Orlando CEO says if your fat and/or smoke, you're fired

[chagrin]

My first thought is that he should have the right as the owner of the business to hire and fire who he wants (as with any business owner) but also I think have always believed that all obesity isn't just about eating too much, smoking is a choice - 100%. Anyway, I don't mean to bag on smokers, it doesn't offend me any - wanted to know what you all think of this.
However, I think he's being a bit hard on the beer drinkers

sorry is a repost

http://www.local6.com/news/14537611/detail.html

Fla. Companies Forbidding Smoking In Private Lives

POSTED: 11:41 pm EST November 7, 2007
UPDATED: 7:29 am EST November 9, 2007


ORLANDO, Fla. -- A growing number of companies in Florida are forbidding their workers from smoking not only at work, but also in their private lives.


Westgate Resorts, the largest private employer in Central Florida, has banned smoking and won't budge from a policy of not hiring smokers and firing employees who do smoke.


"When I found out it was legal to discriminate against smokers, I put the policy in place," Westgate president and CEO David Seigel said.

Seigel told Local 6 that the policy was prompted by the death of his close friend -- a heavy smoker who died of cancer.

"If you are too stupid to understand that smoking is going to kill you, then we are going to tell you that if you want to work for our company, you will not smoke," Seigel said.

Central Floridian Ava Bryant said she was called by a recruiter for Westgate and told not to come in for an interview because Westgate won't hire smokers.

"I call it discrimination," Bryant said. "I'm not an avid smoker or a constant smoker. I just said I smoke. Sometimes I may pick up a cigarette and smoke."

But Local 6 reporter Steven Cooper reported that at Westgate, "sometimes" is one time too many.

Seigel said his policy is cost effective and said since it went into effect, health insurance claims have gone down significantly -- making insurance more affordable for employees.

The concern for privacy groups is that policies could extend beyond health issues.

"Why should non-smokers sympathize with you?" Cooper asked Bryant.

"Because, then if it's not for the smoking, it may be something else that may infringe on their rights," Bryant said. "So, how far are you going to go with it? Like, you wear pants so we are not going to hire you because you wear pants?"

"Anything we can do that is legal and not discriminatory, we will do," Seigel said. "If you are an alcoholic and we have the right to fire you, we will do so. And if you are obese and there is a way for us not to hire you or to fire you, we will do that, too."

"That sounds like discrimination," Cooper said.

"Well, I'm saying that anything that is not discriminatory," Seigel said. "If it is, we can't do very much about it."

Local 6 videotaped several Westgate employees leaving his building and smoking in a nearby strip mall.

Seigel said if those smokers are found out, they will be disciplined and assisted to quit smoking.

Seigel said when the non-smoking policy initially went into effect he gave employees a year to stop smoking and opportunities to receive counseling, patches and other smoking cessation programs.

Click here to see what Floridians are saying about the issue.



Tell us what you think. Send an e-mail to desk@local6.com.

Watch Local 6 News for more on this story

[DaKCMan AP]

Denny Crane.

[sedated]

a job should never control what an employee does in their personal life.

[DaKCMan AP]

a job should never control what an employee does in their personal life.

So you shouldn't get fired for failing a drug test?

[Rain Man]

"Because, then if it's not for the smoking, it may be something else that may infringe on their rights," Bryant said. "So, how far are you going to go with it? Like, you wear pants so we are not going to hire you because you wear pants?"


I thought about this as a policy, but my lawyer told me that I couldn't do it. Maybe he was being too conservative.



I would think that the guy will regret his obesity statement. Not hiring based on voluntary behaviors is probably defensible - smoking, tattoos, drinking, etc. - though I'm not sure. I would have a hard time imagining that not hiring based on weight is defensible.

[Fly O.T. McWall]

a job should never control what an employee does in their personal life.
Obviously, anything LEGAL.

[DaKCMan AP]

I thought about this as a policy, but my lawyer told me that I couldn't do it. Maybe he was being too conservative.



I would think that the guy will regret his obesity statement. Not hiring based on voluntary behaviors is probably defensible - smoking, tattoos, drinking, etc. - though I'm not sure. I would have a hard time imagining that not hiring based on weight is defensible.

I'm sure an argument can be made, in some instances, that obesity is caused by voluntary behaviors (ie. eating McD's 7 days a week).

[DaKCMan AP]

Obviously, anything LEGAL.

Being a stripper in a club is legal. I'm sure if an elementary school teacher also decided to work nights as a stripper, he/she would be fired.

[Fly O.T. McWall]

I'm sure an argument can be made, in some instances, that obesity is caused by voluntary behaviors (ie. eating McD's 7 days a week).
some obesity is caused by voluntary behaviors.

there are diseases that cause someone to be overweight; medications that cause weight gain; etc.

[DaKCMan AP]

some obesity is caused by voluntary behaviors.

there are diseases that cause someone to be overweight; medications that cause weight gain; etc.

Correct, which is why I said "in some instances".

[Eleazar]

some obesity is caused by voluntary behaviors.

there are diseases that cause someone to be overweight; medications that cause weight gain; etc.

But what percentage of it is voluntary? 80? 90?

[ROYC75]

Denny Crane.


I was thinking the same thing......... ROFL

[Amnorix]

I thought about this as a policy, but my lawyer told me that I couldn't do it. Maybe he was being too conservative.


He was. The rule is "you can hire and fire for any reason, or no reason, but not for a discriminatory reason." Smoking is not a protected activity, and smokers are not a protected class, so you can refuse to hire on that alone.

I would think that the guy will regret his obesity statement. Not hiring based on voluntary behaviors is probably defensible - smoking, tattoos, drinking, etc. - though I'm not sure. I would have a hard time imagining that not hiring based on weight is defensible.

It's probably legal. Obesity isn't a protected class either. Should be fine.

Note, I'm not arguing what is "right" in some higher moral sense. Just what's legal.

[DaKCMan AP]

He was. The rule is "you can hire and fire for any reason, or no reason, but not for a discriminatory reason." Smoking is not a protected activity, and smokers are not a protected class, so you can refuse to hire on that alone.

