Jewbacca you are not making my day man, more money for you just more work for me. Happy New Year, watch out for falling fat assess now by construction sites.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Lawyers go to CLE “Continuing Legal Education.” It’s basically refresher class that lasts for 3-4 days, tailored to what you do.
One of the topics in a “general business update” was the ADA, which was an originally reasonable law designed to make sure that people with real disabilities get a fair shot at jobs they can do, with reasonable acmodation (e.g., a ramp for a guy in a wheelchair).
Now, the disability generally had to be: (1) real and substantial and (2) involuntary — not something you did to yourself — e.g., being a drug addict didn’t cut it, for example.
Well, this year the federal government has decided that being fat is the same thing as being blind or in a wheel chair, and not fat peoples’ fault, so the world (and employers) will now have to accomodate people who became immobile because they sit on their asses and shovel crap in their mouths.
The presenter was this big, fat, smug bitch from the EEOC 2 feet wider than the podium behind which she presented. She was out of breath from waddling up 3 steps to the stage, and was clearly very excited about the possibility of the world having to supply her fat ass with fat people scooters.
I was greeted with this news as I sat there, knees aching, having jogged up the firescape to my room (34 stories up) twice as my morning cardio.[/quote]
I am not happy you did this, unfortunatley some of the posters after you have no clue what you are talking about. Short attention span of youth today.
I am a mid-level provider that does pre-employment physicals for a fortune 500 company. Part of my job is qualifications due to ADA. I will hopefully make a point that some of the slow witted can understand.
This would mean that a construction job site would have to accommodate a 500 pound guy to be a scaffold builder. Now the guy couldnt climb the scaffold and do the job so the site would have to basically find a part of the job he could do. Like stand at the bottom and basically be a fucking anchor for everyone else. So what does this mean.
Increased fucking cost for labor.
Any of you get pissed when you see them working on the street and 5 guys are standing around 1 guy working? That is because labor laws now require how much they can work in a given hour. Now you can expect to see the good year blimp standing right next to the other guys holding a shovel. [/quote]
This is not correct. You have to make REASONABLE accommodations and they still have to be able to perform the essential functions of the job.[/quote]
This is what I was under the impression from reading the OP. DJHT is suggesting extremes where fat people will be hired to do absolutely nothing so the company can avoid litigation
[quote]DJHT wrote:
Jewbacca you are not making my day man, more money for you just more work for me. Happy New Year, watch out for falling fat assess now by construction sites. [/quote]
Actually, it won’t be money for me – I’m all international trade and mergers and whatnot — but my partners defending this crap will make me money.
The case is:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Resources for Human Development, Inc., E.D. La., No. 2:10-cv-03322 (filed Sept. 30, 2010), is pending in federal district court in New Orleans.
The position of the Obama administration is:
“Basic obesity, with or without any other underlying condition causing the obesity, sufficiently impacts the life activities of bending, walking, digestion, etc. to qualify as a disability or perceived disability.”
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Lawyers go to CLE “Continuing Legal Education.” It’s basically refresher class that lasts for 3-4 days, tailored to what you do.
One of the topics in a “general business update” was the ADA, which was an originally reasonable law designed to make sure that people with real disabilities get a fair shot at jobs they can do, with reasonable acmodation (e.g., a ramp for a guy in a wheelchair).
Now, the disability generally had to be: (1) real and substantial and (2) involuntary — not something you did to yourself — e.g., being a drug addict didn’t cut it, for example.
Well, this year the federal government has decided that being fat is the same thing as being blind or in a wheel chair, and not fat peoples’ fault, so the world (and employers) will now have to accomodate people who became immobile because they sit on their asses and shovel crap in their mouths.
The presenter was this big, fat, smug bitch from the EEOC 2 feet wider than the podium behind which she presented. She was out of breath from waddling up 3 steps to the stage, and was clearly very excited about the possibility of the world having to supply her fat ass with fat people scooters.
I was greeted with this news as I sat there, knees aching, having jogged up the firescape to my room (34 stories up) twice as my morning cardio.[/quote]
I am not happy you did this, unfortunatley some of the posters after you have no clue what you are talking about. Short attention span of youth today.
I am a mid-level provider that does pre-employment physicals for a fortune 500 company. Part of my job is qualifications due to ADA. I will hopefully make a point that some of the slow witted can understand.
This would mean that a construction job site would have to accommodate a 500 pound guy to be a scaffold builder. Now the guy couldnt climb the scaffold and do the job so the site would have to basically find a part of the job he could do. Like stand at the bottom and basically be a fucking anchor for everyone else. So what does this mean.
Increased fucking cost for labor.
