# Hospital bans obese job applicants



## ffemt8978 (Apr 7, 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-weight-row-BANNING-obese-job-applicants.html



> A Texas hospital is under fire for banning job applicants from employment for being obese.
> 
> The Citizens Medical Center in the south eastern town of Victoria requires all potential employees to have a body mass index – a formula used to determine fat – of less than 35, according to its CEO.
> 
> ...


----------



## Anjel (Apr 7, 2012)

Uh yea. Is this for real?

Lets see how well that works out for them.


----------



## usalsfyre (Apr 7, 2012)

Pretty sure this isn't gonna go well....


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 7, 2012)

Apparently this isn't their first dance with discrimination claims.  From the article


> In 2007, a memo Brown sent expressing a 'sense of disgust' he felt that more 'Middle-Eastern-born' physicians were demanding leadership roles at the institution prompted claims of racial discrimination, the Tribune reports.
> 
> The note became the basis of an ongoing litigation Brown is not at liberty to discuss.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 7, 2012)

From a practical standpoint I can kind of see their point. Healthcare costs are huge issues for employers, and they are going to be looking for ways to limit those costs. I anticipate seeing more surcharges placed on people who smoke, are overweight, have uncontrolled diabetes, HTN or cholesterol etc. Especially if the employee has undergone medical counseling to fix those issues and hasn't been able to. 

I can also see an employer making a very convincing argument that it isn't that different than refusing to hire employees who smoke, and that is something done nationally. Both cause significant health issues and raise costs for employers. Both create image problems for healthcare providers who are trying to convince their patients to stop smoking and lose weight. Both are fixable*. Both are optional*. 

From a practical standpoint this is going to turn into an effing mess for the hospital. 



*Excluding the _*very small %*_ of people who are overweight due to a medical condition or medication side effect.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 7, 2012)

When I first started working for the airlines 17 years ago we had to go in once a month and be weighed. If we were over our max we went on weight check. If we failed 3 weigh ins we were fired. When I was hired I was 20, I'm 6'4" and my maximum allowable weight at the time was 199 1/4 pounds. To be hired I had to drop 52 pounds. The weight restrictions were even tighter for females.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 7, 2012)

Aidey said:


> From a practical standpoint I can kind of see their point. Healthcare costs are huge issues for employers, and they are going to be looking for ways to limit those costs. I anticipate seeing more surcharges placed on people who smoke, are overweight, have uncontrolled diabetes, HTN or cholesterol etc. Especially if the employee has undergone medical counseling to fix those issues and hasn't been able to.
> 
> I can also see an employer making a very convincing argument that it isn't that different than refusing to hire employees who smoke, and that is something done nationally. Both cause significant health issues and raise costs for employers. Both create image problems for healthcare providers who are trying to convince their patients to stop smoking and lose weight. Both are fixable*. Both are optional*.
> 
> ...


Maybe, but the article specifically quotes their CEO stating that it is for appearances only and NOT a health issue.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 8, 2012)

Equating it to piercings and tattoos is a different approach, but still legal in Texas. While people might be willing to take the advice of a fat chef, plenty of people won't listen to a fat doctor.


----------



## Tigger (Apr 8, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> When I first started working for the airlines 17 years ago we had to go in once a month and be weighed. If we were over our max we went on weight check. If we failed 3 weigh ins we were fired. When I was hired I was 20, I'm 6'4" and my maximum allowable weight at the time was 199 1/4 pounds. To be hired I had to drop 52 pounds. The weight restrictions were even tighter for females.



I'm assuming that the airlines stopped this practice, when did that happen?

For what it's worth, I have no issues with this practice. I was going to make the argument that it's similar in many cases to smoking, but Aidey pretty much summed it up better than I could.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 8, 2012)

Tigger said:


> I'm assuming that the airlines stopped this practice, when did that happen?
> 
> For what it's worth, I have no issues with this practice. I was going to make the argument that it's similar in many cases to smoking, but Aidey pretty much summed it up better than I could.



About 3 months after I was hired luckily. Shortly before I was hired my airline lost a lawsuit concerning height restrictions. Previous to this they would not hire anyone who was under 5'6" or taller than 6'1". I suspect I was hired because of "height affirmative action".


----------



## Aidey (Apr 8, 2012)

It may have stopped officially, but when was the last time anyone saw a fat flight attendant? Really, when you think about it there are tons of employers who hire people who fit their image they just usually aren't so blunt about it. Casinos, resorts, spas/salons, nightclubs, gyms, fitness stores (ie GNC), REI*, any retail clothing store....