I think RM was talking about a no-pants policy.

[Amnorix]

Being a stripper in a club is legal. I'm sure if an elementary school teacher also decided to work nights as a stripper, he/she would be fired.

Because stripping isn't a protected activity. Same thing if she smoked pot.

You can hire and fire ANYONE, at ANY TIME, for ANY REASON, or NO REASON AT ALL, is the general rule.

Exceptions:

1. employment contract, in which case you'll have some contractual obligations even if you do fire them.

2. protected class or activity is the reason you fired them.

[DaKCMan AP]

Because stripping isn't a protected activity. Same thing if she smoked pot.

You can hire and fire ANYONE, at ANY TIME, for ANY REASON, or NO REASON AT ALL, is the general rule.

Exceptions:

1. employment contract, in which case you'll have some contractual obligations even if you do fire them.

2. protected class or activity is the reason you fired them.

I understand. I was merely providing an example to counter the "a job should never control what an employee does in their personal life" argument.

[Amnorix]

I think RM was talking about a no-pants policy.

ROFL Missed that part. That would fall into sexual discrimination I'm afraid. At least, I imagine it would. Not like I've had to look into that particular situation at all....

[Amnorix]

I understand. I was merely providing an example to counter the "a job should never control what an employee does in their personal life" argument.

Rigth, and it doesn't.

Your choice is to do what you should, or risk being fired. Your employer doesn't CONTROL your life, but your employer does control whether you continue to be employed.

[Groves]

Control is where you force something on a person whether they like it or not. People have a huge choice here, they can stay and stop smoking or go get a job with someone else.

It's not like these people have a right to work for this company. Some people get fired with no choice at all. It's called a layoff.

I'm pro smoking, and even more pro "lets not get stupid with our laws".

[banyon]

All of this crap would go away probably if we had universal health care.

Employers are getting tired of the rising premiums. Our premiums went up 35% this year!

Course we have 2 diabetics, a fat man, an old smoker, and a pregnant lady, but now that goes on me.

[siberian khatru]

I'm all for employers having wide latitude in the hiring and firing of people.

That also means they have wide latitude in cutting their own throats -- you draw the circle too tight, you severely limit the labor pool and your opportunity to hire a smoker/fatty/etc. who will be a damn good worker who might make your company a lot of money (above and beyond what they may cost you in health expenses).

[Bob Dole]

Perhaps they should fire and refuse to hire employees who voluntarily have sex, since there's a chance they will reproduce and incur birth-related medical expenses. Not to mention the expense of lost productivity to maternity/paternity leave.

[DaKCMan AP]

Perhaps they should fire and refuse to hire employees who voluntarily have sex, since there's a chance they will reproduce and incur birth-related medical expenses. Not to mention the expense of lost productivity to maternity/paternity leave.

It's fine for employees to reproduce as long as the resulting child is registered for 7 years of indentured servitude.

[Amnorix]

I'm all for employers having wide latitude in the hiring and firing of people.

That also means they have wide latitude in cutting their own throats -- you draw the circle too tight, you severely limit the labor pool and your opportunity to hire a smoker/fatty/etc. who will be a damn good worker who might make your company a lot of money (above and beyond what they may cost you in health expenses).

Right, that's the risk you take.

[Bob Dole]

It's fine for employees to reproduce as long as the resulting child is registered for 7 years of indentured servitude.

In all seriousness, Bob Dole smokes and can guarantee you that his accrued lifetime health care expenses pale in comparison to the costs incurred by one employee having a single child.

[ClevelandBronco]

..."That sounds like discrimination," Cooper said.

Yes. It is perfectly legal discrimination.

[Skip Towne]

All of this crap would go away probably if we had universal health care.

Employers are getting tired of the rising premiums. Our premiums went up 35% this year!

Course we have 2 diabetics, a fat man, an old smoker, and a pregnant lady, but now that goes on me.
Which one are you? :p

[BIG_DADDY]

Cool

[Eleazar]

Bob Dole is right about people with kids. They take probably 3 or 4 times as much time off as I take in a year. Every time their kid is sick, needs to go to the doctor, taking them someplace, knocking off a half hour early every day to pick them up from school...

you should get bonus pay for being a childless person in good health.

[BIG_DADDY]

People should be able to hire or fire whoever they want.

[Buehler445]

I'm all for employers having wide latitude in the hiring and firing of people.

That also means they have wide latitude in cutting their own throats -- you draw the circle too tight, you severely limit the labor pool and your opportunity to hire a smoker/fatty/etc. who will be a damn good worker who might make your company a lot of money (above and beyond what they may cost you in health expenses).

I think this hits it right on the head.

The rule of thumb is that when hiring, you can't discriminate against somebody unless it is on the basis of a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. Unless they work with the public (which could turn away customers), finding any BFOQ for smoking is a stretch.

I am very surprised that it is legal.

Don't get me wrong. Business people should hire whomever they want because its their responsibility to make the joint work, not the government's.

[BIG_DADDY]

I think this hits it right on the head.

The rule of thumb is that when hiring, you can't discriminate against somebody unless it is on the basis of a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. Unless they work with the public (which could turn away customers), finding any BFOQ for smoking is a stretch.

I am very surprised that it is legal.

Don't get me wrong. Business people should hire whomever they want because its their responsibility to make the joint work, not the government's.

It's been my experiece that these type of policys get applied when employers are looking to get rid of someone. The last company I worked for had a random drug testing policy. I was never tested my entire time there then again I was always a top performer. We are talking like 10 years.

I guess if you had a fatso policy that would kind of hard to pick through that.

[Nightfyre]

Not that I would know better than Amnorix, but I believe the Montana Statute requires good cause for terminating an employee. At least, that's what they taught us in our business law class here.

[picasso]

The problem with this kind of policy is that because you have someone that is slightly overweight or becoming overweight and possibly unattractive you can simply fire them for hear say as to whether that person smokes or not.
It's an out for an employer for many other reasons other than performance and I for one would not work for the muther f**ker. Sounds like a total dick.

[Eleazar]

I think this hits it right on the head.

