Google rejects job applicants because they're fat

bacon23 wrote:

Good for Google? You can't possibly support this. Some people don't have control over what their genetics gave them.

I also support this and for more reasons. Why should these fat slobs who won't control their eating be able to push their lifestyle onto the rest of the company culture? I for one would not want to have to work with such irresponsible people.

Cancer appears to be roughly a 70% lifestyle disease--smoking, overweight, high fat in the diet are among the risk factors. Fat slobs also have higher risk of heart attacks and strokes. Most of us have to contribute part of the cost of health care. When these fat slobs will not control their own destructive live style, they use more medical/hospital resources and raise the costs for both the employer and the employee--and that may be the real reason Google is showing them the door.

Why should the rest of us have to pay for YOUR poor lifestyle choices?

Google should be celebrated.

I don't see the issue. Companies use SAT's and other factors as barometers for someone's competency. There has been cases of people who have poor SAT's who have gone on to be successful. But like grades, interviews, etc, they're a good measuring stick.

Obesity reflects a workers personality and physical ability. If you don't care about your body, you may treat your work the same and you definitely won't have the same energy levels as a more fit person. Yeah, that's an overgeneralization, but I don't see why it can't be used to judge a job candidate like an other bs thing that is used.

bacon23 wrote:

But being thin or big-boned has no effect on whether someone is able to do their job competently. A company should not focus or care about what people do in their own time.

It does, however, have an effect on how much said company pays for healthcare. And industry healthcare costs are a substantial, and ever increasing cost, to any large company.

coach d wrote:

Cancer appears to be roughly a 70% lifestyle disease

Stats please. My mom had cervical and ovarian cancer and never smoked, drank, or weighed more than 110 pounds.

Other than some smokers getting lung cancer, your number appears WAY off base.

Saul Goodman wrote:

Go spend a week in Europe (where most of our genetics come from) and observe the ratio of obese-to-healthy bodies. We (in general) are fatter because we're lazier and we overeat. And we've cultivated an environment where it's okay to be fat because "everyone is different" and "everyone is special". We not only tell our kids it's okay to be sedentary, but we have notes to dismiss them from PE class (which used to be required).

Maybe it's the type of food we eat - I'm certain that has something to do with it, in fact

When you go to Europe, go to a grocery store and buy some tomatoes, some peppers, an apple, and some strawberries.

You'll discover very quickly that food in Europe actually tastes like food.

In some states, one in three adults is obese. At some point, it is no longer a matter of personal responsibility-- it is a matter of the environment being fundamentally unhealthy and in need of change.

Take old flats. Throw them away you fly back to the states. The streets and sidewalks of Europe are full of dog crap. In Paris, humans crap on sidewalks rather than pay to use the toilet.

bacon23 wrote:

If it's not obvious to you that people have different genetics, then you are really stupid. Just look around. Some people can eat all day and not gain a pound. Others will gain weight just by eating sandwiches and salads.

OF COURSE genetics have SOME influence.

They just aren't responsible for anything close to most of the weight on most obese people.

Look at the average weight in the US 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or even just 20 years ago. Much less then obesity than today. Has there been massive genetic shift in less than half a century?

Plenty of average to mildly overweight parents have overweight or obese children. Do you think their genes have mysteriously mutated?

Or maybe, just maybe, do you think that people are eating worse and getting less activity?

Nah, blame "genes."

I have a friend who runs a small business. Since customer contact is usually only over the phone, she hired some obese people if they were qualified in sales. She admits she felt sorry for them and went against her lawyer's advice. She now says no way in heck would she ever do that again. They had way too many health problems and she is still paying a fortune in disability on them years later.

Fat people are fat because they are lazy

Google doesn't want to hire lazy people

End of thread.

bacon23 wrote:

If it's not obvious to you that people have different genetics, then you are really stupid. Just look around. Some people can eat all day and not gain a pound. Others will gain weight just by eating sandwiches and salads.

Why were there no fat people in concentration camps?

bacon23 wrote:

Good for Google? You can't possibly support this. Some people don't have control over what their genetics gave them.

Watch some movies from the 1970s with lots of crowd scenes and you will see how thin people used to be. Sure you find a fat dude once in awhile but obese people were exceedingly rare.

Our genetics have not changed in 30 years...

bacon23 wrote:

You can be incredibly disciplined, really active, eat well and still be fat.