Any of you get pissed when you see them working on the street and 5 guys are standing around 1 guy working? That is because labor laws now require how much they can work in a given hour. Now you can expect to see the good year blimp standing right next to the other guys holding a shovel. [/quote]
This is not correct. You have to make REASONABLE accommodations and they still have to be able to perform the essential functions of the job.[/quote]
In between bouts of wheezing? LOL
[quote]DJHT wrote:
Jewbacca you are not making my day man, more money for you just more work for me. Happy New Year, watch out for falling fat assess now by construction sites. [/quote]
You are a condescending jackass. If this thread bothers you much, why are you still posting in it?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
This is what I was under the impression from reading the OP. DJHT is suggesting extremes where fat people will be hired to do absolutely nothing so the company can avoid litigation[/quote]
Which is exactly what will happen to avoid lawsuits. Any position that can possibly be filled with a fat ass will have a fat ass parked in it.
No, it won’t be the guy on the scaffold. It will be some new, nonsense, position, created to hire a fat person.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Lawyers go to CLE “Continuing Legal Education.” It’s basically refresher class that lasts for 3-4 days, tailored to what you do.
One of the topics in a “general business update” was the ADA, which was an originally reasonable law designed to make sure that people with real disabilities get a fair shot at jobs they can do, with reasonable acmodation (e.g., a ramp for a guy in a wheelchair).
Now, the disability generally had to be: (1) real and substantial and (2) involuntary — not something you did to yourself — e.g., being a drug addict didn’t cut it, for example.
Well, this year the federal government has decided that being fat is the same thing as being blind or in a wheel chair, and not fat peoples’ fault, so the world (and employers) will now have to accomodate people who became immobile because they sit on their asses and shovel crap in their mouths.
The presenter was this big, fat, smug bitch from the EEOC 2 feet wider than the podium behind which she presented. She was out of breath from waddling up 3 steps to the stage, and was clearly very excited about the possibility of the world having to supply her fat ass with fat people scooters.
I was greeted with this news as I sat there, knees aching, having jogged up the firescape to my room (34 stories up) twice as my morning cardio.[/quote]
I am not happy you did this, unfortunatley some of the posters after you have no clue what you are talking about. Short attention span of youth today.
I am a mid-level provider that does pre-employment physicals for a fortune 500 company. Part of my job is qualifications due to ADA. I will hopefully make a point that some of the slow witted can understand.
This would mean that a construction job site would have to accommodate a 500 pound guy to be a scaffold builder. Now the guy couldnt climb the scaffold and do the job so the site would have to basically find a part of the job he could do. Like stand at the bottom and basically be a fucking anchor for everyone else. So what does this mean.
Increased fucking cost for labor.
Any of you get pissed when you see them working on the street and 5 guys are standing around 1 guy working? That is because labor laws now require how much they can work in a given hour. Now you can expect to see the good year blimp standing right next to the other guys holding a shovel. [/quote]
This is not correct. You have to make REASONABLE accommodations and they still have to be able to perform the essential functions of the job.[/quote]
I didnt want to get that indepth BG, you are correct. BUT if you have a guy who was a scaffold builder (this could be any thing pipe fitter, welder etc) for 10 years and basically ate himself to Jabba status. Then he goes to a new job, he has the qualifications, experience. You know as well as I do that people bring claims a lot. Determining the essential functions of different job sites is always a debatable issue. A welder at Exxon may have different essential functions than a welder at Bayer. But if they work at the same contractor like Turner or Jacobs then the problems begin.
I do a physical on that same guy, all his exam is normal EXCEPT he is 500 lbs. Okay I take the essential job functions and cover letter give to guy to obtain clearance from his PCP. Now most PCP’s will clear him cause they dont want to make his patient mad. He then comes back to me, well now I send him for a FCE functional capacity exam. During this test they may perform some of the duties that are on the essential job function and he may reach a level that they can really disqualify him or they pass him cause they have his money. NOOWWW
You are stuck with the possible ADA violation and after one your fucked, now if it ever goes to legal they will crater and settle.
I once had a guy file suit when I discovered he had an inguinal hernia how is that discrimination?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
Jewbacca you are not making my day man, more money for you just more work for me. Happy New Year, watch out for falling fat assess now by construction sites. [/quote]
You are a condescending jackass. If this thread bothers you much, why are you still posting in it?[/quote]
Serious question:
Are you a chubby chaser?
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
This is what I was under the impression from reading the OP. DJHT is suggesting extremes where fat people will be hired to do absolutely nothing so the company can avoid litigation[/quote]
Which is exactly what will happen to avoid lawsuits. Any position that can possibly be filled with a fat ass will have a fat ass parked in it.
No, it won’t be the guy on the scaffold. It will be some new, nonsense, position, created to hire a fat person.[/quote]
Okay.
However, it could be argued positives will come out of this legislation as well. I’m sure the obese are discriminated against for white collar positions they would be able to do simply because of their size.
And basically all legislation has it’s positives and negatives.
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
Jewbacca you are not making my day man, more money for you just more work for me. Happy New Year, watch out for falling fat assess now by construction sites. [/quote]
You are a condescending jackass. If this thread bothers you much, why are you still posting in it?[/quote]
Serious question:
Are you a chubby chaser?[/quote]
LOL, no.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
This is what I was under the impression from reading the OP. DJHT is suggesting extremes where fat people will be hired to do absolutely nothing so the company can avoid litigation[/quote]
Which is exactly what will happen to avoid lawsuits. Any position that can possibly be filled with a fat ass will have a fat ass parked in it.
