The Private War Against Workers and Job Searchers Based Upon Irrelevant Physical Attributes is Unintelligible

Imagine that a highly qualified worker and/or employment candidate is denied employment, or is daily tormented, and/or is driven from the work force, or worse, for simply being overweight or for other physical attributes that in no way contravene a company's dress code or grooming policy.

However absurd it sounds, it’s a reality for many workers, and, though in some cases the workers’ weight gain in the first is synonymous with workplace harassment, or the release of cortisol in the human body in response to stressful situations. 

Some companies only hire employment candidates who are in shape and/or who satisfy other standards for appearance. For example, a woman who is overweight and mulatto or multi-racial can more readily acquire employment than a dark-skinned obese woman at certain if not most companies, even when the latter is demonstrably more qualified for the job...

I recently came across this image on a website for a notable car rental company. To show its commitment to “diversity,” this company’s website exhibits a photograph of an obese mulatto woman sitting at the company's service desk while a darker obese woman is apparently a customer... I thought, wow. This company is definitely making a statement that anyone with eyes can see.

The Male Double Standard

It is not uncommon for the overweight male boss to torment especially female workers who are overweight, or for men generally to require that women, specifically potential mates or spouses, be fit, even if those particular men are themselves significantly overweight—fit Betty and Wilma to Obese Fred Flinstone and Barney Rubble—and despite the obvious double standard. No offense to decent overweight men, but to make a point…

One of the reasons why women are more susceptible to employment abuse regarding weight is in fact sexual in nature, particularly if the woman has a solid work ethic and/or she is exceptionally intelligent, or a great catch or a potential Dutch or sole income provider for some loser who could be sizing her up. I say loser because any man of integrity does not abuse women or others generally...

Unemployed or Underemployed Individuals Typically Gain Weight

Some abusive companies and, in some instances, schematic politicians involved in the battle of the bulge believe that the use of torture is or should be an effective sort of negative reinforcement that would help employees and/or employment candidates who are overweight to lose weight if they want to acquire employment and/or keep their jobs.

The truth, however, is that unemployed or underemployed individuals, especially those who are serially harassed, typically gain weight, not the other way around.

How to Appropriately Tackle Obesity in the Workforce

Not to minimize the importance of health and fitness, which is certainly important, I’m simply saying that there is an appropriate way to do anything. Driving qualified individuals from the work force for any reason is not only unintelligent and barbaric, it costs the government millions of dollars each year.

Juxtapose the considerable funding that it spends for public assistance to nurse wounded workers and job searchers, the government is further deprived of income taxes that it would acquire from these individuals if they were gainfully employed.

Instead of torturing employees who are overweight, companies should implement weight improvement initiatives that could involve conservatively extending employee meal periods to allow for exercise and/or providing other incentives for employees who demonstrably acquire sufficient exercise each day or week. Some companies have and others should designate exercise rooms and equipment for their employees to utilize during breaks…

Unfortunately, in the United States -unlike Australia- physical attributes like weight or genetic* physical characteristics other than race or color are not specifically protected by law, or they have no Title VII protection (*Title II of the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act of 2008 is purported to shield employees and applicants from disparate treatment based on familial diseases or disorders...

What would happen, however, if all of the individuals in the class of those who would be discriminated against at any company, whether for protected or non-protected attributes, decided not to do business with those companies? The answer is that those companies would lose a lot of business.

When companies realize or when they truly appreciate that they exist or attain any level of success because of a diverse base of consumers and employees, they'll treat all human beings, including all of their own workers and employment prospects, with equal dignity and respect.

Workplace Bullying Laws Should Be Enacted & Enforced, Whether or Not Damages are Recoverable

Historically and/or rhetorically speaking, there have been no laws to specifically address workplace bullying or harassment that is not based upon any protected category listed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…

All employees—including federal and state employees—should be protected from workplace harassment and bullying, for any established motive, however, whether or not it is expressly articulated in Title VII, and whether or not damages would be recoverable in every case.

Agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Labor (DOL), and the courts should never turn a blind eye and deaf ear to any clearly valid claim(s) of harassment brought by any employees. Whenever they do they’re sending a message to companies that bully or allow their managers and/or other employees to do so that their behavior is acceptable, when bullying and harassment should never be acceptable.

Failure of said agencies and the courts to properly or wholly address workplace harassment is the precise reason that incidents and reports of incidents of harassment have significantly increased over the years and are steadily on the rise.

