Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US businessman targets fat employees with slim or quit threat

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
rainbow4321 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:38 PM
Original message
US businessman targets fat employees with slim or quit threat
http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/01/27/27679...

The owner of a US company who forced his employees to quit smoking or leave their jobs has now said he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.

His ban on tobacco use, at home or in the workplace, led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Michigan-based Weyco, which handles insurance claims, reports Reuters.

Overweight workers are next in the firing line for Weyers. "We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you are obese, you are protected," he said.

He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 (53) bonuses and plans to offer $45 (24) vouchers for health club memberships.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
PartyPooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Who is next on his list?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Drinkers, probably!
It's too bad all of his employees don't just walk out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Hell, he'd just export the jobs to India, then n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Hadn't thought of that
But you are right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rainbow4321 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
38. Looks like his type are in the outsourcing business, also
http://in.news.yahoo.com/050123/32/2j6r4.html


Is the heavy Indian accent prompting a major US outsourcing firm to slash its India operations by 50 per cent and relocate to another Asian country? The Tampa, Florida-based Sykes Enterprises denies the accent bit, but confirms the "migration" (read layoff) plan for its Bangalore call-centre facility that went on stream barely two-and-a-half years ago.


Sykes attributes the shift to Bangalore's "inadequate rate of returns" -- a point the company makes in its 8-K document filed before the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday. "It's a purely financial decision," insists Subhaash Kumar, the company's senior director for investor relations. Speaking to the Hindustan Times from Tampa, he dismissed reports on the accent factor and pressure by corporate clients on this score.


Tongues had started wagging after a Tampa newspaper attributed the Sykes move to complaints that American customers had problems comprehending the accents of Indian call-centre staffers. But Kumar denied receiving complaints of this sort. India's loss may be the Philippines' gain, according to analysts closely following Sykes. The company has not named the preferred alternative destination yet, but it has had call-centre operations in the Philippines since 1997. A senior analyst from Raymond James and amp; Associates has been quoted in the local media as saying that Filipinos have "less noticeable accents" than Indians. That apart, the high employee turnover rate in India is said to subject companies to extra spending on recruitments and training.


In keeping with the secretive manner in which most outsourcing firms function, Sykes would not say how many staffers will be laid off at the Bangalore facility. Or, for that matter, the number of Indians on the company's rolls.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
45. Then playing sports
These wingnuts are always for individual responsibility and freedom as long as it's for THEM. To be fair, Ted Turner did the same thing, and I blasted him for it at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #45
52. Then jugglers, mimes and clowns LOL
The possibilities are endless!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
movonne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
50. Non-Christians...go to church or not have a job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. This guy is a COMPLETE nutcase.
It's a fucking job, not indentured servitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. have you noticed how "nutcase" ideas spread easily.--this is a
dangerous presadent--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rainbow4321 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Bingo...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&e=1...


Job placement specialist John Challenger said Weyco's moves could set a precedent for larger companies -- if it survives potential legal challenges.


"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue: rising health care costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual," Challenger said.

So far no legal challenges have been made to Weyco's policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liveoaktx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. Is this the Howard Weyers who was involved with MSU Football scandal?
http://www.statenews.com/editionsfall96/091796/sp_ncaa....

Whereas the 1996 case had its share of twists and turns with former student-athlete academic advisor Greg Croxton and freshman defensive lineman Robert Newkirk, the 1976 case had more kinks than a twisty straw.

That case implicated Rogers' predecessor, Denny Stolz, and assistant coaches Howard Weyers and Charlie Butler as the key conspirators in the case.

.....But perhaps the key difference between the 1976 case and the 1996 case is the amount of acceptance by the university of the charges. MSU denied many of the charges in the 1976 case and by and large refused to cooperate with the NCAA investigation.

That spawned a university investigation of the case and a federal inquiry into the NCAA's investigative practices. The NCAA and one investigator in particular were deemed to have, "threatened, coerced, promised immunity, promised rewards to athletes in (their) effort to obtain derogatory information."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
36. Speaking of servitude...
Back in '97, I had just moved to Roanoke, VA. I had taken a production job with this guy who did mostly industrial, sports, and wedding videos.

Guy leaves for a week-long conference. I'm saddled with a ton of work he hadn't yet finished. I do a great job.

