What habits should employers be able to discriminate on?

[andygirl]

This (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/171/region/Waitsfield_employer_says_it_wo:.shtml) article in the Boston Globe discusses a company that explicitly states that they do not hire smokers, even if they do not smoke at work.

Relevant bits:

''I have found that smokers tend to be sick more often, are less productive, and do not make as good employees as nonsmokers,'' said company owner Don Mayer. ''So we choose not to have them here.

...Company employment ads tell smokers they need not apply.

Although I don't think that any reasonable person is going to say that smoking is good for you, I find this trend a bit disturbing. Smokers might have poorer general health than non-smokers, but what about any number of things that lend themselves to poorer health such as alcoholism, drug addiction, or morbid obesity? What about diseases such as HIV or diabetes?

I've heard this called "health profiling" before. What say you, Teeming Millions? Prudent company policy or yet another step towards loss of privacy and rights?

[Bearflag70]

Funny. I was thinking about this the other day and considered starting a thread. Now, here it is.

Here are my thoughts with no evidence to back any of it up...

Our firm justy hired a smoking legal assistant. She needs to take breaks and leave the office now and then to smoke. What if we needed a rush document and she was suffering a nic-fit? This could present risks that a non-smoker might not present.

You don't have a right to a job, and there is nothing particularly intrusive about asking whether someone smokes (as opposed to asking whether someone intends to have a baby, for example). Smoking can have an impact on performance. AFAIK, smoking does not qualify as a "disability" worthy of legal protection.

The state should pass laws giving employers and express right to ask about smoking habits and allowing employers to discriminate against candidates on that basis. The state should simultaneously release a study showing that smokers tend to take more breaks and increase health insurance costs. Health insurance providers should give discounts to "smoke-free" employers.

If employers started doing this, maybe the health of the population will increase as people stop smoking to save their jobs.

[Guinastasia]

Well, I don't know about smoking. I would think the obvious might be, say people who don't bathe, people who pick their noses constantly, that sort of thing.

With things like diseases and drug addictions-I guess it would depend on the type of job?

[WV_Woman]

I think employers should have the right to discriminate as much as they want. And I say this as someone who has DEFINITELY been turned down for jobs because I'm fat, and I have been fired once because I'm a Christian.

Why?

If someone goes through the time, trouble, and hassle to set up a business, they should be able to choose who works there.

Now watch this:

Say all anti-discrimination laws are repealed. What business owner in their right mind would discriminate?

Let's say you're oh ... black. Are you gonna shop at a store that will not hire anybody black under any circumstances? Didn't think so.

Ditto if you're Chinese, Christian, Jewish, Hispanic, etc etc.

Get rid of the laws and let these morons who would only hire their "own kind" hang themselves with their own rope :)

[Largo62]

My vote is for prudent company policy. If you've ever tried to operate a business you know how precarious your situation is, even if you are well financed and knowledgable in your field. Everything that hinders your business in however small a way is costly, and such issues as overall health of employees are of enormous importance to the ultimate health of your business.

All employers discriminate, which is to say "choose" whom they will hire. They choose to employ people who not only will perform their duties well, but who will not cost the company money because of health problems down the line. The choices they make may seem arbitrary and unfair, especially if you are the one "profiled" out of a possible job, but I believe they are completely legitimate. I say this as someone who has been discriminated against (never admitted to, of course) because of age and obesity. I hated it, and was angry at the time. But on reflection, I realize that older people have more health problems than younger ones, and obesity only adds to them.

These expected health problems are expensive to an employer over time, in lost productivity and medical insurance costs. The employer has the right, IMHO, to "profile" people for characteristics that might have a negative effect on his/her business.

That said, I still support existing laws against racial and sex discrimination. I'm not so sure about age, though, for reasons just given, and I would amend the Americans with Disabilities Act to allow a more flexible, case-by-case treatment. In some cases it (the ADA) entirely takes away an employer's right to make "prudent company policy." But that's for another thread.

[jmizzou]

Our firm justy hired a smoking legal assistant. She needs to take breaks and leave the office now and then to smoke. What if we needed a rush document and she was suffering a nic-fit? This could present risks that a non-smoker might not present. I used to work as a server in a restaurant, and the non-smokers were clearly more productive than the smokers. The smokers would often waste time going for a cigarette, particularly during the busiest portion of the day when their stress was the highest (which was, ironically, the time of day when there was the least amount of time to waste). In cases like that – where bad habits have a negative effect on job performance – I believe that employers should be able to discriminate against potential employees. However, I do not believe that a blanket “no smokers, ever” policy should be used, as some smokers can resist smoking while on the job.

[Guinastasia]

W_V Woman-you were fired because you were Christian?

What exactly happened?

[WV_Woman]

[hijack]

Guinastasia, here's the story in a nutshell.

I was working for an independent State Farm rep, part time, doing office grunt work. When he hired me, he told me to take my office and make it my own ... put up pictures, etc. I was allowed to have a radio, which I kept on a Christian station. (We have a REALLY good Christian radio station here.) Bossman was cool with this as long as I didn't play it too loud.

One day my boss called me into my office to tell me how wonderful I was, and how the plan was to keep me as a temp until October, then he would hire me as *his* employee. This was because State Farm HQ reimburses their new agents (which he was) for a lot of stuff their first year, and apparently HQ was paying all of his bills for me. Basically, he wanted me to be a temp as long as possible, so he wouldn't have to pay for me (temp agencies are expensive). What I'm trying to say is that on this particular day, a Friday, he had long term plans for keeping me there.

The next week, to decorate my office, I brought in a poster entitled "Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Learned from the Bible" and put it on the wall. It didn't even MENTION Jesus, it was basically paraphrases of verses from Proverbs: stuff like "Don't embarass your parents," and "keep your word," -- stuff like that. The stuff it said was just general wisdom that you can find in any belief system.

I came in the next day and found my poster on my desk, taken down. I kept it down until I could talk to my boss. He told me he had taken it down because "we don't want people to get offended."

Bear in mind my office was in a place where NO customers would *ever* see that poster, unless they passed by my office to go pee, which rarely happened. Plus bear in mind that WV is a pretty conservative little place. You can't throw a rock without hitting a church ... so it's not like the chances were great that, say, a raving atheist was going to walk in, see it and withdraw their business.

But hey ... it's his office, and he had the right to dictate what was on the walls. No problem. I took it home and thought nothing else of it.

That Friday, he calls me into his office and fires me. I "just wasn't hearing him," he said.

This is the part where I remind you that the previous Friday, he was singing my praises.

There was another Christian that worked there, but she was completely mum on the subject. I guess I was just too controversial for his world.

[MsRobyn]

First of all, it is legal to be fired for being Christian, if the employee behaved in a fashion that the employer considers obnoxious; for example, if the employee was actively proselytizing other employees, or leaving religious materials in public areas, the employer is justified in firing this person. It's not the belief that's being punished, it's the behavior. Witnessing in the workplace can lead to a harassment claim against the employer, and no employer is anxious to have to defend one of those. In fact, several people at my old job were threatened with termination for religious e-mails and magazines left in the breakroom. Others had complained and management felt that it might open up a harassment claim at worst, and at best, an equal-opportunity claim. And when there're e-mails involved, and the management knows about it, such a claim would be virtually indefensible from a legal standpoint.

There are a number of conditions that will probably not land you that job. Smoking, for one. Obesity is another. It has to do with risk management. Smokers get sick more often, take more and longer breaks, and incur more health-insurance claims. The obese also get sick more, sustain health problems like degenerative joint problems, chronic cardiovascular disease, and some severely obese people require special furniture designed for their size. Also, if they sustain a workplace injury, it's often more severe than a person of normal weight would sustain.

Do I think an employer would be justified in discriminating against these people? Depends. I don't want to work next to someone who smells like an ashtray, and I wouldn't want to risk problems from another employee who may have asthma or allergies who isn't reacting to the smoker well. On the other hand, if the potential employee is competent and otherwise is a good match, then we might get around the smoking thing.

