wow....just wow....

[Blade96]

That people are still allowed to get away with this stuff in this day and age.

"I saw this article in the Press of Atlantic City, and it provoked strong feelings with me. As a woman who works in a stereotypical "male industry", I believe people should be hired and promoted based on their performance, not looks. I also think being healthy is important (not too thin, and not too heavy)...." this woman said.

Really? Some still think different.

http://new-jersey-small-state-big-a...y-Borgata-Babes-settle-supersize-suit-1832538

 

[Sukerkin]

I would guess that it all depends on whether the employees were under any illusions as to the job qualifications when they went in?

I know it's a hot button isssue but if they are hired to fit a profile and then cannot continue to meet it why is that, logically, any different from my getting fired because I prove incapable of learning a new SCADA protocol?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, I see both sides.

From the side of the women who sued, I agree that no one should have to starve themselves to keep their job, especially when their weight has nothing to do with how well they can do their jobs. I get it.

On the other hand, where does it end?

Shall I sue because I can't get a job as a male model? After all, what have looks to do with it?

And if some babe-bar decides to go with the fair policy and hire all qualified servers regardless of how they look, then what happens when the guys stay away and the place goes broke? Hello, where are the jobs then?

We live in a sexist and sizist world. I'm a short fat bald guy, I know what it means. I also know what the world is. Guys like scantily-clad women with big boobs, a thin waist, and a smile, it makes 'em spend their money. That's the way it goes. Unfair? Sure. Don't know how to change it. And until guys quit liking what they like, employers who cater to them are going to want to hire women who will wear few clothes, have big boobs, thin waists, and a nice smile. You can maybe force the employer to change, but how do you force the customers to keep showing up?

 

[Bruno@MT]

Yes I see both sides, but honestly, if you work in a place where your looks are responsible for the income, then those looks are a job requirement.

I work in software development. My looks have nothing to do with my job performance. If I were to be a male model and started putting on weight, losing my hair, had a busted face because of martial arts training, etc... then it would affect my job performance.

Take hooters for an example. Guys spend time at hooters buying (possibly overpriced) beer just to be around nice looking big breasted women who smile at them, like Bill mentioned. If they stop smiling or gain 40 pounds, then noone is going to pay for that, and that would be grounds for termination, regardless of the circumstances.

I'll be the first to argue against any form of discrimination, but if your looks are a legit job requirement, then they are the employers business as well.

 

[Cirdan]

Bah! You can`t have sexy and politically correct in the same sentence.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Bah! You can`t have sexy and politically correct in the same sentence.

You just did.

 

[Muawijhe]

I really have to side as above, but with a heavier lean to the Casino.

It never ceases to amaze me the stupidity people show when they go into a job, knowing full well what the job requires of them, get fired for not meeting those requirements later, then suing because the requiresment were unfair.

It's kind of like before they banned smoking in restaurants/bars here in Michigan, there was all this cry about bartenders/server who had to put in smokey environments. I thought that was utter rubbish. If your life long dream is to become a bartender, then one must understand that (at the time) most bars have smoking. A hazard of the job. It'd be like a soldier suing the military because s/he got shot at while out on patrol. Erm...dur?

However, if the company's regulations were put into effect after the woman had been working there awhile, that'd be a different matter all together. Still, it'd be no different to having a tech job later add that you need to be certified in some new something-or-other. Do it, or go elsewhere.

(apologies for an uncharacteristically bitter post, just tired of false senses of entitlement, stupidity, and those who ignore caveat emptor)

 

[Cirdan]

You just did.

No I didn`t. The words are there but the sentence itself is neither sexy (unless you have a weird fetish) or politically correct.

 

[CoryKS]

No I didn`t. The words are there but the sentence itself is neither sexy (unless you have a weird fetish) or politically correct.

You just did it again. *fap*

 

[CoryKS]

I'm with the casino on this one, obviously. If you don't want your job security to be based on your looks, go be a programmer or something.