He comes back, insults my work, says I basically lied about my qualifications (by then I had 3 years in broadcasting and a brand-new degree from FSU, and was 22), and tells me (and this is almost an exact quote):

"You have to think of yourself as a humble servant to the job, just like you submit to Jesus."

Needless to say, I split that day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. I KNEW that was next...
"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you are obese, you are protected," he said.

So.... if you are not quite obese you will get fired? :wtf:

Oh well... at least this just proves he's nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skylarmae Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. wonder why the obese are protected?
That doesn't seem fair. Too bad the article isn't more specific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. thyroid conditions, methinks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ally_sc Donating Member (238 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
31. there are no laws to protect obese folks,& they are often
targeted unfairly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. The owner's 71 years old! Just who do you think is driving up his rates?
HE'S THE PROBLEM! (These guys insure themselves & their families on top of medicare, folks. )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davis_islander Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
10. Next it will be women?
They do drive up healthcare costs with maternity claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. this company obviously does not have a union
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fortyfeetunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. Union membership is being decimated as we speak
It's happening as the airlines struggle to make any money and force unions to make concessions to the point their leverage is inconsequential.

National Labor Relations Board is certainly not working in the union's best interest, never had, never will.

And the administration is attempting to dismantle union representation within the civil service, like with Homeland Security, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
56. I think I speak for most all Southerners when I ask...
"Union? What's a union?"

And, I don't mean that I'm against them.
Here's a question - does anyone know what propaganda went into the South to keep us from wanting to join unions?
When I was reporting, I covered a large hotel in a resort area in the South who had folks dying and trying to bring in the maid/hotel workers union. The measure failed because too many people, who would have benefited from having such a union, voted against it.
I didn't undestand it, but I was doing straight news and not opinion, so I never really delved into the "why it failed" so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
39. He'll Just Tell Them To Have Their Tubes Tied
So they can't have babies. Much better that way, then they won't be taking all of that time off of work to recover from the birth or to care for their sick child.

Maybe the men will have to get vasectomies too, or simply pledge never to miss work for a sick child or school play, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
13. When do workers get to tell CEOs to lower the stress level in workplace?
Seems THAT would be a huge help for correcting all sorts of maladies!

Bet this clown also screams bloody murder about 'activist judges' who actually dispense justice instead of kowtowing to business interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. read the whole article
the magazine- personneltoday.com - doesn't at all condemn the practice.

This will spread. Corporate personhood in action.

NOW does everyone see why this doctrine is a horrible thing? Do we all get it now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n2mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. It will be seniors or workers who have any health conditions
At my last job they blamed the rise in healthcare because of seniors and those who had health problems, cancer, diabetes, or any other problems that were ongoing.

The Stepford Society is part of the New World Order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Hey, why you climbing my frame? I agree it is horrible! Also contend bad
management practices (CEOs for starters) are the root of much of the unhealthy environment in the workplace! Stress kills. Too many managers rule by fear and intimidation instead of LEADING and enabling employees to achieve potential.

How many people smoke or eat excessively due to stress?

How many companies treat employees like cogs in a machine instead of human beings with human needs? How many work environments are actually worker friendly? The answers to those questions add up to an equation which results in either healthy or sickly employees. If managers really wanna control health care costs, the first step is to recognize human needs and then find the best way to do business while keeping those needs foremost in their minds when decisions are made and policies set.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. Of course the gay person is next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. Nope.
Gays aren't next - they already get fired for being gay. Not at this particular company, of course, but lots of states (not to mention the federal government) allow you to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Any outraged smokers or overweight people who didn't stand up against that are getting what they are owed.

Personally I think it's going to take something like this to get the discrimination laws changed so you can't be fired for what you do on your own time. I'm curious to see where it leads, but there's a slim chance it will lead to more gay employment rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
42. My thoughts exactly.
It might bring awareness (though I doubt it) to the issue of discrimination against gays in the workplace, but it certainly won't lead to more rights... not with this administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seriousstan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
19. GEE, I saw so many people defend the ban on smoking. Where are they now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davsand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. Look, all employment is "at will".
If you remember, I said in the non-smoking thread that I refused a job that required drug testing--because I don't want to work for anyone that I expect will treat me badly. IMO, if they intrude on your life enough to require drug testing they will have no reservations about screwing you over in the workplace.