The rule of thumb is that when hiring, you can't discriminate against somebody unless it is on the basis of a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. Unless they work with the public (which could turn away customers), finding any BFOQ for smoking is a stretch.

I am very surprised that it is legal.

Don't get me wrong. Business people should hire whomever they want because its their responsibility to make the joint work, not the government's.

You can't discriminate against a protected class, unless it's on the basis of a bona fide occupational qualification.

If you're running a nudie bar, your clientele are men, a man can't sue you for a job as a dancer. You can't be sued by a 70 year old man for denial of a job as an airline pilot.

Fat is not a protected class.

[KevB]

Bob Dole is right about people with kids. They take probably 3 or 4 times as much time off as I take in a year. Every time their kid is sick, needs to go to the doctor, taking them someplace, knocking off a half hour early every day to pick them up from school...

you should get bonus pay for being a childless person in good health.


Should you also get bonus pay for being a childless, healthy employee who has 29,000 posts at Chiefs Planet?

Part of your argument is more about productivity than cost to the employer. I'm guessing you might not want to go down that path with your post count.

[Eleazar]

Should you also get bonus pay for being a childless, healthy employee who has 29,000 posts at Chiefs Planet?

Part of your argument is more about productivity than cost to the employer. I'm guessing you might not want to go down that path with your post count.

They're very happy with my productivity actually.

[Stewie]

What a Gomer! He sounds like a "Don't make claims on my company's insurance policy!" asshole.

Death is expensive. Clinging on to life for a year or more takes lots of cash no matter the illness. Care for a dying smoker at 55 isn't cheaper than care for a dying 80 year old teetotaler.

[JohnnyV13]

Amnorix,

Weight CAN be a legal issue in firing. I recall airline personel challenging weight policies as being disguised ageism. (which IS a proctected class). The strategy here is to contend that older people tend to weigh more than their younger contemporaries and the company's true intent is to eliminate older workers.

The idea that obesity can be caused by other factors than eating too much is something of a myth. Certainly there are people who tend to retain fat more than others (many american indians fall into this category) BUT no medication, genetic predilection or other factors will make you gain wieght if you burn more calories than you consume over the long term.

Basically, no prisoner comes out of a concentration camp fat. (I am quoting my father who is a physician). Trying to say that obesity is not caused by over eating is to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy always increases).

What is true is that health conditions or genetic makeup can make it MORE DIFFICULT for some people to maintain a healthy weight in a food rich environment.

[Simplex3]

a job should never control what an employee does in their personal life.
...yet you ask them to cover your personal health insurance with company dollars...

[Simplex3]

All of this crap would go away probably if we had universal health care.

Employers are getting tired of the rising premiums. Our premiums went up 35% this year!

Course we have 2 diabetics, a fat man, an old smoker, and a pregnant lady, but now that goes on me.
LMAO

You actually think healthcare is going to be CHEAPER if the feds take over? Name one thing the govt has taken over that got cheaper.

[Valiant]

LMAO

You actually think healthcare is going to be CHEAPER if the feds take over? Name one thing the govt has taken over that got cheaper.



Morals of the political parties???

[Rain Man]

Wait till the discussion gets to exempt and non-exempt stuff. That's where I'm most tempted to pick up a gun in revolution. I despise the government's wage and hour laws more than I despise terrorists, because they interfere with my management of my company and also limit employees' chances to shine.

[Skip Towne]

Amnorix,

Weight CAN be a legal issue in firing. I recall airline personel challenging weight policies as being disguised ageism. (which IS a proctected class). The strategy here is to contend that older people tend to weigh more than their younger contemporaries and the company's true intent is to eliminate older workers.

The idea that obesity can be caused by other factors than eating too much is something of a myth. Certainly there are people who tend to retain fat more than others (many american indians fall into this category) BUT no medication, genetic predilection or other factors will make you gain wieght if you burn more calories than you consume over the long term.

Basically, no prisoner comes out of a concentration camp fat. (I am quoting my father who is a physician). Trying to say that obesity is not caused by over eating is to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy always increases).

What is true is that health conditions or genetic makeup can make it MORE DIFFICULT for some people to maintain a healthy weight in a food rich environment.
Exactly right. I use the concentration camp example as well. There were NO fat people at Dachau. My dad was a doctor who helped clean it up.

[CoMoChief]

So you shouldn't get fired for failing a drug test?
Not if it affects the way you work.

If you have been with a company for 10+ years and are a great worker and your bosses all think you're great etc and fail a drug test do you think you should get fired for smoking marijuana?

[SPchief]

Not if it affects the way you work.

If you have been with a company for 10+ years and are a great worker and your bosses all think you're great etc and fail a drug test do you think you should get fired for smoking marijuana?


I think most companies frown upon people using illegal drugs.

[Skip Towne]

Because stripping isn't a protected activity. Same thing if she smoked pot.

You can hire and fire ANYONE, at ANY TIME, for ANY REASON, or NO REASON AT ALL, is the general rule.

Exceptions:

1. employment contract, in which case you'll have some contractual obligations even if you do fire them.

2. protected class or activity is the reason you fired them.
Is a union member excepted?

[Rain Man]

Is a union member excepted?

(Insert "You have to work before you can be fired" joke here.)

[dj56dt58]

I thought you couldn't fire someone based on personal appearance??

[Smed1065]

LMAO

You actually think healthcare is going to be CHEAPER if the feds take over? Name one thing the govt has taken over that got cheaper.

My retirement check.............

Seriously

Promised X and got x-30%.

[BIG_DADDY]

What a Gomer! He sounds like a "Don't make claims on my company's insurance policy!" asshole.

Death is expensive. Clinging on to life for a year or more takes lots of cash no matter the illness. Care for a dying smoker at 55 isn't cheaper than care for a dying 80 year old teetotaler.


My guess is he wouldn't hire the 80 year old teetotaler either. LMAO

[Bob Dole]

I thought you couldn't fire someone based on personal appearance??

In a right-to-work state, you aren't required to give a reason for termination. In theory, you could fire someone for their appearance and just tell them you don't need them any more.

