Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bus Company Says Thin Drivers Deserve Better Pay

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the thin-is-in dept.

Transportation 54

In an attempt to promote good employee health, a Lithuanian transport company is paying thin drivers better salaries than their overweight co-workers. Over 100 drivers were weighed to determine their BMI. "We just wanted to promote a health lifestyle," said Vilius Lauzikas, director of Busturas, the transport company in question. The local union and donut loving drivers aren't fans of the new policy. "We cannot call it nothing other than a mockery. If they (the company) do not reconsider we will appeal to the courts," a union representative said.

cancel ×

54 comments

Illegal? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34125028)

I am pretty sure most countries in the developed world do not allow discrimination on the basis of weight.

Re:Illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34126566)

I am pretty sure most countries in the developed world do not allow discrimination on the basis of weight.

Did you read the summary, this is Lithuania. ;-)

Re:Illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34127066)

Ah, so it's only a small problem then.

Re:Illegal? (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128254)

but there's nothing illegal with the doorway to the interviewer's office being really narrow ;)

Re:Illegal? (1)

jgreco (1542031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34144958)

Actually, here in the USA, it may be... we have the Americans with Disabilities Act.

For the purposes of this thread, I therefore deem the USA to be a country where doorways (and lots of other things) must legally be built to accommodate fat people. That would seem to imply that the fatness of US citizens is legally protected. And you wonder why there's an obesity epidemic...

And for the bazillion people who will correct me or mod me down, come on, have a laugh.

Re:Illegal? (2)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34147354)

what's sad is that "fat" is considered a disability.

In my book, a "disability" is something that's beyond your control, you're asking society to help you with a disadvantage you can't fix. You can't fix paralyzed, you can't fix amputatated, you can't fix crippled, and you can't fix blind. While I realize this is not always the case, most of the time, you can fix FAT.

Problem is, the 95% of the people with "fixable fat" are trying to suck up to the system to help enable their problem, under the banner of the 5% with unfixable fat. (thyroid etc)

Re:Illegal? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34147874)

Yes, of course, because there's nothing easier than defying millions of years of evolution by routinely not eating when you're hungry.

Re:Illegal? (1)

jgreco (1542031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34155036)

Then make yourself not hungry.

Try drinking a large glass of water. Most people don't get enough water; doing it once probably doesn't work too well, but I found that drinking more water consistently made me less hungry. It's the perfect no-calorie drink.

Eat something that is low-calorie. Cheap and quick? Try baby carrots, 100 calories for 8 ounces. A can of Del Monte green beans, 70 calories per can. Either one is a fair amount of food, is healthy for you, and won't ruin you for calories.

Most importantly? Stop gorging yourself at meals. If you are *used* to feeling comfortably full, rather than eating until you're bursting at the seams, it is easier to eat more reasonably.

Millions of years of evolution left us with eating desires that aren't optimally suited to the modern buffet-of-plenty. However, it also left us with a brain. You can use one evolutionary gift to balance the other.

Re:Illegal? (2, Interesting)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34155408)

By doing that consistently for several years AND exercising 3 hours every night, I actually got my weight to only 20 pounds over my "ideal" weight. Then I became an adult with an actual responsibility to have a job and that went out the window.

You did a nice job assUmeing that I "gorge myself" at meals. Perhaps YOU do/did that, but I certainly don't.

The simple fact is that some people wolf down the calories, barely exercise, and remain thin because they are naturally thin. Others eat sparingly and exercise and are fat because that's their natural weight. The former frequently like to look down on the latter for their "failure".

When called on their bigotry (and yes, it *IS* bigotry), the former often claim it's a matter of health and fitness even when the person they are addressing is stronger, faster, and more generally healthy than they are.

Re:Illegal? (1)

jgreco (1542031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34157020)

Some of us have been "adults" with "actual responsibility" for decades. The fact of the matter is that the United States is rapidly trending towards overweight; this is not a matter of "naturally thin" or "natural weight." I wrote a different message that you might want to read in this thread that helps shed some light on some of that.

Re:Illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162104)

No such thing as "naturally fat".

Fat = eating more than you need.

Simple as that.

Re:Illegal? (1)

endymion.nz (1093595) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211640)

Hunger = fat leaving your body. You're not going to die of hunger if you weigh 150kg and you have to go without a hamburger for two days.

Re:Illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34168392)

I ask you this, ever seen a naturally fat Ethiopian?

Fat people are fat because they eat more food their body has room / need for.