The reality is, however, that my refusal to be tested (which I would have passed, BTW) kept me from having that job. They have the right to set the conditions of employment and you have the right not to accept those conditions. Now, if you are protected by a union contract or even some other kind of law regarding discrimination, then some of this stuff becomes illegal for them to discriminate against.

In a lot of places, obesity is protected while smoking is not.

I think we all have seen enough material talking about the dangers of both smoking and obesity to admit that neither is GOOD for you. I think it probably is a safe bet that the folks reading here at DU come fairly close to the national demographic--which indicates that obesity is an issue that many face.

I also think that given this guy's business, he probably KNOWS directly what impact obesity and smoking have on the number of insurance claims.

Is he an OK guy? Hell no. He's an ass, pure and simple.

Would I work for him? Nope. I'd scrub latrines before I'd subject myself to that kind of treatment from any employer.

Is he legally ABLE to do this? Yep. Sadly, he is.

The only thing we can really do is to avoid his company both as consumers and employees. I intend to do that--how about you?


Laura
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Sure, but discrimination against non-job related facts isn't legal
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 02:15 PM by Tigress DEM
The main question is can you do the job? < . >

If a person's weight is a direct factor on their ability to perform their job, the qualification is valid.

If a peson's weight has no direct impact on their job performance it's a non-issue and discrimination.

And the smoking ban? I don't smoke, but although I see the merit in not having someone smoke indoors where the air gets hard for some people to deal with and there being a choice in smoking or not - at work during your shift. I don't see how someone should be able to tell someone what they can do in their free time, on break or at home.

<< It's obviously a way around really providing health care coverage that is fair by a company that makes money hand over fist in the current system. AND about IMAGE over people's rights. >>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #32
47. It depends. A few states require "just cause" for termination
but most don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
43. The bottom line here is that this employer is going after the very last
thing he should be going after to save himself money. These people ALREADY have the jobs they have. It was not, like a prerequisite drug test, a condition of their employment. And boycotting his company will do nothing to stop this horrific thing from becoming a legal precedent. That's the problem.

Same thing happened with drug-testing which has now proliferated in this country because no one stood up against it in principle, or just said no to the few companies at the time that did it, because they knew there were other places to work. Well, now there are sorely few places of employment that don't legally invade our privacy by requiring drug tests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. Not necessarily. There are several exceptions to employment at will
in various states. Plus, labor contracts will likely forbid this type of harassment by management.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
20. I think this is already happening...
At my office, the president fired a high-up manager because she was fat. She was REALLY fat, you feel feel the ground shaking behind you when you knew she was out walking. But she was always attractive; wore really nice plus-size clothes. She was really nice, too.

The president hated her, I know because I could see it in his eyes. Next, he put in a skinny, scrawny woman to take the fat woman's place. Ever since then, that department has been going to shit. Little skinny is attractive, but she does nothing all day except look good.

Guess who looks stupid now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MSgt213 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
22. I guess no one really cares where this is all really going.
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 01:45 PM by MSgt213
The corporate world is so completely in a fucking frenzie with government that soon there will be an evil child produced.

Right now that child is but a fetus, but it's awesome power can still be felt. All those functions that government can't do to its citizens, corporations are doing with the consent of government to those same citizens only corporations call the citizens employees. Credit checks, drug checks, alcohol checks, reading your email,listening to your phone conversations, owning any ideas you come up with on company property and time, some companies tell you when you can drive, what and when you can eat, go to the bathroom, exact words you can say while on company property, when you complain, what you can complain about and who you can complain to, when you can be sick and when you can be treated for that sickness.

I don't know what this child will be named once it is born and becomes fully grown, but I do know we will know its here when employees are herded into a corral like the dumb ass cows most of us are and bent over and the company seal is branded on our asses. I'm sure there will be some cows resisting but most of us will look at those cows and call them crazy, refused to stand with them because we are trying to suck up, just really fucking stupid or to meek and afraid to take a stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. I am very concerned about this. It's a very sick development. He
will probably be testing hairsamples next month to see if anyone drank any alcohol off-hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durablend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. Probably start snooping into bedroom habits as well...
Sex + Not married = FIRED!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. Nicely said
I fear it's coming as well.