[KC_Connection]

"Fat people are contagious."-Denny Crane

[BIG_DADDY]

In a right-to-work state, you aren't required to give a reason for termination. In theory, you could fire someone for their appearance and just tell them you don't need them any more.

As it should be.

[DaneMcCloud]

I thought you couldn't fire someone based on personal appearance??

No, those people just don't get hired. Especially long haired people in the midwest. There's major discrimination, as if hair length equates intelligence.

It's ******ing stupid. And I speak from experience.

[DaneMcCloud]

As it should be.

Bullshit.

You shouldn't be able to fire a competent worker because you don't like their "looks".

Weight, alcoholism, drug use and poor work yes.

Looks?

**** NO.

[SPchief]

No, those people just don't get hired. Especially long haired people in the midwest. There's major discrimination, as if hair length equates intelligence.

It's ******ing stupid. And I speak from experience.


Are you really this stupid. Employers don't hire someone based on their looks.

[Bob Dole]

Are you really this stupid. Employers don't hire someone based on their looks.

lolcat

[DaneMcCloud]

Are you really this stupid. Employers don't hire someone based on their looks.

WTF?

If I were to walk into Sprint with incredible references and experience with the way my hair is NOW, they'd never hire me.

I had the same exact problem 20 years ago, when my hair was longer than Mecca's.

My brother left KC a year ago. Worked for Sprint. Moved to Los Angeles and now works for Yahoo. His salary is more than THREE TIMES his salary in KC and is hair is growing LONG. Freakin' LONG.

They'd NEVER allow that at Sprint in O.P.

Are YOU really this stupid?

Oh, and BTW, f*cking kiss my ass.

[TinyEvel]

Well, since you dye your hair white, they are concerned with benefits (retirement pay)


ZING!

:)

[DaneMcCloud]

I think most companies frown upon people using illegal drugs.


Unless you work in the entertainment business, Apple, Google or any other company that's trying to "think outside of the box".

As long as you do your job, no one cares what you do while not at work.

[DaneMcCloud]

Well, since you dye your hair white, they are concerned with benefits (retirement pay)


ZING!

:)

To be "acourant", only part of my hair is white. The other is dark.

BIG difference my friend.


ROFL

[TinyEvel]

Unless you work in the entertainment business, Apple, Google or any other company that's trying to "think outside of the box".

As long as you do your job, no one cares what you do while not at work.

Whenever I do drugs, can only think about "inside the box"

:whackit:

[SPchief]

WTF?

If I were to walk into Sprint with incredible references and experience with the way my hair is NOW, they'd never hire me.

I had the same exact problem 20 years ago, when my hair was longer than Mecca's.

My brother left KC a year ago. Worked for Sprint. Moved to Los Angeles and now works for Yahoo. His salary is more than THREE TIMES his salary in KC and is hair is growing LONG. Freakin' LONG.

They'd NEVER allow that at Sprint in O.P.

Are YOU really this stupid?

Oh, and BTW, f*cking kiss my ass.


:spock:

So your brother who worked for Sprint, was hired based on his looks? Or was he fired based on his looks? But he was allowed to work there with his long hair? But based on your assumtions Sprint (who I have zero affiliation with) wouldn't hire you? (based on your assumtions)

[SPchief]

Unless you work in the entertainment business, Apple, Google or any other company that's trying to "think outside of the box".

As long as you do your job, no one cares what you do while not at work.


So you are saying that Apple, Google and Yahoo support drug usage?

[TinyEvel]

You guys with hair are really making me jealous.

[TinyEvel]

ALso: you guys with drugs are....

[BIG_DADDY]

Bullshit.

You shouldn't be able to fire a competent worker because you don't like their "looks".

Weight, alcoholism, drug use and poor work yes.

Looks?

**** NO.

I should be able to hire or fire whoever the hell I want for whatever reason I think appropriate, it's my business. People don't like it they can risk everything to go out and open their own.

I'll take it to another level, chemistry. I have fired or had employees transferred for that. Do they do their job, sure. If the chemistry is not right for the team I am putting together though they got to go.

I don't know why employees think they deserve all these rights and there is a bunch of them. There are a billion jobs out there, what makes them think they can get one and start dictating shit is beyond me.

[DaneMcCloud]

:spock:

So your brother who worked for Sprint, was hired based on his looks? Or was he fired based on his looks? But he was allowed to work there with his long hair? But based on your assumtions Sprint (who I have zero affiliation with) wouldn't hire you? (based on your assumtions)

That's correct. Sprint, in 1987, before I moved to Los Angeles wouldn't hire me because I had long hair. Every where I went, people rejected me, regardless of education or intelligence.

I was told later at a place where I was hired that they were scared to hire me, that they feared I was a drug dealer?

Explain to me this: What drug dealer, anywhere, would work for $9 an hour?

The stereotypes were way to much to overcome.

Want more?

My other brother, who graduated from KU and worked at DST(?) was told he was "too young" to be moved into upper management. So he had to move his entire family (wife, 3 daughters at that time) to Austin, TX. Within two years he was a Vice President. In KC, they told him he had to wait until he was at least 40.

He was 32 when he was a VP at Dell.

He's since moved on to bigger and better things, but PLEASE, don't tell this sh*t doesn't exist.

I know better.

[DaneMcCloud]

So you are saying that Apple, Google and Yahoo support drug usage?

I'm saying that they are not policing people that are doing their jobs.

[TinyEvel]

Signs, Signs, everywhere is signs....

[SPchief]

That's correct. Sprint, in 1987, before I moved to Los Angeles wouldn't hire me because I had long hair. Every where I went, people rejected me, regardless of education or intelligence.

I was told later at a place where I was hired that they were scared to hire me, that they feared I was a drug dealer?

Explain to me this: What drug dealer, anywhere, would work for $9 an hour?

The stereotypes were way to much to overcome.

Want more?

My other brother, who graduated from KU and worked at DST(?) was told he was "too young" to be moved into upper management. So he had to move his entire family (wife, 3 daughters at that time) to Austin, TX. Within two years he was a Vice President. In KC, they told him he had to wait until he was at least 40.