Maybe you can be disciplined, active and eat well and be "overweight" (or fat, as you put it.) But I would argue that you cannot possess those traits and be Obese (with the rare exception of those who have gland/hormonal issues.)

nope wrote:

Stats please. My mom had cervical and ovarian cancer and never smoked, drank, or weighed more than 110 pounds.

Other than some smokers getting lung cancer, your number appears WAY off base.

I hope you realize that your mom's case doesn't prove anything. Though you might be interested to know that most cases of ovarian cancer come from being infected with one of the cancer-causing strains of HPV.

There are plenty of cancer risk factors outside of smoking and drinking: tanning, too much red meat, too few vegetables, occupation, sleeping habits, stress, and so on.

bacon23 wrote:

Good for Google? You can't possibly support this. Some people don't have control over what their genetics gave them.

If by genetics you mean "prone to addiction", I can kind of see where you're coming from. If you are pumping up the myth that "a large percentage of people get fat even though they exercise and eat appropriate portion of healthy food because of genetics" then you're crazy.

bacon23 wrote:

why the hate wrote:

Good for Google.

Good for Google? You can't possibly support this. Some people don't have control over what their genetics gave them.

A very small percentage of people cannot control their weight because of medical reasons. I realize that. That does not excuse the rest of the obese population though they ALL like to hide behind it. I'm on medication, my thyroid is acting up, everyone in my family is big boned....

Cut the BS. Discipline is what it is all about. Yes, most people on LR probably won the genetic lottery when it comes to keeping a healthy weight but if the obese had half the discipline that most runners have they wouldn't be obese.

I've seen seriously obese people at my company finally wake up and lose weight. One woman is about to break the 100lbs lost barrier. She didn't do this by changing her genetics she done it by changing her lifestyle. She works out everyday and is very meticulous about her diet.

Quit making excuses for them, the sooner they realize they DO have control over their weight the sooner they can do something about it.

Props to Google. If I owned a company I wouldn't hire any fatties. I bet they save a boatload on medical costs.

carrythezero wrote:

I don't see the issue. Companies use SAT's and other factors as barometers for someone's competency. There has been cases of people who have poor SAT's who have gone on to be successful. But like grades, interviews, etc, they're a good measuring stick.

Exactly. An interview is *based* on discrimination and snap judgments. They will hire the people that make the best impression, based on assumptions. Assumptions are made based on where you went to school, your grades, how you speak, what you are wearing, your body language, and yes, your size/appearance. Being thin gives the impression that you take care of yourself, and that you pride yourself how you look.

Reading those comments were interesting. I didn't read them all, but there seems to be 2 opposing thoughts:

1. Fat people are healthy (or can be) while thin people may not be healthy.

2. This discrimination goes against the American Disability Act.

As far as I understand, discrimination based on one's appearance is not illegal, although discrimination against a disabled person is.

So, are fat people healthy or disabled?

Freelove wrote:

I hope you realize that your mom's case doesn't prove anything. Though you might be interested to know that most cases of ovarian cancer come from being infected with one of the cancer-causing strains of HPV.

There are plenty of cancer risk factors outside of smoking and drinking: tanning, too much red meat, too few vegetables, occupation, sleeping habits, stress, and so on.

You never actually gave me any stats, so I looked them up myself.

"Studies, however, have shown no conclusive link between HPV and tumors in the ovaries. These include a 1989 study headed by Dr. Jonathan Leake, a 1990 study led by Dr. Robert McLellan, and studies by Drs. Ann-Marie Beckmann and Anne-Marie Trottier in 1991 and 1995, respectively."

"In 1999, Dr. Maarit Antilla and colleagues did a high-sensitivity analysis on 98 epithelial ovarian tumors as well as reviewed all the previous HPV-ovarian tumor studies done with a total of 175 samples. They concluded that HPV is "highly unlikely" to cause epithelial ovarian cancer."

Feel free to look up the names of those people and read their studies, unless you want me to link them directly here.

So in essence, what you said was BLATANTLY FALSE: "most cases of ovarian cancer come from being infected with one of the cancer-causing strains of HPV."

For cervical cancer, this is true for about 70% of the cases. But I didn't say cervical. I said ovarian.

I'm not sure I like the tone of your post either. Did you intend for it to come off as offensive? Because to me it seemed like you were really close to implying "she got cancer from an std" or at least from not eating correctly. Is this what you were going for? And even if a link is found someday between HPV and OC, I come from one of those religious families that "waits until marriage" that everyone likes to degrade on here, so any cancer in my family certainly doesn't originate from STDs.

bacon23 wrote:

I'm through with Google.

No you're not.