Maternity is a self-inflicted condition which means women cannot work for an extended period. They have to be given time off and get paid during this period. The employer also has to pay her for a period. They may even have to employ a temp to cover for her absence.
How is this accepted, and I don't have a problem with it, but other things aren't?
What's their definition of excessively fat anyway? I once interviewed a morbidly obese woman for a job. She struggled to make it from the reception area to the office where the interviews were being conducted and had to stop two or three times to mop her brow and take a breather en route. Guess what? She didn't get the job.
I'm aware that that sounds as bad as discriminating on the grounds on someone's disability but as head of a small department reliant on all hands being on deck why would or should I risk employing what I perceived to be a walking sicknote when I had plenty of other, equally qualified and physically fit candidates to choose from?
Quite right too. I've rejected applicants because their handwriting was awful.
What's their definition of excessively fat anyway? I once interviewed a morbidly obese woman for a job. She struggled to make it from the reception area to the office where the interviews were being conducted and had to stop two or three times to mop her brow and take a breather en route. Guess what? She didn't get the job.
I'm aware that that sounds as bad as discriminating on the grounds on someone's disability but as head of a small department reliant on all hands being on deck why would or should I risk employing what I perceived to be a walking sicknote when I had plenty of other, equally qualified and physically fit candidates to choose from?
Personally I don't think that's bad or unduly discriminating. I once interviewed a woman who was drunk. Poor soul, she had absolutely zero confidence and filled herself up with dutch courage in order to (as she saw it) give herself a fighting chance. Unfortunately, whiskey fumes at 2 in the afternoon send out all the wrong signals. Oddly enough, I felt terrible at the end of the interview - it was so sad - but there really was only one decision.
What's their definition of excessively fat anyway? I once interviewed a morbidly obese woman for a job. She struggled to make it from the reception area to the office where the interviews were being conducted and had to stop two or three times to mop her brow and take a breather en route. Guess what? She didn't get the job.
I'm aware that that sounds as bad as discriminating on the grounds on someone's disability but as head of a small department reliant on all hands being on deck why would or should I risk employing what I perceived to be a walking sicknote when I had plenty of other, equally qualified and physically fit candidates to choose from?
So were do the sick and disabled fit in the uk workforce, as the government seem to have one idea which is
The government thinks that for people to do the best they can
in their life, it helps if they have a job. Being disabled should not
be a barrier to getting a job, but alot of employers like yourself see things differant, i am not having a go or a dig but the sick and disabled do seem to be stuck between in the middle of this. As you have the government saying the sick and disabled cost the country to much, but you have employers thinking this person could cost the buisness to much.
If they exceed a specified weight - height figure, don't employ them. If they have physical difficulties due to weight, don't employ them. Do you honestly think employers should be compelled to buy re-inforced chairs because someone weighs 25 stone?
If a large person is the outstanding candidate you think it's o.k to decline them a job because they are too large for the chairs? BIB are you saying if they are too tall they should be declined
If a large person is the outstanding candidate you think it's o.k to decline them a job because they are too large for the chairs? BIB are you saying if they are too tall they should be declined
or employ those pesky females with their self inflicted pregnancies.
I can see hundreds of club doormen, taxi drivers, bus drivers, and an army of deskbound office workers who might suddenly qualify for reasonable adjustments in the future.
The Government have been using ostracism in an attempt to get people to slim down, now it looks as if it might be coming back to bite them on the a$$.
So were do the sick and disabled fit in the uk workforce, as the government seem to have one idea which is
The government thinks that for people to do the best they can
in their life, it helps if they have a job. Being disabled should not
be a barrier to getting a job, but alot of employers like yourself see things differant, i am not having a go or a dig but the sick and disabled do seem to be stuck between in the middle of this. As you have the government saying the sick and disabled cost the country to much, but you have employers thinking this person could cost the buisness to much.