He was 32 when he was a VP at Dell.

He's since moved on to bigger and better things, but PLEASE, don't tell this sh*t doesn't exist.

I know better.

So something that happened 20 years ago still applies now?

[TinyEvel]

See? If you don't have hair, you don't have these problems.

[TinyEvel]

To be "acourant", only part of my hair is white. The other is dark.

BIG difference my friend.


ROFL


So, you're only 20 PERCENT BOB BARKER?


That helps.

[SPchief]

I'm saying that they are not policing people that are doing their jobs.


So if the CEO of Apple or Google is caught doing drugs, should he be fired?

[BIG_DADDY]

Are you really this stupid. Employers don't hire someone based on their looks.

Really? Let me ask you a question. If you had two women applying for an admin position and one of them was a butt ugly fat bitch and the other was slightly less qualified but looked like Jessica Alba tell me which one you would hire. Don't lie.

[DaneMcCloud]

I should be able to hire or fire whoever the hell I want for whatever reason I think appropriate, it's my business. People don't like it they can risk everything to go out and open their own.

I'll take it to another level, chemistry. I have fired or had employees transferred for that. Do they do their job, sure. If the chemistry is not right for the team I am putting together though they got to go.

I don't know why employees think they deserve all these rights and there is a bunch of them. There are a billion jobs out there, what makes them think they can get one and start dictating shit is beyond me.

Well, I think that's a bullshit attitude and a major reason why racism and discrimination are still prevalent in this county.

****** chemistry. Maybe you're an Assh*le.

I've had people of all races and religions work for me. I coudn't give two sh*ts what they look like or if we get along. All I care about is do they meet deadlines, do their work, stay off the phones (when it's not necessary) and is their work accurate.

I don't care if they're home after work alone, or with their family or out drinking and whoring around. My only concern is whether or not they are at work on time, perform their duties and behave "professionally" while at work.

Anything else is an invasion of privacy, as far as I'm concerned.

[DaneMcCloud]

Really? Let me ask you a question. If you had two women applying for an admin position and one of them was a butt ugly fat bitch and the other was slightly less qualified but looked like Jessica Alba tell me which one you would hire. Don't lie.

Captain Caveman strikes again.

Jesus ****ing Christ.

[BIG_DADDY]

Captain Caveman strikes again.

Jesus ****ing Christ.

I just made the point that looks are taken into consideration which is what you have been saying all along. Don't get all angry at me barbie just cause you want to have your hair all long.

[DaneMcCloud]

So if the CEO of Apple or Google is caught doing drugs, should he be fired?

Google or Apple?

Hell NO!

Have you seen the stock prices?

[SPchief]

Really? Let me ask you a question. If you had two women applying for an admin position and one of them was a butt ugly fat bitch and the other was slightly less qualified but looked like Jessica Alba tell me which one you would hire. Don't lie.


I won't lie, in my field, I'm gonna hire the person most qualified for the job. I would rather have some ugly person taking care of guests that has the skill set to keep the guest happy, rather than some 19 year old bombshell who has no idea what the fug she is doing.

[DaneMcCloud]

So something that happened 20 years ago still applies now?

Based on my experience in Kansas as recent as 2 weeks ago and my younger brother's experience (he moved to LA last October), I'd say yes.

[Bob Dole]

Every business is going to have its own culture. A person can't reasonably expect to "look like a rock star" and work at a generally conservative firm.

Hell, Bob Dole's father worked for a S&L that required the JANITORS to enter and exit the building in a jacket and tie. And while it wasn't against the dress code to have a neatly trimmed mustache, you weren't allowed to grow one while you were working. You either had to have had the thing when you were hired, or be able to grow a full one while you were off.

[SPchief]

Google or Apple?

Hell NO!

Have you seen the stock prices?


Nice deflection

[DaneMcCloud]

I just made the point that looks are taken into consideration which is what you have been saying all along. Don't get all angry at me barbie just cause you want to have your hair all long.

Dude,

I'm just trying to make a point, just as you are.

Anyway, if I was Angry Barbie, you'd want to hire me even moreso over those other chicks.

Admit it.

[TinyEvel]

Can't we all just get along?

[DaneMcCloud]

Every business is going to have its own culture. A person can't reasonably expect to "look like a rock star" and work at a generally conservative firm.

Hell, Bob Dole's father worked for a S&L that required the JANITORS to enter and exit the building in a jacket and tie. And while it wasn't against the dress code to have a neatly trimmed mustache, you weren't allowed to grow one while you were working. You either had to have had the thing when you were hired, or be able to grow a full one while you were off.

Bob Dole's family members had respectable jobs?

What the hell happened to you?

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

[TinyEvel]

I would hire a chick with long hair. As long as none of it was white.

[DaneMcCloud]

Nice deflection

Dude,

If someone shows up to work, does their job (whether that be a janitor or a CEO), fulfills their duties in said job, who gives a flying f*ck what they do in their spare time?

Really. Who cares?

[TinyEvel]

Hell, Bob Dole's father worked for a S&L that required the JANITORS to enter and exit the building in a jacket and tie.

..and You scoffed at me for droppig the N-bomb.
:shake:

[DaneMcCloud]

I would hire a chick with long hair. As long as none of it was white.

You're just jealous that I can HAVE white hair.

Or brown hair.

Or even green hair.

I'll loan you some. :)

[SPchief]

Dude,

If someone shows up to work, does their job (whether that be a janitor or a CEO), fulfills their duties in said job, who gives a flying f*ck what they do in their spare time?

Really. Who cares?


But if they get caught, should they be fired?

[Bob Dole]

Bob Dole's family members had respectable jobs?

What the hell happened to you?

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Believe it or not, even Bob Dole himself has a respectable job. (Where they failed to include anything about hair in the dress code, so Bob Dole feels obligated to screw with them all the time.)

[DaneMcCloud]

But if they get caught, should they be fired?

Hell no.

Why would you fire someone who is completely competent? Because of something they do when they're NOT at work?

WTF?

[DaneMcCloud]

Believe it or not, even Bob Dole himself has a respectable job. (Where they failed to include anything about hair in the dress code, so Bob Dole feels obligated to screw with them all the time.)

NICE!

I did dig the semi-homeless phase a few years back.

F 'em if they can't take a joke.

[Bob Dole]

..and You scoffed at me for droppig the N-bomb.
:shake:

That was 100% about the entertainment value of watching you squirm.

You didn't honestly think Bob Dole was serious, did you?

[BIG_DADDY]

Well, I think that's a bullshit attitude and a major reason why racism and discrimination are still prevalent in this county.

****** chemistry. Maybe you're an Assh*le.

I've had people of all races and religions work for me. I coudn't give two sh*ts what they look like or if we get along. All I care about is do they meet deadlines, do their work, stay off the phones (when it's not necessary) and is their work accurate.

I don't care if they're home after work alone, or with their family or out drinking and whoring around. My only concern is whether or not they are at work on time, perform their duties and behave "professionally" while at work.

Anything else is an invasion of privacy, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't care too much what people do outside of work although if an employer does care I support his right to do so.

Chemistry is important, if someone on a pro team was not good for team chemistry you would acknowledge the team should go another direction but because someone picked on you because of your hair you have issues with this and feel your rights have been violated. Don't act like you're the only guy to ever have issues either. My compensation has been directly attached to my goals in the last company I worked for but every time I took over another club my goal was moved up an average of 20% over what the last guy had. I crushed everyone all the time and I could never had done it without the chemistry. I was also not promoted because I was looked at as a loose cannon which is fine. I got tired of playing on an unlevel playing field and left the company to start my own.

[DaneMcCloud]

That was 100% about the entertainment value of watching you squirm.

You didn't honestly think Bob Dole was serious, did you?

Uh...

[Bob Dole]

NICE!

I did dig the semi-homeless phase a few years back.

F 'em if they can't take a joke.

Ditched the 7" Uncle Sam goat on November 1, but the hair still hasn't been cut since April. Greg Brady would be proud.

[BIG_DADDY]

Dude,

I'm just trying to make a point, just as you are.

Anyway, if I was Angry Barbie, you'd want to hire me even moreso over those other chicks.

Admit it.
I think you got me mixed up with Zach. LMAO

[DaneMcCloud]

I don't care too much what people do outside of work although if an employer does care I support his right to do so.

Chemistry is important, if someone on a pro team was not good for team chemistry you would acknowledge the team should go another direction but because someone picked on you because of your hair you have issues with this and feel your rights have been violated. Don't act like you're the only guy to ever have issues either. My compensation has been directly attached to my goals in the last company I worked for but every time I took over another club my goal was moved up an average of 20% over what the last guy had. I crushed everyone all the time and I could never had done it without the chemistry. I was also not promoted because I was looked at as a loose cannon which is fine. I got tired of playing on an unlevel playing field and left the company to start my own.

Dude,

I get it.

BUT, you just can't fire someone because they're not a "Brough". I can understand if someone underperforms or doesn't meet specified goals but to fire someone just because they don't "fit" is elitist and uncool.

You have a mixed race child and I will someday as well (my wife's Filipina, too). I would be unbelievably pissed if my child grows up in this century and is discriminated against because he or she is different.

It all starts at home.

[BIG_DADDY]

Dude,

If someone shows up to work, does their job (whether that be a janitor or a CEO), fulfills their duties in said job, who gives a flying f*ck what they do in their spare time?

Really. Who cares?

I totally agree, I don't. I also wouldn't work for someone that did but I support their right to do so if that's what they think they need to do.

[BIG_DADDY]

Dude,

I get it.

BUT, you just can't fire someone because they're not a "Brough". I can understand if someone underperforms or doesn't meet specified goals but to fire someone just because they don't "fit" is elitist and uncool.

You have a mixed race child and I will someday as well (my wife's Filipina, too). It would be unbelievably pissed if my child grows up in this century and is discriminated against because he or she is different.

It all starts at home.

Discrimination is a part of life. You can only control yourself. He will learn from it and grow and make wiser decisions. I don't want to change the world I just want to change the way I/he deals with it. Hopefully when it counts he is in a position to navigate his own life instead of being an oar on someone else's ship.

[DaneMcCloud]

Discrimination is a part of life. You can only control yourself. He will learn from it and grow and make wiser decisions. I don't want to change the world I just want to change the way I/he deals with it. Hopefully when it counts he is in a position to navigate his own life instead of being an oar on someone else's ship.

Hmm.

We live in a state where discrimination shouldn't matter. White people right now are barely the majority. By the time your son is in middle school, whites will probably be outnumbered. Hopefully, the kids won't have as many issues as the people from our generation have had.

I do know this: My wife's from NoCal and grew up with people from every race. She has NO prejudice whatsoever towards anyone. She has white, black, asian, hispanic, Indian and Jewish friends and in the past 12 years we've been together, it's been no issue and hardly a topic of discussion.

Hopefully, that will continue and our children won't have to think twice about discrimination.

[TinyEvel]

That was 100% about the entertainment value of watching you squirm.

You didn't honestly think Bob Dole was serious, did you?

At least you didn't join the guys making fun of me for doin' the toe-touch jump

[BIG_DADDY]

Hmm.

We live in a state where discrimination shouldn't matter. White people right now are barely the majority. By the time your son is in middle school, whites will probably be outnumbered. Hopefully, the kids won't have as many issues as the people from our generation have had.

I do know this: My wife's from NoCal and grew up with people from every race. She has NO prejudice whatsoever towards anyone. She has white, black, asian, hispanic, Indian and Jewish friends and in the past 12 years we've been together, it's been no issue and hardly a topic of discussion.

Hopefully, that will continue and our children won't have to think twice about discrimination.

Discrimination goes far beyond just race. It's always going to be there. Sometimes it's actually good. How are we supposed to differentiate between different shades of grey without it? How is it even possible to build an ultimate team without it? Like most things it's not discrimination that's the problem it's how it is applied.

I think with our kids it comes down to teaching them that when what other people think about them becomes more important than what they think of themself the problem isn't the other people. Empowerment comes from within. Frustration and insanity comes from trying to control those things we cannot.

