At least he’s not a hypocrite

Well, the company who fired some employees for not submitting to a urine test to determine if they were smoking is now targeting overweight workers.

News
Next on the firing line: overweight workers.

“We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you’re obese, you’re (legally) protected,” Weyers said.

He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses and plans to offer $45 vouchers for health club memberships.

The 71-year-old Weyers, who said he has never smoked and pronounced himself in good shape thanks to daily runs, said employees’ health as well as saving money on the company’s own insurance claims led him to first bar smokers from being hired in 2003.

Last year, he banned smoking during office hours, then demanded smokers pay a monthly $50 “assessment,” and finally instituted mandatory testing.

Well, at least you can’t say he’s picking on smokers anymore. I’d be curious to see an employment contract from the company and see if all these great little stipulations were actually included.

I think it’s a really screwed up situation, but that’s why I don’t work in a company like that.

Then again I don’t smoke, I ride my bike regularly, and I’ve lost 76 pounds in a year. By this company’s standards, I’d be a damn hero.

(Thanks to Kricket for the update)

This entry was posted in In The News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • pete from astoria

    What’s next with this clown? Perhaps banning gay men from employment in his company. Gay men are more likely to develop AIDS due to “risky” sexual behavior.
    This only emphasizes my concern and belief that big business is, and will continue to be an ally of the Nanny State.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Amen, Pete.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net Gordon the Magnificent

    It’s his company. Why can’t he require health standards?

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    I have a problem that he’s selectively picking and choosing the health issues he wants to be concerned about. As Pete mentioned, he should also be firing gay men because 60% of AIDS infected men are gay.

    How likely do you think that is to happen? Within two seconds the ACLU and every gay organization would be on him like white on rice.

  • pete from astoria

    “It’s his company. Why can’t he require health standards?”

    True it’s his company, but he isn’t required to provide health benefits for his employees.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net Gordon the Magnificent

    Still don’t see why it should matter.

    Imagine of the Armed Forces couldn’t enforce health standards?

    I hear your point about the gbay thing, but I still don’t agree.

    Is it hypocritical of the ACLU to turn their back? Yes.

    Is it wrong? No.

    Your company. Your choice.

    Do you see Dudes working at Victoria Secrets?

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    I think it absolutely is wrong. Unless you’re on company time, the company has no right to dictate what you can and can’t do with your personal life, as long as you aren’t doing it as a representative of the company.

    Now, if these little “tidbits” are in their employment contract, that’s a whole different story.

  • http://www.precociousdesigns.com Chelle

    I have to take the middle road on this one. I was waiting to comment until I saw someone else proclaim the same sort of thought process. I have to agree with Gordon in that in a world of free enterprise, the company has a right to hire and fire whomever they want for whatever reason they want. Does it suck? It sure does suck for those who are losing their jobs. There are questions to be asked… Is the state where the company is located one in which the employer has no choice but to offer insurance to fulltime employees? If so can they afford to offer different coverage for high health risk employees? Do the employee contracts state anything about these potential sorts of situations? Are they even on contracts at all? Yes, Vinny, it does seem very wrong but this is a Democratic Republic and a Capitalist society that can only thrive on free enterprise. We cannot have it both ways. No nanny state or a nanny state that is going to tell us how to run our business… The two don’t work together.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net Gordon the Magnificent

    Just got to disagree. Chelle hit the nail on the head. Free Enterprise. Are you free to hire who you want or not?

    How many fat chicks serve beers and wings at Hooters?

    How many men taloir your nighties at Victoria’s Secret?

    Thr list goes on and on.

    You should have th freedom to hire who you want, when you want.

  • pete from astoria

    What’s next with this clown? Perhaps banning gay men from employment in his company. Gay men are more likely to develop AIDS due to “risky” sexual behavior.
    This only emphasizes my concern and belief that big business is, and will continue to be an ally of the Nanny State.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Amen, Pete.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net/ Gordon the Magnificent

    It’s his company. Why can’t he require health standards?

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    I have a problem that he’s selectively picking and choosing the health issues he wants to be concerned about. As Pete mentioned, he should also be firing gay men because 60% of AIDS infected men are gay.

    How likely do you think that is to happen? Within two seconds the ACLU and every gay organization would be on him like white on rice.

  • pete from astoria

    “It’s his company. Why can’t he require health standards?”

    True it’s his company, but he isn’t required to provide health benefits for his employees.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net/ Gordon the Magnificent

    Still don’t see why it should matter.

    Imagine of the Armed Forces couldn’t enforce health standards?

    I hear your point about the gbay thing, but I still don’t agree.

    Is it hypocritical of the ACLU to turn their back? Yes.

    Is it wrong? No.

    Your company. Your choice.

    Do you see Dudes working at Victoria Secrets?

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    I think it absolutely is wrong. Unless you’re on company time, the company has no right to dictate what you can and can’t do with your personal life, as long as you aren’t doing it as a representative of the company.

    Now, if these little “tidbits” are in their employment contract, that’s a whole different story.

  • http://www.precociousdesigns.com/ Chelle

    I have to take the middle road on this one. I was waiting to comment until I saw someone else proclaim the same sort of thought process. I have to agree with Gordon in that in a world of free enterprise, the company has a right to hire and fire whomever they want for whatever reason they want. Does it suck? It sure does suck for those who are losing their jobs. There are questions to be asked… Is the state where the company is located one in which the employer has no choice but to offer insurance to fulltime employees? If so can they afford to offer different coverage for high health risk employees? Do the employee contracts state anything about these potential sorts of situations? Are they even on contracts at all? Yes, Vinny, it does seem very wrong but this is a Democratic Republic and a Capitalist society that can only thrive on free enterprise. We cannot have it both ways. No nanny state or a nanny state that is going to tell us how to run our business… The two don’t work together.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net/ Gordon the Magnificent

    Just got to disagree. Chelle hit the nail on the head. Free Enterprise. Are you free to hire who you want or not?

    How many fat chicks serve beers and wings at Hooters?

    How many men taloir your nighties at Victoria’s Secret?

    Thr list goes on and on.

    You should have th freedom to hire who you want, when you want.