If you want to stop being fat, eating healthy and exercising nightly isn't going to help. You need to eat less than your body can use throughout the day / while exercising. If you keep your diet well balanced all you're going to do is put on muscle. If you want to loose weight the only real option is to starve yourself, literally. That does not equal anorexia or bulimia that means eating less than your body has need for to the point your body has to use fat as the reserve you put it there for (this is counting calories effectively).

You say you don't gorge your self but I bet you do. You really think you need a serving of fries with that burger? You really think you need a foot long for lunch? If you're a geek for work like me you sure as shit don't. If you're a builder or mechanic like some of my friends then hell yea you're going to want that side of fries and the two extra cookies with your foot long sub.

Try to stop eating for 2 whole minutes half way through your next meal and ask yourself if you really need the rest to function at work tomorrow.

Like someone else already posted, drink a big glass of water before you eat.

Chew each mouthful 6 times before swallowing (it tricks your body into thinking you ate more and should be less hungry).

Re:Illegal? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34168886)

I ask you this, ever seen a naturally fat Ethiopian?

I haven't seen all that many Ethiopians except for the worst case ones in TV commercials. None of them are at their natural weight, so I can't really say if any of them would be fat or not.

A question for you, have you ever seen a skinny or trim power lifter? Not those guys who "sculpt" their muscles, the ones who can lift outrageous amounts of weight until you wonder how the steel bar doesn't break.

A note for you, I have been a builder, mechanic, and landscaper. Didn't lose any weight. I don't have fries with my burger and I don't eat lunch. Compared to me, YOU gorge yourself for lunch. I also don't eat breakfast. I eat dinner 8 hours before bed so it doesn't just lay there. I know what you're thinking (clutching at straws), I don't drink soda. I haven't for decades. I don't eat pre-packaged foods. Dessert is an occasional thing.

Try to stop eating for 2 whole minutes half way through your next meal and ask yourself if you really need the rest to function at work tomorrow.

You sir are an ignorant ass. I suppose you stereotype fat people ever since society realized that women are equals to men and the N word became unacceptable.

Re:Illegal? (1)

Ed_Pinkley (881113) | more than 3 years ago | (#34199730)

Just a quick note: If you are not eating breakfast or lunch and eating 8 hours before bed... You are starving yourself for 16 hours. No matter how much you eat, that's not healthy. Don't take my word for it, talk to a nutritionist.

Re:Illegal? (1)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203496)

Your body can be reasonably simplified as a closed system. As far as losing or gaining weight, the math still works. If you eat less than you burn in a day (either by eating less or using more), you will lose weight. There is no magic here at all. If you think that you are not eating enough, and are still gaining weight, you are deluding yourself.

Re:Illegal? (2, Interesting)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34204068)

It's a LOT more complex. Of the calories you consume, some portion will be metabolized and the rest will pass. That ratio of consumed to absorbed will vary in different people.

Likewise the conversion of that metabolic energy to work will happen at varying efficiency.

Finally, when caloric intake is restricted, the metabolism will shift to a conservation mode. The point where that happen and the degree of conservation will vary.

A person with a low absorption and work efficiency and a minimal response to caloric restriction will easily lose weight and likely will be rather thin on a normal diet. On the opposite side, a person whose work and absorption efficiency is high with a strong response to caloric restriction would have to literally starve themselves and/or exercise to an extreme level (in spite of the deep fatigue that sets in when the metabolism switches to conserve energy) to lose weight and keep it off.

I agree that no magic is involved in any of that, just a model sufficiently complex to match observation.

Re:Illegal? (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34210458)

You're aware that different systems have different levels of efficiency, yes? Bodies are similar. Some are extremely efficient, others less so, some are extremely inefficient. Now I'm not making excuses here, I probably weigh about 50 pounds more than I should, but I'm well aware it's my own fault. I exercise, but also eat more calories than I should. On the other hand I know people who eat far worse diets than I do, *and* don't exercise who have a lower BMI. Why? I can't say specifically, but my guess would be a less efficient metabolism. If my body is absorbing 3 out of every 4 calories I eat, and yours is absorbing 2 out every 4, you'll have an easier time keeping weight off than I will.

I knew a guy in college... skinny as a rail (I was too back then, but I was an active martial artist and runner, whereas his physical activity tended toward "beer lifting"). His diet consisted primarily of Spam and beer. He consumed both in quantities that that often left me wondering whether his body contained some sort of small wormhole. He never gained a pound. He also couldn't jog a 440 before he was on the ground panting and looking ready to throw up. He wasn't healthy, he was skinny.

