Google rejects job applicants because they're fat

First of all it is helps lower their health care cost but also there is no evidence this happend.

"A New York City woman — let's call her Ms. G, because she signed a non-disclosure agreement — went to Google's local offices to take a test for an administrative position. She'd already had a phone interview, and now there was a test. Afterwards, at lunch, Ms. G says seven of the roughly 20 people there were politely escorted out. All seven were overweight women; everyone who stayed was thin."

So 7/20 of candidates were the lowest qualified and they were fat. This means that they were signaled out for being fat? Please, if this is how she thinks then no wonder she didn't get the job.

Good for Google. I will download and start using Chrome to make up for you.

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.

well, that only gives them about 20% of the population to choose from since the majority of Americans are fat asses. It helps to be thin. Welcome to life in the real world. It's survival of the "fittest" literally.

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.

Which genes cause obesity?

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.

ThatsNotIt wrote:

Which genes cause obesity?

Mom jeans.

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.

bacon23 wrote:

One person in the comments reflects my thoughts on the matter well:

"You realize the contestants on shows like Biggest Loser exercise about 8+ hours a day and have calorie counts that skim 1200 right? They dehydrate, starve and generally abuse their bodies in the name of weight loss. That's not discipline that's starvation and exercise bulemia. If you are working 8 hours a day doing hard physical labor and eating the equivalent of 12 slices of bread every day, you will lose weight because your body is being punished.

It really doesn't show a lack of discipline...

"Discipline" doesn't mean working really hard in short spurts. These people are exercising 8+ hours and eating nothing BECAUSE the spent YEARS doing the opposite. If they were disciplined, they never would have been in the position to need to lose all that weight.

Think about 2 different runners. The first guy runs decent mileage consistently. He's been running nearly every day for the past years 10 and is in great shape as result. The second runner doesn't do a thing most of the year, but every once in a while he decides to train his butt off for a month. He peels himself of the couch and fully devotes himself to his training for three or four weeks before returning to the couch.

You would look at runner number two and think that he was disciplined. At the moment in time you see him, he's spending all his time training. I think that runner number one is the disciplined one. It takes discipline to make fitness part of your lifestyle, not to work really hard for a few weeks at a time.

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 - but the majority of our fatasses are there because of themselves and/or their families' perpetuating their own horrible lifestyles.

Google is a business. They have the right to hire whomever they please. I personally think it's a good move.

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.

Umm WHAT? I would say your weight can play a SIGNIFICANT role in your ability to perform your job competently. I have two potential prospects in front of me. One looks to be fit, and the other would qualify as obese. Off the top of my head I know that 'in theory' the fit individual should not be as much of a burden for health reasons (sick days, doctor visits, prescriptions, etc). Also, just in my every day life, when I see someone who is obese to morbidly obese, I know right away that there has to be some psychological stuff going on surrounding their weight, and frankly I wouldn't think they really had their sh*t together. Obviously this is a snap judgement, but I'll say that in general it proves to be *overwhelmingly* accurate. And gtfo with that "some people are big boned" garbage.

I also say good for Google.

bacon23 wrote:

Some people can eat all day and not gain a pound. Others will gain weight just by eating sandwiches and salads.

I don't believe this. People I know who are obese tend to eat a lot and not be very physically active. Also, just because a person makes a show of being health conscious doesn't necessarily mean they don't regularly binge on unhealthy food.

I have hired full and part time staff in my job and I would not knowing a smoker and less like to hire a fat person. It does hurt their job performance and public perception of your employees is important to a business.

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).

Agreed. It is true that genetics dictate body type and that propensity to gain weight differs from person to person, but the "calories in vs. calories out" equation is really just physics. You gain weight if and only if you take in more calories than you burn. If you think you know someone who eats almost nothing and works out constantly but is still fat, they either eat more than you think or work out less than you think (or both). If I eat 1000 calories worth of food today and run 5 miles, I cannot possibly gain weight today. That isn't genetics, it's physics. Between running 5 miles and simply maintaining a pulse, I use more energy than I have consumed.

I don\'t hire bald dudes. You know they are all cursed by Satan.

I can't believe anyone's taking this article seriously. Sounds like the woman went in looking for something to get mad about, and she found it.

You don't think anyone's taking it seriously? Look at the comments below the article on its page. A bunch of fatties complaining about their weight lol

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.

Sure we all have different genetics but it doesn't give us an excuse to over eat or not be able to control our portions. I highly doubt an overweight person ONLY eats a sandwich and a salad, right? or did you mean unlimited amounts? In other words, I truly think there are other factors that contribute to obesity/overweight besides just genetics. Just my opinion.

The majority of the US diet is absolute shit. That combined with zero physical activity. These biggest losers are complete slobs. They make joe vigil look like anolympian.