*I love REI, but it is basically mandatory that you use all sorts of different outdoor equipment if you work there, which eliminates the majority of people fitting the hospital's criteria.


----------



## 18G (Apr 8, 2012)

Surprisingly, I am kinda on the hospital's side. I don't think I see a problem with wanting employees who are not obese. As long as they use a formula that is standard for everyone I don't see it as a problem. Some hospital's have placed smoking restrictions on their employees where they will actually test them for nicotine. 

When you need a paycheck to pay your bills, that will work as great motivation to slim down and stay that way.


----------



## Shishkabob (Apr 8, 2012)

"Equal protection under the law" and "equal employment" don't protect the obese.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 8, 2012)

Folks lets not make this a "we don't like overweight people thread". Remember "big" people have feelings too.


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 9, 2012)

FourLoko said:


> I'm disgusted by every fat EMT I see, especially the females.



Can't imagine how you feel about the majority of your patients.


----------



## Shishkabob (Apr 9, 2012)

adamjh3 said:


> Can't imagine how you feel about the majority of your patients.



To be fair, I don't like lifting people, risking my back.  The bigger they are, the less I like having to do it.  If a patient is physically able, I find ways to minimize my having to lift them.


----------



## Pneumothorax (Apr 9, 2012)

Aidey said:


> From a practical standpoint I can kind of see their point. Healthcare costs are huge issues for employers, and they are going to be looking for ways to limit those costs. I anticipate seeing more surcharges placed on people who smoke, are overweight, have uncontrolled diabetes, HTN or cholesterol etc. Especially if the employee has undergone medical counseling to fix those issues and hasn't been able to.
> 
> I can also see an employer making a very convincing argument that it isn't that different than refusing to hire employees who smoke, and that is something done nationally. Both cause significant health issues and raise costs for employers. Both create image problems for healthcare providers who are trying to convince their patients to stop smoking and lose weight. Both are fixable*. Both are optional*.
> 
> ...



Exactly. I think it's probably a little bit of them not wanting to have such high insurance rates too bc their employees are overweight/obese. But like u said, I'm not likely to listen to a doc/nurse who's telling me to stop eating whos popping the seams of their scrubs. Or saying dont smoke it's bad for u and they reek.


----------



## Sasha (Apr 9, 2012)

FourLoko said:


> I'm disgusted by every fat EMT I see, especially the females.



Don't you sound like a peach. 

I am really tired of the emphasis people put on looks. I know fat employees who can do their job better than skinny ones. 

As long as someone is able to safely do their job then they should be allowed to safely do their job.


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 9, 2012)

Linuss said:


> To be fair, I don't like lifting people, risking my back.  The bigger they are, the less I like having to do it.  If a patient is physically able, I find ways to minimize my having to lift them.



I don't think I've ever heard of a healthcare professional that looked a patient and said "gee, I can't wait to move him!" 

I'm fat. I've struggled with my weight since I was a wee one. I was born into a family where food and socializing go hand in hand, you can't really have one without the other. 

I've fluctuated between being 60+lbs overweight to being right at my ideal body weight just in the couple short years I've been in EMS. Currently I sit at about 30lbs too fat. 

I'm active, I lift weights, I hike, I do body weight exercises with my crews at the station. My mile time probably sucks, but I've never been much of a runner. On the other side of the coin, I like food. A lot. Good food is to me, by definition, a drug. 

So yes, I'm sitting at 30lbs heavier than I should be, but I'm more capable of doing the physical aspect of this job than my current partner who is 6'1, 170, lbs, with about 6% body fat. He's skinny, he's got a six pack. He can't lift :censored::censored::censored::censored:. 

I'm all for PATs and the like, but an outright ban on people because they don't fit a numbered chart? Please...


----------



## johnrsemt (Apr 9, 2012)

I also, am overweight:  I exercise, I walk my dogs (200lbs of dogs) 3-7 days a week.  I can hike or backpack 15+miles a day;  

  I just have a problem losing the weight.   But I can do my job;   people who are overweight who can't do their job are the ones that I have a problem with,  just like the ones who are too thin  or too short to do the job.

   I used to work with a young lady who was in good shape, but she was 4'10 tall and couldn't lift either end of the cot high enough to get it in the truck.  That was a problem.    company couldn't let her go because she cried EEO.   So they ended up putting her in dispatch with a pay raise even though she couldn't dispatch worth anything.


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 9, 2012)

Farmer2DO said:


> We have one like that too, but they haven't put her in dispatch yet.  They just have to send extra crews when the patient can't walk to the ambulance.