Now I'm not trying to defend the "never met a Twinkie they didn't like" crowd. Plenty of people are fat because they eat to much and don't exercise enough, no doubt. All bodies are not created equal though. While there are "abnormal" people who have problems that literally prevent them from losing weight, it's pretty uncommon. The range of "normal" is pretty broad though. It's often much harder for some people to lose weight than others even within the "normal" range.

Re:Illegal? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216992)

Actually, there is another, entirely real option, liposuction. Guaranteed results, unlike any attempt to diet.

Re:Illegal? (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34160178)

Read up on the science behind low-carbohydrate eating, you actually don't have to starve to lose weight.

Re:Illegal? (2, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162040)

The amazingly easy diet is simply this: slow down. It's a very well established fact that it takes your body up to 25 minutes to register "I've had enough to eat", and that's 25 minutes of time you continue to feed your face past your need. If you just pace your meals, take small portions at a time and make several trips to the buffet instead of PILING up two plates, not gulp down your food, you'll find you get to "satisfied" without eating nearly as much food or making ANY changes in your diet.

So many people that are struggling with dieting are slaves to their appetite, and this is a very easy way to get around that obstacle. It's hard for some people to understand others' "need to feed" when their body says its hungry and they lack willpower, but this is one of those little things you can try that doesn't require willpower - you can stop eating at that same satisfied level without having actually eaten as much.

Re:Illegal? (1)

spike hay (534165) | more than 3 years ago | (#34197278)

On this same thread, a large glass of water 20 minutes prior to a meal helps.

Re:Illegal? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34164316)

Yeah, uh, huh! I spent a year eating exactly what the skinniest person I have ever met ate (most people just assumed she was anorexic). Identical plates. Guess what? I lost a few pounds and then leveled off.

It may be that there is some magic diet that turns fat people thin without creating a state of perpetual starvation, but if so, science apparently hasn't found it.

Life is too short to consume it with worrying over a 'condition' that causes me no harm whatsoever.

This kind of reminds me of all the people who for all those years told people with ulcers that if they would just quit worrying so much and eat right they wouldn't have their "self-inflicted" condition.

Re:Illegal? (1)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34175446)

Yes, of course, because there's nothing easier than defying millions of years of evolution by routinely not eating when you're hungry.

Or not assaulting people when you're angry, or not raping people when you're horny, or not stealing when you're jealous.

Welcome to civilized society, where we expect you to have some fucking impulse control.

Re:Illegal? (2, Interesting)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34175784)

Guess what will happen if you follow someone around hurling insults 24/7. He will surely assault you eventually.

There's only so long a person can be expected to put up a sustained resistance to that sort of impulse. People avoid giving in to horny through a combination of finding a willing partner, hiring a willing partner, or "going solo". In other words, they give in all the time to a drive that is lower on the order of evolutionary priorities than eating (no eat = no reproduce ever again, after all).

Here's an experiment for you to try: masturbate 3 times a day, but just as it's getting good, stop and go back to work. Repeat for the rest of your life.

Now consider that you are telling others to defy a natural drive that's even stronger than that for the rest of their lives as if it's nothing.

Remarkable, you are equating being fat with a criminal offense!

Re:Illegal? (1, Flamebait)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34177066)

No, I'm comparing the lack of self control demonstrated by fat people (who don't have a medical reason for being fat) to the lack of self control demonstrated by criminals, because both are improper responses to a feeling or emotion that result in harm to oneself or others.

Everyone gets angry once in a while. People with self control find a way to vent that anger that doesn't harm themselves or others. People without self control attack what they're angry at.

Everyone gets hungry once in a while. People with self control eat enough to satisfy their hunger and move on. People without self control repeatedly over-indulge, get fat and damage their health.

The equivalent 'food' experiment to your 'masturbation' experiment would be bulimia, not obesity. In both of those cases you would pretend to satisfy or partially satisfy the urge, but don't ever really satisfy it.
A much more accurate 'masturbation' experiment that would have the corresponding 'obesity' experiment you attempted to imply would be masturbating 10 times a day to completion for the rest of your life, then complaining about the genital chafing and carpal tunnel syndrome.

Re:Illegal? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178042)

It appears that you are simply unable to conceive the possibility that just maybe some or even most fat people are either cursed with an overly efficient metabolism or an over active sense of hunger.