[DaneMcCloud]

Discrimination goes far beyond just race. It's always going to be there. Sometimes it's actually good. How are we supposed to differentiate between different shades of grey without it? How is it even possible to build an ultimate team without it? Like most things it's not discrimination that's the problem it's how it is applied.

I don't understand this line of thinking at all. Discrimination is NEVER good.

Everyone has different gifts and different assets. To automatically dismiss someone because they don't "fit" is ludicrous.

Ultimate team? What the f*ck is that? Like the 1972 Dolphins? Those bitter motherf*ckers?

There's no such thing as the "Ultimate" team. You hire good people, hope you've made a good decision and deal with the consequences. People change, circumstances change and nothing stays the same.

But Ultimate Team? What is this, a video game?

I think with our kids it comes down to teaching them that when what other people think about them becomes more important than what they think of themself the problem isn't the other people. Empowerment comes from within. Frustration and insanity comes from trying to control those things we cannot.

I fully disagree. Kids should be kids. Plain and simple. I don't want my kids to be discriminatory and I don't want them hanging around other children, by choice, that are discriminatory. If I'm around a child that is discriminating, I'll say something, regardless of whether or not the parent is present.

Discrimination for whatever reason shouldn't be tolerated. And it's not about "what they think about themselves". It's about those people that are discriminating, for whatever reason, being WRONG.

Discrimination is the one thing that I will not tolerate.

[BIG_DADDY]

I don't understand this line of thinking at all. Discrimination is NEVER good.

Everyone has different gifts and different assets. To automatically dismiss someone because they don't "fit" is ludicrous.

Ultimate team? What the f*ck is that? Like the 1972 Dolphins? Those bitter motherf*ckers?

There's no such thing as the "Ultimate" team. You hire good people, hope you've made a good decision and deal with the consequences. People change, circumstances change and nothing stays the same.

But Ultimate Team? What is this, a video game?



I fully disagree. Kids should be kids. Plain and simple. I don't want my kids to be discriminatory and I don't want them hanging around other children, by choice, that are discriminatory. If I'm around a child that is discriminating, I'll say something, regardless of whether or not the parent is present.

Discrimination for whatever reason shouldn't be tolerated. And it's not about "what they think about themselves". It's about those people that are discriminating, for whatever reason, being WRONG.

Discrimination is the one thing that I will not tolerate.

I think where we differ is in what our definition of discrimination is. Maybe I am wrong.

As far as the team thing goes I have build a ton of em. I'll take a little less talent and good chemistry over bad chemistry and a little more talent any day of the week and I love to compete. I just don't like doing it with a 20% handicap.

[Bob Dole]

Maybe a discussion of "What does 'discrimination' mean to you?" is warranted. It seems like that might be playing a part in the discussion.

[Bob Dole]

Wow.

Echo...echo...echo...

[BIG_DADDY]

Maybe a discussion of "What does 'discrimination' mean to you?" is warranted. It seems like that might be playing a part in the discussion.


Exactly.

[BIG_DADDY]

Maybe a discussion of "What does 'discrimination' mean to you?" is warranted. It seems like that might be playing a part in the discussion.

What do you know you smoker. LMAO

[ClevelandBronco]

Maybe a discussion of "What does 'discrimination' mean to you?" is warranted. It seems like that might be playing a part in the discussion.

I discriminate daily. I choose a restaurant based on discrimination. I choose entertainment based on discrimination. I discriminated between schools when I chose my neighborhood. I discriminate when I buy gasoline, electronics, and fruit. I've also discriminated when I've hired and fired employees.

Discrimination is a necessary element of making any decision, IMO.

[Bob Dole]

I discriminate daily. I choose a restaurant based on discrimination. I choose entertainment based on discrimination. I discriminated between schools when I chose my neighborhood. I discriminate when I buy gasoline, electronics, and fruit. I've also discriminated when I've hired and fired employees.

Discrimination is a necessary element of making any decision, IMO.

So you're a discriminating consumer.

[BIG_DADDY]

I discriminate daily. I choose a restaurant based on discrimination. I choose entertainment based on discrimination. I discriminated between schools when I chose my neighborhood. I discriminate when I buy gasoline, electronics, and fruit. I've also discriminated when I've hired and fired employees.

Discrimination is a necessary element of making any decision, IMO.


Exactly, thank you.

[DaneMcCloud]

I discriminate daily. I choose a restaurant based on discrimination. I choose entertainment based on discrimination. I discriminated between schools when I chose my neighborhood. I discriminate when I buy gasoline, electronics, and fruit. I've also discriminated when I've hired and fired employees.

Discrimination is a necessary element of making any decision, IMO.

Personally, I see that as informed decision making which in IMO is far different from saying "I'm not going to hire that person because they are black/woman/asian/hispanic or I just don't like his/her tatoos".

But Bob Dole hit the nail on the head: It may be our individual description of discrimination that may be different.

Or maybe not.

[dj56dt58]

In a right-to-work state, you aren't required to give a reason for termination. In theory, you could fire someone for their appearance and just tell them you don't need them any more.
right..but in this instance they are giving a reason..their weight

[Inspector]

I guess if someone didn't like that company's policies, they could just boycott their products and convince others to do the same.

Or, they can go with the flow, make whatever accommodations are needed to work for that company.

Or, become self employed. That boss will never fire ya!

[banyon]

Which one are you? :p

None of the above. I am a skinny f*** non-smoker who occasionally drinks to excess.

[banyon]

LMAO

You actually think healthcare is going to be CHEAPER if the feds take over? Name one thing the govt has taken over that got cheaper.

Yes I do.

My first clue was that it's happened in every country that has adopted such a policy. We pay twice as much as anyone else to cover about half of the people. So our efficiency is about 1/4 of the evil government run schemes.

Will Hillary's plan do it? No way. It is just another handout to the insurance companies who are already making most of the money.

[BIG_DADDY]

Personally, I see that as informed decision making which in IMO is far different from saying "I'm not going to hire that person because they are black/woman/asian/hispanic or I just don't like his/her tatoos".