 

[Blade96]

Bah! You can`t have sexy and politically correct in the same sentence.

Yep, you just did

 

[girlbug2]

The one legal glitch I can sense in casino's position is with the people who develop medical conditions some time after they are hired, which caused the weight gain. The article mentioned a server who developed a thyroid problem after she was hired. Because this is a medical problem, if the server is seeking treatment for her problem then does that legally prohibit the employer from firing her? I know in at least one state it would.

 

[Sukerkin]

A very interesting legal and moral connundrum there, bug, aye.

My guess would be that the best solution for the company that still leaves them with some sense of 'decency' in the public eye is to arrange for the woman in question to perform other duties for the same pay. Mind you, I see from the article that they do provide access to appropriate 'training' for their workers i.e. slimming programmes, so maybe that is their 'get out' clause?

Anyhow, a quote I agree with from one of the customers is:

"Women can be both big and beautiful as long as they carry themselves well."

 

[RandomPhantom700]

The one legal glitch I can sense in casino's position is with the people who develop medical conditions some time after they are hired, which caused the weight gain. The article mentioned a server who developed a thyroid problem after she was hired. Because this is a medical problem, if the server is seeking treatment for her problem then does that legally prohibit the employer from firing her? I know in at least one state it would.

From my understanding of employment law, the employer in this position would argue that the accomodations to keeping her hired would be unreasonable. If your job is based on your looks (Hooters waitress, clothing model, bartender, etc.), and those looks become worse, whether your fault or not, then the employer could essentially argue that they had no choice but to fire you. The catch is that they'd actually have to show how having someone who's now an ugly betty in the current position would hurt the company, and that there's no realistic alternative, not just argue it.

 

[billc]

I think it is a simple matter of freedom and liberty. If you own a business you should be able to hire or fire anyone you want for whatever reason you want. The only exception to this should be the government since it recieves tax money from all citizens. If you follow the freedom and liberty policy it pretty much resolves the issue. If you refuse to hire effective if physically different people and people stop going to your restaraunt or business, problem solved. If you prefer to hire effective but physically different people and you succeed, problem solved. Private property rights are the bedrock of freedom in a society. Check out Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell on this concept, they will describe this process in much greater and more definitive detail than I can.

 

[BloodMoney]

Yes I see both sides, but honestly, if you work in a place where your looks are responsible for the income, then those looks are a job requirement.

I work in software development. My looks have nothing to do with my job performance. If I were to be a male model and started putting on weight, losing my hair, had a busted face because of martial arts training, etc... then it would affect my job performance.

Take hooters for an example. Guys spend time at hooters buying (possibly overpriced) beer just to be around nice looking big breasted women who smile at them, like Bill mentioned. If they stop smiling or gain 40 pounds, then noone is going to pay for that, and that would be grounds for termination, regardless of the circumstances.

I'll be the first to argue against any form of discrimination, but if your looks are a legit job requirement, then they are the employers business as well.

Nail on the head

Dont sign on the dotted line and dont apply for the job if you dont like the requirements and conditions. I think the world we live in his pretty ****** for having such standards, but thats another matter altogether.

 

[Muawijhe]

Nail on the head

Dont sign on the dotted line and dont apply for the job if you dont like the requirements and conditions. I think the world we live in his pretty ****** for having such standards, but thats another matter altogether.

Just to pursue another avenue of thought, you and at least one other mentioned that you believe the world to be messed up for having such standards.

Well, why do you cosider the world messed up for having potentially extreme standards (for work or otherwise) of a person's looks?

 

[Tez3]

I really have to side as above, but with a heavier lean to the Casino.

It never ceases to amaze me the stupidity people show when they go into a job, knowing full well what the job requires of them, get fired for not meeting those requirements later, then suing because the requiresment were unfair.