Given the degree to which that colors your every thought on the subject, there is no real point in even attempting to discuss the subject.

PLONK

Re:Illegal? (1)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34178530)

Please, continue telling me what I think and what I'm capable of understanding. It says a lot about the frailty of your argument that you've chosen to abandon defending it and moved on to making unfounded personal attacks instead.
If either your 'overly efficient metabolism' or 'over active sense of hunger' are actual medical conditions, I made exceptions for them in my previous arguments. If they're just excuses you're making for fat people to continue indulging in their base instincts, then you've helped further my point for me.

Re:Illegal? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34179768)

The problem is, you're not actually presenting an argument, you just keep claiming fat people are gluttonous with no evidence or even an anecdote to back your claim.

Of course, I'm not sure either of those is any more a medical condition than dark skin or green eyes.

I have to say, you sound much like the people of yesteryear who were sure all N***ers were slothful and had no soul. Present yourself better and this could turn into a discussion.

Re:Illegal? (1)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34188052)

OK, Here’s my argument:

Obesity is not a physical disability (with the exception of obesity caused by physiological disorders such as Thyroid disease) because it can be managed through diet and exercise. Becoming obese is not something that happens overnight, you don’t wake up fit on Monday, go on a buffet bender and wake up obese on Tuesday, it requires a long term pattern of self-destructive, self-indulgent behavior. Obesity is the number two (fast approaching number one) preventable cause of death according to the CDC [doctorslounge.com] . Obesity is not some mystery disease that strikes people at random without warning, it is caused by having too high a caloric intake for your individual metabolism, size, and activity level over an extended period of time. Obesity has a simple, cheap, effective, well known cure: diet and exercise. The problem with the cure is that people don’t like changing their diet or altering their sedentary lifestyle. In other words, they don’t want the cure.

Disability status should only be given to those who have a physical impairment that is beyond their control. Thyroid disease induced obesity fits this category, but the vast majority of obesity cases can be controlled by diet and exercise, which is why both the CDC and WHO [who.int] call it a preventable disease. I honestly don’t care if someone is fat, if you’re happy and fat and that’s how you want to live your life, by all means go for it. It has no impact on me. What I do care about is people who are fat who want to be given special legal status because they’re fat.

It’s absolutely absurd that you would bring racism into this argument as though it were a valid comparison. Race is something you’re born with, and have no control over. It is not a behavior pattern. Judging someone by their physical appearance, heredity, or any other external factors they can’t control is wrong. Judging people by their behavior patterns and attitude, however, is perfectly acceptable in my book. I’m not judging people just for being obese, if people want to engage in self destructive behavior, I’m fine with that so long as they don’t start asking for special legal protections simply because they are engaging in bad behavior.

If you’d like to dispute the fact that obesity is a preventable disease in the general case, the burden of proof is on you, because both the CDC and WHO think that it is.

If you'd like to dispute whether legal 'disabled' status should be given to people with preventable, curable diseases, then I question what you think should disqualify an individual from receiving benefits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, because it seems pretty insulting to me that you would give the legal protections intended for someone suffering from real, incurable diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, Polio, Cerebral palsy, or paralysis to someone who just eats too much McDonalds and hates exercise.

Re:Illegal? (1)

SJester (1676058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34182362)

Adenovirus 36 is strongly implicated in obesity. Infection with this virus during childhood leads to disproportionate weight gain compared to a control group who shows no signs of exposure to the virus. The mechanism is demonstrated. It seems a person's body diverts more resources to depositing fat than it would without infection. And that's just one brick in the wall. Read up, Zeek. It's easy to feel superior when you're ignorant.

Re:Illegal? (2, Insightful)

poptones (653660) | more than 3 years ago | (#34194010)

You're awfully arrogant for a man whose entire premise is failed from the start. You keep harping about people overindulging as if that's the entire cause of the problem. It isn't. As someone who has been "naturally fat" since a child and who has managed to get the weight off only to watch it come back again, I can tell you without doubt I eat far less NOW than I did before I essentially doubled my weight. When I was in my mid twenties I lived at the gym - went in the morning, went again at night. I weighed under 180 and easily consumed 10,000 calories a day. Many nights I would end my day by stopping off at the convenience store on the way home and buying a box of Entemann's chocolate chip cookies and a quart of skim milk; I would then chill an hour in front of the TV before going to bed and down THE ENTIRE BOX OF COOKIES AND the quart of skim milk.

