keryx: (cure)
keryx ([personal profile] keryx) wrote2007-08-13 08:42 pm
Entry tags:

idiotic fat policies. seriously?

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.