No, it won’t be the guy on the scaffold. It will be some new, nonsense, position, created to hire a fat person.[/quote]
Okay.
However, it could be argued positives will come out of this legislation as well. I’m sure the obese are discriminated against for white collar positions they would be able to do simply because of their size.
And basically all legislation has it’s positives and negatives.[/quote]
There’s nothing positive about removing incentive for an obese person to lose weight. NOTHING. Not for us, and not for them.
Being fat is not a disease, it is a choice. You can choose you overeat, you can choose not to overeat. You can choose to smoke, you can choose not to. You can choose to take heroin… and so on. In maybe 10% of obese people there is underlying condition, theres simply something wrong with the way their bodies are metabolizing food. I can see how they might have the right to complain. As for the rest, it was their choice to start overeating or it was their parents’ god damned fault for force feeding them like geese for the first years of life until it became a habit. If you would like to believe that it is a coping mechanism or and addiction, fine. However, accepting that logic would lead you to the conclusion that 35% (or whatever that grotesque number is now) of the American population is depressed. In that case logic would also dictate that treating for said depression will eliminate obesity. Flawed no? Get a grip, eat less, move more (By the way, those last two together are the magic fat loss formula), and most importantly, stop whining!
So I guess will see this at Hooters?
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
This is what I was under the impression from reading the OP. DJHT is suggesting extremes where fat people will be hired to do absolutely nothing so the company can avoid litigation[/quote]
Which is exactly what will happen to avoid lawsuits. Any position that can possibly be filled with a fat ass will have a fat ass parked in it.
No, it won’t be the guy on the scaffold. It will be some new, nonsense, position, created to hire a fat person.[/quote]
Okay.
However, it could be argued positives will come out of this legislation as well. I’m sure the obese are discriminated against for white collar positions they would be able to do simply because of their size.
And basically all legislation has it’s positives and negatives.[/quote]
There’s nothing positive about removing incentive for an obese person to lose weight. NOTHING. Not for us, and not for them.
[/quote]
You could draw a parallel to welfare. Are you also against a social safety net?
[quote]bulldog9899 wrote:
So I guess will see this at Hooters?[/quote]
i’m so down
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And basically all legislation has it’s positives and negatives.[/quote]
No, most of it sucks and does little to remedy the supposed harms it is designed to prevent.
A better way would be to leave the employers alone, let them make the calls, and the smart ones that overlook stupid shit (like color or race or religion or sex) will make more money, while the ones that discriminate will make less.
But, again, on the bright side, this sort of thing does keep my partners busy and rich.
So there is the bright side.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
This is what I was under the impression from reading the OP. DJHT is suggesting extremes where fat people will be hired to do absolutely nothing so the company can avoid litigation[/quote]
Which is exactly what will happen to avoid lawsuits. Any position that can possibly be filled with a fat ass will have a fat ass parked in it.
No, it won’t be the guy on the scaffold. It will be some new, nonsense, position, created to hire a fat person.[/quote]
Okay.
However, it could be argued positives will come out of this legislation as well. I’m sure the obese are discriminated against for white collar positions they would be able to do simply because of their size.
And basically all legislation has it’s positives and negatives.[/quote]
I just realized you are Canadian so you dont count. And yes if it effects my job and way of life than yes I will join in. Again I will be nice because I know how you Canucks are, this is not something you have in depth knowledge about. Your response is “Oh poor _____ they should have the same abilities of ______, and there is always + and - with policy changes” What a crock of horse shit, do you actually eat the yellow snow up there? Why do you feel you have to give you .02 on something you dont know anything about? Maybe start a thread on the unethical treatment of large mammal donut eaters and there inability to find a job.
[quote]bulldog9899 wrote:
So I guess will see this at Hooters?[/quote]
Hooters, believe it or not, came up. Apparently it’s a “show” and a necessary part of the job is: (A) being female and (2) reasonably hot.
The lawsuit was some guy trying to get hired there and suing.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]bulldog9899 wrote:
So I guess will see this at Hooters?[/quote]
Hooters, believe it or not, came up. Apparently it’s a “show” and a necessary part of the job is: (A) being female and (2) reasonably hot.
The lawsuit was some guy trying to get hired there and suing.[/quote]
Damnit Bulldog why man why, I thought we were tight. Jewbacca I was not jumping on you man, I was joking about not making my day. The Canuck just got all but hurt.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And basically all legislation has it’s positives and negatives.[/quote]
No, most of it sucks and does little to remedy the supposed harms it is designed to prevent.
A better way would be to leave the employers alone, let them make the calls, and the smart ones that overlook stupid shit (like color or race or religion or sex) will make more money, while the ones that discriminate will make less.
But, again, on the bright side, this sort of thing does keep my partners busy and rich.
So there is the bright side.[/quote]
Fair enough. I’m not denying people will abuse the system if given the chance. I’ve seen discrimination first hand and am happy anti-discrimination laws exist. However, from what you have written about this legislation I do not disagree.