The difference then and now is THEN I WASN'T FAT because I went to the gym. So you're not bitching about me consuming too much, you're bitching about me not giving a shit enough to go to the gym. Well fuck you, charlie - it's twenty miles to the gym fo rme now and I haven't the luxury of spending a few grand a year on shaping my body.

I burned off those calories then - but I CONSUMED MORE then than now. So what you are really bitching about is just you offense at seeing
someone who has the NERVE to actually BE fat in public. Do you also bitch about those overpumped apes that pretend to fight one another on television? How about the bricklayers and steel workers?

I can assure you, the governator didn't get to be the terminator by sipping water and eating rice cakes. Maybe we should do something about all those humans working long hours in construction? After all they can consume pretty much what they want and never get fat - my dad did that. He was a pipefitter and could eat damn near anything without gaining a pound because he was working a physically demanding job all day.

It sure seems you would benefit from listening to SOMEONE who's "telling you what you're capable of understanding" because it sure seems you have a basic lack of understanding on this topic.

We subsidize sugar AND corn then cram those sweeteners into every last bit of our food. We inject steroids into cows so they make even more of a product that is already ridiculously underpriced on the wholesale market; we inject other steroids into everything else just to make it bigger, then pretend that's not going to come back on us when we eat the very thing we artificially pumped full of growth hormones. We're shipping manufacturing jobs overseas by the truckload, idling people who are then sedentary AND depressed about their living conditions and we are surprised we have so many fat people? It boggles the mind.

Re:Illegal? (1)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34195608)

If you'll read my post further down the line, you can see that I don't give a shit about fat people, what I care about is fat people who want their obesity to be treated as a disability.

Re:Illegal? (1)

jgreco (1542031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34154930)

I do not necessarily disagree with your basic idea there.

However, let's be aware of the fact that we've had a shift away from healthy foods in the last 30 or so years. There's even a school of thought that the food pyramid (USDA, 1992, from an earlier Denmark concept) itself is fundamentally wrong, and that emphasis on complex carbs has had a profound effect on public health.

Speaking for myself, I've been able to lose weight first and foremost by doing some intensive reading and thinking. I've read with skepticism things like the Atkins diet (I think the Paleo diet people make more sense but may be taking it a bit far), I've looked at major changes in the American diet, including not just the often-talked-about switch from sugar to HFCS in soft drinks, but also the switch we've seen where people are now drinking soft drinks many times per day, and other similar changes.

I used to find it difficult to lose weight. I found I had to make a number of changes, and then suddenly I was able to lose 40 pounds in 4 months. I now drink water, almost exclusively. I take a daily multivitamin and twice a day take a vitamin D and calcium supplement (Caltrate). I track calories, shooting for a reasonable daily goal. A smartphone app from Livestrong helps immensely, along with rough estimation occasionally verified through actual measurement. I usually eat one big meal a day, now, usually lunch, which takes near half my calories for the day. Some days I eat nothing more than salad or vegetables for supper. The Paleo people might look at my diet and say I'm doing their sort of thing, but poorly. I've actually taken several different strategies, combined them into something I feel is healthy, and am doing well.

I ate a bunch of candy the three days after Halloween and yet lost half a pound during that period, because I adjusted my other eating accordingly. I don't think I could get away with that all the time, but even moderation itself isn't a hard and fast rule.

I'm convinced we don't teach the right stuff to lose weight. Some of what we teach is okay, counting calories, for example, is necessary in some form, even if you just do it Weight-Watchers points style. If we don't give people the right information and the right tools, and encourage them to experiment to find what works for them, then I think we can expect that the results will resemble the "unfixable fat" you refer to.

Re:Illegal? (1)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 3 years ago | (#34135078)

I am pretty sure most countries in the developed world do not allow discrimination on the basis of weight.

I can't speak for other countries, but here in the USA, there is nothing illegal about discrimination on the basis of weight. The US military does, as do Fire rescue, etc... Do you really want a 300 lbs. fireman climbing up the ladder to pull you from a burning multi-story building? Or how about an airline stewardess who is so large they can't fit down the aisle way. Model agencies are probably the best known example of weight discrimination. Heck, my company pays its employees a bonus if they work out. Weight discrimination happens so much, that this really is a non-story.

Re:Illegal? (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34136374)

Heck, my company pays its employees a bonus if they work out.

I don't think I'd want to work for a company that expects me to waste my time at the gym. Unless, of course, I was doing it in work hours. I definitely wouldn't do it in my own time.

What a stupid policy.

