|
OK so here's a little note for you lot. Obesity is a topic that fills people with disgust and hatred. Please keep that stuff OUT of this topic, its not a place to abuse the fat, but to discuss the implications of this ruling.
Obesity can constitute a disability in certain circumstances, the EU's highest court has ruled.
The European Court of Justice was asked to consider the case of a male childminder in Denmark who says he was sacked for being too fat.
The court said that if obesity could hinder "full and effective participation" at work then it could count as a disability.
The ruling is binding across the EU.
Judges said that obesity in itself was not a disability - but if a person had a long-term impairment because of their obesity, then they would be protected by disability legislation.
The case centres around childminder Karsten Kaltoft who weighs about 160kg (25 stone).
He brought a discrimination case against his employers of 15 years, Billund local authority, after he was sacked four years ago.
The authority said a fall in the number of children meant Mr Kaltoft was no longer required.
But Mr Kaltoft said he was dismissed because he was overweight.
'No problems' Earlier this year, he told the BBC that reports that he was so fat he was unable to bend down to tie children's shoelaces were untrue.
Describing his work with children, he said: "I can sit on the floor and play with them, I have no problems like that.
"I don't see myself as disabled. It's not OK just to fire a person because they're fat, if they're doing their job properly."
The Danish courts asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to clarify whether obesity was a disability.
The ECJ ruled that if the obesity of the worker "hinders the full and effective participation of that person in professional life on an equal basis with other workers", then obesity can fall within the concept of "disability".
Rulings from the European Court of Justice are binding for all EU member nations.
The courts in Denmark will now have to assess Mr Kaltoft's weight to see if his case can be classed as a disability.
Source
This is going to be significant in the next few years in the EU for sure. If obesity 'can' be classed as a disability, companies and services will have to be very, very careful not to be put in a position of discriminating against the obese. For example: Will companies have to provide extra seats on aeroplanes (or provide the option to buy extra room at a discount)?. Will governments have to subsidise treatment for obesity if it is classed as a disability? The ruling doesn't say that obesity itself is a disability, but that circumstances arising from obesity can make it a disability. This is now part of EU law, and IMO needs to be explored and defined ASAP before every obese person finds themselves taking a bunch of companies to court. It strikes me as an EU court once again making universal laws without thinking of the extremely wide ranging consequences of those laws.
I'm an obese person myself (about 23/4 stone) and frankly, i have never felt discriminated against because of this. There are times when i feel very uncomfortable, but those times usually remind me that i should probably lose some weight, not that someone else is treating me unfairly.
It infuriates me that people are encouraged to take no responsibility for themselves. I have always been the kind of person who cares not about my health. But to be encouraged by law to do so is bizarre.
|
So what happens when you lose the extra weight? You lose your disability benefits/checks?
Seems like we will be seeing a lot more poor people putting on weight.
edit: Though I think governments spending money on people that really want to lose weight is the right thing to do. I'm also getting kind of confused about what (some of) these obese people are fighting for. Seems like there is one crowd that wants 'fat acceptance'/'we are completely healthy' and another bunch like these guys who say they are disabled. Idk
|
On December 18 2014 23:08 zeo wrote: So what happens when you lose the extra weight? You lose your disability benefits/checks?
Seems like we will be seeing a lot more poor people putting on weight.
I'm not sure about this. The ruling doesn't class obesity itself as a disability, and there's clearly alot of room left for specific clarifications of what exactly this means. I don't know that people will be able to get benefits just for being obese. I suppose its like half way step to the situation you're talking about. It would need more cases along these lines for a proper legal framework to appear, i would assume. Its worrying to me that its gone this far though.
|
The ECJ ruled that if the obesity of the worker "hinders the full and effective participation of that person in professional life on an equal basis with other workers", then obesity can fall within the concept of "disability".
isn't then the onus on him to prove that his obesity does not hinder his full and effective participation in his job?
|
On December 18 2014 23:19 malcram wrote:Show nested quote +The ECJ ruled that if the obesity of the worker "hinders the full and effective participation of that person in professional life on an equal basis with other workers", then obesity can fall within the concept of "disability". isn't then the onus on him to prove that his obesity does not hinder his full and effective participation in his job?
It could well be. Also, I don't understand the legal side of this very much, but surely for this case to work he would have had to declare his obesity as a disability when he first started working for them.
|
it was a bad idea to let him guard the donut cache in the first place.
User was warned for this post
|
So if his employer would sack him saying "we no longer need you" instead of "you're fat" there would be no case at all? This whole thing seems like taking political correctness to another level of stupidity.
|
As a dane, I'd say that it could be a disabillity if it prevents you from doing your work. I'd definitly say it's a "disabillity" as obese as this man is (160 kg), there's bound to be some health issues connected with that. DEFINITLY depends on which profession you're in.
It's not something youre born with though, but then again, doing something stupid and being disabled / ill because of it could also be a disabillity. Are you born fat? No. Does some people gain weight easier than others? Yes. Would poor nutrition as a child be connected to you being overweight or fat? Absolutely. But it doesn't excuse it.
|
IMO obesity as a result of a lack of discipline (like my fat arse is) should not be protected by law in a working environment. Obesity as a result of a disease or medication should be protected.