It's kind of like before they banned smoking in restaurants/bars here in Michigan, there was all this cry about bartenders/server who had to put in smokey environments. I thought that was utter rubbish. If your life long dream is to become a bartender, then one must understand that (at the time) most bars have smoking. A hazard of the job. It'd be like a soldier suing the military because s/he got shot at while out on patrol. Erm...dur?

However, if the company's regulations were put into effect after the woman had been working there awhile, that'd be a different matter all together. Still, it'd be no different to having a tech job later add that you need to be certified in some new something-or-other. Do it, or go elsewhere.

(apologies for an uncharacteristically bitter post, just tired of false senses of entitlement, stupidity, and those who ignore caveat emptor)

While I can see what you mean I wouldn't put the smoking case with barmen in though. Being a barman/maid here is never a career choice, it's a job people do to keep the wolf from the door, it's poorly paid and usaully part time but helps pay the bills. Working in a pub is often a job that women with kids do because it's in the evening when they can get baby sitters easier. It's a dead end job so it's a bit unfair to compare it to a career as a soldier though the soldier could rightly complain if it was his own side shooting at him!

 

[Steve]

Well, I see both sides.

From the side of the women who sued, I agree that no one should have to starve themselves to keep their job, especially when their weight has nothing to do with how well they can do their jobs. I get it.

On the other hand, where does it end?

Shall I sue because I can't get a job as a male model? After all, what have looks to do with it?

And if some babe-bar decides to go with the fair policy and hire all qualified servers regardless of how they look, then what happens when the guys stay away and the place goes broke? Hello, where are the jobs then?

We live in a sexist and sizist world. I'm a short fat bald guy, I know what it means. I also know what the world is. Guys like scantily-clad women with big boobs, a thin waist, and a smile, it makes 'em spend their money. That's the way it goes. Unfair? Sure. Don't know how to change it. And until guys quit liking what they like, employers who cater to them are going to want to hire women who will wear few clothes, have big boobs, thin waists, and a nice smile. You can maybe force the employer to change, but how do you force the customers to keep showing up?

For me, it has to do with salient characteristics of the job. If I need a web designer, I need someone who can do the job. If I need a high altitude welder, a guy in a wheelchair may be incapable of doing it.

In your case, Bill, same as in mine, unless the modeling job is for balding, middle aged men, we're out of luck as looks are integral to the position.

Regarding the thread drift toward smoking, I think we've had threads on this here before. My personal opinion is that we have safety standards in every job. It's an accepted role of government to prevent unnecessary exposure to hazardous chemicals or materials, and to ensure that employees who as a condition of employment face such exposure are protected as much as possible. In other words, the two options I see are to ban smoking in places of employment or to require employees to wear suitable respirators... and wearing a respirator would make it pretty hard to communicate with the waitress, IMO.

We have banned smoking in just about every office building in America specifically to protect white collar workers from exposure to second hand smoke. But it's okay for us, in some States, to knowingly crap on blue collar workers. I don't get it and I am strongly in favor of smoking bans anywhere that someone is earning a living.

 

[Steve]

It's kind of like before they banned smoking in restaurants/bars here in Michigan, there was all this cry about bartenders/server who had to put in smokey environments. I thought that was utter rubbish. If your life long dream is to become a bartender, then one must understand that (at the time) most bars have smoking. A hazard of the job. It'd be like a soldier suing the military because s/he got shot at while out on patrol. Erm...dur?
)

Risking your life as a soldier is part and parcel of what you're signing up for. If you're a combat soldier, by definition, you risk getting shot at. In combat, you may find yourself in a situation where you are under fire. You may be in a situation where you literally HAVE to risk your life in order to get the job done.

Last I heard, you can drink a beer without smoking. People do it all the time. In fact, you can do anything without smoking, except to smoke.

Saying that any employee, whether waitress, bartender or whatever, should be forced to breathe a known carcinogen is pretty much the same in my book as suggesting that office employees should be forced to knowingly breathe asbestos.