Discussion Board

Yes, slim/normal isn't always healthy......but overweight/ obese never is!
For hiring we would need to ask the slim person to show us their lab results, only way of knowing.

So, they should only hire healthy people. That means anyone, fat or slim, who's taking medication, or anyone with any other health risk factor besides weight, should not be hired. Only healthy people should be allowed to take care of unhealthy people because healthy people are obviously physically and morally superior creatures.

Ever feel like you've fallen into a time warp and ended up in Nazi Germany? I have days like that.

Papers, please!

Discrimination is discrimination. Period. Is it OK to refuse to hire Catholics because they might object to being part of a group health policy that includes coverage for birth control? Maybe we should refuse to hire Republicans because they might object to being part of a group insurance plan that covers abortions. Maybe we should refuse to hire women at all, since they have more health issues because their reproductive equipment is more complicated than a man's? Maybe we should refuse to hire any woman who might become pregnant. It will cost us more in health insurance, plus just when you get her all trained in, she'll leave to raise her family? Maybe we should refuse to hire men because they are more inclined to participate in risky behavior that might adversely affect the company. Once you start down that road the impossibilities become endless.

This kind of rule is fraught with problems.

What happens if an employee gains weight? Are they fired? Put on some sort of probation? What happens if the weight loss is due a condition they can't control (pregnancy, cancer treatment, steroids)?

Comparing this to jockeys and firefighters is an empty comparison; doctors are neither. I've looked into applying to nursing school, for example, and they make it clear that your weight doesn't matter but your ability to lift and hoist heavy things is a factor - and they advise that you might be tested in this regard. This makes sense to me, since hoisting patients (many of whom are far heavier than they were even a decade ago) is a routine part of the job and if the hospital doesn't account for this when hiring they will be faced with endless on-the-job injury claims.

But a unilateral ban on fat people? That does not make sense in any way.

The cost cutting argument only works so far. Yes, one can find statistics that "prove" that generally speaking, fat people will cost more in healthcare than a person of average weight, but this breaks down when imposed on individuals. I'm in good health but am overweight. I would not even be considered for a position, but if the rule is simply based on BMI, then someone who is a Type 1 diabetic with fibromyalgia and arthritis and yet thin would be getting an interview, even though I'd cost the company far less over time for the same job.

Basing a hiring policy on these sorts of projections doesn't work, it just leads to discrimination, as folks have stated.

If the aim of the rule is, as stated, to reduce healthcare costs, then each applicant should be evaluated on a variety of factors, which may include but should not be limited to BMI.

Being very light weight is an essential function of the job of jockey because a horse can run faster carrying less weight. Not so with most other jobs.

Preference for a "normal weight" person in most other positions is based on a stereotype rather than a factual analysis of whether the person can perform the essential functions of the position.

That would be an illegal question before a job offer was made. After making the offer, the employer could, in most cases require the prospective employee to submit to a physical, but could only reject the person if the physical revealed that the applicant would pose a direct threat to health or safety to others if hired for the job. The applicant could not be rejected if he or she only posed a health or safety threat to him or herself.

How about the lab technician who draws your blood? What does that task have to do with the technician's weight? Frankly if the person can do the essential functions of the job, his or her health is nobody else's business. That's the law, not my opinon.

You misunderstood the tongue-in-cheek, there is a hypocrisy in some of these discrimination suits. Lately there are some women demanding to get into men's only groups. They don't care that there is a reason it is men's only, they are just focused on it being discrimination. The Jockey reference was a joke at how ridiculous some of these discrimination suits can be.

Sure looks like it, wow. That would make me a useless eater without a purpose and we know what the Nazis did to them...no, I don't think so! I think the concept of compassion for people that struggle, the human condition, is going by the wayside these days. If it weren't for my maturity and strength of character, this thread could make me give up on myself and become very depressed.

I remember about 10 years ago, when applying with a company to be a home health aide, one of the requirements was to have a physical. At that time I weighed about 200 lbs. and was practicing Dr. Shintani's program "Eat More, Weigh Less". My doctor was a female and I remember she shared I still had to count calories, which of course means she had no understanding of calorie density. Interesting because I would bet anything this was the same hospital that Dr. McDougall practiced many years ago. She was very insistent in that I have a mammogram and made me appointment while I was there, I canceled when I got home. She also suggested I have a small keloid scar removed from my ankle that is barely noticeable. I hope Dr. Shintani follows Dr. McDougall and puts out a new book.

Aloha, patty

I had a friend I had recommended for a job. He was a great fit to the open position, was experienced and had the skills this company was looking for. Unfortunately he was also overweight with knee problems. His knees had deteriorated so badly he was aided by a cane to walk. It came to my attention after the interview that he did not get one of the open positions because of his weight. Call a spade a spade, he was discriminated against because of weight and his perceived character because he used a cane to walk. Unfortunately my friend did not make the final list for the open positions.

If not too much time has passed, and if you actually do have evidence on the reason for his rejection, your friend should file a claim with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (if he is in California) http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/and/or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He also might want to contact an employment lawyer. If he needs help, PM me and I have a few names I can recommend.

You mean like Snap and WIC?

June of 2000 my family moved from the midwest to the east coast for my husbands job. I had just had my third child two years before. I am a programmer and had been consulting part-time at the same company I had worked at for years.

When we moved I did not get a job right away - one of the few times I haven't worked at least part-time. It became apparent that I needed to go back to work and was faced interviewing with people that did not know me.

I had gained a lot of weight after my 3rd child and had to shop for clothes. It was a mortifying experience and barely found anything appropriate. A neighbor had gotten me a job interview at her company and the day of the interview I cried all the way to the office. I remember thinking who would hire me - I looked horrible.

But I was hired. To be perfectly honest I'm not sure I would have hired me. I was promoted a year later.

Despite my weight I do not cost them a lot in healthcare. In fact I was just in a terrible car accident where someone did not see I was stopped at the bottom of a hill to turn left and smashed into the back of my car throwing me into the on-coming traffic. I then hit a pick-up truck with a flatbed trailer full of some kind of equipment.

I am fine but was transported to the emergency room to make certain. They could not believe that I was not on any medication, that my BP was normal, or that I didn't have any chronic conditions. I don't think the hospitals see many people like that.

That's the thing with discrimination, so many of us look like we fit the profile but don't.

This is a discriminatory practice. If they feel that some potential new hires are not physically fit enough for the job, they should test their fitness -- ability to lift heavy loads, fit into tight ambulance spaces, etc

I have a feeling this policy wouldn't last long if it were actually implemented. Not to be mean, but as my mother said when I sent her this article, "Then who would they hire?" I admit to having an imperfect memory on this, but after watching several shows on super obesity, I can't recall seeing any Texas healthcare workers who looked as if they had BMIs of 30 or less, and only a couple who looked under 35.

Which of these women is fit enough to compete in the Olympics?



All of them.