The former is proves to increase medical costs for employers, increase the amount of sick days, reduce productivity, have a higher chance on burn-out and depression. If you're obese and it's your own fault, you cannot blame your employer for not giving you money for a job somebody else would be better at. In that case, it's simply a fact of "you cost more than you're worth, so we fire you", but because the person is fat and a whiny bitch that goes to court, he gets protection?
No. If you're fat and it's your own fault: deal with it.
We have way too many laws protecting employees for all kind of ridiculousness *edit: this last comment had no real purpose*
|
On December 18 2014 23:33 SC2Toastie wrote: IMO obesity as a result of a lack of discipline (like my fat arse is) should not be protected by law in a working environment. Obesity as a result of a disease or medication should be protected.
The former is proves to increase medical costs for employers, increase the amount of sick days, reduce productivity, have a higher chance on burn-out and depression. If you're obese and it's your own fault, you cannot blame your employer for not giving you money for a job somebody else would be better at. In that case, it's simply a fact of "you cost more than you're worth, so we fire you", but because the person is fat and a whiny bitch that goes to court, he gets protection?
No. If you're fat and it's your own fault: deal with it.
We have way too many laws protecting employees for all kind of ridiculousness (why does your employer have to pay for you wanting a baby 0_0!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! And why do we think that is a normal course of action !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?)
Yeah it's a tricky subject. At least in the U.S. there are many "no-fault" states where you can be terminated at any time for any reason or no reason at all...as long as it's not discrimination. So in this case, as long as you say something like "downsizing" (hue hue) due to financial issues instead of "you're too fat," you can get away with it.
I am very reticent to classify obesity as a disability. I think there is some merit to that, and people shouldn't be discriminated against because of their weight, but there are many professions where being obese makes you counterproductive and a healthy individual would perform better. I would rather it be listed as a condition you can't discriminate against than an outright disability, because that sets a dangerous precedent. It just gives validity to the irresponsible individuals who blame their weight on everyone but themselves, and in this country I'm sure many of them would seek government benefits if it were classified as a disability. Unless the obesity is related to a medical condition, that would be abhorrent and our low point in irresponsible use of government welfare.
In this case, it didn't seem like his ability to do his job was impaired by his weight, so I don't see a problem with him getting upset about it. If he was a firefighter or a police officer and got canned for being too heavy, well, them's the breaks.
EDIT: Maternity leave is a sticky subject as well. Maybe things are different in Europe, but here I believe it's fairly rare to get paid maternity leave. The point of maternity leave in the U.S. is to guarantee your position when you return, otherwise it would be hard to stay competitive with other companies for female employees. We're in the 21st Century, you have to be able to accommodate both sexes and telling your female employees they'll be fired if they want to start a family is a little harsh.
|
On December 18 2014 23:43 ZasZ. wrote:
In this case, it didn't seem like his ability to do his job was impaired by his weight, so I don't see a problem with him getting upset about it. If he was a firefighter or a police officer and got canned for being too heavy, well, them's the breaks.
Exactly. Its not like you go to the gym on a Tuesday night and its full of childminders getting in shape for work.
|
On December 18 2014 23:43 ZasZ. wrote:In this case, it didn't seem like his ability to do his job was impaired by his weight, so I don't see a problem with him getting upset about it. If he was a firefighter or a police officer and got canned for being too heavy, well, them's the breaks.
The fact it was brought up means it had to do with firing him in some way. Even if he was exactly as productive as his colleagues, the risk of him losing productivity as a result of things I mentioned is simply higher. You can go to court over that, but it has been scientifically proven that an obese person (160kg is obese) is at higher risk for various problems than a healthier person. For a business, it makes sense to fire this person first. His obesity is actually a good argument for why you'd fire him over his co-workers.
Can you blame them for it? In my opinion, they're making the right decision.
As mentioned before, if the company hadn't mentioned his obesity, all would have been fine and dandy and nobody would have gone to court. Even if everybody knew it was the main reason.
On December 18 2014 23:43 ZasZ. wrote: EDIT: Maternity leave is a sticky subject as well. Maybe things are different in Europe, but here I believe it's fairly rare to get paid maternity leave. The point of maternity leave in the U.S. is to guarantee your position when you return, otherwise it would be hard to stay competitive with other companies for female employees. We're in the 21st Century, you have to be able to accommodate both sexes and telling your female employees they'll be fired if they want to start a family is a little harsh.
That is the case for employees that want to stick with the company when they come back. In Europe (or at least the Netherlands) it is not unheard of for women to go on the job market (just before or while being in the early stages of pregnancy), sign a one-year or longer contract and work a job for a couple of months and go leave for maternity.
This has partly to do with a particular set of the population being jerks, but it is only possible because it is not allowed for a recruiter to ask whether a woman is (planning on) having kids in the near future.
Additionally, there are plenty of instances where the woman will leave her job when she has to come back because she can't/won't leave the baby.
For employers, all these woman are simply cash drains that abuse the system.
Obviously, women that want to continue working should be compensated by the company - for a company a couple of months of paid maternity leave is a lot less expensive than getting a bad reputation and having to hire and instruct a new employee. As far as I know, this instance occurs more often with higher-educated women.
Sorry if I fucked up woman and women somewhere.
|
Childminders sounds like some shit straight out of 1984
|
the ruling says that obesity itself is NOT a disability but problems that come with obesity like diabetes can qualify. It'll be up to the countries to make something out of this.
|
On December 19 2014 00:42 Skilledblob wrote: the ruling says that obesity itself is NOT a disability but problems that come with obesity like diabetes can qualify. It'll be up to the countries to make something out of this.
I did try and make that clear in the OP. That's what makes this so interesting, This issue needs to be looked at now, and some kind of sensible conventional wisdom will have to be applied across the EU to stop this kind of thing getting out of hand. Governments will have to be very careful how they handle it because not dealing with this correctly could be very expensive and encourage massive health problems. The implications of this ruling are vague, and now is the time where individual countries have to step up and show that they can deal with this sensibly.
I get a feeling my government are just probably going to use it as further anti EU propaganda.
|
well, i think most of us can agree that being obese because of an underlying medical condition can count as a disability.
but if it's your poor lifestyle choices that got you fat in the first place, no sympathy.
|
This guy was a rolly polly who would of gotten out of breath by standing up and waddling to the fridge.
The case centres around childminder Karsten Kaltoft who weighs about 160kg (25 stone).
Doesn't say how tall he is, but that's BIG guys. What would of happened if a kid ran off? Could he of been physically able go and stop them?
Always more to these stories than what we read about.. But damn, I'm thinking he lost the job then chatted with a lawyer to see how he could turn the situation around to his benefit. Rather than get off his fat ass, and do some excercise.
I don't understand this whole 'it's ok to be fat' attitude, it's not. Fat parents are raising fat kids by feeding them high calorie junk food, and they're giving them a death sentence by their 40's through christ knows how many various diseases directly related to being fat.
I'm happy being fat! I'm OK with it! Yeah I was too, that doesn't mean I'm even happier now I can run up stairs, or do the house chores without stopping for breath etc.
I was at the GP the other day, she weighed me as part of the check up and we got to talking about my weight loss. I asked her about the whole thyroid issue, thinking it was bullshit (think it was thyroid..) No No she said, it's totally true that an underactive thyroid gland can cause wieght issues.
So for some I think there are genuine medical reasons to be overweight, another example was my old neighbours daughter who was on steroids as part of a treatment, she ballooned in weight.
So yeah, some may be over weight for real reasons, but for 99% it's zero excercise and high calorie intake.
|
pretty much yea. and to be honest when I read this the first time I thought they fired the guy for being an asshole. because seriously if you go to the fucking EU court because you think someone fired you because you were fat? Sounds like an ass to me who is seeking for excuses.
|
On December 18 2014 23:33 SC2Toastie wrote: IMO obesity as a result of a lack of discipline (like my fat arse is) should not be protected by law in a working environment. Obesity as a result of a disease or medication should be protected.
The former is proves to increase medical costs for employers, increase the amount of sick days, reduce productivity, have a higher chance on burn-out and depression. If you're obese and it's your own fault, you cannot blame your employer for not giving you money for a job somebody else would be better at. In that case, it's simply a fact of "you cost more than you're worth, so we fire you", but because the person is fat and a whiny bitch that goes to court, he gets protection?
No. If you're fat and it's your own fault: deal with it.
We have way too many laws protecting employees for all kind of ridiculousness (why does your employer have to pay for you wanting a baby 0_0!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! And why do we think that is a normal course of action !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?)
Because else it would be terribly discriminating for women? But you're right, who care about everyone else and their needs, let's bring back concentrations camps while we're at it.
|
On December 19 2014 01:04 Gheizen64 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 23:33 SC2Toastie wrote: IMO obesity as a result of a lack of discipline (like my fat arse is) should not be protected by law in a working environment. Obesity as a result of a disease or medication should be protected.
The former is proves to increase medical costs for employers, increase the amount of sick days, reduce productivity, have a higher chance on burn-out and depression. If you're obese and it's your own fault, you cannot blame your employer for not giving you money for a job somebody else would be better at. In that case, it's simply a fact of "you cost more than you're worth, so we fire you", but because the person is fat and a whiny bitch that goes to court, he gets protection?
No. If you're fat and it's your own fault: deal with it.
We have way too many laws protecting employees for all kind of ridiculousness (why does your employer have to pay for you wanting a baby 0_0!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! And why do we think that is a normal course of action !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?) Because else it would be terribly discriminating for women? But you're right, who care about everyone else and their needs, let's bring back concentrations camps while we're at it.
That leap of argumentation.... Not that I agree with Toastie, but wauw...
On December 19 2014 01:02 Skilledblob wrote: pretty much yea. and to be honest when I read this the first time I thought they fired the guy for being an asshole. because seriously if you go to the fucking EU court because you think someone fired you because you were fat? Sounds like an ass to me who is seeking for excuses.
I don't think it was his decision to take it to the EU court. I think it was considered a possible precedent-setting case, hence the Danish courts asked the EU courts.
|
|
|
|