here's a dilemma for you
Sep. 11th, 2009 12:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
veronica_richAn Indiana court has ordered a restaurant employer to pay for an employee's weight loss surgery, because the back injury he obtained on the job can't be performed until he has weight loss surgery.
I'm of two minds about this. My immediate reaction was Thanks, dumbass - now employers have even more reason not to hire the fat, in addition to not hiring the non-contagious ill, young women, and anyone else who isn't 100 percent. Thanks for making it even harder for me out there. It's likely not the employer's fault this guy was fat, after all. I have sympathy for the company.
But then I started thinking more about it. It's also not a lot of employers' faults their employees have or develop cancer, but that doesn't mean the cancerous should die for lack of care or not be hired, say, if their condition is chronic rather than acute (usually unable to work anyway). Being fat is certainly more controllable than cancer, but if you're not fat, let me enlighten you: It's not entirely. There are people in this world who literally cannot lose more than maybe 10-20 pounds on a disciplined exercise and food program, without surgery or intensive dieting (we're talking 700 calories a day or less even with regular exercise, which is genuine starvation, causing more health problems than it solves - and there's no way a person can maintain that kind of diet for a lifetime after the goal weight is reached, which is what it would take NOT to gain it back). It's also not an employer's fault a female employee may get pregnant at some point and require time off for doctor visits and maternity leave - but it's not females' fault that they're the only ones who CAN have the babies, either. Somebody has to do it, and an entire gender shouldn't be denied the chance to better themselves financially or mentally in work, just because of biology. (I won't even go into all the problems caused for a great many women once a month, for 40 years, by their menstrual cycle, over which they also have limited control. Most simply ignore the pain and work, even though it can reach a point at times where it rivals the stomach flu for intensity.)
To me, this may be another good reason public health care - either supplemental or in addition to employer-provided insurance for some conditions - is a good idea. If you need time off for medical reasons, sure, your employer still has to find someone else to pick up the slack for a while ... but perhaps they would be more amenable to this IF they didn't also have to foot the medical costs. Weight Loss Dude is going to be out of work for a while, but I bet that pizzeria wouldn't be so fast to stick to skinny hires only in the future if it wasn't having to pay for the reduction surgery that the employee likely can't afford on his own.
I'm of two minds about this. My immediate reaction was Thanks, dumbass - now employers have even more reason not to hire the fat, in addition to not hiring the non-contagious ill, young women, and anyone else who isn't 100 percent. Thanks for making it even harder for me out there. It's likely not the employer's fault this guy was fat, after all. I have sympathy for the company.
But then I started thinking more about it. It's also not a lot of employers' faults their employees have or develop cancer, but that doesn't mean the cancerous should die for lack of care or not be hired, say, if their condition is chronic rather than acute (usually unable to work anyway). Being fat is certainly more controllable than cancer, but if you're not fat, let me enlighten you: It's not entirely. There are people in this world who literally cannot lose more than maybe 10-20 pounds on a disciplined exercise and food program, without surgery or intensive dieting (we're talking 700 calories a day or less even with regular exercise, which is genuine starvation, causing more health problems than it solves - and there's no way a person can maintain that kind of diet for a lifetime after the goal weight is reached, which is what it would take NOT to gain it back). It's also not an employer's fault a female employee may get pregnant at some point and require time off for doctor visits and maternity leave - but it's not females' fault that they're the only ones who CAN have the babies, either. Somebody has to do it, and an entire gender shouldn't be denied the chance to better themselves financially or mentally in work, just because of biology. (I won't even go into all the problems caused for a great many women once a month, for 40 years, by their menstrual cycle, over which they also have limited control. Most simply ignore the pain and work, even though it can reach a point at times where it rivals the stomach flu for intensity.)
To me, this may be another good reason public health care - either supplemental or in addition to employer-provided insurance for some conditions - is a good idea. If you need time off for medical reasons, sure, your employer still has to find someone else to pick up the slack for a while ... but perhaps they would be more amenable to this IF they didn't also have to foot the medical costs. Weight Loss Dude is going to be out of work for a while, but I bet that pizzeria wouldn't be so fast to stick to skinny hires only in the future if it wasn't having to pay for the reduction surgery that the employee likely can't afford on his own.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-09-11 10:43 pm (UTC)