Discussion on:

Recent court rulings could make weight an issue in hiring

If the back injury was the result of work, then that should be the focus of the 'injury' suffered. The causation, unless a result of negligence on the company, should not have been a consideration for making the man 'whole'.

I would be willing to bet, on his application it also asked if he could be, and was able to to lift XX Lbs.

If that was the case, then this was by definition, an accident. If he needs the 'weight' surgery to be fixed, he should get that, get the back injury fix, and then be whole again, but he should be responsible for paying for the weight surgery himself, or his medical coverage should have had to pay, not the workers compensation insurance.

The really sad this this was probably 2 different insurance companies fighting over who would have to pay for the 'lifetime of decisions' this guy had made.

Eventually this willl end up hurting everyone!

What is pre-existing should be paid by the employee, what is directly the work related injury should be covered by the employer.

What's next a clerk gets beat up and then the doctor orders a face lift along with the stitches to fix the pre-existing condition of ugly that led to the assault?

what of the model who gets beaten up because of an agency she works for. Because she is no longer able to work as a model, is the agency then liable for her loss of earnings?

This truly is an appalling precedent and myself as an employer will be making a very "subconscious but not deliberate" decision to think about not employing anyone that has health issues.

Lucky them........another person to add to the unemployment queue.

and the agency has insurance on her to cover the potential loss of an asset.

This type of thing is not new, but perhaps the weight part is.
A number of things I've experienced or read come to mind.
A small company I worked for offered smoking employees $50 to quit smoking for x amount of weeks. Even as a non-smoking employee who didn't gain financially, the air in the shop was easier to breath. The non-smoking stuck for one person, which was one less smoker the company had to insurance.
Another example was of a large food supplier I worked with as an outside vendor; the employees received free gym memberships as a way to promote healthier living.

This should fall into the companies' laps because they didn't take initiative enough to prevent the injury in the first place, and even if it was an accident, it's not right to make the worker who was injured pay for their own weight loss surgery. If it's medically necessary for this surgery to be done, it's not like the employee has any choice in the matter.

Seriously, it's not as if the doctor and the patient are plotting ways to make the company pay more.

The whole 'pre-existing' conditions argument isn't valid here simply because the injury occurred on the job.

Pre-existing conditions should not be discriminated against, no matter what they are. Also, Obesity is something achieved over time. If a company wants to avoid such problems in the future, they should offer fitness programs that help employees stay in shape. (The benefit here is two-fold, because it would likely translate into a productivity bonus as long as the employees aren't pressed for it because they have a fitness program.)

We're not talking about something like a heart murmur here. We're talking about a person who chose to eat themselves to a point where they couldn't even have back surgery without losing significant weight. It's his own fault, not the company's. If they had offered these fitness programs, what if he chose to decline them and continue to overeat? Should he then be responsible for his own actions, or is it still the company's fault he couldn't put down the fork and push himself away from the table? We're slowing slipping into a society where no one is responsible for their own personal choices, and everyone looks to other people to step up when they've screwed up. If the injury occurred on the job because the employer didn't provide the proper training/equipment/etc. then they should abosolutely cover the back surgery under Workman's Comp. But it's not their fault their employee is too damn fat to have the necessary surgery, he can pick up the tab for his own lifetime of bad decisions.

You don't need am employer sponsored fitness plan to lose weight..
Its called getting off yer butt and excersing and eating decent.
This is not easy..i know..I'm overweight myself..but in the past 3 months have managed to lose about 30 pounds or so, just by making myself go for that evening walk, and cutting out all the foods which my body does not need.

Some people have medical issues, fair enough..but that is the small minority..

Put the junk food down...go for a walk...

Its not necessarily about eating decently along with exercise, although for most people theses are the main factor, some times it can be virus (refer to "Horizon: Why are thin people not fat?" http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/81810).

Like I said to most people diet and exercise is the key but:

"Dr Shahrad Taheri, clinical director for obesity at the Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, said: ?Most people believe obesity is caused by environmental factors.

"But there is a lot of information about how things like the furring up of arteries could be linked to infections. It is not beyond reason to think about various different factors, including infections, adding into the mix about what causes obesity.?

In the Horizon program another factor is pointed out to be genetics, thin people tend to want to eat less and some of the Obese subject wanted to eat more and more - often once a natural weight was achieved the body only wanted to eat enough to then keep that body weight:

People have a ?natural body weight? and respond to losing a few pounds in the same way as if they were starving.

So as you can see being fat/obese is much more complicated than everyone

In conclusion the hiring company should ask the person (they consider) to be fat/obese if they want help to lose, if they are currently not taking steps to lose weight, and refuse the companies help then they should sign a waiver saying any treatment required to remove fat tissue (to allow treatment for a work related injury) should be paid for by the employee not employer.

If on the other hand you take steps to lose weight (proven of course - to make it legal) or take the companies help, then the employer should pay for fat tissue removal to allow the treatment for a work related injury.

Of course the employer should pay if there are extenuating circumstances - such as it is medically impossible to lose weight without surgery. (Remember to every rule there is an exception)

there are always exceptions..

but for every person who has a medical condition, there are 10 who simply eat too many calories and do not burn them up.

I don't think the employer is responsible to remove the fat, but that is my own personal opinion..you are not obligfed to agree with me.
Like it or not, if this type of thing goes forward...then every one of us who has a few pounds on us is scr3wed...employers simply won't hire anyone who is overweight..

is completely ridiculous that means the employer is sizists (size racist) :P

In my opinion the fairer system should be implemented.

Practically speaking the employer should not pay.

The problem is that the 'fairer' system will result in people exploiting the system - no system then it can't be exploited.

Overweight is not that complicated. You eat less that you lose weight. You eat more thatn you gain weight. I eat at fast-food 3 to 5 times a week but I keep my Body mass index around 23 (normal weight). I love French fries and hamburgers. I used to order super sized fries and hamburgers all the time. After I get older and have slower metabolism, my weigth start to rise and my body mass index once has reached 24.8 (the borderline to overweight). Then I start to order side salad and chickend sandwiches most of times. I often see overwight/obesity people order super sized fries and meat/bacon only hamburgers. We are free to choose what we eat and we are responsible for what we choose. Should we tell our employers that "It's not my fault for overweight becuase you didn't help me."? My 7-years old kid once told me that "It's not my fault for forgetting my jacket at school bcause you didn't remind me to bring it back." It's always someone's fault but not mine.

I though I tried to explain that not all people can lose weight through exercise or eating less.

So that mean the Majority of people CAN lose weight through the conventional means (eating less fatty foods than they normally would etc.).

I was only stating that they are cases (might be 5% - could closer to 1-3%) a VERY SMALL percentage of people who will gain weight and will be unable to lose that weight.

Is what I said clearer now?

but you are ignorant.

Just because the poor guy is overweight, doesn't mean he eats too much or has made a lifetime of bad choices. I know someone that has a serious medical condition that causes weight gain (no matter on diet or excercise)... so is this person making any bad decisions?

Also, excesive/obsessive overeating is a disease like alcoholism. Are you one of those people that think otherwise?

What does it matter what the person looks like or how big they may be? Does this make them a bad person? Does it make them a bad worker? No.

Who care who looks like what?? We are all as we are made..everyone is beautiful.
Being overweight does not make someone a bad person..Its a health thing..you have got to look after yourself. If someone wants to eat themselves into an early grave, or have a poor quality of life, thats thier business..however, when society has to start picking up the tab for the person's weight issues, thats when you have to start asking questions.

There are very few people who are grossly obese because of a medical issue. I knew a girl once who had thyroid problems..YET ate a mars bar for breakfast EVERY day..she played the victem very well...

I have a medical condition that causes weight gain..BUT my choices do influence the weight gain.. bad choices=more wieght...

We not trying to pick on someones weight, the issue is wether an employer should have to pay for an employees obesity??

I've always tol dmeployers the same thing.

What I do on my time is MY business.

If what I do on my time, OR during your time, effects my ability to do my job, then my problem is now yours to address with me.

Other than that, I am free to do as I please so don't ask me about my extracurricular activites unless they effect my work or other people around me.

My sister was once told she had a medical problem that was causing her to gain excessive weight after her third child. She grew to obese proportions and hated it. She was told it was a medical condition and she couldn't resolve it without surgery and long term medication.

She refused surgery, got off her fat arse and started a strict excercise and dietary regime, she now weighs just over 150lbs at 5'8". They really wantd her to believe it was a medical problem, they really wanted to prescribe drugs and surgery, she just wanted to lose weight, so she did.

In most such cases, the pople DID make themselves obese but cannot lose it naturally once out on, but if you are trying to suggest that an immense number of Americans suffer from some disease that doesn't seem to effect the rest of the world quite as bad, and when it does people accept personal responsibility for it, then you have huffed way too much paint today.

My best friend was huge when he moved here from teh US, withni two years he was in better shape than me (not saying too much there) and is healthy, works a good labour job, has his 6-pack abs etc. He said it was because there is more of a focus on being healthy here, getting exercise, the food is better, smaller portions at fast food restaurants, everything is tagged with heath labels indicating the fats, calories etc. It's a lot harder to eat yourself to death this way.

Personal responsibility, why accept it when you can sue someone and work less? 'kin deadly mindset to have, it is like a cancer of its very own.

Slowly slipping into?
We're deep in it.

Talk about stereotypes and assumptions! There are many reasons for someone to be obese that are not at all a matter of choice.

Is someone overweight, for example, because he or she is an inactive glutton? Or is it because they have a thyroid disorder that is clearly NOT a matter of choice?

http://www.healthandage.com/Thyroid-Dysfunction-and-the-Obesity-Epidemic

Or is it because they have diabetes? Contrary to popular sentiment, diabetes is not largely a matter of diet, but is actually most commonly an autoimmune disorder (e.g. Type 1) or a genetic predisposition (e.g. Type 2):

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/diabetes/page2_em.htm

Or is it because they have pulmonary hypertension that is producing slowly degenerative heart failure? Why do they have pulmonary hypertension - from emphysema from chronic smoking? Or from repeated bouts of pulmonary emboli and pneumonia from a chronic leukemia?

The ideas you express show complete ignorance of medicine and are exactly the kind of discrimination against overweight people that is already prevalent in society.

The number of people who're obese because of a disorder or disease is incredibly small compared to the number who inflict it on themselves with their diet. I've met plenty of healthy diabetics who maintain an active lifestyle despite their condition.

Those who have it aren't obese.

Which is not to say that obesity doesn't often accompany diabetes. Just that they take care of themselves as their primary method for managing diabetes.

Can't you see that this whole thing has not a whit to do with IT?

You risk being judged a Court Jester.

Do they not use medical and health information along with medical technology to manage their disease?

Nyah, nyah.

I picture you.

Any number of inflammatory-response diseases tend to be treated with Prednisone or other forms of steroid, which have weight gain as a byproduct.

Also, appearances can be deceiving. Though many don't believe it, it is possible to be quite healthy and active while carrying extra pounds, appearing to all the world to be "lazy, fat slobs" that don't "get off their arse". Sumo wrestlers and football players with large BMIs immediately come to mind (believe it or not, sumo wrestlers are athletes with very little internal body fat), as well as average Joes and Janes who do exercise regularly but don't appear stereotypically "healthy". It always amazes me how people can easily team up to jump on the fat insult bandwagon but if you substitute gay, African-American, or other phrases in the insult, people wouldn't be caught dead saying them because THEN they would not be PC.

we all have an excuse for excess weight..some of us have legite ones..some of us don't...

as for jumping on the fat bandwagon...get real.. get off the PC bandwagon and then we'll talk
BMI is not the issue..being too fat for surgery is. We not talking about someone with 40 pounds to lose here..we talking a lot of weight..

so because I think someone who regularily overeats and does not excercise and is grossly obese..should change thier lifestyle I'm as good as a racist??

Its people like you who enable people to be the way they are.. "its ok honey, you only weight 600 pounds..go on..have another big mac"

we not 6 yrs old here chanting fatty fatty 2 by 4... we grown adults discussing the compensation claims against an employer

The start of the thread has to do with being man enough to take personal responsibility, which I wholeheartedly agree should be done. Even though employers take advantage of employees all the time, the "right" thing for anyone to do is the right thing, not depend on being sue-happy.

What the thread has degraded into is fat person hatred or even self-loathing, which I cannot and will not endorse in any way. I had a friend who died while getting stomach surgery for the sake of aesthetics as well as health and I often wonder if she would be here had she not been mentally tortured and looked down upon by many unkind, unthinking people.

I am certainly not the "there there, have another Big Mac" type. I think people should improve themselves whenever possible but shouldn't be berated for not reaching that goal. You don't know what shoes another person is walking in, so please don't make biased assumptions or generalizations.

but this isn't a thread about how bad overweight people are..
its about an employers responsibility for a persons weight.

I am sorry about your friend..its a shame that it came to that end. No one wants to see that happen to anyone.

"You don't know what shoes another person is walking in, so please don't make biased assumptions or generalizations."
I am not assuming ALL obsese people live off of big macs...but you have to look at things logically..a lot of people are big beccause they eat too much. I am not going to look at ONE person and assume they eat too much. Its thier business...but as a society, we need to start stepping up and looking out for ourselves.
Maybe you've missed my admission that I'm a "big girl" myself. Yes, there is an underlying medical condition which makes it "harder" to lose weight...do I use it as an excuse..no. I have to work dang hard to lose wieght..and maintain that. I could eat what I want and fall back on my condition..but I choose not to. I know if I do not walk every day of the week, and if I eat something other than raw fruit, raw vegtables and fish..I am going to gain weight..it takes some serious willpower.
Trust me, I been fighting weight ALL my life, I am the last one to look at someone and judge them on an individual basis.

My endocrine system was badly messed up by 15 years of sleep apnea, and despite having very strenuous exercise and eating very little, I could not control my weight - it would go into gross harmonics, up and down plus or minus a hundred pounds at a time.

I once nearly killed myself trying to go on a starvation diet. All it got me was 200 lbs in four months!!! Every single thing that went in my mouth went straight to fat.

I got very scared and haven't listened to anyone that suggests starvation diets since, but now only to the bleeding edge science of endocrinology. My doctor looked at my blood work and asked me if I was still starving. Apparently it showed a starvation response by the liver and other systems. But I wasn't losing a single pound.

Only by being very careful of the types of foods, and using supplements that add "nutracueticals" to my plan, was I able to finally get it under control. I have to take calcium supplements just so my bones will keep from degenerating, my diet is so strict it has caused ill side affects like this.

Between Nutri-system and Dr. N.V. Perricone's weight management diet and supplements, and a cure for sleep apnea, am I finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. There is finally hope for bariatric cases like me. I do not work for any man or company, so please don't accuse me of spamming.

People think we chronically obese only sit and stuff our faces, and that is just not what is happening with many of us. I have many friends in the same boat, starving so much they damaged their livers and now needing transplants. Had gall bladder operations, one of them who did have an eating disorder, did a gastric bypass and did lose the weight, but she was honest like we are, and admitted that she did over eat.

Not all of us do that however. One friend of mine has struggled with it all his life and finally stopped drinking beer, and is still not losing the weight.

Despite trying everything in the book, and being extremely active, exercising and working hours every day, eating horrible tasting small tidbits for a meal, he just cannot loose the weight - sad thing is, he will soon be bed ridden with a congenital nerve problem he has in his back, that he was born with, he may not live much longer.

He was always so up-an-at-em and git-up-and-go his whole life, and a very nervous energy burner, he just couldn't control the roller coaster with his weight. Now I'm afraid he might give up, because he is so hyperactive, I fear he may explode like a claustrophobic in a closet! I just pray for him and I, and every person that has these kind of weight disorders.

It would help if medicine would classify the ones that truly are a sickness and just not a mental state of gluttony.

.

Prednisone comes immediately to mind. It's given a lot for asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis. Tends to puff people up, for sure.

...but I haven't got time to read through all of the responses.

But I must say, overweight or obese, if a person is in the workforce, it is a step UP from the overweight and unemployed.

My wife has friends who used weight to claim disability, then make the public pay for a lap band, then still never go to work. (At that point, the claim is "bad knees from previous lifestyle.)

Then there are the 450 pounders on foodstamps claiming that the government doesn't give them enough to live on. Makes me appreciate the overweight employed, regardless of whether it is metabolism or lifestyle. Keep producing, things aren't getting any better...

You body doesn't create weight from nothing. Laws of thermodynamics?

If energy in > energy out, the excess will be stored in your body, and you will gain weight. It's pretty simple. Reverse the equation to lose weight.

Sure, some medical problems may reduce your energy output, but you control the input. Very few people (overall) are genuinely unable to lose weight because of medical problems - certainly not as many as use the misfortunes of some to justify their own gluttony. With most people, myself included, It's just a matter of eating less and expending more energy - consistently.

I eat more than I should, and I eat more crap than I should. As a result, I weigh more than I should. I exercise, but chockies and peanut butter call more strongly.

I have a grade-school friend diagnosed with hypothyroidism. She has been overweight or clinically obese as long as I have known her (since second grade). She was eating responsibly and exercising when we were in junior high and has been on a strict 500 calorie diet for the past few years. She works out and and walks two miles a day. She consumes no snacks and drinks only water. She is under daily medical supervision because of her minimal calorie intake. Her build is relatively stocky (she would never have been Barbie-slender), so her BMI is 38, but her bodyfat percentage is only 24% (at the low end of the normal range for her age).

Consuming 500 calories per day and expending an estimated 3000 calories per day has resulted in a drop of one pound in her average weight over the past year. Her doctors have no idea what is going on.

Her next option is to stop eating.


etu

I've stayed out of this, until now.

Yours was a strong commentary.

has been those jumping to conclusions.

A reasoned observation was overdue.

There are always exceptions.
I hope your friend's Dr's can figure out what the heck is going on..thats harsh.

Your post either illustrates a rare disease that SO many people use as an excuse for obesity while very few actuall suffer such illness, or else you are saying that there is an epidemic that needs to be addressed in the USA.

If such medical issues are so common that they inflict a third of your population, then you need to forget about Iraq, forget abotu arguing about universal health care, close the borders, stop the imports, wear a breathing appratus and let the scientists and microiologists find a cure to this most daunting plague thas has inflicted your nation.

If the majority of such people are, as any medical report will confirm, plain old fat and lazy due to stuffing their faces and not exercising, then your point is somewhat mot, is it not?

a third of your popultion is over 100 million people! That's 3X the population of Canada! You have 3 times more 'obese' people in your nation than an ally has in total population. That numer is staggering and is not contriutable to the handful of medical reasons, most avoidable early on, that you have noted.

It seems every grossly obese person uses the thyroid excuse and often doctors even agree, which I have seen proven false within my own family.

"The ideas you express show complete ignorance of medicine and are exactly the kind of discrimination against overweight people that is already prevalent in society."

and in contrast, the excuses you express show complete ignorance or reality and are exactly the kind of excuses obese people seek to pardon themselves for not eating right and exercising to bring their weight into a more controllable state. Even if not thin, many fat people just get fatter because they believe they can do anything about it and they ASSUME a disease just to excuse themselves for letting themselves go.

When I go to France, I don't see huge people and pregnant men the way I do here in the States. It's the country and the lifestyle, not some malady from outer space.

Obesity is a life-style choice, and to say that people have no control over their appetite, is another example of not taking responsibility for themselves. This injury most likely would not have happened in the first place had the employee been at a normal weight to begin with. I'm tired hearing about obesity, get out and get moving!

So, ... if a company actually does provide a fitness program (like that's not an expensive thing to do), what happens when the obese person dies of a heart attack because they didn't know to take it easy on the treadmill? Why doesn't the company also pay for life insurance, the funeral, support all other family members and ... gee, let's just make an employer set-up a trust fund for everybody for everything! What's the worse that could happen, ... all jobs go overseas and to illegals?!

make you sign a waiver before using the fitness facilities.

Many companies offer fitness facilities. I worked for one with a pool, personal trainer, gym etc. availale late into teh evenings and on weekends too. It was a HUGE expense but they are also listed in teh top 5 Canadian employers.

PS. Their business was in corrugated carboard nothing even remotely related to gym, training etc.

Anotehr company offered free gym memberships at a local gym wher ethey had cut a deal.

Many others will offer a sauna, gym etc. As it is a preference for employees seekign a new job these days, companies with gyms have waitign lists of skilled potential employees.

IMPORTANT NOTE: It's not forced upon anyone and anyone suffering a heart attack in one would never even consider suing the employer for it.

No, the worst that could happen is a frivolous lawsuit by the treadmill user. And a smart frivolous lawsuit will get the employer AND the manufacturer of the treadmill.

This is an awful legal precedent. First, you are absolving the individual of their responsibility to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Second, you are making the employer responsible for something completely out of their control. It's a no-win situation for employers.

The accident happened, yes, but it was aggravated by the pre-existing condition that was a choice by the employee - not the employer. The judge is erroneously deciding that the employee has no fault in the matter, when in fact they have significantly contributed to the problem in the first place.

Decisions like this will lead employers to request BMI (Body Mass Index) as a screening test for employment. It's the only thing they can do. And in response, the government will declare obesity as a protected status.

This is a bad slippery slope.

May as well screen for race and color while you're at it.

Moron.

You are welcome to your opinion. The fact of the matter, however, is that being black or Indian doesn't represent a risk to the employer's financial well-being. What you may not realize, is that while a situation like this may have only a minor impact on a large corporation, the same laws apply to small businesses where a quarter million dollars in medical costs would put them out of business. Now you have one employee essentially forcing the closure of an entire business and being responsible for destroying several other jobs.

I'm glad I don't have someone as selfish and small-minded as you applying for a job with my company.

I did not say I agreed with the court's decision to force the company to pay for the weightloss surgery. The employee should have to pay for that. However, you can not ask for BMI info on an application. It's the same thing as asking religion or race. Let's go off the deep end and ask for penis size as well... I mean really, what's the difference???

And, yes (and I don't even want to say this because I don't feel it), but the fact that a company hires blacks or Indians could be a risk to the company's financial well-being. There are racist people out there. There are those that get on bandwagons. These people do not want to do business with a company that employs minorities. Being in IT I am sure you have heard your share of people (end users and techs alike) that almost refuse to deal with a company that outsources to India. So, we can add your race question back to the application.

A better example, are you going to ask if someone has had cancer? You are going to descriminate a woman that has had breast cancer and not hire her? Hey, what if the cancer comes back, right? We can't have that sickness in our company, right?

I do understand the impact of the type of payment from the article on the whole of the company. However, it is not relavant to what you posted.

It not selfish and small-minded to want to protect the rights of an individual. Weight has no bearing on work performance in that situation (or in most). My initial post is coming from a perspective that you as an employer would descriminate someone for what they look like, because in reality we know that's what is in fact the issue here.

And let's get one thing clear.. since when has working for a corporation been a team effort? Yes, the employees working side-by-side may work as a team together, but the company could care less about them for any reason whatsoever.

During an employment screening, there are certain things you are prohibited by law from asking about even obliquely: race, color, religion, handicaps and age. There is NO current prohibition from asking someone for a BMI, nor are there any laws prohibiting employers from screening out employees based on either weight or smoking. These are NOT considered protected classes under Federal employment law. There are also what are termed Bona Fide Occupational Qualities which are job specific and are legal forms of discriminating against certain candidates, such as airline attendants that must meet weight and mobility requirements.

The question here is about legality, and according to current law, you can refuse to hire someone who is grossly overweight or who smokes and there is no legal claim of discrimination that participant can make. You personally may not like that, but that is the current law. It doesn't happen to reflect my current practices or those of my business, but you didn't bother to ask about those, did you? You just assumed it.

Rather than making wild accusations and suppositions and relying on passion to argue your case, I'd recommend you take a step back and critically think about both sides and the ramifications of what you are proposing.

BTW - It's clear that you're not happy with your current employer, but don't assume that all companies are the same.

is pretty effing obvious once things get to an interview.

You wrote "Weight has no bearing on work performance in that situation (or in most)."

That is probably correct in that it doesn't affect work performance. But weight absolutely is a big contributor to injuries, including back injuries that may not even have occurred in other individuals. And that costs the employer money.

You are thus suggesting that being of a certain race or colour is a personal lifestyle choice then?

Yuo can't change someone's country of origin, you cannot change someone's skin tone.

You can expect someone to change theri wieght.

According to your flawed analogy, any race horse owner is descriminating against fair employment by expecting jockeys to be under 120lbs.

Any sumo wrestling team is descriminating for not hiring jockeys.

Think about it next time you try to defend obese people deserving unique rights to all others.

too true

but government run healthcare makes it so...

N Canada we get a proper list of nutritional information on EVERY food label. Just because it says LIGHT, doesn't mean it is healthier than the regular brand. In Canada our government has a personal interest in makign Canadians healthier, and thus our foods are clearly marked so that junk doesn't get passed off as helthy.

In the USA, where food growers fuel society and even the drug manufacturers, they have no vested interest in making Americans healthier. As a result the same motion was quickly shot down by the four major food growers in the USA when they tried to offer the same as Canada.

So having the government in charge of health and responsible for the tax dollars spent, also makes them more responsible with the information you are fed, which is to everyone's long term benefit. Rememer Canadians as a whole live longer than Americans, perhasp one reason is that we are ade more aware of such health dangers as they don't cowtow to food manufacturing giants who have everything to lose y educating the public as to the dangers of their diets.

But who the hell cares if you all get lied to by food producers and die? Just as long as the government doesn't make it easier for poor people to get healthy.

Somewhere down the line you may be able to actually determine a cost per American tax payer and it would be truly disgusting to find they had allocated $40 dollars of your taxes to poor people's health instead of arms for wars in foreign nations.

They need to get their priorities straight, I suppose.

a long time before nutritional information was provided. How did we ever manage?????

Seriously, Tony.

We did eat better though, there is more fast food and less time these days than ever before. I know we grew up in different worlds but I am pretty sure you had a mom or dad that made a healthy meal for the family to eat together. You had your share of ice cream but I'm sure you didn't eat out or eat garbage nearly half as much as kids do today.

as adults our metabolism slows and it takes a more conscious and physical effort in order to remain healthy and fit. NOTE: I am neither now, I smoke, drink and tire from breathing. I eat something out almost every day, which I am changing as of last week, more shopping and home cooked food. It's easy to hit a rut, but it's also easy for me to choose a healthy diet without buying so called diet foods now.

I just easily see and read the labels. Even eggs have a nutritional information label as they all differ: http://www.born3.com/gifs/nutrition-facts-canadian-Harvest.gif


Were you driven everywhere as a kid or were you left to walk or ride your bike, skateboard etc?

Cubs, Scouts, Cadets were acceptable. Now parents use the pedophile fears to skirt making that effort on their part.

Did you sit at home and text chat all evening or did you go out and play ball or even just hang out with friends at the park or wherever? It was just as safe then as it is today, we were simply told not to talk to strangers and stick together. "Don't talk to strangers" When was the last time you heard someone say that?

Did you spend weekends online or were your weekends full of outdoor activity from dawn to after dusk? Tree forts, fishing the local creek, bike riding all day and into the early evening.

Did you play sports on any team you could just because you were a kid and had to be outside involved in a game? Football, soccer, baseball etc.?

To anyone who thinks its too dangerous to go play outside as a group of kids anymore, you are horribly wrong. It is no safer nor any more unsafe today than 60 years ago. Just as many weirdo's etc. It's just that kids aren't told how to deal with such people anymore, they are simply chauffeured and escorted from couch to couch by fearful parents.


We didn't have the tools for an effortless life, such as text messaging, online game communities, myspace etc. We had to actually meet and speak to friends. We had a family telephone but most kids didn't have their own private and un-overheard phone. We didn't online game, we went out and played games, god I had a great life at home but I was NEVER home as a kid, I was always out doing something, from hockey practice to scouts to cutting lawns in the same day with quick stops at home and changes in between. Myspace? Get real, social circles were real, real interaction with real people, that way you grow up with social skills and know how to function outdoors in the real world.

I hate it because I sound like my dad, yeah I heard it too. "You've been playing that pong game for two hours now, I'm shutting it off to watch the news. Go out and find something to do!"

I don't think my upbringing was that different from anyone else's that grew within 10 years either way of me. If a kid was obese, it was odd, so much so he was teased at school (hey, it's not judgment day, okay?) every group of friends had their very own 'lumpy' but it wasn't the norm for most.

no labels (they'd get stuck in my teeth anyway)

I smoke too (don't drink) and walk to work, home for lunch, back to work, and home at the end, almost every day (pouring rain excepted). About .9 miles from home to work home.

Plus I'm not too sedentary at work (can't remember the last time I had a two hour stretch at the desk). We have 5 buildings at our main complex of about 25 acres, one of them three floors. I don't use the elevator unless I'm hauling something on the cart (It doesn't do well on stairs... especially up ).

I do love to eat... There's little I don't like, and I put away a good 3500 calories a day. Most of it is home-made though (That's why my garbage bag is the smallest on the block...). The aforementioned carrots, plus usually one banana and one apple a day. My one "fast food" weakness is McDonald's breakfast menu. Oh, and I love eggs... any time, any place, any way, I love eggs! And salty, pickled, or hot things...

My drinks are coffee (black), tomato juice (grow them myself) and occasionally water with lemon juice. I rarely (maybe once every few months) drink a carbonated beverage and it's usually ginger ale.

I'm usually not a sweets person except for the occasional plain vanilla soft serve cone, and home made cookies... People pay me with them... but I always share

Make me out to be a fat, lazy bastard then.

I do less than I should, am aware of what I do but even though my intentions are there I find excuses not to follow through. I know what's bad for me and feel proud of myself when I make a healthy decision, but they are not the mainstream for me. Though I am conciously aware of what I eat I do not always followo the regime of health I should. In fact I was just sittign here thinkign I feel like crap for no reason today. Then again, the reason is I keep makign excuses to not live healthier and that's probably why I feel like crap.

The scay part is I eat better than many, I exercise more than many, I am very aware of what I eat (though I eat it anyway)and yet I still feel unhealthy. Its no wonder that there are is many unhappy and unfufilled feeling people out there.

ut I do gain inspiration when I hear others take care of themselves better than I do, you know me always up for the challenge. "Someone does something better than ME???" I don't bloody think so!"

I never thought I'd say you were inspiring, but I am happy to be proven wrong on that one anyway.

I'm not petite myself... 5-11 230. Being heavy doesn't mean your lazy, nor does it mean you have a "condition". Some people are just big... My grandmother at 95 could knock me on my ass. She was 6-1 and (I never knew exactly... but "big").

My weight goes plus or minus 20 lbs without me seeing it as a problem. As long as I feel OK, I am OK. I don't go out of my way to do anything special. I walk a lot, not because I'm health conscious, but because I'm cheap

nothing sordid, sorry.

I was on my way back from running lunchtime errands and figured I better get something to eat before I faded. Of course the only place around was Rotten Ronnies. So there I was in the drive-thru thinking DAMN, more of this putrid slop! Then I thought of your 1LB a day of carrots and got a craving for baby carrots (I like the smaller ones raw as they are a bit sweeter and not as woody as the big old, stewing buggers get.

Unfortunately there was no way of gettign out of teh drive through loop, they get you once yuo are started in there. So I opted for a mandarin chicken salad, which was really good by the way and as I drove back to work I thought, TOny would be proud of me.

I didn't actually expect you'd be proud i guess but it was my way of at least accepting the middle ground I found betwene crap burgers and real food.

Thanks for that. You may have helped hold of my heart attack for another day!

I mean, it IS Tony the Tiger...

carrots are just the easiest.

We would be just as well off to chuck it all and be annexed by another country. Regardless of what one might think, an individual's health is in most part a personal choice. Like your choice of what to eat for lunch. Just about everything in the US has a easy to read nutritional label, including eggs; but most americans simply choose to ignore them. Only the American people as a whole are going to be able to do something about being an overweight country.

Make the government responsible? not at all. the government makes the suppliers responsible for reporting what's in the food they sell us.

The government doesn't remove ANYONE's choice to be healthy or unhealthy, in fact they help enhance that choice for you.

One thing I have noted repeatedly in the US is how food is still labelled in the old RDA system, which is why most don't read it or understand it. Such values are based on tables determined decades ago for Recommended Dietary Allowances.

Canada and several other nations have since updatesd that system and made it an easilty understood and more commonly watched intake.
The same system was shot down quickly in the US by some of the major farming corporations. I don't say farmers because they are more like manufacturer's of hybrid foods and not really farmers at all.

The government makes it POSSIBLE for the consumer to make their own, more qualified choices by pushing food providers to properly diaplay the nutritional contents of their food product. That is in NO WAY the same as the government being responsible for what I heat or taking away my rights or freedoms. In fact they are enforcing my rights and freedoms to know exactly what is in the food I buy.

Noody tells me to eat healthy, but the information is there if I seek it, whether in public messages, government supported awareness activities etc.
Information leads to knowledge, knowledge is what we need to make such decisions for ourselves.

And if you want to get laid and meet a women here, you have to be pretty damn fit as they have a lot to choose from that aren't obese, unhealthy or out of shape. Peer pressure to slim down and excercise is there too, which is far more effective than government pressure.

The government just regulates sellers so we know what we are buying. Isn't that one reason we elect a government? To set forth laws that ensure companies don't get to walk on and mislead comsumers in an effort to take their money?

America is one of the few countries where an individual can be obese and malnourished at the same time. Certainly it relates to what we choose to put in our mouths, but it also relates to cost...

If you're unemployed or poor, the 6 pack of ramen noodles - with all of it's salt and fat - can be purchased for 1.99. Fresh veggies and fruit, at 1.99 lb and up? That's a luxury for many. Our own government food programs provide some of the crappiest food available (government cheese, anyone?).

U.S. insurance companies will not pay for proactive treatment for individuals who are on the edge of being obese, or are there. Dietary consults, etc. are reserved for those who have already developed obesity related diseases such as diabetes. And wouldn't it be in our insurance company's best interests to reimburse for gym memberships or other pro-health exercises? Unlike many of the people on this thread, I have never worked for an employer that paid for gym membership.

Certainly there is individual responsibility involved (I'm no centerfold), but there is also a serious lack of support mechanisms within our society.

.

"they didn't take initiative enough to prevent the injury in the first place,"

What like feeding the guy healthy food, putting a leash on him and walking him once day. Asking him to life less than everyone else because he's a lazy fat f**k?

Get real. You stuff your fat face with crap, you become grossly overweight, you put yourself at greater risk of such injuries.
Assuming the guy has functional vocal cords, he has ever ability to say, that's heavy and I'm a fat arsed baystard, I better not lift it. If that then jeopardizes his employment it's his own fault for being such a fat baystard to begin with. Go get a job for fat people then.

I didn't try out for the pro basketball team because I am too short. I don't expect a gym to hire me as a trainer because I smoke and am not all that healthy to begin with. Why do we have to accommodate for someone who eats himself into poor health?

"The whole 'pre-existing' conditions argument isn't valid here simply because the injury occurred on the job."

Study causation and you'll understand that's not how it works. The CAUSE of the injury was obviously not some gross weight he was asked to lift, it was most likely due to a weakened spinal column and misaligned vertebrae (which happens when you are obese or even (20lbs overweight). Causation is not the lifting, it's a preexisting problem DUE to his being obese.

"Pre-existing conditions should not be discriminated against, no matter what they are." WHAT????

So if I have a problem where my arm becomes disconnected every time I lift it over my head, I can then go get a job washing windows and claim medical insurance, take time off every time I wash an upper floor?

Give your head a shake, man!

"Obesity is something achieved over time. If a company wants to avoid such problems in the future, they should offer fitness programs that help employees stay in shape. (The benefit here is two-fold, because it would likely translate into a productivity bonus as long as the employees aren't pressed for it because they have a fitness program.)

So it's the employers responsibility if you have an eating disorder and stuff your face everyday for 10 years? They should be responsible for your weight gain ? They should pay for you to exercise and lose weight?

Should they also provide a personal health shopper and a cook to ensure that you eat properly too?

My god, you've lost the plot, mate.
We've talked about personal responsibility here quite often but this one just takes the cake.

Should be post of the week for that, it's the COMPANY'S responsibility to offer you an exercise regime if you are fat and could hurt yourself.

So many people i know have thrown out their backs or have other back issues. Using them as a sample population, I see no correlation between obesity and throwing out the back/back injuries.
Not using the proper lifting techniques or happening to have the back in an awkward position when doing something as simple as getting out of a chair are reasons many people injure their backs. (people not being careful)

People throw out their back when they lift inpro[perly, lift too much, fall, suffer a car accident injury, etc. I've taught lifting classes for workers comp and at BCIT automive school.

BUT obese people increase teh chance of such injury by immense proportions as the lower body weight pulls forward on teh lower lumar spine and forces alignment issues, resulting in disk compression, disk misalignment etc.

What you are saying is just like saying that obese people are not at greater risk of heart attack than healthy people.

Smokers are not at a greater risk of lung cancer than non smokers.

Being overweight, especially obese, greatly increases the chances of spinal injury, that can even be brought on just by not standing up right. What a healthy person could life can cripple an obese person, which is where I think this paticular incident falls. UNless teh employer is reponsible for teh eating and exercising regiment of employees they canot e helpd responsible for them.

I don't want THAT! I'm on a diet starting NOW.

Hysterical! That would be one way of ensuring all men were underweight.

I can just see the male obesity trend turning to anorexia or belemia in a hurry.

For a misaligned spine, don't they put your head in a harness that is connected to a pulley with counterweights hung from it? OUCH!

Owie! "More drugs please, nurse."

Then again, physio therapy might be nice, I have always had really REALLY hot physio therapists.

... after you gain enough weight, I don't think you can reach to wipe your tail, either. The whole crotch zone becomes a sort of terra incognita.

In the people that I know, the ones with back issues are almost exclusively thin or a few pounds over average. My SO's entire male side of the family is thin but most of them had to have back surgery to fix their (obviously genetic) various issues.

The truth of the matter is due to the added weight, larger people tend to have denser bones, less osteoporosis and bone fractures, and denser muscles, simply for the fact that they have to lug around extra weight - imagine a regular person carrying a permanent 50 lb. bag of dog food or what have you - they would eventually develop stronger muscles as well. I'm not saying that is a better situation, but there are actually a few advantages.

While you are correct that increased weight concentrated around the waist area can increase pressure on the lumbar/sacral area and cause sciatica, arthritis, herniated discs or other stresses, if the weight is relatively evenly distributed and no genetic predisposition to back problems exist, many heavy people can live without such problems.

And agreed, everyone should take care of their backs and be careful when lifting, regardless of size.

I never said obesity s the cause of all ack pain. I've had scoliosis, spinal compression, sherwreman's disease, dislocated cervical verterae, etc. I have had pretty much all teh back problems at one time or another, including teh common pinche dnerves, sciatica etc. And while my wieght is curretnly on the husky side, I am not now nor ever have been obese.

What I am saying is that is not my argiument to disagree or agree with.

It is a fact though, that if you have potential for back pain, if you haqve weak stomache muscles you are more prone to back issues and if you ae overweight, ESPECIALLY to th epoint of obesity, that you will in fact place yourwself in much greater risk of back injury that someone of a lesser weight.

Especially when related to lifting something heavy and pulling a muscle, comprssing a disk, hyper extension etc. These are common effects from doing too much, lifting too much, twistign whil elifting etc. Adding weight to that factor increases it's chances.

Therefore someone that was healthier, or as used in in court "the reasonable man" classification, then the injury may have been avoided completely or found to be highly unlikely unless compounded with obesity.

Would the court, the doctors, and many of those commenting on this case, respond differently if the 'pre-existing condition' that prevented treating the back injury was something other than obesity?

Lumping ?obese? in as a ?life style choice? is common, and contrary to the science that links the dominant factors leading to obesity as genetic (you should choose your parents more wisely). We have also seen, in recent years, the definition of ?obese? change dramatically, without much science to justify the changes. In the US we are facing a congress that appears willing to deny health care due to such ?lifestyle choices? such weight, tobacco use, ? how much of a leap is it to say it is fair to deny health care to someone who intentionally partakes in other risky ?lifestyle choices? like skydiving? I mean, how much science to you need to know that jumping from great heights increases risk of injury? How about cycling (more cyclists are injured each year than skydivers), or pick you?re favorite ?risky business?.

We are facing federal mandates that EVERY employee must be covered by a health plan ? so clearly, hiring people who can not be covered would be untenable.

This isn?t a slippery slope, folks, this is a cliff! Man, am I lucky my Dad is slim!

I'm trying hard to follow your logic here.

"This should fall into the companies' laps because they didn't take initiative enough to prevent the injury in the first place"

I didn't read anything in Toni's article which indicated to me that the company was negligent in their safety standards and procedures.

Where I work, for instance, we have all the methods and procedures in place, plus regular training and refresher training for staff, plus a safety department staff that continually roams the work places looking for safety violations seeking to correct them. In fact, our State Department of Labor's OSHA Office, and our insurance carrier have both acknowledged that our safety standards and actual safety performance record over numerous years are excellent and rank us in the top 5%.

BUT ... you still will get an employee from time to time who makes a mistake, or who will deliberately for whatever reason violate an accepted "safe" procedure when doing something and will receive and injury. And that's not to mention accidents caused by others, the weather, or some unforeseen condition, occurrence, or whatever.

IOW, SH*T Happens, from time to time no matter how safe one attempts to make a workplace or work procedures. You can only hope to reduce the incidence of injuries, totally eliminating any chances of them is impossible.

My point being about your comment "they didn't take initiative enough to prevent the injury in the first place". Do you have information that backs up that assertion?

As far as the company being responsible for helping to correct the injury as much as possible, that's pretty much a given. For instance, the company for whom I work has been in business for over 60 years and has over 800 employees. So as is inevitable no matter how good their safety record and performance, we've had employees get significant injuries on the job. And the company has seen to it that medical costs for on the job injuries were covered regardless of whose fault the situation was deemed to be.

We've even done that in situations where the fault belonged with the employee. Although we have been known to later dismiss the employee for willfully violating work place safety rules.

But our efforts are to fix the injury that occurred on the job, as much is medically possible. Not to fix the employee's whole life, poor long term health maintenance decisions, etc.

"Pre-existing conditions should not be discriminated against, no matter what they are."

Hmmm, pre-existing conditions are discriminated against by employers all the time. In various ways. And in some cases, quite rightly so.

After all a prospective employer could be considered both foolish and negligent if he knowingly hired someone into a job for which that person, due to pre-existing physical or mental conditions, is unsuited or likely unsuitable. For instance, if yah know a man has a weak heart, previously damaged and poorly functioning, it'd be STUPID to hire him as a manual laborer expected to haul around heavy loads in his arms all day long.

There is a difference between LEGAL discrimination and ILLEGAL discrimination. Our rules and laws do not prohibit discrimination, they prohibit ILLEGAL discrimination.

An employer has a perfect right to say something like, "We require that you pass a pre-hiring physical by a doctor aimed at establishing whether or not you have some pre-existing condition which would cause you to be unlikely to perform these job duties safely and adequately without injuring yourself or further injuring yourself."

"Obesity is something achieved over time. If a company wants to avoid such problems in the future, they should offer fitness programs that help employees stay in shape. (The benefit here is two-fold, because it would likely translate into a productivity bonus as long as the employees aren't pressed for it because they have a fitness program.)"

Sounds good to you, perhaps.

But lets look at reality. The company for whom I work has a fitness room. Its large and roomy, and contains most anything one would want. Exerbikes, rowing machines, treadmills, weight lifting stuff, etc, etc. Free for any employee to use. The company even has a number of incentives aimed at encouraging employees to use the facilities. And its open before, during, and after normal business hours.

But the fact is that the facility is used mostly, almost exclusively, only by those inclined to do some sort of regular exercise routine in the first place. Those who would have done some sort of regular exercise at home, at a private fitness club, or etc.

We have a lot of folks who would probably benefit from some regular exercise, but who never previously engaged in such with any regularity. Many of whom responded with, "Yeah, heck I'd do a regular exercise routine if you had a free facility for me to use."

Chuckle, their intentions were good, their resolve sucked. Very few became "converts" to trying to actually improve their health and fitness as a result of the company's efforts and expense.

The only real (provable, factual and measurable) improvement we had in reducing on the job physical injuries to bones and joints (including backs) was the result of a different program. Each day each person supervising a work group begins the day by making the group do a series of morning stretches and flexing routines. This is NOT optional. A job requirement, on company time. Only takes maybe 10 to 15 minutes.

This has drastically reduced injury rates to backs, joints, muscles, tendons, etc. But we had to make it mandatory in order to get most folks to participate. Even one of our employees who is confined to a wheel chair participates. He just doesn't do the parts of the routine that don't apply to him. Ham stretches, for instance.

My point is that in most cases, strictly voluntary programs don't motivate the majority to participate in them.

I would have to agree. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to OVER-EAT. It was a conscious decision; one in which the employer is now being held at gun point.
Which begs the question; if this happens again, what then?

As you've indicated yourself, there are many factors which we are not aware of. Given the statistics shown in the article (27 million) obesity is rather common. If he didn't have the injury, would either surgery be necessary? We don't know.

If this person's weight was a threat to his life if they performed the back surgery, and it would take years for other methods to remove the extra weight, you're causing years of pain and suffering from the 'injury.'

I injured my back 2 years ago, lifting a desk, for work. I am not allowed to do these lifting activities (and since I've lost feeling/control in some of my toes from this incident, I can't even run for safety/balance reasons) I've gained a good 30+ pounds because I am not nearly as active. My pain varies from day to day, including having pains starting at the tailbone, racing down the sciatic nerves, to the back of my legs.

If surgery could even relieve some of my pain and numbness, you can guarantee they'd be paying for whatever it takes to resolve the 'injury.'

I don't know how many other people will medically require weight-loss surgery, which is preventing another surgical operation directly related to a work injury.

I am happy the courts decided that the work injury demanded proper and immediate medical attention, regardless of any pre-existing conditions.

because you didn't adjust your calorie intake to match your lifestyle. That's your fault, not your employer's.

I work for a law firm, and like it or not the basic way it works is if you had no symptoms of back trouble before the accident then what ever it takes to 'make you whole' is what you get.

There are many examples of this, especially in auto accidents, but in workers comp claims and other claims as well.

The law says something to the effect of you take them as you find them. So if they had no problems before the accident, then you have to restore them to no problems (or compensate them for the loss) after the accident.

Use a different example. A 60 year old woman falls and breaks her hip. She had severe osteoporosis, and due to that her hip had to be replaced. Her hip was fine before the accident, so you have to make it fine afterward. It doesn't matter that 6 weeks and a cast would have been fine for a 60 year old woman without osteoporosis, you still have to do what it takes to make her whole again.

The same is true here as well.

Being obese is not necessarily a life decision that one can make. I have fought it my whole life. I exercise I eat moderate amounts of food, less than most people eat, don't drink pop . . . Doesn't matter, some people have slower metabolisms than others. I will admit I have lost weight on diets, but in the end the Dr. takes me off the diet because it is causing health problems. The only 'decision' I have made is that I will not have Bariatric surgery, unless there was a life threatening event. I have seen too many peoples overall health deteriorate after going through the surgery, constantly taking drugs, supplements and going to the Dr. That is not a life I want.

Obese people have always been discriminated against in the workplace and nearly everywhere else(I know, I am one).

I agree. Obesity is not just caused by life decisions. There is something called a metabolism that most people don't think about at all. I have a disease called Hashimotos' that affects the thyroid and it's ability to make the thyroid hormone that controls the metabolism in the cells. I have been obese since the age of 7. And I have lost a lot a weight in the past but it makes me ill. But because of social conditioning believing that obesity is only from what you eat and your exercise I have been discriminated against regularly. Yet I have a disease and no one cares to find out.

This is a very common condition here in the US and I believe many people have it that don't know it because doctor's even discriminate against obesity. They don't understand the metabolism but want to cut your stomach out. Don't let them if loosing weight in the past made you ill. It's very dangerous. It's lazy doctors going the easy way and not trying to understand what's really happening.

Also all those ties of obesity to other symtpoms and diseases. Do you notice they say their is only a connection? They never tell you if it cause or if it is caused by it. Only secondary information tries to make sound like it's the cause. Why don't they tell cancer patients to go cure themselves, they do it to obese people?

I am sorry, I am tired of the ignorance of this country.

Umm. I just looked up Hashimoto's on http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/h/hashimotos_thyroiditis/complic.htm and it says nothing about weight or metabolism under complications or symptoms. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have a sister and a mother with thyroid problems requiring ongoing medication and they can still eat healthy foods and exercise to maintain their weight.

I don't want to seem insensitive, but I find it hard to accept your argument that obesity ISN'T a lifestyle decision: you still choose what to eat and whether or not to exercise.

First of all don't use Wrongdiagnosis. Their site creates to many pop-ups to be ligitamite. Try the Mayo Clinic's website.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hypothyroidism/DS00353/DSECTION=symptoms

Hashimoto's can cause a condition called hypothyroidism. If diagnosed early sure you can maintian a healthy weight. But when it goes undiagnosed for 30+ years I can show you what it does. Some doctors still argue with me but when, with the proper medicine, for the first time in my life I FELT my metabolism, and my muscles responded properly to my brain. And the good doctors (including the one that diagnosed me) agree with me. The current testing methods only look at one aspect of the molecular pathways and there is a dispute among the professionals of the thresholds for diagnosis. BUT I know from first hand experience what a normal person feels everyday because of the medicine and I can only dream of feeling that way for the rest of my life. Because I have metabolic protiens don't work like normal.

By the way this disease cost me my PhD from Cornell University in Plant Cell Physiology. Because I was so sick there and doctors couldn't look past my weight they didn't find it. I had all the symptoms then. I only did a Master's as a result. Some of those symptoms besides obesity (weight gain) are depression, brittle finger nails, hair loss, hair prematuraly graying, hoarse voice and the list goes on. There are even more symptoms that are not listed on the Mayo's website. Like Tinnitus and hypermobility and Fibromylgia (researchers are just starting to understand this). I know it because I experienced it. Obesity does not cause your hair to gray or for you to have brittle nails or your voice to change. It also does not cause Dyslexia but thyroid disease does and I have been dyslexic from childhood. Obesity has made my life hell because of the ignorance of people.

Just so you know while I was a college student I worked out at the gym for 3 hrs a day, everyday and ate healthy but never got below 180 lbs and I am 5'3". I lost 80 lbs in high school only by eating 900 cal per day and exercising an hour or more a day. Those are anorexic by most standards but because I was never skinny was not even considered. By the way I still was considered obese then.

If you have your health enjoy your body because I know what it's like when you get old. I call this disease the "Half life disease" And I am only 37. The thyroid is responsible for a lot of the symptoms of aging. For me this is a genetic disease. My family has it. My grandmother had Thyroid cancer and her identical twin had extreme hypothyroidism before she died at age 46, She went undiagnosed and it contributed to her premature death.

I hope you can begin to understand the pain and frustration of the discrimination heaped on top of having a disease that effects every cell in your body.

Thanks for your patience. I feel somewhat for your frustration when I tell people about my daughter with Type I Diabetes (a genetic condition) and they choose to criticize us (her parents) for her eating habits because they get it confused with Type II Diabetes.

In your case, your disease would be classified as a disability, and therefore entitle you to protection under ENDA. The catch, of course, is that few prospective employees are going to ask if your condition is a disability or a lifestyle choice. You may be forced to bring it up in interviews because they will always take the safe side and not ask. If you volunteer the information, I would hope that they would look at the challenges you have faced and see that - rather than someone who ignores their condition - you are doing the best with what you have.

Then you understand from first hand experience. It's difficult to fight stereotypes and I appreciate your asking for more information. I also appreciate you mentioning ENDA. I had no idea. Never knew about it or I could have forgotten. I have been very fortunate to work for the same company for 10 yrs and survived rounds and rounds of lay-offs. But I will educate myself on it, regardless. Thank you.

I'm sorry for your lot in life. And I couldn't agree more with what you say. My husband is a large man, he always has been. It's frustrating to read these posts and see the vitriol against heavy people.

My husband has a horrible metabolism. He does excerise, his diet isn't perfect, but it's far from extreme. And he is heavier than the average person. He isn't lazy, he certainly didn't CHOOSE to be big. He hates it. I have watched him over the years struggle with the weight. I'm sure if he cut his calories to next to nothing, worked out for hours a day, and denied himself all the foods he enjoys, he'd probably have more success.

But who can do that? People with a normal metabolism, people who DON'T struggle with weight are very quick to point out what a heavy person should do to fix their problem, but if they had the same issue, could they hold themselves to the same standard?

Thank you. If the people making these very quick points on how we should "be"*, lived in your husband's shoes or mine ... I won't go on it's not pretty.

* - Even though they have no idea how we truly live and only judged us by our looks.

does that mean that you would hold your employer acountable for an injury occured directly or indirectly as a result of your obesity? If I ask you if you can perform a work function and you are in the middle of that function and sustain an injury associated with your weight, are you going to blame it on me?

I have just read a Wiki article on obesity "search OBESITY" and it made quite interesting reading.

It seems to me that although you have a genuine condition for which you are not to blame, there are many others that do not. You unfortunately, are tarred with the same brush because there are people out there that are not willing to admit they do not have a disease, rather an astounding lack of will power. And that is what this post is about.

Please do not take what I have said personally, but I am not willing to risk my business and my family life because of a fear that someone might take me to court and make me responsible for something I have nothing to do with.

Actually be careful. Those obese people are less likely to take you to court then someone who is skinny and pours a cup of hot coffee in their lap at work. Obese people tend not to want public scrutiny as they get it enough without bringing more upon themselves.

Obese people tend also to be kinder and more understanding because they understand pain. They also don't play the "come here, come here, then go away, go away" games. They don't play social games. They are more honest as well. You might be missing something because your only looking at the shell. Some of the brightest minds are in people of size.

Now if the job is a physical job and requires them to lift and move that is an issue. But there are many many jobs out there that don't. Not every one was built to be a professional athlete.

You take a risk everytime you hire anyone.

What about someone who has another condition, who says they can lift XX pounds and then gets hurt? Unless a Dr. has told them they can't lift XX pounds, they may not be aware of it.

Some examples:

Bone conditions, Muscular conditions, Epilesy, Vision problems, balance problems,
I could go on and on.

The point is that there are literally 100s of conditions that can't be seen, may or may not be diagnosed, and are far more dangerous than simply being overweight.

What about the person that just wants to 'hit the jackpot' because of an on the job injury, so they milk it for every last dime, many managing to get disability even though they are in near perfect health.

Discrimination will always be there, and it is easy to discriminate based on color, size, sex or other physical characteristics. It is much harder to discriminate based on things that can't be seen, but they are often much more troublesome.

My main bone of contention, and I have mentioed it on a few posts here, is based around the issue of self-discipline and pride in ones self.

Now, there are those that are perfectly happy being obese (not simply fat) and choose to ignore the sense of a doctors arguments or the concerns of family and friends. Fine.

These people are a risk not only to themselves but have clearly demoonstrated that beyond all reasonable sense, they choose to be unhealthy and risk health problems.

That lack of common sense in ones own being does not inspire confidence in my being able to trust them with making common sense decisions. A lack of pride in how one looks is also a good indicator of how much pride a person has in other aspects of life.

The cnditions you brought up in your comment though are rarely the result of self abuse. The exceptions to the rule would be situations whereby the individual has taken drugs, is alcoholic or some other sort of substance abuse. Where substance abuse is the cause, it is difficult to give the person a chance and thereby a job.

Where this is a natural medical condition, the individuals are excluded from a great deal of jobs. People with eye problems can't drive, muscular and epilepsy conditions preclude someone from being a surgeon, balance problems stop someone from doing most things.

And there you have it - discrimination.

An obese person is not as agile or able to move around as fast as someone of a healthy weight. That loses me productivity.

If the obesity is the result of nothing more than heavy, undisciplined gorging, then I could find myself with someone constantly off sick (certainly an illegal discrimination but show me employer that does not take it into consideration) and that costs me money and man hours. That and the fact someone else has to take up a second persons workload if I can't afford to replace him.

A colleague of mine has a friend who broke his neck in a swimming accident, and since the accident has taken up employment as a developer and he is an extremely talented one. That proves that disabilities related to health are not necessarily disabilities in the workplace and I understand and respect that.

Each time I meet with him, he is a true ambassador for his company, professional and talented. He is always clean shaven, well-dressed and groomed and NEVER complains about the almost constant pain he is in through nerve damage.

Then I meet the obese man who has to swing his legs out of his car and pull himself out because his legs cant stand weight. Between the car park and the office he breaks out into a sweat because the effort is enormous. He has to walk up 2 flights of steps stopping at each landing to catch breath. By the time he opens the door to the office, he is so tired he has to rest for a short while before continuing his job. When a client meets with him to discuss a job, he spends most of his time rubbing his sore knees or stretching off his back because the lumbar has taken a beating just to get to work. The client looks him up and down and sees big sweat rings under his arms, the sweat still dripping off his forehead.

And I could go on.

I mean, come on, would you lookat this person and think "I wish this person represented my company". Or would you think during the interview process "this person has a problem and I see no advantage to him being here if he is likely to be off injured with an issue relating to his back and I have to pay him".

I know mine is a controversial and hated opinion in these matters, but my business comes first. If I think you are not going to represent it as I believe it needs to be, then I don't want you.

Wow, I wouldn't want to be your customer. Because that guy you just described maybe the only one who knows how to do the job correctly and you didn't hire him because of how you judged him by his looks. Not by his mind and his ability to do the job. Very shallow.

By the way if he is struggling that bad he needed help from a doctor that cares. Because his body is failing him. And as I have said before it may not be his fault. You have no idea what his genetics are or how his metabolism works. And for you to judge him so cruelly is not any help to him. Unfortunately many doctor's have, I am sure, given him the same treatment over the years and have not helped him a bit. I know because I have lost over 200 lbs in my life trying to do what doctors told me and I am still overweight because I have a disease called hypothyroidism they never addressed. But NOBODY CARES. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

To many doctors can tell you no more about obesity then what you hear on TV because they don't believe in their Hippocratic oath and don't care. They take the easy way out. What med school they graduated from is beyond me. They should have their licenses revoked.

Your metabolism happens in the mitochondria of each cell in your body. If the genetics are off one bit, it can mean life or death. Count your blessing you don't have a problem.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
-Matthew 7:1

If you had two candidates for the same job, both equally skilled and experienced, both with pleasant outgoing manners, both with a determination and drive to suceed that can only benefit the company but one LOOKED healthy and the second looked like a potential regular entry on the sick list, which one would you choose and why?

My previous medical condition left me gaining up to 675lbs when I worked for EATON; they hired me because I was the only one that could pass the test. Now I'm sure they wondered if I'd make it; the plant was 5 miles long if you walked the length and breath of it, and I walked at least three miles everyday.

It also involved some climbing and heavy lifting, and somehow I did it. But my weight continued to bounce up and down despite everything I tried to do to control it. I went from that original weight down to 350 and then they'd close the plant restaurant and I'd go back up to 475 lbs.

There was no rhyme nor reason for it at the time; I finally had to quit, and I fully expected to go home and die. It turned out to be sleep apnea, and it is taking everything I can pull out of my @ss to learn how to change my endocrine situation so that I can finally get rid of the harmonics, and receive some normalcy in my life. I still have hope, and things are looking up lately.

They thing was I don't remember EVER losing a single days work at EATON and my boss practically cried when I left, because he realized I was saving the plant big money in consulting fees for maintaining their CNC, robotic systems,oven, and induction burners.

I may have been suffering but my performance did not. The only specialized equipment they bought for my employment was a three story heavy duty lift. Which later gave them a huge ROI as all the other maintenance personal could use it too, when I wasn't. I gave the company three good years before my health just gave out from brain damage caused by lack of oxygen when trying to sleep. The factory has since been converted to mostly building green technology like wind farm generators.

Yes I agree also. Anyway I'm not talking bad about my wife here but just giving an example. My wife and I used to eat the same things she cooked and yet I haven't gained much weight because I think I have a high metabolism. But at the same time my wife has gained weight. She started eating more healthy and exercising almost everyday for a year now yet she has lost much either.

for the very insightful post. I hear you all the way!

My problems started slowly at first with the weight gain, but sleep apnea was the root cause. After having it for 15 years undiagnosed; it fairly well trashed my metabolism. I have found a way of hope finally, and I will finally be able to loose the weight after curing the sleep apnea with a CPAP, and some very careful tweaking with supplements and diet plans.

Now I'm finally able to increase my exercise regime, and hopefully finally get the weight loss as a result, instead of scary wild harmonics in my endocrine system!!!

Despite now being disabled through Social Security, I've been getting job offers! Looks like some people can look through the health problems when they see a competent(hopefully more that competent) worker.

Is beyond your own question.

Takes someone outside you to say that, given what you have related this late Sunday night.

Awe.

human perception so flawed. However it is very hard, when injury puts you three months or more behind!

Thanks for the rep! Sorry I'm so far behind on my follow ups! Got a back injury last week too! Oh Well!

Cataflam is such a wonderful drug!!

While fat people can indeed be accounted to some degree for the health problems that they have caused themselves, just as in the case of smokers, drinkers and other forms of addiction (carpal tunnel for too much pc or console gaming comes to mind as a non addiction example), you cant say that they must pay for that surgery because simply put, if a judge ruled that way the line of the responsibility of the company would become blurred.

The ?make whole? part ensures that no abuse is done in the name of ?real or perceived? differences between workers. Should a judge discretionally decide what can or can?t be paid as a consequence of an accident in the workplace? If the answer is yes, then it would be in detriment of the rights of ALL workers (fat or not) because companies would always have a better legal team to make the case.

This is a situation where one must understand that if the law didn?t work this way, even if it seam stupid somehow, it would be worse for the general public if done different.

Firstly, I will preface this by saying Insurance Companies suck (I was the victim of a car crash years ago and insurance companies made a rather unpleasant experience all the more unpleasant); it seems numerous countries need some serious Compo law reforms...

BUT the real point of this is, BMI and most other 'obese' formula's are RUBBISH!. Prior to getting smashed up, I was in NO WAY OBESE. I was a state level sprinted in the my teens, retained a fairly decent level of fitness and had comparatively low Body Fat percentage - yet according to a few different medical formulae, I was borderline Obese (my Dr and I used to find this quite amusing)... Why was this so? Primarily due to my height! I'm only 5'9", but I'm just one of those people who is wide across the shoulders; at that stage I was something like 42" around my chest.. I played a lot of Touch Footy, Hiking, Cricket (yeah, Im Australian , Riding etc... But still, the formulae said I was overweight!

So, while I do not have a solution, I am suggesting (to any employer who wants to make Height/Weight part of an application) that BMI should NEVER be used to Gauge a person's 'health' - BMI assumes a 'Statistically Average' human; you're always going to find ppl outside the standard deviation to whom this does not fairly apply to... Such as me!

Lotsa money out of everybody's pockets, and return little. What they do return, is often only because they've no legal option not to.

someone who developed hypothyroidism that has a pre-existing medical condition will sue the living hell out of them.

There are people with weight issues who are genetically predisposed to be heavier, just like people are genetically predisposed to be more likely to develop cancer.

Does this mean employers will expect a 5 generation medical history from your family before they hire you?

This is just absurd. Someone thin can fall and hurt themselves too, and then some physiological reason would prevent treatment.

This is just another scapegoat by business to get away from their responsibilities.

of any bureaucratic type body (business or government) having too much control over an individual's private information.

Anyone can look at me and tell I'm overweight.

That's public.

Besides, your medical information is not priviledged to secrecy when it poses a threat to your co-workers or clients. e.g.- employers of tuberculosis-infected employees are responsible to let their clients and co-workers know of their communicability.

But, being fat isn't private. For God's sake.

Does this mean employers will expect a 5 generation medical history from your family before they hire you?

i mean if you have thyroid issues...and it's familial (like with me and my mother)...maybe they have a right to know what you're pre-genetically disposed to? So that they don't incur a risk?

Shouldn't they know what risk for cancer, early-onset alzheimers, and any neuro-muscular disease you might be in for?

I mean, what happens if you're driving a rental car going to a company meeting with 3 of your co-workers and you have a medical incident and kill yourself and everyone else in the car from wrecking?


See, it isn't fair. I can understand that if someone has TB or some communicable disease, or even if their weight poses a likely threat to the safety of co-workers...fine.

But simply saying because someone is "overweight" will cause them to be fired...is just preposterous.

I bet 70 percent or more of TR's members would end up getting fired just because IT and IS is such a sedentary occupation.

either don't have the condition, or control it through their own voluntary actions. In those cases, knowing the predisposition can be of no purpose except to discriminate.

Just how much "heavier" can be medically excused? 200 lbs? 300 lbs? 400 lbs?

While because of conditions and genetics, not everyone is going to be thin, but have you ever heard the term "average build"? Maybe because that used to be the average?

There has to be a cutoff on where REASONABLE accountability by the company, as well as reasonable responsibility by the individual.

Thanks. There's a point in there.

BTW just like someone who has a genetic predisposition to obesity.

Others have not been allowed in the workplace because of their genetics too.

Just keep that in mind.

Next thing you know, they'll want to stop bald people from working in jobs because the glare might blind someone driving a forklift.

It is the tall, attractive male with the full head of hair that is most likely to get the higher promotions.

I also used to get discriminated when I was the wild long hair. Many places would not hire me then either.

None of this is new.

I guess that's why I need to go to Hair Club for Men before my hair meter hits empty

I've never had a problem getting hired. In fact, I've turned down offers.

I'm waiting on a call right now to interview. Hopefully I'll be able to do it next week.

Exactly my point, but the problem is NO ONE can really establish that clear cut point. Weight is not enough, a 200 pounds guy can be perfectly fit is he is very tall or has lot of muscles. That means that a very complicated formulae would have to be necesary, and then the s#it hits the fan, because people will start to scam companies and companies will start to scam people (specially the latter). So is better to leave the law as it is or the little man (no pun inteded) will end suffering.

it does not matter WHY the person is over weight, it is NEVER the fault/blame/responsibility of the employer. As soon as it becomes their fault, they will just stop hiring heavy people.

Unintended consequences come back to bite the stupid all the time.

the point I was trying to get across earlier..
"As soon as it becomes their fault, they will just stop hiring heavy people"

not too terribly hard to grasp..

those bariatric cases that are truly not caused by simple over eating; many of them can be attributed to other causal health factors, and there are many more of them, than just glandular conditions. Some people react to health problems with spontaneous weight gain. Some cancers can cause this also.

Some folks get very slim and gaunt when they get sleep apnea, and some of them become hideously over weight.

Because I refuse to pay for someone's lack of self-discipline. Being overweight in a time of gyms and personal trainers all around the country just shows that you don't have the discipline (i.e. self-control) to regulate your own body.

And yes, while I'm sure many people will disagree with the argument "I was born that way" I call ********. You could have gotten your ass out of that chair away from whatever video game or put down that Jolt cola (or whatever excess sugary / fat concoction you shovel down your gut) and gone and chose some healthy food, gone worked out, and anything else to lose the weight.

Why should I have to pay for your stupidity. Answer I (nor should any other employer).

for anybody with a 'mental disorder'?

Get your brain in gear, come on man pull yourself together. In a time of increaced access to shrinks and other facilities I call *******.

See where this is going?

Again, Why should I have to pay for your stupidity - what is that you say, they were born that way????

I agree with him. I have worked in so many different environments I can hardly begin to list them. But I have witnessed a single constant in most of them:

The older, wiser people tend to be generally healthy albeit tending towards being slightly overweight. These people don't necessarily exercise or eat the most sensible food, but the are the people that realise there is more to life than lounging around on a sofa.

The younger people are the ones most likely to suffer from obesity and there are many reasons for it. It could be they like watching TV all day, or they eat only junk food with no exercise or, most likely, they stay at home, play PlayStation (for example) or chat all day on the Internet. There is quite simply no discipline in these people for them to realise all on their own that there is more to life than a monitor or TV.

These are the people that I believe the post was addressing and not those who for whatever reason are disabled and for you to suggest that is somewhat ludricrous.

But having said that, I know of disabled people, adult and children, who have an enormous amount of energy and drive that healthy people simply don't have.

And if a lazy is obese and as an indirect result of that obesity becomes injured, then why should I have to pay the full treatment for weight loss.

Read my post above; it will be my practice from now on.

was not the question, was it?

The energy and drive that a lot of people with disabilities have make them more employable and more attractive to me as employees than the person who blames their injuries through obesity on an employer who did nothing worse than give them a job.

The energy and drive that I am talking about comes from a deep-seated self-pride in ones own worth and any person that lacks this quality in themselves in not going to be of any use to me.

if such a person was Obese?
What then???

Besides the person who blames their injuries through obesity and obesity alone would not have a leg to stand on in court, unless the company forced them to be so.

Someone will get surgery to become slimmer because they need a back operation. Why do you seem to believe the employer should pay for that?

The older, wiser people tend to be generally healthy albeit tending towards being slightly overweight

But age and a slowing metabolism can lead to a SLIGHT tendency towards being at the upper edge of an ideal weight.

And if the person was 25 and 300kg as I have only yesterday watched on TV? And his problem was eating, nothing medical.

Way to generalize my entire generation. I'm quite frankly insulted by your over-generalization of the age 18-35 group. Just because I like to sit in front of a TV all day from time to time, or play video games, or chat online doesn't mean that I can't choose to eat healthy, exercise, or generally do things that do not consist of "lounging on the sofa". You basically stated that my entire generation is fat.
Have you even interviewed anyone in my age group? You do realize that people come in all shapes and sizes, no matter their age, background, creed, race, etc, right?

People like that will be put out to graze soon while we got on with running the world.

.

If you think I am generalising then let me be a little more detailed.

I worked in a school for several years and the picture on average was bleak. A lot of kids spent more time bluetoothing pictures and music from phone to phone and playing PSPs than playing football or doing something physical. They DO spend a lot more time (whether you choose to accept it or not) on gaming stations and Internet chatrooms. The term "Playstation Generation" is not a term I coined, rather a term to generally describe a less physically active generation of young people. Lack of physical activity is one problem among several. If I am imagining this then so are a lot of other people, and they are people a hell of a lot smarter than you or me.

I spent a lot of time in the military from the late 80s onwards. At that time, while I was posted to Germany, we would tour the country at least twice a month, visiting different cities. Of course we had a few beers, and we certainly weren't saintly, but we enjoyed everything that was around us to the fullest. In this time, I was a member of the British Under 21 Olympic development squad in Biathlon and held regimental records in our 1.5 mile run at 6 min 50. What is it like now?

At a weekend the younger guys go drinking on Friday, sleep Saturday until they regain consciousness, lounge on the sofa playing Call of Duty until the first person walks into the room with the first slab of beer and it all starts over again.

We are talking about 18-19 year olds that cannot do that 1.5 miles in 11.30 minutes! Work it out, and you will see that is slower than a casual walk! If you were to see people in their mid-40s passing these young men then you would hold the same opinion. It is disgraceful.

I have been project manager here in Germany for a number of years and the younger members of the team (people I personally interviewed)are almost always the ones that can talk a good job but are essentially clueless and dare I say it, more workshy than their older peers.

And, closer to home, my own stepson prefers to sit at his PC and chat with his friends rather than go round to their houses to talk face to face. And they live a 100m away!

I am not trying to generalise in terms of an entire generation. What I am doing is looking at the average youth when I was 18 and the same age group of today.

Something needs to be done to rectify what is a potentially life-threatening state when kids simply think that life is about lack of motion. You aren't like that and I am glad to hear it. But many are NOT like you and that presents problems that affect not just the youths themselves but a lot of people they come in contact with.

And back to the post. If you think it is acceptable for someone grossly overweight with a naturally vulnerable back problem to have their operations funded by an innocent employer who did nothing worse than offer someone a job, then look closely at why you think that is acceptable.

There is no mention of the parents of the "Playstation Generation", which I am a member of I think...

What about the parents that were too busy to go toss a football with their child? Too busy to take them to the park and play? Maybe they were too lazy? Maybe they didn't want to cook a healthy dinner and grabbed something from McD's?

A lot of people's choices come from their environment. If they see their parents sitting around watching TV and eating fast food, what do you think the kids will do?

My dad was involved and encouraged me to do physical activities. I didn't have the proper nutrition growing up and I was very skinny. Now as an adult I don't eat as healthy as I should but I do exercise.

Still, I look at some of my friends who are obese... Look at their life choices, how much they eat, how much they exercise... Then I look at their parents, they are generally very similar. These people, I know for a fact that their obesity was not caused by a medical condition, their obesity caused the medical condition, knee problems, back problems, etc...

If a parent sees their child is playing too many games or being lazy or not eating healthy, then they need to do something about it!! It is all in their control during the early years! Get them interested in sports early and they will most likely stay athletic later in life too.

But if the parents can't motivate their own children then somewhere down the line we have to call it a losing battle.

Why does someone sitting on their couch playing video games or watching TV have less discipline than someone that is active outside? That's such a stupid double standard.

"OOOhh I go out side! I bounce a ball around! I'm better than you!"

What the hell? There are 6 billion people on this planet and they pretty much all fall into a bell pattern of behaviour. There are a lot that sit in the middle, that watch TV, and go for walks and play video games, and there are some that exercise more, and hike and shag in the rockies, and others that live more sedentary lives, that like the indoors, enjoy indoor activities, like scrapbooking and World of Warcraft.

It doesn't make their value less than yours, just because you think your healthier. Maybe your younger. Maybe you have more energy. But maybe you don't have to work two jobs, all you have to do is go to school, and read a few books.

SO what if someone wants to play video games, or watch TV, or chat online. Human's have designed this vast entertainment field so that people can use it. People created World of Warcraft so people COULD spend hours and hours playing it... why else would there be such high character levels, only attainable by much play? Hollywood & TV pump out so many shows that you could spend your life watching them, never leaving your house.

But so what?

As for older, wiser people, you definitely must work at a college or university, and not at a blue collar job, where many of the older wiser people are unhealthy and don't take care of themselves. Many of these people work all day, in hard manual labour. Many of these people are drug & alcohol abusers. Not all, but lots.

And for this guy, who knows? Maybe he had a thyroid problem. Maybe he suffered from depression.
Maybe He's around food all day, and all the sampling he does in the line of work causes him to be obese. He's was cook wasn't he? Don't you want your cook to be fat and jovial? Isn't that the preference? At least we know he likes his cooking. Maybe the company should pay, since making sure the food taste good is part of being a good chef, so he was FORCED to become obese.

...

I don't agree with the ruling either, btw. But, by looking at restaurants like Mike Peppers, or Cactus Club, or any of those "we hire sexy busty yummy people only" restaurants, I don't think it's going to change company hiring much. If the cook was good enough, they would hire him anyway. I think this is not a very common problem.

I am not talking about degrees of healthiness. I never expect others to meet the level of fitness I was at (and have now lost) and I am not judgemental of people that may be slightly overweight.

My gripe is with the people that drain the health system through unnecessary obesity that leads to health problems such as a compressed spine, heart problems etc;

As for me, you are right to a point: I did work in a school for three years, in the Army for 14, self-employed with my own business for the last 4 years. The environments I have worked in have been political, educational, the military, financial, engineering and production and sales. I wrote what I have wrote based on what I personally have witnessed with my own eyes andcertainly not what others have told me.

Your point about why World of Warcraft was built is right of course. It is so people can spend hours in front of the screen playing it. I am now aware of 4 cases where kids have played themselves to death because they haven't slept, eaten or drunk enough water. As strange and unbelievable as it might sound, it is true!

Oh and by the way, I have no argument against your point about fat chefs.....my father always said don't trust the food cooked by a thin chef!

Mental disorders are a condition you are unfortunately born with. No one chooses to be bi-polar (although I think far too many people self-diagnose as bi-polar when they're just moody) or to have schizophrenia. However, this guy did choose to eat himself to the point he was too fat for back surgery. That's got to be pretty fat. Stupidity is doing things that you could have controlled, but chose not to.

However, this guy did choose to eat himself to the point he was too fat for back surgery.

The article doesn't say anything about the cause for his obesity. Sometimes, it's not an eating issue at all. What if it's genetic? What if he's taking a prescription medication that has a side effect of weight gain? What if he has a medical condition that is contributing to the problem?

Your jumping to the conclusion that because he is obese he is a compulsive over-eater is essentially the same as my jumping to the conclusion that because you don't understand all the causes of obesity, you are ignorant.

Links:
Hidden Causes of Weight Gain - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0846/is_9_21/ai_84599063/
Is Your Medicine Cabinet Making You Fat? - http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56339
Surprising Causes of Weight Gain - http://altmedicine.about.com/cs/treatments/a/WeightGain.htm

etu

I can't speak for our European counterparts, but Americans have devolved into a Politically Correct, Excuse Making, pansy-as*** bunch of cry-babies.

Nothing is my fault anymore; I get to blame it on my mother, my father, my kindergarten teacher, my priest/rabbi/imam, my therapist - whatever.

It used to be that Nature, in its infinite wisdom, punished stupidity; now we have laws protecting the stupid. The result is our society, as a whole, has begun a slow downward spiral.

The moral: Drink yourself into cirrhosis, smoke yourself to a stroke, and eat yourself to obesity; there is a court somewhere willing to blame it on someone else.

You are absolutely right!

I am so tired of hearing the excuses everyone puts forward for their own bad judgment through life.

I am nearly the oldest worker in my IT group of 20, and even with my high blood pressure, I am by far one of the healthiest and take fewer sick days than any of the younger workers. I exercise almost daily and watch my weight consistently.

Yet every year I see my health care premiums go up the same amount as the people who smoke, over eat, don't exercise and do many other unhealthy things.

There is something wrong with this system, and much of it began with the worry about being "politically correct" about everything! I'm not vertically challenged... I'm short and you won't offend my by calling me short and offering me a step stool so I can reach the server at the top of the rack!

When will this nonsense ever stop?

But to address this topic directly, workman's comp should have to pay for the back injury but not the weight surgery. (It probably could be argued that the extra weight contributed to weak muscles in the back, which contributed to the likelihood of a back injury, and therefore the company could argue that it is not responsible at all. Unless of course there was gross negligence on the part of the company like standing water, or something that someone could trip over and cause the injury.)

........me as a careful driver with 18 years of accident-free driving having my premiums increased because the younger generation think driving under the influence or racing in the streets is cool!

The sort of political Correctness being demonstrated here steps across the line into stupidity and is the sort of thinking that makes the smaller businesses go bankrupt!

Be careful. It may not be the obese that are driving your rates up, but the those who get injured every day playing sports or other risky behaviors as sky diving, hiking, snow boarding, skate boarding.

Oh, but they are doing "healthy" things so it couldn't be them!

In reality it's probably the greedy lawyers the insurance company has to pay. But you don't really know why your rates are going up do you? But you believe it's fine to pick on the obese, because it's easier and you can see it.

Be careful everything is not as it seems.

But those involved in dangerous sports are unlikely to be sueing the employer for operations in those cases are they? And the pursuit of their sport does not mean they are out to purposefully injure themselves.

Gorging and lack of self-discipline (I am in no way referring to those with medical disorders) is self-harm and far more damaging than any other type of accidental injury.

As I have said many times before, if a person cannot have self-discipline and pride in themselves, how can I be sure that they can while working for me on my behalf?

Thank you for acknowledging. Although Obese people are not out to get you. You fear them to much. They are no different then skinny people and you should not fear them.

How do you know they don't have a medical condition. The doctors took 30 years to diagnose my condition because of fear of fat. They never listened to my parents or me explain all the other symptoms and didn't care. As a result I am obese. If they had diagnosed me properly when I was younger I never would have gotten this bad. Obesity by the way is only one symptom. I have more that are less visible that cause me pain every day. But I think one of the hardest things is that I suffer in silence when I gets stares like I am freak from people who judge me to be a fat slob and I can't do anything to stop it. And I know what they are thinking because you can read the disgust on faces. And they have no idea I have a disease. And it is just as painful as any of my other symptoms. My dream is just to be normal.

I have worked in IT for the same company for 10 years (a Fortune 500 brokerage - yes, I survived many layoffs because I am good at what I do) and have been in IT since I was 10 when my parents ran their own computers store which I helped out with. I have two Bachelor's of Science degrees from UC Davis and a Master's from Cornell. And I take extreme pride in my work. But you can't tell that from looking at me because I did it all with Dyslexia and hypothyroidism, a disease that has cause me to look like a freak in the eyes of people. That is why you need to look past it. Because fat people are real people with real dreams of being successful and they still take pride in their work. Sometimes mores so then skinny people. Because skinny people sometimes are to preoccupied with their looks to care about anything else. And yes that is a stereotype of skinny people that I realize is not true in a all cases. But it can happen. I am just giving an example. Fat people are real people who can take pride in their work. And you should fairly consider them regardless of their size for the job. Fat people can be genius's, but you wouldn't know it until you spend some time talking to them. I know some.

You've made a lot of posts..and some good point as well.
I do feel you are taking this a bit personally though. It seems you've been exposed to some bad attitudes from others, which is not something you should have had to experience.
No one here is judging an individual person for being obese. Everyone has thier story, and yes, its a shame you weren't diagnosed earlier. I wish Dr's would have cared to listen my moaning and b!tching everytime I said "i'm hungry all the time, I'm so tired I have no energy". FInally one did and a simple blood test figured it out.. but even so..no magic involved..i have to deny myself everything in order to lose weight.

I wish you all the best, remember happiness comes from within...

Sue the tobbaco firms, alcohol producers and McDonalds. Because they obviously forced their product into your body!!!

There is a viable argument for smoking of course for smokers because manufacturers many moons ago advertised it as being healthy and social but the times changed and the truth became known.

But can we really use eating ourselves into obesity as something to blame on someone else?

"But can we really use eating ourselves into obesity as something to blame on someone else?"

Many people do, and that's the problem. If these people are eating too much unhealthy food and not exercising then they should have nobody to blame but themselves, but there is always someone to blame and that is what people do.

As mentioned many times it's all about being responsible for yourself.

New Flash... There are diseases that affect metabolism. Would you tell a cancer patient to go cure themselves? I have a disease called Hashimoto's Thyroiditis and affects my ability to metabolize. This a is very common disease that goes undiagnosed because of ignorant doctors. Look it up.

P.S. I went undiagnosed for years because of discrimation. And I still get discriminated against.

While I agree that obesity in general can be avoided in part by healthy lifestyle choices, your generalizations about overweight people are not only born of ignorance and intolerance, but flat out worng as a stereotype, and are a sign of your far greater stupidity.

It's opinions like the one you posted that encourage discrimination, and perpetuate stereotypes. The simple fact is this: the medical condition of a person is far too individual to be stereotypically classified. Each persons metobolism and psycho / social profile, as well as thier medical history plays into thier overall condition. Until you become a psysician, you are in no position to judge.

As a medical professional, I make these (inflamed) remarks in that context, but I'm obviously pissed about your remarks, because the opinion you posted, unfortunately, is far too common, and is most likely prevalent among the majority of the population, to one degree or another.

I suggest that you visit a library and get an education.

Until then, I suggest that you change your screen name to JimFool77

For your comments. It has always amazed me as a young person in school how badly my fellow students bullied the 'fat kids' in school. Based on the comments on this board, that has not changed. The last time I saw this much vitrol was on Jon Gosslin's Good Morning America interview.

The people I know who are overweight are not lazy people who can't stop after six slices of pizza, but are people who are so swamped and busy they have no time for themselves. Easy to say, 'so make time', not so easy when you are trying to work, raise a family, run a household, after school activities, etc etc. Many of them eat normally, but they don't exercise and have sedentary jobs.

Instead of assigning blame and continuing to bully people like this, why not be supportive and ask how you can help? Oh that's right, its easier to hate people.

Good post. Thanks for posting it.

Ok, let me put it another way (since my first statement was overly harsh as you say).

Individuals (fat and thin) have a choice in this world (regardless of the genes they were born with). Most choose to sit there and say hey, I'm fat anyway, so I'll be proud of being fat. Or people become fat and say, well I'll try.

I think I'm very qualified to make statement I did, one it was my opinion, two I am a fat person, and I did it to myself, I'm also working to get myself back in shape and I have very little sympathy for people who complain that they can't do better, yet shovel McDonalds', pizza, soda, and other not healthy sweets and stuff in to their stomach.

And, no you don't have be a medical physician to know that 1 LB = 3500 calories, and if your daily intake is close to that per day, or for some per meal, then yes your gonna get fat, its not gonna just disappear on its own.

If an employer doesn't want to hire me because weight is going to be an issue, well guess what that might be a ******* clue to do something about it.

Hey if I can do it so can you!

Yet millions smoke - hang on is that not a FAR GREATER thread to the workforce.

Do you smoke?

I am quite self-disciplined as is evidenced by the facts. I have held paying jobs for 35 years. I have studied music and taken private lessons as a hobby for all that time.

Other facts: I have had weight loss surgery because I was not able to lose weight by your formula of eating less and exercising more. I have also been diagnosed with lukemia. Did I get lukemia because I was undisciplined?

You sir, have a very narrow view of people. It's too bad because there are so many of us out there that you will never meet by going to the gym.

We accept that you are productive yet still face some health challenges. My dad has cancer (in remission) so I am not unsympathetic. My question is this: do you expect your employer to pay for your health conditions directly or is that a function insurance should take care of? The whole point of this lawsuit is not to determine whether or not someone has a condition, it is to determine if an employer should be liable for a condition when it wasn't job-instigated or job-related.

The ramifications to small businesses are chilling as most of them can not afford to pay medical expenses like this case, which probably ran close to $250,000 or more. For many, that would put them out of business - which helps noone.

Excellent question. And to the point, health insurance doesn't cover it. They discriminate against obesity as well. I believe it should be a function of health insurance. They will help someone who plays football (by choice) and injures their knee or if a sky diver (by choice) has a sky diving accident but not someone who is suffering from a disease that causes obesity.

Small businesses have buy workmans Comp INSURANCE to cover these types of costs and injuries. Unless the business was not properly insured, the company would not bear the cost directly or entirely. The company WILL face higher premiums in the future.

Non of that will matter anyway, in the near future Obama Care will take care of us all. First they will pay for everything, then when that cost gets too high, they will get rid of the smokers, obese, the elderly and all the others that society shuns, to save costs. If you don't believe me go through and read all these posts again. I can hear it now.

He smoked, it was a lifestyle choice, we don't pay for choices.

She is fat, lifestyle choice, we don't pay for choices.

They are old, they have had a good life, time to make room for the young healthy people.

Don't believe me? Look at other national heatlthcare systems around the world. Many use their life savings and come to the US for treatment rather than wait for months or even years on lists in their own countries. I know at least 3 families that have been through exactly that.

Most people in this discussion are ignorant. And I would assume that many would tell you that you did get lukemia because you were overweight.

That would be total BS.

It's nice to see someone posting some sense. Good luck to you.

Oh good, "personal responsibility". I think you might enjoy reading my whole response...

Let's look at some of the things that many people have to take time away for, for the sake of personal responsibility when not the responsibility of their fellow countrymen:

1. Keeping up with the latest IT technologies is time consuming in of itself. (or whatever industry they are in that has rapid development)

2. As is formal education. (and earning it rather than just going and expecting straight "A" grades for doing nothing, since that's what people think is the case of all Americans these days... :rolleyes: )

3. I injured my back at work, I do a lot of computer work at home (see point 1 too). When I saw the chiropractor who (accidentally) twisted my neck so a disc would be rammed into my spinal cord, with the subsequent doctors blaming it on either anxiety or the anxiety pill until involuntary spasms had me collapse once too often... recovering from surgery was fun too... I'm not the only one to endure this sort of thing... I'm doing my bit by remaining "economically viable" so don't blame me... or try to.

4. My diet isn't sucking high fructose corn syrup throw a frigging straw. I don't eat McGarbage. Some chocolate, yes, but my diet is not excessively sugar, like how you would want it to be so you can justify your blind "reasoning". (On edit, since it pertains to fighting your myopic misconception: My diet contains lean meats, vegetables, whole grains, limited fruits, and an equally limited number of sugars. I try to avoid the corn syrup garbage when possible and let's hope that confectionery companies don't blindly equate "sugar" to "corn syrup" and use the latter while calling it the former...)

5. People who have families and want to raise their children responsibly.

6. Oh, if we don't sleep so we can make the time for everything else, that brings in health problems too and you'll still find reasons to cherrypick problems instead of looking at other perspectives.

7. If job searching is a full time job due to this joke of an economy, they're not going to have the time on top of everything else to run around in a circle for an hour per day... assuming other health factors induced by third parties.

8. How come processed rubbish food costs so much less than proper vegetables and other good foods? People are trained, like doggies, to go after what's cheap and not what's good...

9. You don't want to pay for other people? Okay, fine: Don't use any services we all pay for: a library, road, social service, a large number of universities, any corporation that gets government subsidy... any bank thanks to the bailouts... drinking water from your tap in your kitchen... or some airlines... car companies... indeed, if everything was privatized, you better not live in a neighborhood deemed "unprofitable" or else you'll be driving on potholes that are concealing bigger potholes... I could go on for ages.


I could go on for AGES. But maybe you'll understand there's more to life than your cozy Rush Limbaugh-fed viewpoint.

The problem with many people in this country, and exemplified by JoeCool and Rush Limbaugh is that they are so focused on their own greed that they lose sight of what personal responsibility really means. Then we wonder why this nation is in the condition it is.

It is a bad precedent and one that people in the country continually support: I am not accountable for my own decisions so make it someone els'e responsibility to fix. Toni Bower's implication is dangerous to think that employers are paranoid; the cost of doing business should not include your employees bad habits.
It people like her who are bringing this country down with their liberal ways. I discriminate everyday when I chose to eat salad vs pizza or pepporoni vs cheese. Get over it!!

If I run a struggling business that employs a fat person that keels over as the result of their weight, I run the risk of my business being ruined and my life lying in tatters to pay for this person (who was fat at the time of hiring) to live a good life later as a think person because they didn't have the will-power to do it themselves.

Why?

Read my first post. This will be my philosophy from now on.

Companies can't or they would have to fire every so called 'fat person' they curently employ. What if the owner / your boss was themself a 'fat person'.

I'm sorry - people allow for other physical anomalies but for some reason they can't accept weight as being in the same catagory.

Lets just hope these people do not develop an anomalie themself.

So, based on what yoy say can I now do this - I'm not going to employ any bald people from now on - they must stress to much as they have no hair. Likely to have a breakdown at some point and cost me money.

There are a very few instances in which obesity is caused by glandular or other medical conditions. The great majority of overweight people got that way though their own choices. I have no particular objection to this -- most of the time it has no effect on job performance -- but I certainly would not want to pay extra workers compensation to correct such a pre-existing condition. Obesity is not in the same category as Down Syndrome, dyslexia, or other congenital condition -- it can be controlled through the person's own actions.

In order for one to "volunteer" for something, one must have made a conscious decision to do so. I'm fairly certain that if you ask anyone that's overweight, they'll be happy to inform you that they didn't just wake up one day and say, "I'd like to be fat". Just doesn't happen.

Lack of exercise is a key contributing factor. We can thank a proliferation of sedentary jobs, longer commutes and a litany of other things for adult obesity. We can thank things like video games, overall reductions in play space and the nerfing of the world (kids are actually *supposed* to be able to do things that hurt).

That said, there's an ever-increasing prevalence of foods that are simply HORRIBLE for weight. It's also much easier - both in prevalence and ability to find it - to get food that's bad for you than food that is good.

The corn lobby bears a lot of blame, in this area, as they are pretty much single-handedly responsible for the proliferation of HFCS in the U.S. diet. Hell, even Mexico, with all it's other problems, has identified HFCS as a health issue and bans its use. Other, thinner nations tend to have another commonality: not HFCS. In the US, though, HFCS makes foods containing them much cheaper (ridiculously so).

It's far cheaper for people to eat diets that are bad for them than for ones that are good for them. It's part of why there's higher incidences of obesity as you go down the economic scale. Look at the average weight of a shopper at a low-end supermarket than at, say, Whole Foods.

Toss in the ever-increasing use of prescription medications - *many* of which contribute to obesity. Now you've got a near "perfect storm" of conditions for creating a fat population.

Unfortunately, the US has exported this. Look at the world as a whole and you'll see that obesity rates are increasing all over the place. It's even increasing in the "healthy" countries - due to many of the same reasons as above.

Maybe they didn't volunteer to be fat, but they have made a conscious decision not to do anything about it. Why should the employer suffer because of a single persons unwillingness/inability to exercise self-discipline?

Employers suffer because of a single persons unwillingness/inability learn, read, write, perfrom simple calculations and make an effort.

Why single out weight as the main factor?

you can blame the corn lobby and you can blame video games but there is something called personal responsibility - not everybody is fat, or a smoker or a drunk. If you cant say no to that 4th or 5th slice of pizza, and if you cant press pause and take a 30 min walk its your fault - don't blame the corn lobby.

YEs, I see some of your point..
One day ya wake up and yer jeans don't fit..what the h*ll?? Ya creep up in size..not intentionally..but it happens..
fair enough
But some day you have to wake up and think "holy cow..i gotta lose weight.."

When you can't buy clothing that fits, that should be a clue...

Now there's a difference betweeen being 20 pounds overweight and 200 pounds over..
At some stage you have to take responsiblity for your own health..

ANd that shopping cart full of fruit and vegtables does not cost much more than the cart full of prepared meals, frozen tv dinners and chips and cola.. The problem is, the fruit is not full of fat, salt, sugar and chemicals which your body actually craves like an addiction.

My hubby and I have been eating healthy for a few months now, and our food bill has gone down by about 40%. Once you eat decent for a while, you no longer want the bad stuff. Due to illness, we fell off the wagon for a week..on Sunday all I wanted was fish and salad..and it was soooooo good...and i felt so much better after dinner than i had recently...

just the want to eat healthy?

What about next year, the year after and so on....

Did you have the holy cow..I gotta lose weight day or is that conjecture on what someone may say?

I am not affected by the recession, so no, its purley a health thing. I was only trying to point out that purchasing healthier foods is no more expensive than buying rubbish.
The money I have saved on food has been directly channelled into buying new clothes!! So no saving in the long run

I actually did have the "Holy cow" day...
Threw all the **** out of the hosue, went to the store and bought decent food.

As for next year and the year after and so on..hopefully by next June I will reach my target weight and then maintain it.
I've found once you stop eating the sugar, fat and salt..you don't want it anymore. Even when you do decide to "treat yourself" to soemthing nasty as a reward, I don't enjoy it and actually feel sick..so am even stopping that.

Not going to say I'll be skinny..don't have the build for that..but I'll be healthy..thats what I am aiming for.

That is part of the problem. Particularly in this economy, bare-bones (particularly organic) food that contains less additives and more nutrients without being overprocessed, over corn syruped or over pesticided costs MORE than boxed or fast food. The food the govt. used to give to people on low incomes is/was generally cheese (high fat), butter (ditto), and milk (fat AND growth hormones/antibiotics) BUT it is better than starving. Lower-income people also eat a lot of hot dogs/high fat meats, ramen, mac and cheese, and canned foods - or whatever is on sale, which limits the nutritional value. When you eat nutritionally-empty foods, your body isn't satisfied (of course) and wants more; when it wants more and all you can give it is more garbage, you have an endless cycle of weight gain.

I pay a high dollar for the stuff I eat that has its original vitamins and 4 vs. 24 ingredients (why in heaven's name do certain frozen SALMON filets contain high fructose corn syrup?! I'm not making this up!) and I know that the typical family with kids can't afford to eat quickly AND healthfully. It is a triangle - cheap, nutritious, fast, and generally you can't have all 3. I take longer preparing the fresh foods I eat and am thankful that I can afford them, but I know I'm lucky.

But the US is much cheaper than Ireland..i can guarentee you that.
I'm actually from Canada..and in my life back there, I lived on bare bones wages. I know how hard it is to budget for good food, but I did it. I can proudly say that while living below the poverty line, my daughter grew up eating decent foods, not garbage. Now, wasn't organic..didn't exist back then really..but I did my best and that all you can ask people to do.

Its all about knowing what to buy and what to do with it. Amazing how little it costs to make stew or soup if you pick the right ingredients. I think some people are a bit deluded on portion sizes as well. I gotta say, when eating out last year in the US..i could not believe the portions given..unreal..I could barely eat half the food I was given most times...and that was walking away extremely full. (and don;t be under any illusions that I am a skinny girl..I can eat when I want to!)

Like you, I now pay top doller for my food..I can afford it..so I do. Organic milk only, same with chicken, fish when i can ect.. the interesting thing is, the fruit and veg i buy organically, lasts 3 times as long in my fridge compared to the studd that has preservatives.. i guess this is because the cheaper stuff is such a low quality? Any ideas?

Ah, the reason for the fructose in your fish, is because they inject them with fructose laced water to increase the weight of the product. You think you are buying a 500 gr packet of fish, but in truth you only getting 400 gr.
Watched a program on it a few months back..I cna't rememeber the reasone for the fructose, somethig to do with the way it "stays" in the product rather than seperating out.

Not saying its easy to eat well on a budget..but it CAN be done..but you have to be prepared to invest some time and preparation into it.

Say someone was born with a gene that makes then susceptible to say cancer. They have no idea about that until, bang they have it. So what about people like that are you not going to pay workers compensation to help correct such a pre-existing condition?

Down Syndrome (well, you can find this our before birth and is dependent on the parents and age at conception - to your argument is flawed there for so many reasons long before employment comes into it - bad example)

Dyslexia (but is that not just a myth for lazy learners, no - see I can just brush that off just like you do with Obese people)

FYI - I'm not obese myself in any way but can't stand when people generalise based on a stereotype.

What about the people who you admit where it is caused by glandular or other medical conditions - do they have to now prove this before getting a job, come on!

So now only people with ZERO pre or existing conditions with good genes can be employed! - Way to go, well done!

10 pounds overweight is an anomaly. 100 pounds overweight is a lifestyle choice. I'm not saying not to hire fat people, but if we're going to hold employers responsible for the bad personal choices of employees, then maybe they should be able to discriminate. If, as the owner of a business, I'm held responsible for stapling the stomach of my employee that just couldn't stay away from the Ho Hos and Ring Dings, then I'd have to factor that in as a potential cost of hiring said employee. If, on the other hand, we're going to be sane about things and say people are responsible for their food and lifestyle choices, then the employer shouldn't be able to discriminate, since it has no bearing on the employees value to the company.

Discrimination on its own is choosing one category over another, in this case for jobs. Laws spell out what is illegal discrimination. This is to make it illegal to discriminate based on things not related to one?s ability to do the job and contribute to the firm?s success.

People are should to be financially solvent to take positions of financial responsibility. Therefore, it is legal for banks and insurance companies to discriminate based on a bad credit rating. Warehouse labourers must load and unload cargo, so it is legal to discriminate on physical ability.

Employers are responsible for the success of their firms. Not just for owners and shareholders, employees need to be safe in keeping their own jobs. It gets a lot more difficult if they need to pay higher premiums because they must hire people that cannot take care of themselves. It also gets more difficult if they must hire employees that cannot show up and do the work because they?re at home sick or in hospital. Where the safety of the firm is at stake, I can see why someone would want to draw the lines on smokers and overweights.

Employers should be able to discriminate against you more as you get older? After all, as people age, they're more likely to suffer from illness and disability than their younger counterparts?

Employers should be able to discriminate against women? After all, they have higher incidences of a number of things that can negatively impact their work attendance (depression, migraines, etc. are all more common in women).

Employers should be able to discriminate against parents? After all, children get sick. This frequently requires parents to take time off to attend to those children's needs. Children are also often carriers of illness to the home (look at H1N1 and others for examples). This can lead to parents missing work due to both their children's and their own illness. Worse, those same parents will likely come into the office and cause others to lose work by carrying their kids' illnesses into the office.

With obesity, we're not, necessarily, talking about things that directly impact ability to work. We're not talking about someone so fat that they won't fit into their work place/space. If the candidate is otherwise fully capable of doing the duties of their job, it doesn't make sense to discriminate based *possible* future health issues. If you think otherwise, then you also think that each of us should be genetically tested as part of a job screening. After all, if it makes sense for an employer to screen against something like obesity, it makes sense to screen against something like a predisposition to cancer or other diseases.

Older people have experience that more than makes up for illness and disability. Also, they're not out that much more than their younger counterparts that take similar care of themselves.

Women and men both have unique issues for time off. In fact, men often get similar time-off benefits for newborns and adoptions.

Parents, while they may need time off to take care of their kids, also get management and maturity to deal with their work situations better.

All three of those are part of the standard life cycle. There is nothing standard about smoking. And there is something that can be done with obesity.

That said, with a non-physically demanding position, I'd not consider obesity as reason to discriminate. The example in the article here is specifically one that cost more because of the extent of the obesity problem. Food service work is physically demanding. We're not talking about a desk clerk that's keying figures.

It has been said that this case may cause 'discrimination' with the employment of obese people.

Discrimination is quite a harsh word which is thrown about without thinking. For someone running a small company 'discrimination' probably equates to protecting their income and family. If someone is overweight, surely that is their responsibility?

WHAT A FARCE!

ONLY in America could something like that happen! The US courts seem to have lost their common sense to the stupidity of irresponsible (read IDIOT) lawyers. What worries me now is that Australia is starting to follow the same idiotic trends.

How can something "pre-existing" be NEW??? The mere definition of the word "PRE" refers to something before!

Beware of the spate of future prospective employees that are overweight, looking for a job wherever they think they can get their weight loss surgery done "for free" after a work related "accident".

What a joke. If I was an employer I would use this ruling to have a prospective employee have the weight loss surgery as a precursor to being given the job. 99% of the time the overweight job applicant will do nothing about weight loss.

kind regards

Peter

If you think lawyers are bad now, just wait until America gets its new health care plan. No tort reform, and written by lawyers and lobbyists for a President who is a lawyer and represents a party that has little interest in tort reform and traditionally sides with anyone who can attach "VICTIM" to their case. Interesting times.

well that will be particularly bad for the IT industry...as IT professionals aren't known for their physique.

Carefully choosing the foods, and AMOUNT of food, you eat is also crucial.

It's amazing how many foods are very high in fat and calories, and that's even if we stick to the serving sizes on the box. And how many people really pay attention to serving sizes?

Therefore, it is possible to lose weight just by watching what you eat, even if you don't become more physically active. I've lost 35 pounds this way. In the long run, it also saves money because you're not buying as much food as you used to.

Some food items have as many calories as one person is supposed to eat in an entire day, and as much fat as one person is supposed to eat in an entire week. See Eat This Not That for some vivid examples.

Yup, quite true. I dropped 40 lbs. a few years ago (and *kept* it off) by switching from Hardees for lunch and McDonalds for breakfast to home made sandwiches for luch and oatmeal for breakfast. I feel better, look better, and my health is much improved!

J.Ja

I would say carefully choosing the foods is THE MOST crucial. Then exercise.

And not so much about the fat as it is about the carbs (For the vast majority of most people, especially with the fat bellies of the metabolic syndrome.)

Carbs = Sugar = High-Insulin = Fat accumulation, Diabetes, Cravings, NAFLD, Blood Pressure, High Triglycerides, etc...

Read on.
(Dr. Eades, Gary Taubes, etc..)

Carbs also equal fiber.

No dietary fiber = higher cholesterol = circulatory problems = weight gain. No dietary fiber also = increased chance of colorectal cancer.

Can't win for losing, can you?

The point is moderation and responsible eating, not some fad diet with unknown long-term effects.

I have to pretty stay away from em...

potatoes, bread, rice, brekkie cereals, sugars...can only have very small amounts
bread or ryvita maybe once or twice a week...and sugar in my coffee..

fiber comes from fruit and veg

And actually don't eat many of the "bad" carbs. Being on a high-fiber diet, though, I do eat lots of brown bread, oatmeal, and whole wheat products in addition to the beans and bananas. When it comes to the starchy foods, I usually only eat pasta or potatoes once or twice a week, and I might eat rice once or twice a month. Never been over-fond of sugary cereals (except maybe Cocoa Puffs, but that's chocolate).

I'd lost 10 pounds when I was at the gathering and lost another 5 since, but I've been plateaued for a while. I'll probably have to start taking a walk in the evenings on top of whatever activity I got at work that day.

bananas..forgot about those, i eat one for breakfast each week day

I've lost a good bit since the gathering, but now the past 2 weeks..being laid up i have put on about 3 punds..no excersice, and eating a bit of junk food..my own dang fault..

Off-the-shelf jellies and syrups, along with from the grocer's freezer (and most bakeries) are so high in sugar that the flavor of the fruit is secondary.
This bugs me no end.

http://www.polanerallfruit.com/polaner/index.html

Worth the price...

But I do mean jelly when I say jelly. I don't use it as a catch-all containing jams and preserves, too.

Syrups are the same way. Screw it. I make my own. And my failed jelly is excellent waffle syrup.

I don't touch the stuff.

Amazing how many things I have had to cut from my diet completely to lose weight..

Some of these "fad diets" concepts have been around since William Banting in 1863 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting) and have been the common wisdom until the late "Fat-Is-Bad Craze" of the 70s.

What also came late in the human diet is the use of wheat bran as dietary fiber. It is harmful and I for one would avoid it and prefer more natural sources that has been in our diet for millions of years. (Vegs, Nuts, Fruits, Etc.)

prejudice is prevalence - who said no fiber?

Please excuse my English as it is not my native language.

Weight problem, more like health care reform problem. Seems we need health care reform to keep our discrimination issues at bay? Statements like "follow the money trail", "pain and suffering" and "suck it up" come to mind. What about job descriptions that state "must be able to lift 40 LBS". I had job interviews where potential employers turn me down because I was skinny and did not look like I could lift 40 pounds.

According to the BMI scale (which is simply a height/weight ratio), I am borderline "obese" because I am 5'10" and 215 lbs. According to reality, I am carrying significantly less excess fat than the average American. What accounts for the difference? A lot of time in the gym spent lifting weights. When i applied for life insurance earlier this year, I discovered that my weight was an "issue", even though I am in fantastic shape, because they used the BMI measure, instead of something that took body type or build into account; I had to spend a few weeks hitting cardio and cutting back on my eating to ensure that I made weight.

That being said, I beleive that taking weight into *insurance* decisions is perfectly reasonable. Just like insurance companies charge more for smokers or people with histories of drug addiction (both of which cost a fortune to treat should the consequences come up while the person is insured), people who are overweight cost the insurance company a lot more money too. The alternative is to raise the rates for EVERYONE in the group substantially.

However, it is illegal (to the best of my knowledge) for an employer to take the cost of insuring an employee under consideration when making a hiring decision. That being said, I *know* that many employers do this anyways! It's one reason (out of many) why you never mention if you have children in a job interview, or if you plan on having more. It's also another reason (again, out of many) why you never come into a job interview smelling like a smoker. Unfortunately, weight is something that is pretty hard to hide in a face-to-face interview.

J.Ja

I'm not sure what to think. Over 7 years ago, I was beyond obese, but my current employer took a chance on me, even though she was rake-thin. I've been self-conscious of my weight since I was 5. That's almost 4 decades of worrying about how big I was, if the boys liked me for who I was instead of what I looked like, and the only response I could form, in my youth, was to excel in school. So, all those fat jokes you're holding back, shove 'em back in your sock and leave me alone. *I* know what I did wrong over the years, and many years later, I can see that *I* am the only person responsible for what I shoved in my mouth.

Do I drink? No. Do I see staff members come back from lunch so loaded that they can barely focus on their monitor, let alone any task they've been given that day? Hell yes. And I think about the "choice" they made to drink nearly a case of beer over lunch.

Who's worse, me for overeating for years (and I have self-esteem issues because sh*theads like some of the posters I've read this mroning encourage that kind of mentality I now have), or the alcoholic who can't stop at one beer for lunch, and will drive drunk back to the office?

Honestly, they're both as bad. And you're right, these are CHOICES that are made.

Personally, I think the employee made a VERY bad decision in working for a restaurant. I've known since my teens that working in that environment would lead to weight gain, which is why I lasted a whole 2 weekends at Rotten Ronnie's back in the late 80's.

And in those days when I was desperate for a job, I still quietly thank the manager at Tim Horton's (Canadian coffee shop chain) for turning me down, because she thought I couldn't keep up. It was discrimination because of my weight, they didn't have uniforms in my size, among other things. In retrospect, it was the best outcome of that job interview.

I'm still on the fence. On one side, I know all too well how hard it actually is to lose weight, especially when there's more than 50#'s that have to go. (I've lost 100#'s in the last 7 years, it was my time for a healthy lifestyle, and I still have another 70 to go.) But I find it appauling that an employer would have to pay to "fix" a weight problem in order for the employee to have surgery to correct an injury at work.

I support close to 100 lawyers and judges (along with the rest of the IT staff), but after reading this article, and the Sparkpeople.com article that was the same, I'm glad I'm not a lawyer or a judge.

Yes being over weight is unhealthy, but deny someone a job because of it is just wrong. Yes I am overweight, but I was an active kid in school I did football, wrestling, and basketball, however still remained over weight. There are plenty of reasons people are over weight: 1, yes lazy and sloth, 2, Genes, yes some are over weight because it is carried through there dna. We do not need to look like super models to get a job done. If there are employers reading this, just think if you hire based on weight, and you passed up on the "fat guy" who has 10 times the experience then the "normal" guy who is as useful as a wet paper bag. That "Fat guy" could of been who you were looking for in your want-ad.
Sully

The problem is that an employee was injured on the job and before an effective treatment could be administered that employee needed an additional treatment.

There are some harsh opinions that the overweight and obese have made a choice to be in their condition and should pay the price for that choice. The employer also made choices in the work environment that led to the employee to be injured.

The employee in this case was injured on the job. The case does not say how overweight he was although it implies that he was severely overweight. The case does not mention how long he worked for the employer, if he worked for several years then he should be considered to be a good employee. The case does not give details on how the injury occured, was the employee following proceedures or was he taking an unneccesary risk?

Don't be so quick to judge on skimpy details. There is more to the story than we know. Be gracious and hope you are never the subject of this kind of controversy.

ok, before I open up, for the record I'm seriously overweight. I'm also a sysadmin and have been for many years. As such, I am the person tasked with coming in during the middle of the night for hardware upgrades so users are not inconvenienced during the day. And put in a full day on my regular shift too. Don't assume that overweight automatically equals useless or risky. I've kept going when guys half my age have stopped and crashed.

Now, to address the original article. I do not agree that the company or health insurance/worker's compensation should cover the weight loss surgery. It's a pre-existing condition that the employer is not responsible for. Repairing the damage from the work-related injury is their responsibility. The operation to do the weight reduction is the individual's problem in my opinion.

Then again, I'm a geek, not a lawyer.

Being overweight to this degree is due to something called addiction. When somebody is addicted to alcohol or drugs, they get sent to detox and rehab. When the addiction is sugar we get insulted, assaulted and/or ignored. Even though the base issue the same - it's an addiction. Anyone ever try to give up smoking? On their own? Ever look up the failure rate? Even with medical help? That is why addiction is a medical condition.

Lazy? ok, I sit at a desk these days. It's called moving upwards in my career. I'm hardly a drain on anyone's resources. Just the opposite - I'm the one who volunteers for things. Also have taught part time and chasing a history degree part time for the fun of it. Lazy? I don't think so.

Some of you wouldn't even consider hiring me due to the size of my waistline. Not the first time I've encountered this. I've faced blatant discrimination due to my weight. Ditto for the hearing aid in my right ear.

Guess what - I feel sorry for you guys. You're purposely turning your back on a valuable resource. Whether it's ignorance or hatred doesn't much matter to those of us who endure it. Yeah, it's my responsibility. Not yours, nor health insurance nor the government. But taking responsibility for yourself seems to be sadly lacking in today's society. Too bad - I still remember when people gave a damn about each other.

But tell me something - if you're going to refuse to hire someone based on their weight, where do you draw the line? How much is too much? Maybe you don't like bleached blondes, so anyone with light hair automatically gets their resume tossed in the garbage. Silly? Of course it is. But when you start denying people jobs or rights due to physical characteristics, where does it stop?

To those who battle weight problems, God bless you and never give up hope. Those of you who look down on us, I feel sorry for you.


Russell

That several management gurus have noted that frustration on the job will cause a man to gain weight -- remove the frustration, and the man will lose weight.

That's an interesting observation, particularly if it is true. Let's suppose it is.

Then we can blame bad management for overweight in many cases. Therefore, the decisions for lawyers, judges and juries should be very clear in these cases: Sue the socks off the management which caused the problem.

Well, of course, it's a point of view and it might not be true [so why did we buy those management books from the gurus that said it?].

But you have to admit, it is an hilarious idea. And fat people are supposed to be jolly, right?

Where will you weigh in on this topic?

And these days, it's as easy to find stress as it is to find high fructose corn syrup. And both are placed in society for the sake of being cheap instead of being effective.