, you should be able to fire that person. In Europe, this is not allowed; there are regulations against arbitrary firings and the result is that businesses are loathe to hire people (especially women and young people) and the universe of jobs shrinks. Businesses are much more likely to hire people if they know they can fire that person if things don't work out.





Why Is Unemployment in Spain So Unbelievably High?

So, "yes"?

 

[Crabs]

Speaking of lard, I was reading this article about Jared Fogle, the Subway spokesperson, and his struggle with obesity.

"Chairs would bend when I'd sit in them," Fogle told USA Today in a 2013 profile, in which he detailed his tendency to quaff 15 cans of soda, mostly Mountain Dew, a day and frequent McDonald's, where he followed up double quarter-pounders and super-sized French fries with a pair of apple pies.

It was a condition he'd suffered since third grade when he adopted a strict regimen of video games and junk food, he told the newspaper.

He remained invisible at college and avoided dating and parties because of his weight, choosing instead to hole up in his dorm room eating junk food, according to a New York Daily News profile.

"I knew you were supposed to go on dates and go to parties, but because I was so big, I just took myself out of the equation," the 6-foot-2 Fogle told the Daily News. "I didn't want to allow myself to be made fun of."

If that wasn't enough motivation to lose weight, this turned his life around. I about spit my drink out laughing when I read it.

It was only when the fat around his neck obstructed his windpipe, exacerbating his sleep apnea and causing him to nod off behind the wheel and steer his car into a ditch that he decided to start living healthy.

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

Descrimination is everywhere : as you are different you are the black sheep of your work place.

I encourage any employee from any country to fight until the end if you victim of an injustice. Whatever it is.

I am not fat at all, and have been victim of "unfair dismissal" 2 years ago.

The problem is that it has become so natural to fire people on the spot by perverting the law and the work system that nobody wanna

defend his own rights as an employee

You have some duties but, mainly -I'd say_ you are there_on this earth_ to achieve your life and dreams. Not to be a slave of the work system !

Everybody is concerned : black people, fat persons, strangers, women, disabled people...


So yes we can ! Pointing out an injustice is never a lose of time. Victory is waiting you at the end of the channel

 

[kyuuei]

These are protected 'classes' of people and it is illegal to discriminate against them on the basis listed. There are plenty of free government resources that people have access to in order to seek redress.

They're protected for a reason. There is literally a business insider article in this OP, creating it in the first place, about how to discriminate based on nothing scientific at all with skewed data. That's the whole objective of the article. I'm all for making your own way in the world, but shit like this is what keeps people from doing it legitimately. The whole idea is "Hey, let's shove out fatties because they might need more medical attention and we have to pay for that" but the reality is science does not support any of those claims.. they're (thinly) veiling bigotry in financial numbers.. and that's how we get bullshit laws that employers have to jump through hoops for later on. People want shit to be discriminatory about... we took out religion, gay/straight/mix, gender, disability, etc... So now let's just pick on fat people that don't have disabilities.

Potentially a good argument, albeit data or a link or something would be useful.

The data on welfare is that the overwhelming vast majority of people do not abuse it--welfare themselves state it and so do many organizations that work with the homeless and poor. The concept is simple: we have bigger and bigger people in America... I don't think I need to provide links to all the alarmist data on the "obesity epidemic". America is fat overall, it's a well known stereotype for a reason. You start shoving people out because they're fat and you're ignoring science and working against welfare goals and unemployment goals. The truth is they should be working, not getting paid to not work because someone decided they didn't like the fact they actually use their medical benefits they're afforded. The cost/benefit ratio doesn't add up on the big picture--it only does for that particular shady-ass business.

Hmmm, I don't think assholes & assholery should be legislated per se, unless you are suggesting making 'weight' a protected class. Which now that I think about it could be easily extrapolated to lil people and 'biggins', as in those 7'+ folk. Getting pushed out right and left? Well they are likely replaced, which is a zero-sum game.

I wasn't suggesting anything about legislation and assholes.. I was saying it is a well known stereotype that people assume those who are fat are lazy as well--and that is clearly not true. But more profound discrimination against fat people (it definitely already happens all the time) from a legislation somewhere saying "Yes, specifically you have the right to not hire fatties"? I can't see that being a zero-sum game. Maybe for that one particular business, but on the bigger picture? not at all. I can't see it benefiting society (to include a multitude of other businesses) at all. Either people who don't need fat people in their places will be forced to hire them, or fat people will quickly add to the list of people requiring welfare and government benefits because they aren't making money.

See, freedom is awesome, the freedom to say 'take this job and shove it' or whatever floats your boat. From a management perspective there goes time & $$$ invested in finding, interviewing, training etc. of said employee. Just as people have the freedom to come and go as they please, employers also need freedom.

Most of those job switches were due to military discrimination. See, the 'wonderful' thing about at-will is that they never tell you why you're fired. You don't get to find out whether it's racist or not. Whether you did a bad job or not. They just let you go. So, coincidentally, when they call me and say, "Hey, I know you're off but we need you this weekend you have to show up." and I say back, "I cannot, I have drill this weekend and it's literally AWOL if I don't show up" and I receive a call saying to find another job after the weekend.... I don't really get to find out why I was fired, but I can take a guess. But try proving that. It's hard. It's impossible. At-will? They'll just say, "Oh yeah she was lazy and didn't show up when we needed her, had nothing to do with military stuff not at all no way." It happened to me 3 times in a row. I literally worked garbage jobs that were far far past my skills and qualifications along side high school students because they were the only ones not being a total douchebag about me wanting to work while also respecting military obligations. It was a shit scenario.. and I lost a lot of money and time every time I had to switch jobs. Unstable income is the worst.

As an employer your rates can and do go up based on your 'churn' so there is incentive for companies to NOT fire people because their mom dresses them funny or whatevs.

But if your positions aren't super-high paid there is still a very high threshold for letting employees go--for totally legitimate reasons like having a silly ice cream shop that employs high school students, or a fast food place. These places are expected to lose employees fast.

Look, I'm not saying any legislation should be enlisted at all. I do think at-will is used FAR FAR too liberally.. people should have SOMETHING to help them actually use their protected rights. I only got to actually call and use USERRA (the military protect-yo-job hotline) once, and I had enough evidence to actually activate it--and that place made my life a living hell right up until I deployed. Most of the time? I had nothing. I was told, "At-will, sorry bro *click*." But outside of that? Just.. Don't discriminate against a huge population in America! Particularly one that needs health access even more-so than regular guys in a time where your tax dollars are going to supporting healthcare whether people have it or not! How hard is that?! One douchebag trying to save some bucks and some sore eyes is going to ruin everything for everyone for no reason. Don't stir up shit that doesn't need stirring! It either comes out bad for business or bad for employees--and sometimes both because the government wants to do the right thing and makes life hell for both sides instead.

I don't want fat sweaty dudes to be mandated employment at my strip clubs. I don't want girls to be mandated to work at the all-men-dancing-show. I DO, however, want a damn good massage therapist whether it's a fat one or a skinny one. When the job isn't about physical appearances, which I AM okay with discrimination for generally speaking, it should be solely about their ability to complete the job to standard. And, for most jobs? Any knucklehead can do physical labor.. you can't put a weight-prejudice on what the mind can do.

 

[Oaky]

Should employers be allowed to discriminate. Discrimination in employment is probably more often done than otherwise. Employers see people and like them or dislike them based on first impressions after the resume/cv has been accepted through the cv checking period. That's human nature and won't be put off anytime soon. We can try to reduce it, but it's not such a simple matter. Employers will certainly look more at changeable matters too, like certain attitudes, clothing, hairstyle, posture, etc. Weight is possible to change but it's not easy and it takes a good deal of time. Some employers would see something to that, some won't, this can be a moralistic thought, but it can also be a thought of 'this is indicative of something' which is more about the intuitive presumption about the individual's abilities.