AMbulance lift on the ambulance instead of on the cot. A brilliant idea those Brits had.

I would just like to offer a general comment on the whole weight issue...

I think this is not so much about weight, but of discriminating against "people not like us"

Difference of race, gender, culture, economic status, religion, etc.

It seems in the southern US, there always has to be a group that is hated.

I guess Asian doctors didn't work out so the administrator picked a different group.


----------



## WTEngel (Apr 9, 2012)

Interesting that this would happen in Texas, one of the most overweight states in the USA.

I don't really have a problem with employers wanting to encourage employees to be healthier in order to defray the cost of healthcare. It doesn't seem fair for the "healthy ones" to pay extra for the "unhealthy ones."

This does bring up an interesting point...what about the riskier activities the healthier people undertake? For example, someone running a marathon has at an inherently higher risk of injuring the bones and joints of their lower body, right? Or what about a rock climber...wouldn't they also have a higher risk than the average person (fat or skinny.)

I am just playing devil's advocate, but if you expect those who are overweight to either lose weight or pay a higher premium due to the POTENTIAL FOR increased healthcare cost due to their lifestyle, then shouldn't it be standard practice to evaluate the lifestyle's of other employees, and have them pay extra based on their POTENTIAL FOR increased risk for higher medical costs down the road?

The point I guess I am getting at is, it is a very slippery slope. All of us have something in out lifestyle that puts us at increased risk for high healthcare costs. This is why insurance should be something you maintain throughout your life, not an after thought when you decide "Ok, now I need it."

Increased insurance cost for smoking =/= increased insurance cost for being overweight. On the surface, that may seem true, but smoking is an outright health damaging behavior, that people make a conscious choice to engage in, regardless of the warnings they have been made aware of. Eating, however, is not the same type of behavior. While overeating and sedentary lifestyle have been associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, there are many other factors to which eating and lifestyle are just one component. Smoking is a much larger factor of the health issues it is associated with. 

My last, and probably biggest issue with this employer is the fact that they are using BMI, which is about the worst metric to evaluate a person's ideal weight. My BMI says that I am morbidly obese, and while I may have a few extra pounds, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would call me morbidly obese.


----------



## STXmedic (Apr 9, 2012)

WTEngel said:


> Interesting that this would happen in Texas, one of the most overweight states in the USA.


Yeah, this made me laugh. Especially Victoria. Seriously? Who do they plan to hire, then?!

I'm a huge advocate for health and living a healthy lifestyle. I also may be guilty from time to time of judging obese individuals for choices they may (or may not) have made.

However, I don't believe that using obesity as a job selection criteria is appropriate. I may laugh at an overweight cardiologist that tells me I need to lose weight, but I will still respect and consider what he has to say. If the individual can meet whatever physical requirements are required (ie lifting x amount), then they shouldn't be disqualified from a job based on weight. I've worked with some great medics that have a passion for medicine, but are also what would be considered overweight.

And BMI? That scale is a joke! So gym rats are disqualified too? If not, then who's the judge on when to make an exception to the BMI of 35 rule? Entirely too subjective.

It'll be interesting to see how long this lasts...


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 9, 2012)

Folks I know this is a very sensitive subject but I would like to remind everyone that the golden rule here is *be polite*.


----------



## EMSDude54343 (Apr 10, 2012)

I am obese, and I sort of agree, to a point. 
If an employer wants to refuse to hire obese people due to health reasons, then require obese employees to go into some sort of program to lose weight and become healthy or not hire them. From a PR standpoint, starting a program like that would be good I think, and I'm sure the employers insurance would offer plenty of incentives to do so.  It is ultimately up to the person who is obese, but if you look at our culture and the way we eat, it is somewhat our cultures fault. 
Do we blame smokers as individuals, or do we blame the smoker and the cigarette companies? It is almost the same thing. Our culture has started to ban smoking and made a lot of programs accessible to quit smoking, and to prevent people from starting. Maybe our culture should do the same as far as weight control is concerned.


However if they are doing it just for looks then that is wrong, I understand about taking diet advice from an obese doctor, but come on....


----------



## Sasha (Apr 11, 2012)

EMSDude54343 said:


> I am obese, and I sort of agree, to a point.
> If an employer wants to refuse to hire obese people due to health reasons, then require obese employees to go into some sort of program to lose weight and become healthy or not hire them. From a PR standpoint, starting a program like that would be good I think, and I'm sure the employers insurance would offer plenty of incentives to do so.  It is ultimately up to the person who is obese, but if you look at our culture and the way we eat, it is somewhat our cultures fault.
> Do we blame smokers as individuals, or do we blame the smoker and the cigarette companies? It is almost the same thing. Our culture has started to ban smoking and made a lot of programs accessible to quit smoking, and to prevent people from starting. Maybe our culture should do the same as far as weight control is concerned.
> 
> ...



