The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

[Checkmite]

If a rock climber breaks his leg falling off a cliff, he is considered disabled until he heals. I don't see the difference as long as a doctor is signing off that the person has a disability.

I agree. I don't see where a person's hand in having caused his own disability is relevant to the question of the fact of his disability. If, for instance, someone blinds himself accidentally by careless use of fireworks, whether or not it was his 'fault', he is as a matter of fact blind and can probably no longer do his previous job, and thus should qualify for disability classification and allowance.

If a person who is obese in fact cannot do work anymore as a result of his/her obesity, then they are disabled; simple as that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I agree. I don't see where a person's hand in having caused his own disability is relevant to the question of the fact of his disability. If, for instance, someone blinds himself accidentally by careless use of fireworks, whether or not it was his 'fault', he is as a matter of fact blind and can probably no longer do his previous job, and thus should qualify for disability classification and allowance.

If a person who is obese in fact cannot do work anymore as a result of his/her obesity, then they are disabled; simple as that.

Well, in Conservative-world, if you hurt yourself doing something stupid, you deserve all the pain and suffering and any disability should not be treated as a disability.

Unless you're white and wealthy, then it's a tragedy that needs to be solved.

 

[Pulvinar]

I agree. I don't see where a person's hand in having caused his own disability is relevant to the question of the fact of his disability. If, for instance, someone blinds himself accidentally by careless use of fireworks, whether or not it was his 'fault', he is as a matter of fact blind and can probably no longer do his previous job, and thus should qualify for disability classification and allowance.

If a person who is obese in fact cannot do work anymore as a result of his/her obesity, then they are disabled; simple as that.

Obesity differs in that it's reversible. If someone can still get paid for being disablingly obese, they're going to be less inclined to reverse the habits that led to it.

One could develop a habit of being too lazy to work. A new disability?

 

[dirtywick]

Obesity differs in that it's reversible. If someone can still get paid for being disablingly obese, they're going to be less inclined to reverse the habits that led to it.

One could develop a habit of being too lazy to work. A new disability?

It's also different in that a sudden, catastrophic event resulting in permanent injury is almost exclusively brought on by a single incident, sometimes beyond the control of the person effected. Obesity, and not just obesity to the point that it impairs movement so severely a person is unable to perform basic functions, is the result of a prolonged and extreme effort.

 

[rustypouch]

I agree. I don't see where a person's hand in having caused his own disability is relevant to the question of the fact of his disability. If, for instance, someone blinds himself accidentally by careless use of fireworks, whether or not it was his 'fault', he is as a matter of fact blind and can probably no longer do his previous job, and thus should qualify for disability classification and allowance.

If a person who is obese in fact cannot do work anymore as a result of his/her obesity, then they are disabled; simple as that.

But with your example, it's one accident. It's not a lifestyle.

With obesity to the point of disability, it's the result of years of choices, and at any point there's the opportunity to make different choices, and to reverse the effects.

 

[bit_pattern]

But with your example, it's one accident. It's not a lifestyle.

With obesity to the point of disability, it's the result of years of choices, and at any point there's the opportunity to make different choices, and to reverse the effects.

Can you please refer to ANY working definition of 'disabled' that is predicated on how a disability is acquired?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

But with your example, it's one accident. It's not a lifestyle.

With obesity to the point of disability, it's the result of years of choices, and at any point there's the opportunity to make different choices, and to reverse the effects.

I admit that this runs through my mind every time I see a fat person on the free handicarts at the grocery store. I have zero sympathy for them. And then I see the utter garbage they fill the little basket on the front of the cart with and have less than no sympathy - I actually fantasize about slashing their car tires. Here I am trying to feed a family and these porkass bastards are using the handicapped features of modern society as if they *********** deserve special treatment for being selfish, lazy, greedy, self-indulgent human trashbins.


**** em. They should die in a ditch.

 

[bit_pattern]

Well, in Conservative-world, if you hurt yourself doing something stupid, you deserve all the pain and suffering and any disability should not be treated as a disability.

Unless you're white and wealthy, then it's a tragedy that needs to be solved.

Prostate cancer

 

[The Atheist]

In which country is this ? On what basis do they make this decision, it is a hard BMI number or just a case of "too plump to work"? What kind of a business are they ?

Apologies for the delayed response but I've been very busy.

I'm in NZ, and no, there's no BMI involved - just if someone is grossly obese they don't get hired.

The businesses range from a merchant bank to a timber processor. In the case of the merchant bank, the CEO is one the country's highest-visibility businessmen, so he keeps his opinion very tightly held, but his exact words to me were: "I won't hire fat people, because they're lazy and take too many sick days."

I can't comment on the laziness, but the higher incidence of sick leave is unarguable.

I can understand not hiring morbidly obese employees to perform physically demanding roles or other roles where their weight presents a significant barrier to performing their job but it seems very shortsighted to refuse to employ someone because they are fatter than an arbitrary level when it has no impact on their ability to perform the role. I guess that as society gets fatter, their pool of prospective employees will shrink and business will suffer.

As you can see from the sick leave statistics, its not just the physical nature of work that is a concern.

Could it also be that firms who choose to hire hale and healthy people of sensible weight might be a lot smarter and more profitable, thereby ensuring they never have a shortage of labour?

 

[The Atheist]

You're in ZN I take it? I wouldn't worry about it then. You know how many obese people there are in Europe? Not that many ... so there's that.

"Not that many" ?

Evidence suggests 20% overweight and climbing. Pretty significant, if you ask me.

 

[bit_pattern]

I admit that this runs through my mind every time I see a fat person on the free handicarts at the grocery store. I have zero sympathy for them. And then I see the utter garbage they fill the little basket on the front of the cart with and have less than no sympathy - I actually fantasize about slashing their car tires. Here I am trying to feed a family and these porkass bastards are using the handicapped features of modern society as if they *********** deserve special treatment for being selfish, lazy, greedy, self-indulgent human trashbins.


**** em. They should die in a ditch.

So the disabled are only people you can have pity for? My. How delightfully condescending

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm in NZ, and no, there's no BMI involved - just if someone is grossly obese they don't get hired.

From the NZ HRC:

Can an employer specify physical characteristics such as height, weight or strength as being essential for the job?

Yes, provided the physical characteristics are essential in order to perform the job satisfactorily or in order to meet safety requirements. For example, a bus 15 company might specify that drivers have to weigh less than 100kg because the driver’s seat is only manufactured to carry a weight of no more than 100kg

An employer who wishes to specify physical characteristics as part of the qualifications for the job needs to remember that the Act prohibits indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral job condition or requirement has the effect of excluding some job applicants on one of the grounds prohibited by the Act. For example, a minimum-height requirement is likely to have more effect on women than on men and, as well, may have more effect on men from some ethnic groups than from others. Therefore physical characteristics may only be specified if there is a genuine reason for doing so. The Act provides a “good reason” defence to a complaint of indirect discrimination. This is that there are objectively sound reasons for the practice that are unrelated to any prohibited form of discrimination.

Like I said, that employer had better not have their policy documented or they could find themselves in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993.

 

[The Don]

Could it also be that firms who choose to hire hale and healthy people of sensible weight might be a lot smarter and more profitable, thereby ensuring they never have a shortage of labour?

It certainly could, but looking at my own industry (IT services), if I was going to restrict myself to employing people with a BMI of 25 or lower, I'd significantly reduce the pool of talent from which I could recruit.

 

[The Atheist]

If one is disabled by a condition - regardless of how it is acquired - it is by very definition a disability.

Sure.

As long as that disability spectrum doesn't include fatness, I'm cool with that, although my personal opinion is skewed toward self-inflicted disability not being equivalent to acquired/birth disability.

For instance, the drunk driver who maims himself and an innocent person ought not to be treated the same.

Your outrage seems to be simply a case of prejudice and little else.

You're welcome to take whatever spin you want on it - but I am a professional on both sides of the fence, and I think the idea that one can eat one's way to a disability is absurd.

And remember, if it happened that fatness did become a disability, I would personally make money out of it, and there are few profitable ventures I'll slag off.

Well they better not have documented that policy because if labour laws there are anything like here then that would be discriminatory and illegal.

'Course not.

Crikey, I could expose enough businesses to ruin half of Auckland if I stood in front of the Human Rights Commissioner and quoted conversations I've had where CEOs have told me they will not hire Indians/Maori/fat people/women/gays/etc ad nauseum.

I don't like any of those positions at all, but since my only possible action on them is to cut my nose off to spite my face, I don't do anything at all about it, but ensure our services adhere to it.

 

[Elagabalus]

"Not that many" ?

Evidence suggests 20% overweight and climbing. Pretty significant, if you ask me.

Not really. R U including Blighty?

What's the figure in NZ I wonder .... ?

 

[The Atheist]

Obesity, and not just obesity to the point that it impairs movement so severely a person is unable to perform basic functions, is the result of a prolonged and extreme effort.

Bingo!

Whenever I see a really gigantic person, I wonder where they find the time to eat that much. It must take a real effort to pack on 300 extra pounds.

 

[The Atheist]

Not really. R U including Blighty?

What's the figure in NZ I wonder .... ?

Sorry, I should have said "obese", because over 50% of Europeans are overweight and 20% obese, or grossly overweight.

Did you see the figures I quoted? They are from the WHO, so if you disagree, please provide alternative evidence. I'm just following their statements on sizes.

NZ's are 60% & 30%, by comparison.

 

[The Atheist]

It certainly could, but looking at my own industry (IT services), if I was going to restrict myself to employing people with a BMI of 25 or lower, I'd significantly reduce the pool of talent from which I could recruit.

I could see why there's a lot of tubbies in IT, but it's an area I don't have much to do with, so how I'd handle it, I don't know.

I'd be very interested to see some productivity value work on whether the tubby IT employee is as valuable as the skinny one.

Woz might be a good example for the equation. As I recall, he must be verging on obese.

 

[bit_pattern]

I don't like any of those positions at all, but since my only possible action on them is to cut my nose off to spite my face, I don't do anything at all about it, but ensure our services adhere to it.

So you're breaking the law too? Classy...

 

[bit_pattern]

It must take a real effort to pack on 300 extra pounds.

Actually, it doesn't. It just requires easy availability to high calorific foods, bad habits (generally instilled in childhood, people get addicted to sugars and fats at a young age), a ****** society that doesn't do much to enable parents to make good nutritional choices, and a sedentary lifestyle. Sitting in your ****** office in front of a computer all day to make your clients rich probably doesn't help.