The sick and disabled are stuck in the middle of this. There can be no denying that. As for where they might fit in terms of employment I think big multinationals and the public sector are probably the answer. Both can absorb the costs and minimise any potential disruption to production targets and deadlines etc, whereas a a small to medium sized business might not.
The sick and disabled are stuck in the middle of this. There can be no denying that. As for where they might fit in terms of employment I think big multinationals and the public sector are probably the answer. Both can absorb the costs and minimise any potential disruption to production targets and deadlines etc, whereas a a small to medium sized business might not.
perfect logic small to medium sized businesses employ small to medium sized people and big corporations employ the really big people who need extras
Let me see if I understand this, not being able to stop shoveling food into your mouth until you look like a beached whale is a disability? You can't be serious.
Get me the hell off this planet.
Maybe, but come the worldwide famine, it will be the fat that survive and they shall inherit the Earth.
I'd have thought a staff gym might be more helpful so people who have inflicted obesity on themselves could do something about it. Presumably this will all be treated as a benefit in kind by HMRC and taxed accordingly. I guess there must be votes in obesity.
A lot of employers already provide gym subsidies; and yes it is a benefit treated as such by HMRC.
If they exceed a specified weight - height figure, don't employ them. If they have physical difficulties due to weight, don't employ them. Do you honestly think employers should be compelled to buy re-inforced chairs because someone weighs 25 stone?
So, have the state fund these people through benefits? That's a great idea.
Comments
Do they?! What is the world coming to
Quite right too. I've rejected applicants because their handwriting was awful.
Personally I don't think that's bad or unduly discriminating. I once interviewed a woman who was drunk. Poor soul, she had absolutely zero confidence and filled herself up with dutch courage in order to (as she saw it) give herself a fighting chance. Unfortunately, whiskey fumes at 2 in the afternoon send out all the wrong signals. Oddly enough, I felt terrible at the end of the interview - it was so sad - but there really was only one decision.
So were do the sick and disabled fit in the uk workforce, as the government seem to have one idea which is
The government thinks that for people to do the best they can
in their life, it helps if they have a job. Being disabled should not
be a barrier to getting a job, but alot of employers like yourself see things differant, i am not having a go or a dig but the sick and disabled do seem to be stuck between in the middle of this. As you have the government saying the sick and disabled cost the country to much, but you have employers thinking this person could cost the buisness to much.
Winston Churchill was a bit of a chubby, we should have stuck with the slim NevilleChamberlain
The Government have been using ostracism in an attempt to get people to slim down, now it looks as if it might be coming back to bite them on the a$$.
The sick and disabled are stuck in the middle of this. There can be no denying that. As for where they might fit in terms of employment I think big multinationals and the public sector are probably the answer. Both can absorb the costs and minimise any potential disruption to production targets and deadlines etc, whereas a a small to medium sized business might not.
perfect logic small to medium sized businesses employ small to medium sized people and big corporations employ the really big people who need extras
Maybe, but come the worldwide famine, it will be the fat that survive and they shall inherit the Earth.
I think it was called survival of the fittest, you've misheard that haven't you?
We'll eat them first won't we? Easier to catch if they can't run
In times of famine, it's survival of the fattest. Those without the excess storage die first.
Hmm.. by the time you've starved enough to consider cannibalism, the fat would have slimmed down and you would be too weak to catch them.
Easy to catch em. They'll be tripping over their excess skin cos they won't have been able to demand its removal on the NHS. ;-)
I'd wager that if we ever start viewing our fellow human beings as food, that these great bags of skin would not be seen as a tasty morsel!
Do you mind I've not had mi tea yet.....:D:D:D
A lot of employers already provide gym subsidies; and yes it is a benefit treated as such by HMRC.
The EU has bugger all to do with that.
People are making their own choices.
People do make a choice to have a baby, you know
Long pork scratchings?
He wasn't that chubby. He just had a fat face.
Thank you for that image. I shall never look at snacks the same way again!