Same for obesity. If the person can do the job, then fine. If the job is very physical (and even some office jobs come in here), then probably not. But if it's not, then I don't have a problem with it.

As for the religious thing, I think that religion has no place in the workplace. What you do on the weekends is no affair of mine, but I also expect that what I do on the weekends is no affair of yours, either. If employees want to meet for lunch at a restaurant to have a Bible study, then there's nothing I can do to prevent it, but the minute the church enters the office, there is a lot that I can do to prevent it, and I have been known to do just that.

Robin

[Osip]

IIRC I ran across a company who went a different route to lower the number of smokers on the payroll.
They offered a a yearly bonus if you did not smoke.

The time lost because of smoke breaks are small. Most places are required to give employees a break when they work a set number of hours.

I have yet to run across a problem with me smoking and my job.
It is no different for me than taking a long plan ride. Nicorette gum or the patch works to keep the nic-fits away.

I can understand companies desire to hire the best capable empoyees possible. Smokers do statistically take more sick days than non-smokers.
Yet, where is the line drawn?
If you start looking to profile people based on life style you can always find something.
(hypothetical examples that may or may not be linked to facts)
People who own pets are healther than non-pet owners...
Screen for diabetes?
Married men are less risk for car accidents and live longer than a single male.
People who excersice life better healthier lives than those who do not.
People who eat healthy as opposed to fast food junkies?

where is an acceptable place to draw the line?

[Apos]

---I think employers should have the right to discriminate as much as they want.---

As uncomfortable as this position makes me, I am currently leaning on the side of saying that it is right. I can't think of a good moral reason why someone who starts a bussiness is obligated to give jobs, or sell products, to anyone in particular. Steven Lansberg's argument, has, at least for the time being, convinced me.

Consider this variation on his argument: a person starts a dry cleaning bussiness. They then refuse to serve you, because you are of a minority (or majority!) that they don't like.

You argue that they are violating your moral or civil liberties. But does that make any sense? Think about it: if there were some compelling moral reason that you deserve to be served dry cleaning services, then _everyone_ who is not in bussiness as a dry cleaner, including Bob the hobo down the street, would be just as guilty of not dry cleaning your clothes as the bigoted dry cleaners. That's what fairness dictates. The fact that the dry cleaner owners chose to spend their savings opening a bussiness, as opposed to buying McDonalds food for themselves, should not make them any more liable to your demands for dry cleaning.

Indeed, by opening their dry cleaning bussiness, the owners did not hurt you any. In fact, by adding to the competition, they've probably slightly reduced the price of dry cleaning at the place you'll then have to take you bussiness to.

Now, Bob the hobo hasn't even done THAT much good for you, and yet for some reason people consider HIS failure to sell dry cleaning services to you perfectly acceptable, while those same people want to pass laws penalizing the dry clean shop owners.

Furthermore, the dry cleaning owners are _already_ paying for their choice: they don't get your bussiness, and their competitors do. Likewise, if people discriminate against, say a Christian, then they pay the price of losing (again, quite possibly to their own competition) an otherwise good worker to someone less offendable.

[Truth Seeker]

Apos
It's not quite that simple. There is a difference between saying that everyone has a duty to do your dry cleaning and saying that no one has a right to discriminatorily refuse to do your dry cleaning.

There are several competing theories of justice but I believe all of them, including Nozick's (one of the most minimalist) would conclude that, at least in society as it is today, discriminating against people on the basis of, for example, race is unjust.

The ethics of discriminating against people on the basis of voluntary conduct is a more complicated issue. Ultimately, it comes down to a question of utility. To take an extreme example, one can't, at least in the U.S., generally discriminate on the basis of religion. Moreover, a business is required to make reasonable accommodation. So, for example, if you are an orthodox Jew, the employer should not schedule you to work on the Sabbath.

Suppose, on the other hand, you, as a matter of personal ethics, refuse to get out of bed before noon. It would be perfectly legitimate for an employer to discriminate against you on this basis. The U.S. has decided that, on balance, society is better off making reasonable accommodation for religion. There is less utility in sleeping late, so this activity isn't protected at the federal level and whether or not to discriminate against it is left to the individual employer to decide. Some states, I believe, drawn the line in different places and have more extensive protection. Though not, so far as I know, for sleeping in.

The U.S. has decided that relatively few areas of voluntary conduct deserve such protection. The general rule is that an employer may discriminate for any reason or even no reason but not for an illegal reason. In the case of smoking, I'd have to say that it would be legal for an employer to discriminate. Nor do I see any moral element in such discrimination at all. It's simply a question of utility.

[Apos]

---There is a difference between saying that everyone has a duty to do your dry cleaning and saying that no one has a right to discriminatorily refuse to do your dry cleaning.---

Very well: I discriminatorily refuse to do you dry cleaning. Your race and gender (whatever they are) disgust me. So, instead of starting a dry cleaning bussiness that you could patronize with my resources, I will wastefully spend my resources on buying beer (which is wasteful because I happen to hate it).

The point is: what is it about me starting a bussiness that obligates me to sell to you, when I had no such obligation to begin with?

Another example along similar lines: why are bussiness owners not allowed to discriminate in their hiring, but I can discriminate in my job searches? Where is the commensurability in that? Me choosing to work for someone is a mutual contract. Why is one party to that contract subject to restrictions, and the other party is not?
For that matter, how come potential customers who refuse to shop at a particular store aren't forced to prove that their decision wasn't based on racial bias? Where is the fairness in penalizing racist shop owners, but not racist shoppers?

Or look at landlords and tenants. A white racist landlord cannot deny residence to black tenants. But a white racist tenant CAN refuse to rent from a black landlord. That's an utterly arbitrary law.

Or, why can I use race as a criteria when choosing a wife, but not an employee?

---There are several competing theories of justice but I believe all of them, including Nozick's (one of the most minimalist) would conclude that, at least in society as it is today, discriminating against people on the basis of, for example, race is unjust.---

I agree that it is wrong morally. But that's not far enough to say that it is unjust. Both of us would like to see less racists. But why does that desire lead to the conclusion that the government have to right to tell people how to spend my resources in one instance that otherwise they would not?

Look: take it from even a Nozikian view: Whether I start the dry cleaning bussiness or not, I control the exact same allocation of resources. Perhaps the public deserves some share of my resources because of the social contract.
But unless you have an EXTRA claim on my resources when I spend them buying beer, or racist propaganda, I cannot see how you have a claim on them when I use them to start a racist bussiness. Either way, these are just usages of the same resources, and I am in EVERY case not using them in a way that benefits you (perhaps for racist reasons, perhaps not).

I used to take it for granted that anti-discrimination laws in the private sector made sense. But habit is not a good reason.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by MsRobyn
First of all, it is legal to be fired for being Christian, if the employee behaved in a fashion that the employer considers obnoxious; for example, if the employee was actively proselytizing other employees, or leaving religious materials in public areas, the employer is justified in firing this person. It's not the belief that's being punished, it's the behavior.
In [b]WV_Woman[b]'s example though, she had already complied with the directive to take her poster down.

[MsRobyn]

Originally posted by JThunder

In [b]WV_Woman[b]'s example though, she had already complied with the directive to take her poster down.

I hadn't seen WV_Woman's post; I was writing mine when she posted.

Robin

[MsRobyn]

Okay, having read WV_Woman's follow-up, I've got some comments.

I'm thinking that while the agent may have been fine with the radio station and the poster, his superior (or someone else affiliated with State Farm) wasn't. If he had no problem with it on one day, but he did on the next, it's a safe guess someone else had a problem with it and instructed him to let you go. As a temp (and I am currently temping, so I am speaking from experience) you have basically zero rights as compared to a regular employee. You can be let go because they don't like your hair.