But Bob Dole hit the nail on the head: It may be our individual description of discrimination that may be different.

Or maybe not.

I think where we differ is in what our definition of discrimination is. Maybe I am wrong.

As far as the team thing goes I have build a ton of em. I'll take a little less talent and good chemistry over bad chemistry and a little more talent any day of the week and I love to compete. I just don't like doing it with a 20% handicap.

[Simplex3]

Personally, I see that as informed decision making which in IMO is far different from saying "I'm not going to hire that person because they are black/woman/asian/hispanic or I just don't like his/her tatoos".

But Bob Dole hit the nail on the head: It may be our individual description of discrimination that may be different.

Or maybe not.
Discrimination is a useful hiring tool. I refuse to hire computer programmers who play WoW. Am I possibly missing out on a few good programmers? Maybe. However, by far the majority of the WoW players I've had the misfortune of managing and/or working around sucked. I can't tell you what the connection is, but there is one there. It simply isn't worth trying to beat the odds over and over.

[Simplex3]

Yes I do.

My first clue was that it's happened in every country that has adopted such a policy. We pay twice as much as anyone else to cover about half of the people. So our efficiency is about 1/4 of the evil government run schemes.

Will Hillary's plan do it? No way. It is just another handout to the insurance companies who are already making most of the money.
You must be getting those numbers out of your ass because I've never seen anything that would support that.

Let's also not forget the waiting lists and inferior care.

I'm not saying our system is good. In fact I think our system is s**t. Govt is not the answer, though. Pay as you go is the answer.

[banyon]

You must be getting those numbers out of your ass because I've never seen anything that would support that.

Nah. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=140217&highlight=british+health)

Let's also not forget the waiting lists and inferior care.

The waiting part is perhaps true for elective procedures, though not for critical ones. As far as the quality goes I guess that depends on where you are on the economic ladder. Their preventative care is superior, because we tend to only go to the doctor or hospital when there is something wrong with us. Why? Because we want to avoid the cost. As far as elective quality goes if you can't afford it, then a slightly lower quality of treatment is certainly preferable to no treatment. Crtical care edge goes to the U.S., because you have highly compensated doctors forced to provide treatment to emergency victims. Post-operation though, they go back on the street here, but not there. The main point, as you can see in the link is that we get worse results for more money.

I'm not saying our system is good. In fact I think our system is s**t. Govt is not the answer, though. Pay as you go is the answer.

Well, we agree there is a problem. But I don't have the energy today to argue about the details too much. I've got to channel that energy into rooting against Missouri!

[DaneMcCloud]

Discrimination is a useful hiring tool. I refuse to hire computer programmers who play WoW. Am I possibly missing out on a few good programmers? Maybe. However, by far the majority of the WoW players I've had the misfortune of managing and/or working around sucked. I can't tell you what the connection is, but there is one there. It simply isn't worth trying to beat the odds over and over.

I would call that discerning, not discrimination.

It wouldn't matter if those WoW programmers were black, white, asian, Indian, Pakastani or hispanic. It's just that people who in engage in a certain activity doesn't mesh well with your business requirements.

Discrimination would be "I don't hire Pakastani's that play WoW".

[Simplex3]

The waiting part is perhaps true for elective procedures, though not for critical ones.
I guess brain tumors are "elective":
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED08%20Aug%202007%2009%3A57%3A36%3A213

[Simplex3]

I would call that discerning, not discrimination.

It wouldn't matter if those WoW programmers were black, white, asian, Indian, Pakastani or hispanic. It's just that people who in engage in a certain activity doesn't mesh well with your business requirements.

Discrimination would be "I don't hire Pakastani's that play WoW".
I don't hire Indian programmers either unless they come very, very highly recommended by non-Indian former bosses. Of all of them I've worked with only two or three have been worth a damn.

I think there's a fine line between discerning and discriminating and it's probably most visible to those on the outside of it.

[banyon]

I guess brain tumors are "elective":
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED08%20Aug%202007%2009%3A57%3A36%3A213

C'mon. An isolated incident is supposed to show something about nationwide trends?

I guess I could point to a football example since we are in the Lounge. Craig "Ironhead" Heyward was prounounced cancer-free by doctors, only to die after a recurrence in 2006.

Does that mean that our entire health profession is incompetent? Of course not. Heyward's family is free to sue those individual doctors for malpractice, if there was any, just as the girl in your link's family could bring a similar suit for not properly diagnosing her situation as critical early enough.

Anyway, it's about trends. How does the system perform and how much does the system cost. I know we have some fat people in this country, but should it really cost us 2x as much to cover 1/2 the people?

[lancer348]

Discrimination is a useful hiring tool. I refuse to hire computer programmers who play WoW. Am I possibly missing out on a few good programmers? Maybe. However, by far the majority of the WoW players I've had the misfortune of managing and/or working around sucked. I can't tell you what the connection is, but there is one there. It simply isn't worth trying to beat the odds over and over.

There is a huge difference between discriminating based off of that vs. discriminating based off of factors such as gender.

So, to people who say they should be able to hire and fire whoever for whatever reason.
do you believe you should just be able to implement a policy where or women cannot work for you? and why should sexism, be condoned or promoted by the government.

We'd be taking gender rights in this country back decades.

[BIG_DADDY]

There is a huge difference between discriminating based off of that vs. discriminating based off of factors such as gender.

So, to people who say they should be able to hire and fire whoever for whatever reason.
do you believe you should just be able to implement a policy where or women cannot work for you? and why should sexism, be condoned or promoted by the government.

We'd be taking gender rights in this country back decades.

lil momma did that for one company she worked for. She hired all guys because only young women would take the job and they were too much drama as she put it.

[Rain Man]

I guess if someone didn't like that company's policies, they could just boycott their products and convince others to do the same.

Or, they can go with the flow, make whatever accommodations are needed to work for that company.

Or, become self employed. That boss will never fire ya!


I docked myself a month's pay once for being late. It must've worked, too, because the company was more profitable that month, which increased my ownership income.

[Thig Lyfe]

I'm all for it. Smoking is idiotic.