If its for looks then it is no different than only hiring white people to look more wholesome.


----------



## EMSDude54343 (Apr 12, 2012)

Sasha said:


> If its for looks then it is no different than only hiring white people to look more wholesome.



exactly


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 12, 2012)

Sasha said:


> If its for looks then it is no different than only hiring white people to look more wholesome.



Honestly, 

Given the extreme political views and extreme rightwing conservatism/cristianity that permiates the Southern and SouthWestern US, why would anyone be surprised by this?

It seems really ironic that people use the mandate of "personal freedom" to discriminate against any group, women on birthcontrol, LGBT, Central American's, Blacks, poor people, all the other non cristian white middle class groups, and now those "fat people."

More ironic is they like to constantly cite the parts of the constitution that allows them to do it, but forget about other parts like amendments 14 and 19

We really need to build a fense or a wall. But not between the US and Mexico. Apparently we once drew a line, even faught a war over the limitations of states ability to self govern against the values of the US, and now just over 100 years later are revisting the very same issue. All the while fighting a war against the Taliban for performing the exact same behaviors!

I wonder if this guy was sick and needed a nurse to change his diaper so he didn't lay in his own excriment if he would complain if the person was fat, or Asian?

If he needed an MRI to see if he had a brain tumor if he would complain the rad tech or the radiologist was fat?

As for fat doctors giving advice, 2 things. (I would like to lose 5 lbs, but I wouldn't call myself fat)

When I was little, my dad used to tell me not to make the same mistakes he did. To be better. That advice has had a profoundly positive impact on my life. I hope to pass on that information to my daughter.

1. If a nicotine addicted doctor who doesn't exercise said the same thing to a patient, how is that advice any lesser?

2. healthcare professionals of all stripes are known for neglecting themselves all the while taking care of other people. How many of us have worked with an outstanding provider who was basically living a destructive lifestyle, who had an MI or other serious event while at work? 

I have on multiple occasions.

How many of us work/have worked with providers who neglect their emotional/psychological health all the while helping others?

How many do/have neglected familiy and personal relationships while taking care of people?

None of these are healthy behaviors. All lead to health problems later. What makes being "fat" somehow more detestable?

Healthcare workers, and especially EMS providers, are already held to a higher standard than the rest of society, including its leaders.

Now they have to be the epitomy of physical attractivenss too?

Will we be stereotyping all the unemployed people who cannot get a job and improve their lives because of their weight as lazy glutonous drains that the rest of society is working to maintain welfare/unemployment benefits too?

Are we willing to take the position of " too disabled to work" because of weight at a BMI of 35?

Stupid is a disease...

No cure. Supportive care only.


----------



## Sasha (Apr 12, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> Honestly,
> 
> Given the extreme political views and extreme rightwing conservatism/cristianity that permiates the Southern and SouthWestern US, why would anyone be surprised by this?
> 
> ...


Obesity is more detestable because it isn't something you can hide. You can hide other forms of self destruction.


----------



## perimeter (May 20, 2012)

Regulations like these are tricky to enforce.  But I think all hospital personel need to be fit enough to do their jobs, just like all EMS personnel. Coming up with the criteria of "fit" is the hardest part.


----------



## Anjel (May 20, 2012)

There is a difference between "fit" and attractive.


----------



## Devilz311 (May 21, 2012)

I am not against overweight people at all, but I hate working with a partner who needs to take a break after walking up 2 floors of a 5 floor walk-up.  I'm just waiting for the day one of these people have a massive MI while on the job. 

I do think the BMI scale is a joke.  Why not just make a physical test? You don't even have to make it as rigerous as the standard PD physical (Push-Ups, Sit ups, 1.5 Mile run, etc...) Make it applicable to EMS. Carry a jump-bag up a few floors in x-amount of time, AND auscultate a BP at the top. There's plenty of ideas that could be done.  Something that will weed-out the morbidly obese people.

I know if I were a patient, I wouldn't want the EMTs or Medics taking me down the stairs have to take an albuterol break halfway down...


----------



## Anjel (May 21, 2012)

I agree with you. Im over weight, but can keep up and do just as good of a job as skinny folk. 

I can run up 20 stairs and not need a break. So going on weight alone is BS.


----------

