Front Page Of The "detroit News"

[SouthernFriedGhoul]

"Bosses want a say in what we weigh"

Mich. law banning discrimination worries employers who want to curb unhealthy behavior.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...9/BIZ/610090348

This article makes me uncomfortable. I know that some others have brought up weight issues and/or discrimination. So, what do you guys think about this issue in the workplace?

[BrassFusion]

"Bosses want a say in what we weigh"

Mich. law banning discrimination worries employers who want to curb unhealthy behavior.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...9/BIZ/610090348

This article makes me uncomfortable. I know that some others have brought up weight issues and/or discrimination. So, what do you guys think about this issue in the workplace?

Being fat since childhood (with a potential genetic link, but there's no way to tell, is there?), I think it's pretty ridiculous that companies could legally and overtly discriminate based upon weight.

Sure they want to keep health care costs down, but that doesn't make it ok to discriminate based on the AGE of their employees. Or gender, in case a woman needs maternal leave.

So it's about money for the companies. If it were about social responsibility, like, discouraging obesity on a grand scale, there are many more ways to handle that. BETTER ways.

I'd consider supporting an extra tax on high-cholesterol high-calorie foods before I'd support legally protected weight discrimination in the workplace.

[SouthernFriedGhoul]

Well said, BrassFusion. Like I said, reading that just made me uncomfortable. If companies allow this sort of discrimination, then what's next...?

[BrassFusion]

Well said, BrassFusion. Like I said, reading that just made me uncomfortable. If companies allow this sort of discrimination, then what's next...?

Well, that's kinda cynical. It's not that companies practice it across the board, just we Michiganders were the first to enact protections for fat people specifically. Other states will probably follow suit, over time, if it becomes an issue. If anything, we're on a stable trend toward enforced tolerance.

[pomba gira]

Well said, BrassFusion. Like I said, reading that just made me uncomfortable. If companies allow this sort of discrimination, then what's next...?

I haven't read the article yet but I know it was a huge deal a couple years ago when a large-ish local company forbade employees to smoke... not just at work but on their private, at-home time too. I figured weight would be the next thing... in fact ISTR this particular employer kind of semi-required workers to exercise and maintain their "optimum" weight.

The whole issue of health-based discrimination is a major concern with gene-mapping research. Of course this research has the potential to help us find cures for a lot of diseases... but on the other hand, think of the potential for discrimination if they could tell you had, say, a 70% chance of developing cancer by age 50. Insurance companies, employers, lenders & credit bureaus all would likely feel justified in discriminating on that basis... we could end up with a whole new division of haves/have nots based on genetic factors.

[paradox]

hello Brave New World

a gramme is better than a damn.

[BrassFusion]

I haven't read the article yet but I know it was a huge deal a couple years ago when a large-ish local company forbade employees to smoke... not just at work but on their private, at-home time too. I figured weight would be the next thing... in fact ISTR this particular employer kind of semi-required workers to exercise and maintain their "optimum" weight.

The whole issue of health-based discrimination is a major concern with gene-mapping research. Of course this research has the potential to help us find cures for a lot of diseases... but on the other hand, think of the potential for discrimination if they could tell you had, say, a 70% chance of developing cancer by age 50. Insurance companies, employers, lenders & credit bureaus all would likely feel justified in discriminating on that basis... we could end up with a whole new division of haves/have nots based on genetic factors.

True, that would suck, but we'd find ways to work around it until we cured those genetic diseases. Hell, the two guys who won the nobel prize in medicine this year (american) won it based on research that shows they can "turn off" harmful genes in lab rats. that's very promising, and further genetic study will be worth the effort and confusion and red tape, in my opinion

[SouthernFriedGhoul]

Well, I'd be a prime target too. I'm gay. I smoke. My weight goes up and down drastically, and I've been on the obese end. Cancer runs on both sides of my family. So does diabetes. :fear

[BrassFusion]

Well, I'd be a prime target too. I'm gay. I smoke. My weight goes up and down drastically, and I've been on the obese end. Cancer runs on both sides of my family. So does diabetes. :fear

I think more states write protections in for sexual orientation than weight and other health-related things.

And it's not a health factor now, is it?

[Paper Hearts]

I suppose that wanting people to be more healthy could be considered in good regards...but not in this case. This really demonstrates the lovliness of a private health system, that we debate on front pages the suitableness of discriminating against, even subjugating, the disabled or those with health concerns--they are the very reason for a health system, in the first place.

No, in America, the hospitals are only for the healthy, apparently.

[BrassFusion]

I suppose that wanting people to be more healthy could be considered in good regards...but not in this case. This really demonstrates the lovliness of a private health system, that we debate on front pages the suitableness of discriminating against, even subjugating, the disabled or those with health concerns--they are the very reason for a health system, in the first place.

No, in America, the hospitals are only for the healthy, apparently.

Nicely put.

[pomba gira]

True, that would suck, but we'd find ways to work around it until we cured those genetic diseases. Hell, the two guys who won the nobel prize in medicine this year (american) won it based on research that shows they can "turn off" harmful genes in lab rats. that's very promising, and further genetic study will be worth the effort and confusion and red tape, in my opinion

Work around it how? What if the powers that be decide that it's more cost effective to just deny services to those who are genetically at-risk for certain conditions, rather than spend more loot to find cures? IMO this is all too likely, esp. if we're talking about conditions associated with marginalized populations. Just because something is doable doesn't mean it's worth anyone's while to do- look at all the "orphan drugs" that exist right now. Currently there are private sector interests willing to throw big bucks at these types of research, but that may not always be the case.

Please understand I am not by any means saying we should not pursue this and other lines of biomedical research... if I felt that way I certainly wouldn't be contributing BOINC time to the Tanpaku project. But I strongly feel we need to do a much better job of considering the social implications of scientific discoveries- and having some kind of plans in place to deal with possible consequences BEFORE we're knee-deep in them.

[Hellion]

Yeah this is fucked up,Alot of these companies have vending machines that

offer unhealthy (junkfood), in their facilities,does'nt make any sence to me

if they are worried about health issues.

[Anathema]

i think it is a discriminating thing but at the same time it isn't. you figure if someone is considered obesse unless they have a desk job it is difficult for them to get around and what not. i know a few people that are and they even admit that they have a difficult time at work. so in a way i think it's wrong but in a way i don't...i am torn.

[Draco1958]

I like what Meijer's did when I worked there. They set up a price deal with a gym for the employees. Reduced membership rate at Fitness USA. I can understand an employers fears with highly overweight employees. But, instead of getting rid of them, why not do something like Meijer's did? It didn't cost the company anything. The reduced rate was based on an expected percentage of employees joining. That way they can keep a good worker and allow them to lose weight at their own pace under a supervised exercise program.

[pomba gira]

I like what Meijer's did when I worked there. They set up a price deal with a gym for the employees. Reduced membership rate at Fitness USA. I can understand an employers fears with highly overweight employees. But, instead of getting rid of them, why not do something like Meijer's did? It didn't cost the company anything. The reduced rate was based on an expected percentage of employees joining. That way they can keep a good worker and allow them to lose weight at their own pace under a supervised exercise program.

Sounds like a good program. When it comes to getting people to change behaviors, encouraging and enabling almost always works better than bullying & threatening. Best practices involve identifying the barriers to change, and then finding ways to eliminate or overcome those barriers. At the very least you need to make it as easy as possible for people to start doing the behavior you want them to do.