idiotic fat policies. seriously?

[keryx]

If you haven't seen it yet, you should: at least one company cutting employees' pay for being fat. Apparently that's serious. I assume someone will press a legal challenge, but since fatness isn't exactly a protected -ness... Well, that's an argument in favor of the we-can't-help-it-fat's-just-like-gay position, right there [Leaving aside that fat is, in my mind, a lot like gay - a complex and individual combination of nature, nurture and choice just like many many other things].

The fucked up thing about the fat clause (which I don't expect will really take off, legal challenges aside - it doesn't seem like something most companies could sustain) is that it not only penalizes people for a -ness they may or may not be able to change, but it's not a -ness associated with disease. If I have normal blood pressure and cholesterol and reasonable activity and eating habits, I may yet be fat (indeed, as it turns out, I am), but have in no way increased health care cost (it's true - I get allergy meds once a month and generally don't even see a doctor more than once a year). Having no other indication of likely illness, I'd still get reduced pay unless I could lose weight, likely at the expense of my otherwise good health. That? Is just bad, expensive, corporate policy. Like, are we sure The Onion didn't report that? policy.

Comments

[tupelo.livejournal.com]

We have to pay extra for Tad's insurance because according to Anthem, he's a Fatty McFatterson.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

That is also sucky. Does he have any actual illness, or is that just for random fatness?

[tupelo.livejournal.com]

Healthy as a horse! And not that it would be okay, but they don't even check his body fat percentage. They go strictly on height/weight charts, which don't allow for muscle at all.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

Ack. Stupid on so many levels - not only are they penalizing your menfolk for being fat, but the guys aren't even fat. Just big guys.

*Sigh.*

[enchochada.livejournal.com]

That's the stupidest thing I heard in a while. I know over here they have restrictions about fat people adopting babies, which I always found an odd one to comprehend.

I'm glad it won't affect me, because one of my pet peeves is the fact that my favourite brand of thick black opaque 70 denier tights cost 20% more in the 'extra' size (this doubles as extra long and extra wide - I'm a bit of both really) than the small, medium and large sizes. Even though I worked out there is a greater difference in the amount of nylon used between the small and the large, than the large and the 'extra' and yet the large tights wearers don't get charged more than the small ones. So yes, glad this pay cut won't affect me as maybe it would give me even less cash to spend on tights (and let's face it autumn and the season of cute boots and short skirts is nearly here! Yay!

[keryx.livejournal.com]

I love the way you think. :)

[lifewithrockets.livejournal.com]

thats nuts!! thanks for the link!

[varsil.livejournal.com]

The problem is that insurance companies deal in averages. And while many fat people are perfectly healthy, you're getting averaged in with those who are not. Being fat is still correlated with various diseases, in the same way that being male is correlated with various diseases (and mortality in general), despite the fact that there are many perfectly healthy men. The discrepancy in insurance rates between fat and non-fat people is what is driving those companies' desire to create a discrepancy in pay.

Now, the question is: Should companies be able to charge less based on these things? Should it only be those things that we can affect (smoking, weight), or should it also be for things that we can't change (sex)?

Now, I'd say that's crazy, that of course they shouldn't. The problem there is that it creates a quiet disincentive for companies to hire such people. The cost of a smoking worker is higher than the cost of a non-smoker. Why hire the smoker at all? Same thing for the cost of a fat worker versus a non-fat worker. Why hire the fat worker? The only real possible solution here is to legislate that insurance companies can't pro-rate based on such factors, but that's not likely to succeed, and also somewhat unfair to the women/non-smokers/etc.

Anyway, long story short, it's a lot more complicated than it seems at first blush. They're not wanting to give the fat people a pay cut because they hate fatties.

Also, like most of the asshole things that employers do to employees, this is likely to hit those in shitty jobs hardest. If you're a high-value, highly mobile employee and someone starts telling you they're going to cut your pay because they don't like how you live your life, you can tell them to fuck off and go on to a different company. It's the people who are working crappy jobs who really get the short end of the stick here.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

I'm not arguing that a company that implements such a policy is randomly hating fat people. But it's emblematic of our cultural assumptions about fatness - if being male is correlated (and in fact, in some research more strongly correlated) with illness, one could also charge men for being men. That, of course, is and likely sounds ridiculous to anyone. Men can't help being men, however more likely that might be to kill them. And we don't know which part of maleness is the morbid part. What would we want them to change?

Fatness, on the other hand, is still assumed to be a sickness AND something fat people can control. It's a bizarre, circular form of logic. And yet few people consider that ridiculous. So few people, in fact, that when a company is feeling pressured by rising healthcare costs, it seems reasonable to them to target fat people (who are, of course, more expensive in theory to ensure - that is, after all, what insurance companies think). Is it all about fat hate? No, it's about money. But it's an economic issue aimed at fat people because fat hate and assumptions about fat are still so prevalent.

I'm not sure, by the way, that it's just shitty-job-having people who'll be screwed by this - it's anyone who isn't high-demand for whatever reason. But yeah, that does tend to mean people who already get paid less and have less horizontal job mobility, so not only do they have to accept the cut, but it also represents a greater percentage of their income.

[varsil.livejournal.com]

Men /do/ pay more for insurance (life/health/vehicle) than women do, simply for being men. Now, you can't fire men just for being men, or give them a pay cut just for being men... but give it enough time, and you might very well see employers subtly discriminating to save a few dollars.

I agree that a big part of the problem here is how much non-fat people feel that it is easy to become non-fat (because it is for them), and thus a character flaw, despite large amounts of evidence that a large part of it is genetically set.

I dunno. Another part of this that annoys me greatly is this whole notion that your company should be allowed to investigate your biology and act "in your best interests" (even though it's really theirs). I know that in the US it's pretty common for employers to insist on drug tests (not legal as a random thing here in Canada). Sounds damn close to serfdom to me.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought of the big brother factor here (because whatever lip service a company might pay to "caring about employees' health", it's really economically motivated). You're right about that, though - it's creepy and weird, and I don't want my employer to be my mom.

[vesta44.livejournal.com]

This will change when people like Shaq and Bret Favre are charged more for insurance because their BMIs are in the overweight/obese range. And what about women athletes? Anyone who carries more muscle than fat will probably have a higher BMI because muscle, square inch for square inch, weighs more than fat. Anyone who has started working out and not changed their diet can tell you that they lost clothing sizes but their weight did not get lower and might have gotten higher (they lost fat and gained muscle). Been there done that myself (175 lbs in high school, not very fit, wore a size 18, 2 years later, 175 lbs, sorta kinda fit and a size 14).
Basing insurance rates on BMI alone is not a wise decision as it penalizes healthy fat people as well as the unhealthy. And fat is not as changeable as people would like to think. If I'm going to be penalized by my employer on my insurance coverage, it should be because I'm sick all the time and I use my insurance all the time, not because I'm fat, healthy, and don't have a reason to see the doctor all the time.