As I see it, your right to exercise your religion stops at my eyes and ears. It's a simple matter of respect for those you work with. I have complained at various workplaces about people playing Christian radio (if you've got headphones, I can't hear what you're playing, so I don't care), displaying religious posters in the breakroom or in other public areas, religious e-mails sent out, and so forth. While I may seem antagonistic about the issue of religion, I am quite frankly sick and tired of those who would use religion to encroach on my personal space and my private life. In essence, there is a time and a place for everything, and the time and place for religion is not at work.

Robin

[Tir Tinuviel]

Some years ago I worked for a major bank. Due to staff shortages I quite often had to help cover the phones.
Of course almost every phone call was about why we had bounced a cheque, or refused a loan, etc.
We used to get shouted at some 15 or so times a day.
Once in the morning, and once in the afternoon, I would take five minutes for a ciggy break. It would calm me down after a stressful call, and I'd be able to go back to answering inane questions from the Evil General Public.
A lot of the other people on the phones that didn't smoke would quite often end up having screaming fits with customers, and then have to sit for a half hour in the rest room, crying about it.
So in that case, I was a damn site more productive and professional then most of the non smokers.

Also acording to UK Health and Safety Regulations (http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/vdus.htm) you need to take breaks if you're working with VDU equiptment. What difference does it make if I use my break to smoke instead of make tea?

These days if I'm feeling at a creative low, I go sit in the garden, have a ciggy, and think. I generally come back with a couple of new ideas.

I like smoking, I enjoy it. To hell with you if you won't employ me because of it, I don't wanna work for you anyway! so nyah!

[Mr2001]

I don't have a problem with employers discriminating for most any habits, as long as the habits have an effect at work: for example, the guy who plays football every morning and comes to work smelling like sweat, the smoker who smells like cigarettes and leaves work to have a smoke, or the SNL character who calls everyone "Dave-o-rama!"

But if your habit has no bearing on your appearance or performance at work, and can only be detected by a questionnaire or urine test, it's none of your employer's business.

[nicky]

Is it ok for me to only employ smokers? Or discriminate against non-smokers?

I find smokers to be more sociable, less neurotic, less likely to whinge, etc.etc.

[JThunder]

Is it ok for me to only employ smokers? Or discriminate against non-smokers?

I find smokers to be more sociable, less neurotic, less likely to whinge, etc.etc.

Well, if you offer some reasonable explanation for why smokers would generally be more sociable, less neurotic and less whiny, then you might have a case. Otherwise, I suspect that you'd be violating some sort of labor statute -- or setting a precedent for a new one.

[Duckster]

If I recall, the state of NSW(?) in Australia is proposing legislation allowing employers to dock the pay of smokers who take time to go out and grab a smoke during working hours.

Apparently they must have the statistics showing smokers are not as productive as non-smokers.

[andygirl]

I can't help but wonder if one can be fired for whom one chooses to associate with- so what if I'm not a smoker, but a person I live with is?

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally posted by MsRobyn
[ It's a simple matter of respect for those you work with. I have complained at various workplaces about people playing Christian radio (if you've got headphones, I can't hear what you're playing, so I don't care), displaying religious posters in the breakroom or in other public areas, religious e-mails sent out, and so forth. While I may seem antagonistic about the issue of religion, I am quite frankly sick and tired of those who would use religion to encroach on my personal space and my private life. In essence, there is a time and a place for everything, and the time and place for religion is not at work.

Robin [/B]

I'm curious as to what your position is on music in the workplace. I can't stand it yet I have had to put up with it where ever I've worked. Oh, and what is your position on Playboy in the employee lunch room?

With regards to those who claim smokers are less productive because of breaks, I would counter that my experience and observations indicate that smokers are more focused and productive while working than non smokers. A cigarette break is often an opportunity to assess and organize one's work for the next hour or so of intense prosecution. Nicotine fits generally occur when uncertainty of direction is an issue, and the smoke break is intended to clarify the problem for a solution.

[tavalla]

Originally posted by Duckster
If I recall, the state of NSW(?) in Australia is proposing legislation allowing employers to dock the pay of smokers who take time to go out and grab a smoke during working hours.

Right country, but last I heard about this, it was Tasmania, not New South Wales. They're planning to apply it to government workers, not the private sector in general.

My reservation about either docking the pay or smokers/making them work extra time to make up for the ciggy breaks is that the ciggy break is not the only office time-waster. As I type, there are three reps gathered around the coffee station chattering about child-rearing and home renovations, which topics are certainly nothing to do with work.

They've been there for ten minutes, accomplishing nothing work-related. If I have a cig break, I'm back at my desk and working within five minutes. Yet, under the proposed Tas. legislation, my pay would be docked, or I'd have to work extra time, but the coffee station chat klatch is fine, apparently, no problems there. I'll lay aside my objections to docking smokers' pay/making them work extra when the same happens to excessive gossipers or other office timewasters.

[Kirkland1244]

I used to work at Blockbuster Video, and I hated working with smokers. Every couple hours, off the go to suck on their deathsticks and come back smelling like an ashtray so that I couldn't stand to talk to them, or be near them when they breathed. And during those ten minutes, who had to deal with everything in the store, all at once, everytime? Me. Alone. Which is, of course, against company policy, but whats policy to the smokers who have to feed their addiction.

I'll never own a business, but if I did, I would not allow any smoking anywhere in the building, for any reason. If you want to smoke, you can go hang out behind the dumpster. And swallow some damn mouthwash while you're out there, and take off your coat, so you don't stink of that stuff. Nothing less pleasant than doing business with a smoker and having them breathe thier foul breath all over you while you're trying to talk to them.

And I would defintily never hire a smoker for a receptionist type position that is supposed to put a welcoming face before incoming clients/customers/whatever. The smell of smokerbreath is off putting and gross, and unprofessional. For similar reasons, I would also not hire anyone for a receptionist position with visible tatoos or multiple piercings.

Kirk

[RexDart]

Clearing a few things up....

1.) A couple posts have mentioned the need to provide a *reasonable* justification for why you hire or fire your staff. You don't. Absent a union contract to the contrary, the employer can hire and fire on any basis, however silly and unreasonable, so long as the basis is not illegal.

For example, suppose I own an ice cream parlor. I employ 20 people and have to fire 5 of them to make cost. I can do any of the following entirely legally:
a. fire the first 5 to enter the door that day
b. fire every fourth person to enter the door that day
c. fire everyone wearing pants from the Gap
Those might be silly and unjustifiable reasons to cut my staff. They're still totally legal (with the possible exception of "c", if and only if people of one race/gender would be disproportionately impacted by a policy punishing the wearing of Gap jeans.)

2.) This statistic that smokers take more sick days strikes me as suspicious. Without a distribution curve, it's practically meaningless. Are 95% of smokers taking an extra day or two per year? Or, as is more likely, are the %1 of smokers who suffer a serious illness taking 6 months in sick leave at a time? This makes a REALLY big difference in how one would rationalize his decision to hire only non-smokers.

3.) Breaks. Guess what, if you don't want smokers running off for smoke breaks all the time, ENFORCE A BREAK POLICY!! When I worked at the grocery store a few summers back, we got a 30 min lunch and two 15 min breaks. That's the only time during my shift when I smoked, I wasn't allowed little breaks, so I was absolutely NO DIFFERENT from a non-smoker.
You don't even need a rigid policy, if you merely require smokers to be reasonable. A lunch hour at Subway Sandwiches (my first job) was pretty stressful. I didn't run outside in the middle of lunch for a smoke. I waited until the rush died down, because that was the reasonable thing to do. If I had tried to run out during lunch rush, my manager would have told me to wait. Problem solved.

4.) Fair warning to the anti-smoking crowd. These policies might work in suburban office environments. They will NEVER make it into a union contract, that I guarantee. Unions rarely give an inch in the fight for their members workplace privileges, and they won't budge on this one.

In summation, there are alot of highly qualified, productive, talented people in this world who happen to smoke cigarettes. In the long run, any company enforcing such a policy is shooting itself in the foot. By turning away qualified individuals they place themselves at a competitive disadvantage. This is the reason that race/gender/religious discrimination is doomed to failure, even without the laws that are in place. Discrimination for irrational reasons will only survive where the irrational belief is universal (see race discrimination is the early 20th century), otherwise the forces of competition in a free market will punish discriminatory choices in hiring.

[Coil]

What about the Straight Dope Message Board habit a lot of us seem to have. Would it be okay for an employer to discriminate based on that particular addiction?

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Coil
What about the Straight Dope Message Board habit a lot of us seem to have. Would it be okay for an employer to discriminate based on that particular addiction? [/B]

Absolutely. If you are unproductive because you spend all your time surfing the web your company has every right to fire you. Apparently my company does not discriminate.


General appearance is ok to discriminate on. In service companies, the people are the product. They want their people to have a similar look and manner to them. Our big joke is when they tell us to "blend in" at the client. Yeah..blend. We are the only people in the building wearing suits and carrying laptop bags. We are obviously either consultants or Brooks Brothers models. It's not like we are all supermodels or anything. But when we go someplace, you can definitely pick the people who work at our firm (or a similar one) out of the crowd.




Originally posted by Nicky
I find smokers to be more sociable, less neurotic, less likely to whine, etc.etc.


Until you hide their cigarettes.

[burundi]

If it affects one's job performance, then I would argue it's okay not to hire someone on that basis. In msmith357's example, his company has certain standards for how their employees must dress. No problem. However, if one's personal habits in no way impinge upon one's job performance, than I would argue that it's not okay to fire/not hire someone for them.

Anecdote time: I have a friend who was fired from her waitressing job as soon as her boss found out she was a lesbian. The boss had been preparing to promote her, but after seeing her out with her girlfriend one night, fired her the next day. No explanation given. Now it's not like she was macking on female customers or making salacious comments to other employees. Legal? Yes, in North Carolina. Wrong and foolish? Hell, yes.

Neither Playboy nor Christian radio have a place in a professional setting, IMO. When you're at work, you keep both your religion and your sexual fantasies strictly to yourself.

[tracer]

andygirl wrote:

Smokers might have poorer general health than non-smokers, but what about any number of things that lend themselves to poorer health such as alcoholism, drug addiction, or morbid obesity? What about diseases such as HIV or diabetes?
It is already illegal to discriminate on the basis of a medical condition. (Or at least it is, here in California. I don't know if this is a state or federal law.)

[MsRobyn]

Originally posted by grienspace

I'm curious as to what your position is on music in the workplace. I can't stand it yet I have had to put up with it where ever I've worked. Oh, and what is your position on Playboy in the employee lunch room?


My position on music in the office is this: Music can be a welcome distraction, provided each person uses headphones. I'm often on the phone, and if you're playing music, the person on the other of the line can hear it. Religion is a sensitive topic as it is, and I simply don't think it has a place at work, at least as far as others are concerned.

As for Playboy, sexual material is NEVER acceptable in the workplace. I don't care if your environment is all male. It's not appropriate, acceptable, and anyone who brings it in deserves what punishment they get.

Robin

[yosemite]

Music can be a welcome distraction, provided each person uses headphones. I'm often on the phone, and if you're playing music, the person on the other of the line can hear it. Religion is a sensitive topic as it is, and I simply don't think it has a place at work, at least as far as others are concerned. I think headphones (or having the music way down so that no one else is able to hear it unless they are right up next to the radio) is the only option in these kind of circumstances. And I gather that WV Woman did keep her music down.

Every kind of music (or radio station) will be offensive to someone. I don't particularly care to have rock music foisted upon me. But I tolerate it almost every frickin' time I leave the house; believe me, I'm damned sick of it. I wouldn't want anyone fired for playing it, but do I want to hear it? Hell no.

If a person can be fired for playing a Christian station (because someone "might" be offended by it) than everyone should be at risk for being fired for playing whatever station they are playing. Each station has SOMETHING potentially offensive about it.

So, what I want to know is, was anyone else fired (or reprimanded) for playing their radio at WV Woman's former job? The way I see it, it's all or nothing. You can't cherry pick which stations are "offensive", because you'll never be able to get everyone to agree on which stations are offensive, and which are not.

The best bet (if music must be played) is one of those innocuous "Muzak" type things, or at least a station that plays music with no lyrics (Classical, easy listening instrumentals, etc.).

[yosemite]

That should be: "then everyone should be at risk for being fired for playing whatever station they are playing."

[WV_Woman]

Just for the record:

I did not use headphones (I did keep the music down, though). However, I was the only one who worked in my little corner of the office. The other people only passed through my office on their way to the kitchen.

Nobody else had a radio, but then everyone else worked up front with the customers. I was stuck in the back doing the grunt work.

Somebody suggested that perhaps a higher-up saw my little setup and told my boss to ditch me. I think they are right. I never *saw* a higher up look at my office, but then I only worked part time. A lot could have happened when I wasn't there.

This guy was extremely anal and had a sad life. (He was set to start training to be an FBI agent and his then-girlfriend, now wife, pitched a fit and so he got stuck selling insurance. Far as I know she's still dictating his every move.)

I wasn't sorry that the job ended.

[Truth Seeker]

Apos
First we need to differentiate between three different concepts, Justice, Law and Morality. Morality is, well, morality. Justice relates to what aspects of morality can be enforced and how far society can properly go in doing so. Law is (or at least should be) the method by which society implements justice. Obviously, these are extremely sketchy working definitions.

We can see from this that just laws should be moral but that not everything that is moral can be the subject of a just law. To illustrate, society cannot justly implement a law requiring you to donate all of your worldly goods to charity and become an aid worker in Afghanistan. It does not follow, however, that such conduct would be immoral.

There is, of course, no such thing as a perfectly just society under any definition. Justice is just one of the criteria that properly inform a functioning society. For example, considerations of utility are also important. (In fact, some schools of thought equate justice with utility but that's a side track so let's not go there.) As a practical matter this means that laws are inevitably a compromise between the ideal and the practical. Politics is, after all, the art of the possible.

Why are bussiness owners not allowed to discriminate in their hiring, but I can discriminate in my job searches? Where is the commensurability in that? Me choosing to work for someone is a mutual contract. Why is one party to that contract subject to restrictions, and the other party is not?
Here we have an interstice between law, justice and morality. Refusing to work for someone because of their race is immoral. Would it be just for society to create a law making it illegal to not work for someone because of their race? This is a complex question for several reasons. However, let assume that such a law would be just under some particular theory of justice. Would such a law be practical? In ordinary life, no. As you point out, people can simply not apply for jobs in situations where they don't like the boss. However, in the military, there are such laws. You must "work" for your commanding officer, regardless of your racial prejudices.

IIRC, in the United States, federal anti-discrimination laws only apply to businesses larger than a certain size. (I may be recalling this incorrectly. If so, I trust someone will point it out. The basic point remains, nonetheless.) I believe the rationale for this is a largely a cost-benefit analysis. The impact on society is not considered worth the cost and difficulty of enforcing anti-discrimination laws in very small businesses. Therefore, a sole proprietor can legally discriminate based on race in hiring an assistant. Of course, such behavior, though legal, remains immoral.

Does this failure render all anti-discrimination laws unjust? Of course not. Simply because it is impractical to solve every problem does not mean that you should not try to solve any problem.


Perhaps the public deserves some share of my resources because of the social contract. But unless you have an EXTRA claim on my resources when I spend them buying beer, or racist propaganda, I cannot see how you have a claim on them when I use them to start a racist bussiness. Either way, these are just usages of the same resources, and I am in EVERY case not using them in a way that benefits you (perhaps for racist reasons, perhaps not).
Once again, not quite. Part of the social contract is that you cannot use your resources in a way that society has determined is detrimental. Exactly what those parameters are is quite complicated and depends on what theory of justice you are using. However, it is just for society to prevent you from using your resources to create a dry cleaning business that spews toxic pollution in an urban area, for example. You can create this business. However, society can justly require you not to harm your neighbors and can require you to capture and properly dispose of your toxic waste.

A similar reasonining applies to discrimination. If you do create a dry cleaning business, society can justly require you to operate it in a manner that does not harm society. i.e., that doesn't discriminate.

There are other strands of reasoning that get you to a similar place. For example, when you choose to spend your resources to create a dry cleaning business, you are not simply using "your" resources. You are using society's resources, too. Your business relies on the legal system, the electricity grid, the road system, etc. It is, therefore, just for society to set certain terms for the use of these resources. Note, however, that this does not mean that it would be just for society to place "unjust" restrictions or obligations on your business. In other words, though society can regulate your business those regulations ought to conform to whatever theory of justice you are applying.

One interesting example of this involved the U.S. Supreme Court and discriminatory convenants. These were legally binding restrictions in land titles that prevented the property from being sold to a member of a specified race in perpetuity. The Supreme Court said, in essence. "Yeah, these are legal. Individuals have a right to discriminate, if they want. However, they don't have a right to use a court to enforce their discrimination. So while discriminatory covenants are 'legal,' we aren't going to enforce them."

[mhendo]

Firstly, i'm not a smoker, and i find the habit disgusting.

That said, i don't believe employers should be allowed to discriminate based on personal habits such as smoking. This sort of "profiling" seems to me to be counterproductive and, if not illegal, then at the very least unjust. I have worked with some very capable and hard-working smokers, and with some fucking lazy and ignorant non-smokers, and vice versa. I've never been able to find a direct correlation between smoking (or not) and productivity in the workplace, and even if such correlations could be found, it is unlikely that they would apply across all industries, and it is likely that many other factors would also play a part.

Now, i will admit that smokers sometimes take more unscheduled breaks than non-smokers. When i worked as a waiter in a large hotel, the smokers would often say to the supervisors, "Can i run outside and take a smoke?" and the supervisor would often permit this. But if i, as a non-smoker, asked "Could i just sit around and do no work for five minutes?" the answer was "no." And this pissed me off.

But problems like this do not require discrimination against smokers. On the contrary, all they require is that employers stop discriminating against non-smokers in the workplace, and treat everyone the same. If a smoker asks for a break to have a smoke, and the employer would not normally allow such a break to a non-smoker, then the privilege should not be extended to smokers. And if smokers are found to be taking unauthorized breaks to indulge in their habit, then disciplinary action can be taken, up to and including dismissal. Such policies should be made clear to all employees at the time of hiring.

On the other hand, if an employer is a decent human being rather than a slave driver, and if he or she is also an intelligent person, they will also realize that allowing employees to periodically take short breaks (for smoking, or whatever) will probably improve productivity and worker morale rather than being detrimental to the company. Don't people get driven hard enough at work in our modern society, without also begrudging them an occasional moment or two to take a break and catch their breath? (or, in the case of smokers, pollute it :) )

[Apos]

--- Refusing to work for someone because of their race is immoral.---

I agree... but why illegal? You seem to agree with me on this point: that the first does not always lead to the other.

Wouldn't you say that this especially the case when I do something that doesn't make you worse off directly, despite being stingy or nasty? Is the moral principle "anytime anyone benefits but I don't, I should be compensated" really any less crabby or more just?

---To illustrate, society cannot justly implement a law requiring you to donate all of your worldly goods to charity and become an aid worker in Afghanistan.---

But society can demand that if you start a bussiness, that then and ONLY then your assests must be henceforth used to provide certain people with certain services... ?

--- Part of the social contract is that you cannot use your resources in a way that society has determined is detrimental.---

But that's whats so ridiculous. A person who starts a bussiness is NOT making the world worse off EVEN for the person they discriminate against. In fact, they are making things slightly better, by lowering prices. Even if it COULD be argued that it was somehow detrimental that certain groups not have access to the sale of certain goods in every location they wish, why is it the burden of the store owner alone to provide for them? Why not everyone else in society who is failing to provide them with such a sale opportunity?

Look at disability law. Bob builds a three story cheese shop that is wildly popular. Disability law demands that he build wheelchair accessible access to the third and second floor. But what theory of justice could possibly justify putting this burden on Bob? If the wheelchair-bound somehow deserve to be sold cheese by other private citizens, then you and I are JUST as guilty as Bob is of not supplying it to them! Especially if we have the resources to start our own cheese bussiness, but choose instead to start a record store, or just lavish ourselves.

By building his inaccessible store, Bob has not made the wheelchair-bound any WORSE off in their search for cheese (and again: perhaps slightly better off by lowering prices elsewhere). So how can HE and HE ALONE thus be singled out to incur a special burden to provide them with cheese shopping?

Look at Bob's options. He can either build his cheese store, or build a personal space for his own cheese-orgies. In EITHER case he uses the same resources: but for some reason if he chooses to sell his goods to others, he's all of a sudden hit with a horde of EXTRA obligations that he never had before. That's crazy.

I simply don't see how this logic is sensible or justifiable. It is certainly an account of what has become _conventional_, but that doesn't make it just, tolerant, or fair.

[blowero]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Well, I don't know about smoking. I would think the obvious might be, say people who don't bathe, people who pick their noses constantly, that sort of thing.


Actually, don't they usually cover that kind of thing by saying something like "professional attire/appearance/attitude"? I think that's pretty much a polite way of saying "no smelly nosepickers, please".

[blowero]

Originally posted by WV_Woman
[hijack]

The next week, to decorate my office, I brought in a poster entitled "Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Learned from the Bible" and put it on the wall. It didn't even MENTION Jesus, it was basically paraphrases of verses from Proverbs: stuff like "Don't embarass your parents," and "keep your word," -- stuff like that. The stuff it said was just general wisdom that you can find in any belief system.

Let's say that I worked in your building, and I put up a poster in my office that said "The Bible is full of lies", or "Have a diety-free day", and you saw it. How would you feel? Don't you think it's better for us all to just avoid broadcasting our beliefs in the workplace like that?

I used to have a Christian supervisor who harassed me about religion. She asked me if I believed in God. I told her no, and she wanted to know why. Stupidly, I let her engage me in a discussion about the subject. She then went to the office next door and told her friend, "Blowero doesn't believe in God". The other woman came over and they both harangued me about God, at which point I got irritated and walked out of the room, which they both took as an invitation to question why I was so "touchy" about the subject. Still not wanting to let the subject drop, my supervisor said "Well, I don't care what you say - I KNOW I'm right." A couple days later, she gave me some glurge lecture on tape that was supposed to prove there is a God, and wanted me to listen to it. Well, aside from her aggressive proselytizing, she was a friend, so I didn't do anything about the incident. But it just seems like common sense to me to leave religion out of the workplace.

Bear in mind my office was in a place where NO customers would *ever* see that poster, unless they passed by my office to go pee, which rarely happened. Plus bear in mind that WV is a pretty conservative little place. You can't throw a rock without hitting a church ... so it's not like the chances were great that, say, a raving atheist was going to walk in, see it and withdraw their business.

Perhaps he was concerned that the other employees would be offended, not just customers.

That Friday, he calls me into his office and fires me. I "just wasn't hearing him," he said.

He didn't fire you, he just didn't pick you up as a permanent employee. I don't think it was very nice of him, if he had lead you to believe you would be picked up, but from what you said, it doesn't sound like he was actually obligated to.

Having said all that, I don't see any problem with someone playing Christian music quietly at their own desk. That wouldn't bother me.

[Horseflesh]

First things first:...cheese orgies. <--- Band Name!I'll say up front that I am a smoker and in fact am doing so at this moment (reading this thread woke up the nic gremlins :)). I'm only going to address the OP and not get into the religion, music, or other discriminations practiced by businesses.

I'd have to say that smoking has not decreased my productivity at all. I have yet to take a sick day at my current job of 4 years and smoke only on allowed breaks or meal times. In fact I'm more productive than the average employee because I bring my laptop with me while I take a smoke break (and sometimes to lunch) as I program during a good portion of my day. If I don't take the laptop I'm usually mulling over some difficult code in my head. I try to be considerate of my co-workers in regards to my "smoke smell". I carry breath fresheners and only smoke outside instead of the inside room set aside for smokers. Sometimes I walk while smoking which decreases the smell even further.

However, I think the employer should be able discriminate against a smoker. For most businesses this only decreases an already sparse applicant pool and is ultimately to their detriment. If the business were say an anti-smoking clinic the discriminatory practice makes more than enough sense. If they were hiring a trucker for long distance hauls it makes no sense at all. If I were the HR director for the company I would simply ban smoking in the building and on all premises controlled by the company. At my job this would either put me in the middle of a highway or on somebody elses property if I wished to smoke. The other option to me is not to smoke during work. This is a viable option for some smokers as evidenced by Horsewife (at least before she quit). More hardcore smokers may just have to find other employment.

Okay, I'll touch lightly on the race discrimination issue with an anecdote: While stationed in San Francisco there was a nearby bagel shop that sold the best damn bagels I have ever had. I would volunteer to do breakfeast runs for my office as the "runner" got to choose where to get breakfast from. Invariably I picked the bagel shop. I learned after a while that the shop employed only Jewish people as that was the hiring practice of the proprietor (who was Jewish). Whatever his reasoning, whether it was "Jews make better bagels" or "Jews are better workers", it definitely reflected in the quality of the product. Now, if confronted with buying bagels from two unknown bagel shops but one of them advertised as being "Jewish owned and operated", I'd definitely give the kosher shop a try first.

[NightRabbit]

Apos, I find your reasoning absurd.

When you use the resources of this country in order to provide a service (for your profit), the government obligates you to make that service available to everyone in this country (more or less). Why does this not make sense?

Our country, through a capitalist system and various other things economic and political, gives everyone the opportunity to start a business. My parents own their own business. I have a friend who makes and sells her own lip balm. I could start a business, too, if I wanted. This is a privlege, not a right. Nowhere in the heavens does it proclaim "every man on this earth shall be given the opportunity to own a place of business". This country (made up of, yes, every American) gives you that opportunity and, in return, stipulates that your business must give every one of those Americans the equal opportunity to use your resources for a fee.

If you don't like it, tough. Move somewhere else! (I'm assuming that you live in the US. )

[NightRabbit]

And concerning Bob-

He also has other obligations to the public if he decides to open a cheese shop. He's got to keep the shop up to code on cleanliness. He can't advertise his cheese as something it's not. He must pay his employees a minimum wage. He must have worker's comp. &c, &c.

Are you arguing that Bob shouldn't have to do any of these things? Because the debate of governmental regulation as a whole is an entirely different can of worms.

[yosemite]

blowero wrote:
Let's say that I worked in your building, and I put up a poster in my office that said "The Bible is full of lies", or "Have a diety-free day", and you saw it. How would you feel? Don't you think it's better for us all to just avoid broadcasting our beliefs in the workplace like that?
WV Woman removed her poster, when asked, without incident. (Or that's what I gather from what she wrote.) I agree, if there is some risk of ruffled feathers, even the most innocuous religious (or non-religious) poster should be taken down. Let everyone display Ansel Adams Yosemite posters instead! :D

I think that the boss was out of line for letting her go, since she took her poster down, without protest. (Or, at least this is the impression she is giving us.)

[msmith537]

Originally posted by burundi
If it affects one's job performance, then I would argue it's okay not to hire someone on that basis. In msmith357's example, his company has certain standards for how their employees must dress. No problem. However, if one's personal habits in no way impinge upon one's job performance, than I would argue that it's not okay to fire/not hire someone for them.



It's not so much a matter of job performance. I can do my job just as well wearing a suit made out of bananas as I can wearing button down shirt from Banana Republic. It's a matter of projecting a certain image to the outside world.

IMHO, it isn't worth it to put up religeous, gay, racial or other controvertial stuff at work. Your cubical is a place of business, not your dorm, appartment, or a political forum.


I also have a suspicion that we aren't hearing WV_Woman's entire story.

[TwistofFate]

I just plain don't believe a word out of WV_Woman's mouth, as a rule.


When will it end? once all smokers are banned from working, stepping foot outside of their house, or even breathing, who will people go for next?

I'm not employing you because you have red hair, and I dont like red hair.

I'm not employing you because you spell you name funny.

I'm not employing you because you're taller than me.

I'm not employing you because you eat cheese.


Christ people, take it easy. If people want to smoke and do themselves damage, LET THEM. They are adults and have made the adult decision to smoke. Stop hunting them down like social pariahs.

[WV_Woman]

*shrug* Believe what you want. I told the truth ... but then lots of people on this board are allergic to the truth, so I'm not surprised I'm being accused of lying.

Oh well.

[Dragon Ash]

Airlines should be allowed to fire lazy and/or obese (being one does not necessarily mean you are the other) flight attendants - and this is coming from a former flight attendant myself, and I very much admire and respect the work of flight attendants.

Flight attendants bristle if you suggest they are merely glorified waiters/waitresses. But take any US airline - especially on an overseas flight - and what do you get? A dozen lazy-assed flight attendants more concerned with reading their magazines on their jumpseats during takeoff/landing, whatever. Gossiping loudly in the galley about who got so drunk last night. Cut-corner services. Ignoring mandatory walk-throughs. Hostility, or the 'sigh + roll of eyes' if you ask dare ask for anything.

The flagrant disregard for obvious safety concerns suggests we shouldn't take their safety responsibilities very seriously either - in which case they are nothing but glorified waiters/waitresses. Reading a magazine on the jumpseat during takeoff, great! One flight attendant who will be ready and prepared to help us out of the plane in an emergency! As long as they have time to dog-ear their place in this month's Cosmopolitan.

And don't get me started on the obese flight attendants. First, the obvious - overweight flight attendants, to me, present an unhealthy, unattractive (not attractive as in 'pretty', but attractive as in 'professional) appearance.

Second, they present an extremely unsafe appearance. Often they are too big to walk straight down the aisle! They literally have to turn sideways, and even then the poor sods sitting in the coveted aisle seats get the 'hips banging on the seats' all the way back to the galley. This person is going to help me out of the airplane? More likely they completely block any exit/aisle/window exit. By being unwilling to maintain a professional appearence, they suggest to me that the 'safety' aspect of the job is a joke.

Airlines do have weight controls during the hiring/training process - 'for health reasons', they say. Whatever. No one complains. But weight controls once they are hired, oh ho! Discrimination!

Discrimination my ass. If you are too overweight to walk down the aisle without whapping into every seat along the way, you should be fired.

BTW, there is no such thing as 'working your way up' in the flight crew business - it is strictly seniority. The more senior you are, the better schedules you get, the better trips you get, etc. This is why the older, more senior members fly the international flights. International flights pay better, and the schedules are great, so of course everyone wants to fly them, but only the senior members get them. Example: fly NY-Tokyo, spend 36hrs in Tokyo doing whatever, fly back. A four-five day trip. Do that maybe three times a month. That's it.

This is why the worst service you can get is on the long, overseas flights. The best service is often on the short, domestic flights - flight attendants not yet broken down by the senior crew members who ridicule and abuse junior members. A female friend of mine (and former flight attendant herself) says that this massive abuse by senior members of junior members is because the vast majority of flight attendants are female. I'm a guy, so I got no real opinion on that. But I did see it, and it was vicious. A shame, because the newer crew members _almost always_ gave better service - in the process making the more senior members madder, by 'showing them up'.

Sorry about the long rant; had to get that off my chest. As a former flight attendant, I am just sick at the new lows US airlines - including my former employer - keep sinking too. Gets worse every time a fly, it seems, to the point where I now prefer to take a non-direct flight and change planes on a non-US airline instead of taking the direct/non-stop flight directly to my home town on the US airline servicing that city.