Re:Illegal? (2, Interesting)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34144882)

I think your pay for "working out" is the bonus.

Therefore, it's during "work hours." The pay may be more than, less than, or the same as your usual rate, but it's still paid.

You can even claim that you're a professional excerciser since you're being paid to do it.

You don't want to do that sort of work? Cool. No "bonus" for you.

*shrug*

Re:Illegal? (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146094)

I've got better things to do with my time, like work for a company that pays a decent wage and doesn't waste money on stupid ideas like this. I'm probably fitter than most of the people at your company's gym anyway ;-)

I've got to wonder if this is maybe discriminating against disabled workers, too.

Re:Illegal? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34148934)

The pay may be more than, less than, or the same as your usual rate, but it's still paid.

Unless it pays at least $7.25 per hour, minimum wage law might interfere with your interpretation.

Re:Illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34161828)

Actually, in the UK that is considered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_Occupational_Qualification (and I can imagine the US has similar exceptions to discrimination law). So in some of these cases it may not be illegal.
Of course, IANAL, YMMV, etc. etc.

Re:Illegal? (2)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34146486)

I am pretty sure most countries in the developed world do not allow discrimination on the basis of weight.

And I'm pretty sure that with the obesity problem and associated medical issues killing people at an alarming rate, driving all insurance rates up, we need this discrimination.

Re:Illegal? (1)

iinlane (948356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34150462)

AFAIK obesity isn't a big problem in lithuania.

huh? (1)

edittard (805475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34128056)

"We cannot call it nothing other than a mockery"
Hang on. So they can call it something other than a mockery? So it's OK, then.

Does Lithuanian use double negatives? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34148964)

You criticize double negatives, but I bet someone else's English is better than your Lithuanian. Several other languages, such as Spanish, consider double negatives grammatical ("no entiendo nada"); does Lithuanian?

Re:Does Lithuanian use double negatives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34210484)

So does English. Double negatives were normal in English until nitwits like the GP thought it would be fun to be snooty and pretend that they were somehow analogous to multiplication rather than addition. Double negatives are normal in virtually EVERY Indo-European language (including "Standard English" until the mid 1700s, and even then they're still normal in most spoken dialects of English).

I love the implecation (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131492)

in the description that someone who is thin wouldn't also be upset with discrimination of someone else.

I'm hearing that only fat people are mad? (1)

headbone (914314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34159566)

Um, I, myself, wouldn't complain about this. If you would, it (probably) says one thing clearly: "I'm fat and I defend my right to be." Ok, uh, don't you wanna think about that before yelling it too loudly? Tell me that being fat isn't a choice? Go on, I dare ya.

Re:I'm hearing that only fat people are mad? (1)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 3 years ago | (#34164150)

I'm fat and I think it's a great idea. Maybe if I had an distinct immediate incentive other than a vague distant one like "some day your heart will explode," I would take the time to lose the weight.

Oh well.

Re:I'm hearing that only fat people are mad? (1)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34208566)

There are many medical conditions that most people confuse as obesity. One such condition is lymphedema. I know more than I wish I knew about it because my wife has primary bilateral lipi lymphedema. She has permanent swelling in both arms and both legs. I'd be willing to bet that you'd take one look at her and say that she's fat by choice. I'm not saying the whole idea is terrible, I think it's actually great. The article only says it's *one* of the criteria that goes into their pay raise equation. As long as there are exceptions to medical conditions I don't see anything wrong with what they're doing.

Congratulations! No "loosers" in this thread! (1)

StealthPanda (1189933) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163472)

I did a quick search on this thread, and did not see a single "loose" post. On a subject like this one, where people are often talking about losing weight, I expected to see many mistakes. Everyone that has posted here has made my day. Thank you all!

Re:Congratulations! No "loosers" in this thread! (1)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#34170216)

I could loose the weight, but if I loose my way in the Gobi desert next weak, I will not have enough fat on me too survive the harsh winter, and than I will get all week and die. You don't want that do you? F

Re:Congratulations! No "loosers" in this thread! (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34217030)

I could loose the weight, but if I loose my way in the Gobi desert next weak, I will not have enough fat on me too survive the harsh winter, and than I will get all week and dye. You don't want that do you? F

FTFY.

Makes Sense (1)

Grantbridge (1377621) | more than 3 years ago | (#34175132)

The less the bus driver weighs, the less weight the bus has to carry around all day. This should lead to some fuel savings! Also healthier employees will take less sick days, which is better for the company.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...