What habits should employers be able to discriminate on?

Great Debates
41

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. )

42

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.

43

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! :smiley:

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.)

44

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.

45

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.

46

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.

47

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.

48

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.

49

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.

50

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

51

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.

52

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.

53

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.

54

“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?!

55

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?

56

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.

57

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.

58

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.

59

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.

60

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.