Truly, however, a well spoken mini-rant.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. Corporations getting human rights and humans losing theirs
There is another post on the DU about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
23. I watched this guy a bit on the news yesterday. I feel he is totally
wrong as obese people will be next and then he would go after the next group and the next group until he cleaned everyone out who was likely to cause him a claim under medical insurance. By the time he gets done his workforce will be between 25-35 and will be perfect human specimens. He'll probably go after allergic people next or heart problem people or arthritic types.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
booksenkatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
40. Corporate eugenics
"...his workforce will be between 25-35 and will be perfect human specimens."
:scared:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fortyfeetunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
26. Read this one to get the big picture
I believe what we are seeing today was started by Jack Welch while he was head of General Electric:

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01july-august/ju...

"For two decades, Chief Executive Officer Jack Welch has pushed General Electric to operate at the extremes.
For workers, Welchs pedal-to-the-metal approach has meant job flight, outsourcing, tense relations on the factory floor and a constant worry that their job, or their entire factory, might be gone tomorrow.

More than a decade ago, labor analysts Jane Slaughter and Mike Parker began describing the introduction of Japanese work management schemes in U.S. factories as management by stress .

The idea of the schemes was, and is, to stretch production arrangements so as to eliminate any slack. Under this approach, Slaughter and Parker explained, all workers should be working their hardest, all the time, and the standard of what constitutes hard work should constantly be elevated."

I recommend you read this report. Mr. Welch's proteges have sicnce scattered to other Fortune 500 companies, and spreading this philosophy. No doubt this philosophy has contributed to some of the most draconian human relations practices ever seen in recent times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KT2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #26
49. This is a keeper
thanks for this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
30. Bizzare!
Don't allow regulation that makes the work environment safe...
ie: ergonomic regulation for worker safety
or: inspections to insure no fecal contamination in meat products

BUT you can start forcing your employees to comply with your rigid standards in and out of your corporate domain.

Is this beyond insane or what?

Someone give me the ammendment for unlawful search and seizure. How can your boss demand that you meet these standards and more on your own time?

I can see if someone is a pilot and their ability to fly a plane depends on superb physical reaction etc.... But driving a computer? Come on. Support a healthier environment - make it more possible for someone to be healthy, yes, but fire them if they can't? What the hell is that?

Pretty soon they will be up to DNA sculpting and only perfect political clones allowed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SCRUBDASHRUB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. What a putz. Certain medications can cause weight gain.
I gained about 40 to 50 lbs. as a result of taking anti-depressants. Total bullshit what this guy is doing. He is setting himself up for lawsuits methinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
37. He better watch out for "lead poisoning"...
Weyers seems like a prime and apt candidate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
41. Soon only blone haired, blue eyed,
perfectly proportioned will be desirable to people like this. Not a perfect aryian? Well then you're not welcome to work here, subhuman.

Ugh.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
44. This is what happens when the employer pays for health insurance
Something like this was bound to start happening. Absent socialized medicine, we will be seeing more and more of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
48. I am a management professor- what questions do you have for me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. The reason this guy excluded obese people
Is that they have a better claim to discrimination based on the ADA -- espcially since obesity is listed as a disease, and Medicare just began covering it as such.

Merely overweight people on the other hand are not so protected.

This was actually a very canny HR move -- from a business standpoint it will save money, etc (although it may not do much for employee relations).

Very troubling, but when we started to allow employers to be involved in our off-time (smoking, drug use, etc), especially when this was almost required by the federal government -- drug testing, we lead ourselves down this path.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. I agree. I am troubled by the involvement in off-time activities.
Employers want to reduce their costs and risks re: health care. They want employees to be more healthy- but, what are companies doing to reduce the stressors of organizational life? What are they doing to improve the quality of work life of employees? Once again, they are placing the burden on workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
54. raising hand, i know what is next, now we have to work on church
as a family unit every sunday to work on our spirituality and if you dont go to an approved church then you are not spiritually healthy enough to work here.

ya baby, go at it

all those that back the smoking firing because it meets your agenda, here you go

gotta get rid of those liberals to, because they dont have the patriotism and ergo makes an unhealthy america
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop_the_War Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
55. LOL is there no end to this man's madness?
What's next?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
57. What a A-Hole
If I worked for this jerk, I would get another job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. sounds like he has a God-complex
and/or Small Penis Syndrome
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
59. In California he'd be told to go fuck himself by the courts
I love living in a progressive state that goes further than most to define a hostile work environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 23rd 2014, 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC