Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I ran a company I'd want people who were efficient and not too costly.
So a "healthy" smoking man vs a healthy man.
Well it is possible the smoking man will outlive, outwork and although he takes several smoke breaks a day, gets more done than the healthy man who is not efficient in his work.
A 40y/o 300lb woman vs a young yoga fiend woman.
Let's say the big woman costs me $2500 more per year than the yoga girl. Perhaps I can even pay the yoga girl less because she is unexperienced.
However, my customers or whoever, LOVE my older heavier worker, and she easily earns me $10k annually than the yoga girl, OR several other workers put together.
There are so many variables. So to come in and say "no smokers, people over 250lbs, drinkers etc." is freaking ridiculous.
So while I'd want my employees to cost me a least as possible, it's a double edged sword IMO.
Have fun debating this.
I guess my answer would be NO, it is not okay, because it just isn't a smart way to think.
First we kick out the smokers and fat people, then we're right back to not allowing "blacks" to work.
Here's how unregulated free market capitalism works. You hire the cheapest people you can get who will do the most work for you and earn you the highest profits. You cheat them out of their wages if you can.
If you don't like it, then don't extol the virtues of free market capitalism. Instead, advocate a regulated economy in which the government decides what is good for the whole people.
Governance boils down to three options:
1. Everybody does what they want.
2. A tyrand tells everyone what to do.
3. You grow up and learn to make compromises.
Jtur. So you agree that just because someones
religion says they need to pray to Mecca
six times a
day they should
not be allowed extra
breaks as it costs the company money?
Six times a day during work hours? Which religion is that?
If you wish to stand up against the evil of the almighty dollar, defending the workplace rights of fat people is surely one of the most ineffective places to start your campaign.
Money over people? yep, I'd choose people.
Thinly veiling this argument, as they have in the link, to "encouraging" the obese and smokers for a healthier lifestyle is just BS. It's all about the Benjamins.
Firing people because they smoke at home, or when they're out at night for fun, not working, but don't smoke at the office...c'mon!
That's soooo far left that it's right again. Ridiculous.
It has nothing to do with controlling medical costs. That is not a legitimate argument. If so, then it would be do not to hire women because the coverage for them comes at a higher price. Just because one smokes or is overweight doesn't dictate what future cost would be. If that were true, they would be forced to look at people with HBP or the medical history of the family, those carry more *weight* than where someone tips a scale.
Ha, if that was true then why was my vastecomy free while our last normal childbirth cost 8,000 bucks? Why does my insurance pay me 100 bucks every year to lose 10 pounds? Why can't my dad get insurance now that he is diagnosed with sleep apnea? You'd better belive it's a cost issue...the only thing keeping them back from more severe biases are those annoying privacy laws.
Well, sometimes the liberty of one person runs up against the liberty of another, and then what do you do? What about the employer's liberty to select his or her employers at will, using good standards, bad standards or no standards at all? Come on, it's their business. Employers are already constrained by Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA. Do you wish to impose further restrictions on them, by making it illegal to reject smokers or obese people? Wouldn't that be an erosion of the employers' liberty?
Ha, if that was true then why was my vastecomy free while our last normal childbirth cost 8,000 bucks? Why does my insurance pay me 100 bucks every year to lose 10 pounds? Why can't my dad get insurance now that he is diagnosed with sleep apnea? You'd better belive it's a cost issue...the only thing keeping them back from more severe biases are those annoying privacy laws.
A vasectomy is done in a doctors office, in and out in an hour. With giving birth you are admitted to the hospital, that is why it has the costs it does.
Insurance is nothing more than a business, businesses' offer incentives.
It is a proven fact that it costs more to insure a female over a male.
Cost of medical insurance is not a factor in employment. An employer lays out what they will pay of whatever the employees portion is. Often times, that percentage is company wide, sometimes not. But the point is, an employer is going to X no matter what the bottom line is.
As far as those annoying privacy laws? Be careful what you wish for......
I for one am thankful for them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