BTW - the best airlines in the world for your money is Virgin's Premier Economy. Best service, period, is Virgin's Upper Class. Singapore Airlines is also a wonder, even in economy. Well worth the price of the ticket.

[WV_Woman]

I thought airlines already discriminated against fat flight attendants?

Years ago I remember seeing a news story about a group of flight attendants that had to weigh in before flights. If they were just ONE pound over the limit, they couldn't go. It was *really* ridiculous, as these were all normal sized women and their airline (can't remember which one it was) wouldn't take into account water weight due to periods, etc.

[pldennison]

As for Playboy, sexual material is NEVER acceptable in the workplace.

What if one works for Playboy Enterprises Inc.? Or is in charge of layout at Hustler magazine? Not only is such material acceptable, it is in fact part of one's job.

[Siege]

I also believe that employers should be able to select employees based on almost any characteristic, even though I also believe that discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or sexual preference is wrong. I realize I'm walking a very fine line here, but that seems to be a hazard of being a moderate. Let me take the first and stronger part of my argument first.

Among the things a good employer will consider when hiring is how well a person will fit into their workplace. A former co-worker of mine who is a sweet, very devout Christian was being interviewed for a new job at a company whose top people were not Christian. When asked what her hobbies were, she said, roughly, "following Jesus Christ, my Lord and Master." The company decided not to hire her, apparently in part because of that answer, and I'm afraid I don't blame them. I'm also a devout Christian, but I would have been reluctant to do so because it would indicate to me an inappropriate tendency to bring our religion into the workplace. I may get blasted for this, but, in a computer technician, I'm more concerned about a personal relationship with logic than Jesus Christ. In a company which one presumably knows to be non-Christian, it would be even more inappropriate. On a more trivial level, a person who prefers people who need little or no supervision is perfectly entitled to choose not to hire someone who likes a lot of supervision. I don't swear much, so if I were in HR (I'm glad I'm not!), I'd be a lot less inclined to hire someone who uses profanity during a job interview.

On a broader scale, I'm conflicted. I think I've lost one job and not been allowed to apply for another because I was the wrong nationality, and I'll be the first to agree that's not right. Where employer discrimination oversteps my limits of acceptablity is when looking at one characteristic blinds a person to all other aspects of a candidates qualifications. In my co-workers case, if her would-be employer refused to hire all Christians, I'd consider their behaviour wrong. I would hire someone who swore every other word if he coded as proficiently she swore.

I suppose I'm a Darwinian capitalist. Jobs should go to the best individuals who want them, with the understanding that "best" includes best-fitting, but that how well a person does his or her job matters most. You don't like it that I wore shorts to my job interview? OK, I'll go find someone who won't mind. You're first words to me were "How the hell are you?" but you're willing to pay me double my current salary? I'm in.

CJ
$0.02 USD

[Eonwe]

Even if it COULD be argued that it was somehow detrimental that certain groups not have access to the sale of certain goods in every location they wish, why is it the burden of the store owner alone to provide for them? Why not everyone else in society who is failing to provide them with such a sale opportunity?


Apos, I think you fail to take into account the fact that many goods and services are necessary for people to maintain a certain socio-economic status. For example: I work in an office. I need to dress a certain way to keep my job. What if the mens' clothing stores in my area didn't sell to Unitarians, or people of Jewish heritage, or people with curly hair, or whatever? There are some prejudices that are pretty widespread, and I live in an area where it wouldn't take that many store owners to refuse to sell to me before I'd be SOL as far as buying clothes appropriate for work, and my company opperates on the assumption that everyone has access to nice clothes.

So now I'm out of a job and in fact can't get a job in a similar field because of the dress code issue. So now I'm making 1/3 the amount of money at a local restaurant waiting tables (if they'll hire me; I am a man afterall, and they only hire female waitstaff).

It's true that there are examples of goods and services that I think would be impossible to classify as "necessary," but I think that the issue is not so black and white as you make it out to be.

[Dragon Ash]

Originally posted by WV_Woman
I thought airlines already discriminated against fat flight attendants?

Years ago I remember seeing a news story about a group of flight attendants that had to weigh in before flights. If they were just ONE pound over the limit, they couldn't go. It was *really* ridiculous, as these were all normal sized women and their airline (can't remember which one it was) wouldn't take into account water weight due to periods, etc.

Don't quote me on this, because I can't remember the details. But I believe it was one pound _over the acceptable range_. Flight attendants were given a 5-7lbs range over the 'accepted weight level; if they weighed in within this range it was noted and they were told to watch their weight. If they were over this range-in effect 8lbs overweight (according to their weight charts, of course), they were pulled off the flight.

This is how it works now with Philippines Airlines, I believe.

[mhendo]

Regarding the issue of flight attandants' weight, i think weight is a pretty bad way to judge things. As anyone with even a modicum of physiological knowledge knows, muscle has a higher density than fat, and it is possible for a slim yet muscular person to weigh more than a chubby person of the same height. From personal experience, i know that i often actually weigh more when i am trim and working out than i do when i am being lazy and putting on a spare tyre (my workout habits are notoriously sporadic, with a cycle of fit/unfit usually covering periods of 18 months to three years!).

Do these airlines weigh slim but muscular flight attendants and sack them if they're over the weight limit, or is such a policy only applied to those who 'look' fat? Because i've known quite a few flight attendants (male and female) who worked out and had high levels of muscle mass.

[WV_Woman]

"former co-worker of mine who is a sweet, very devout Christian was being interviewed for a new job at a company whose top people were not Christian. When asked what her hobbies were, she said, roughly, "following Jesus Christ, my Lord and Master." The company decided not to hire her, apparently in part because of that answer, and I'm afraid I don't blame them"

I'm with you on this one. That was a really stupid answer.

Who considers God a "hobby," for one thing?!

[WV_Woman]

Re: flight attendants. As long as they can fit through the aisles and do their jobs, I'm wondering why airlines care what they weigh.

I also wonder if they subject male flight attendants to the same standards?

[Dragon Ash]

Originally posted by WV_Woman
Re: flight attendants. As long as they can fit through the aisles and do their jobs, I'm wondering why airlines care what they weigh.

I agree. It is the ones who can't fit down the aisles that shouldn't be allowed to work.

And I don't care how they got that big. If they are so muscular and buff that they can't walk down the aisle, they go.

And yes, male flight attendants are and should be held to the same standards.

As a bit of an aside, however, I wonder if it would be possible to have a matrix of weight and body fat or whatever. Someone over the weight range but with a low body fat level would be fine. Someone over the range but with a body fat level also above range would not be.

I am not quite current on this, but I know that pilots are subject to very frequent checkups, etc. If flight attendants are twitchy about being called 'air waiters/waitresses' and are always going on about their 'safety duties', why don't they agree to being held to similiar standards.

As another aside, with the exception of gate agents, flight attendants are the key client interfacting aspect for airlines. As such, one would think that airlines want to promote a healthy, safe, attractive (not attractive as 'pretty', but attractive as in 'professional') image. Not saying it is right or wrong, but as a general rule, these are not qualities normally associated with obesity. And yes, I know that sometimes medical problems cause obesity, but those same medical problems would prevent those people from becoming flight attendants in the first place, right?


And remember - this is coming from a former flight attendant, who does have a great respect for the safety aspects of the job. I am not saying the safety aspects are a joke. I am saying that by flaunting the safety aspects of the job, flight attendants are guaranteeing they don't get any respect and continue to be viewed as glorified waiters/waitresses.

[Wikkit]

There's another aspect to the flight attendant weight thing that you guys are ignoring. The more weight a plane is carrying, the more lift it needs, and the more fuel it burns. Even if you ingore the fact that airplanes are often constricted in space so that being thin could make the job easier, and totally ignoring the attractiveness angle (which should have no part in any job other than one where attractiveness is being bought), lighter flight attendants will save money (assuming a small one and a big one get the same amount of work done).

I'm sure that airlines would charge tickets by adding a fixed fee (for the seat, cargo space, support salaries, etc) to a weight-based sum if they thought they could get away with it.

[Waenara]

I have taken numerous university courses in this area (exercise physiology, body composition, etc...) and I have to say that there is no easy-to-use and accurate "table" or "matrix" to estimate body fat percentage. Dragon Ash said that the main concern is the width of the aisle vs. the width of the flight attendant. Saying, (WAG) the aisle is 24" across, why not say that the flight attendant can be 20". across?

Not that you'd pull out a tape measure... I'm assuming that flight attendants have to wear a uniform. Just impose a uniform size restriction (say size 14 or 16). This is not petite, but it is close to, or a bit above, the average size in the United States - and a not at all unhealthy size at that. If you can wear the uniform, who cares if you're out of shape and pudgy or a heavier weight and in really good shape?

[Personal anecdote] A good friend of mine is a size 14. She is completely healthy looking, maybe even a little pudgy, but in no way fat, but neither does she look "muscle-bound". She looks like she couldn't weigh more than 140lbs, but she weighs 185-190. She works out alot and is constantly doing rock-climbing and other intense exercise. Her butt wouldn't be "hitting the seat" if she were a flight attendant, but she would definitely be over an arbitrary weight limit.


And Wikkit, I think that the weight = fuel arguement is silly. Recently there was a thread about Southwest Airlines charging very overweight passengers double the price - but this was for two seats, not to off-set fuel prices. Factoring in the weight of the fuel itself, the weight of the cargo, all the passengers, the food and supplies, and the weight of the plane itself, I think that the last thing that they would need to be concerned about is 25 more pounds of flight attendant.

[Wikkit]

Originally posted by Waenara
And Wikkit, I think that the weight = fuel arguement is silly. Recently there was a thread about Southwest Airlines charging very overweight passengers double the price - but this was for two seats, not to off-set fuel prices. Factoring in the weight of the fuel itself, the weight of the cargo, all the passengers, the food and supplies, and the weight of the plane itself, I think that the last thing that they would need to be concerned about is 25 more pounds of flight attendant. It's not silly. I might have overemphasized the weight portion of the ticket cost equation, but flying a plane full of fat people does cost more than flying a plane full of string beans.

If you drive your car with a bunch of junk in it, it will affect your gas milage. The same is true of a passenger jet, if to a different degree.

[AHunter3]

Small business with just a few employees: I have no problem with the idea that you're only going to hire other University of Tennessee graduates who used to go fly fishing together, or just other Orthodox Jewish males who like rock music, or strictly Korean cigarette smokers who are members of Hua's family or his inlaws.

Midsized business (e.g., the Associated supermarket): You should be an equal opportunity employer and your hiring stats should not reflect a really egregious absolute bias, but I'm sure lots of applicants will have applied because current workers told their friends of a job opening and vouched for them to the boss, and I'm OK with that, even if it skews the hiring patterns towards the ethnicity and personal habits and beliefs and whatnot of the folks already there.

Large corporation: All job openings should be published and applicants considered on an equal-opportunity basis; all promotional opportunities should be made available on a similar basis; the HR Dept should watch the stats and ensure that the outcomes reflect equal opportunity, applying corrective preferences if necessary to offset any likelihood that discriminatory hiring practices or promoting practices might be the cause of any unequal patterns in the outcomes; and any discriminatory practice alleged to exist which discriminates on the basis of factors that cannot be demonstrated to reflect directly on the ability or qualification to do the job should be added to the list of what they check for and protect against. Patterns of repeated uncorrected discriminatory practices should be punishable in the courts.

[CrazyCatLady]

You know, as far as the relative productivity of smokers vs. non-smokers goes, I've usually found smokers to be as productive if not more so. They're always busting their humps to get the job far enough ahead of schedule that they can go grab a smoke. Addiction can be a wonderful incentive.

I personally think that if you can't refuse to hire someone based on family obligations that reduce their productivity, you shouldn't be allowed to refuse them based on personal habits. After all, having kids is a personal choice that costs business a lot of money every year in additional sick days and family leave, but no one dares make a peep about that. Hey, if employee #1 can stay home with his sick kid, and leave early a few days a week to go to Little League games, why shouldn't employee #2 be able to be sick himself a little more often and stop for 5 minutes once in a while to smoke? How is 1 any more cost-effective than 2?

[Hazel]

Re the job applicant who, when asked about her hobbies, said "following Jesus Christ, my Lord and Master." I'd say that answer showed that she was someone who was not willing to go more then a few minutes without bringing up Jesus or God or Chiristianity; that she was so eager to tell everyone about following Jesus that she would bring the subject up on just about any pretext, or none at all. Anyone that obsessed would be a pain to have around.

[Hazel]

I'm a lifelong non-smoker. It's my observation that yes, when smokers return from cigarette breaks, they smell of smoke -- but the smell really isn't that strong, and it wears off quickly. I have a long communte by bus. If someone who's been smoking while waiting for the bus sits down next to me, I cirtainly notice the smell -- but only for couple of minutes, then it's gone. I would not want to have to put up with the person next to me on the bus smoking during the ride. At work, I would not want to have people smoking in the office. But the smell from someone who's just been smoking elsewhere? It's nothing. Not that strong a smell, and more imporantly, it's gone in a very short time. I just can't see this as anything to get upset about.

[Apos]

---Apos, I think you fail to take into account the fact that many goods and services are necessary for people to maintain a certain socio-economic status.---

No, I don't. If you read my post, you'll see that I indeed deal with that situation, and point out that it is rather beside the point.

My pointed question is simply this: why do any particular store owners owe you a chance to buy clothes over and above everyone else in the community, who ALSO do not offer you any clothing for sale? If you have some sort of demand on society to provide you with affordable clothes, why do the store owners bear this demand alone, especially given that they don't want to?

After all, those clothing store owners don't HAVE to be in bussiness at all! And if they weren't in bussiness any longer, you certainly couldn't in good faith demand that they supply you with garments!

Further, if you demand clothing purchases, and someone wants to sell to you, they will. In fact, they can probably make a premium off you, because of your desperation, and in so doing, crush the discriminating clothing stores by tapping a market tey are scorning.

---I live in an area where it wouldn't take that many store owners to refuse to sell to me before I'd be SOL as far as buying clothes appropriate for work, and my company opperates on the assumption that everyone has access to nice clothes.---

Yes, you would be SOL: in exactly the same way as you would if NO ONE sold any clothes at all.

That this is all premised on assumptions about what will be available is sort of my point. If your company wants you to have clothes, then why don't THEY provide some for you, at a considerable profit to themselves? Why is it the responsibility to some people who happen to own clothes and happen to sell them to some people when they feel like it?

[piaffe]

It seems to me that it should be legal for the owner of a private business should be able to discriminate on whatever basis he wants, even if it is immoral. My reasoning is similar to Apos'--if a person is not obligated to cook food for just anyone who might want to eat, why does he incur that obligation just by cooking lots of food and charging people money to eat it?

However, I think public corporations should only be allowed to discriminate, with respect to employment, on the basis of characteristics that affect the candidate's ability to perform the duties he'll be asked to perform as an employee.

Does anyone else think the public/private distinction is relevant?

[piaffe]

It seems to me that it should be legal for the owner of a private business should be able to discriminate on whatever basis he wants, even if it is immoral. My reasoning is similar to Apos'--if a person is not obligated to cook food for just anyone who might want to eat, why does he incur that obligation just by cooking lots of food and charging people money to eat it?

However, I think public corporations should only be allowed to discriminate, with respect to employment, on the basis of characteristics that affect the candidate's ability to perform the duties he'll be asked to perform as an employee.

Does anyone else think the public/private distinction is relevant?