EEOC, DOL, and the courts should properly consider any and all evidence submitted by employees who bring harassment claims against their employers, and should take additional steps under precarious circumstances, including deployment of ombudsmen to work sites where employers, or their managers and/or other employees have committed overt acts against employees, and the lawful restraint of overt harassers…

Ombudsmen Deployment

Whenever particularly gruesome claims are brought against an employer that said agencies have cause to believe may be true based upon submitted evidence and/or other factors, said agencies and/or acting representatives of the courts should conduct investigations of those companies. The prescribed investigations should entail deployment of undercover ombudsmen who would enter those companies as employees and/or by any other lawful means, with an objective or unbiased eye, and for any specified length of time, commencing from one week up to ten years, to assure the safety of the reporting employee, if they are still employed for the relevant company, and others.

Ombudsmen would endeavor as much as is reasonably possible to work with named subjects or culprits of harassment, to determine if and to what extent any other employees or clients of the company, agency, etc. may be affected by their behavior, and to determine likelihood of validity of the claims of the filing employee(s).

Said ombudsmen should be awarded full legal authority to conduct the prescribed investigations, and to employ use of concealed cameras and other recording devices, noting that the acquired footage would only be utilized by the relevant agency to determine the existence of harassment and any improprieties of the claimants, for the purpose of objectively and appropriately addressing all discovered issues. The footage would not be published to the public, unless there are lawfully compelling reasons that it should be.

The Saul and David Clause

The Saul and David Clause* would restrain an employer or previous employer or managing agents of said employers or previous employers or others acting on their behalf from committing overt or extreme criminal acts against a targeted employee or former employee and/or members of their families or circle of friends or associates, etc.

The clause would require either or all of the following:

A mental health evaluation of the culprit, where it is deemed appropriate.
Either temporary or permanent removal of a culprit from any and all positions of authority in which they’d be empowered to potentially harm employees in any capacity.
Criminal prosecution of a culprit, where merited.

(*Biblical Saul was a king who’d become enraged with jealousy of, obsessed with, and at one point even chased, David, his servant, out into the wilderness to murder him before insisting that he return to his household. David was a skillful, and yet kind and innocent young man who’d been chosen by the Creator to replace Saul as the leader of Israel.)

In Summation

There are claims like intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation of character, stalking, invasion of privacy, attempted murder, etc., for which damages may currently be recovered from harassing employers. There should, nonetheless, be laws to specifically address general acts of workplace harassment or corporate bullying to best discourage those acts.

No one should be made to feel that they are on a battle ground in their place of employment, where they strive and must to earn a living for survival and for the care of their families. Protecting workers is moreover in the best interest of business and government, both of which are deprived of revenues when employees develop health issues, call off work, and/or are driven from the workforce by bullies.

Bully-related poverty, which has led to homelessness and other forms of deprivation and discrimination, health issues, and even deaths are way too serious to ignore. While it may not be practical to legislate “politeness,” professionalism should be a universal law...

Partly responsive to http://www.wmur.com/politics/house-unable-to-override-veto-of-workplace-bullying-law/28111226

Three Reasons Employment Goading is Unethical

Employment goading is a term that I'm here coining to describe the practice of nudging an individual who is qualified for and hireable for their employment of choice into a specific company or position that they have not applied to and are not interested in (distinguishable from an individual being asked by a preferred employer or one to which they've actually applied for employment to perform duties beyond the typical scope of a position of hire or a preferred employer offering a position of employment to a candidate in lieu of a position that they were initially being considered for). Employment goading could also consist of nudging an individual to return to a previous employer that they're not interested in returning to.

Employment goading involves unmeritedly discouraging potential employers of interest to an applicant from hiring them, whether by relaying of false/defamatory information about the candidate, or, in some extreme cases, actually threatening the desired employer to not hire the individual, for the purpose of goading them (the employment candidate) into a specific company or position, for either malicious and/or other reasons that are of benefit (often financial) to the goader(s). The following three points are the ultimate reasons that employment goading is unethical and should be avoided:

1. People have a right to work wherever they want to work, or wherever there's a mutual employment interest.

2. Employment goading is a form of stalking and harassment (in some instances a form of quid quo pro sexual harassment) that can cause distress to a victim seeking to avoid the goaders...

3. Employees have a right to a safe, harassment-free work environment and away from anyone that they'd rather establish a distance from.