Obese Man to Sue NHS for letting him get fat.

[JimC]

I suspect Cunt is wrestling with an issue which is important in ethics and criminology; the issue of personal responsibility for their own criminal, or generally destructive actions.

That seems to be the case, and Canadian law in regard to it seems to suck indeed, particularly as far as employers are concerned.

Personally, I am rather cold and merciless here; the addiction may indeed be a reality, but it should not in anyway dimish personal responsibility, or reduce possible punishments. The ultimate source of the addiction is to be found in the actions of the person at some stage in their life; more importantly, there is a pragmatic purpose to justice, that of protecting society and deterring offenders. Unless someone tied you down, and kept injecting you with heroin until you were addicted, you cop the consequences of the bad decisions you make in your life, and don't whinge about it to society in general.

I agree with everything you say there, except for the "responsibility" thing. To me, punishments - and the mere possibility of them - are no more than aversion therapy, but that is precisely why they are needed. The concept of free will that is behind every assertion that we can make decisions autonomously - and hence are ultimately responsible for what we do - is a fiction.

I also am inclined to the proposition that free will is a fiction, when considered at a deep, biological level. However, I don't think that should alter the pragmatic use of the concept of personal responsibility. When people take a stance of taking personal responsibility for their own actions, and when they expect others to do the same (as much as possible, at least), society benefits, IMO...

[JimC]

I'm making the argument that the reason that our brains HAVE these reward mechanisms, is that they originally rewarded various eating activities.

While I agree that some eating disorders may be "addictions", I would also point out that not all reward mechanisms are necessarily addictions.

True, but I think mm's point would be that the existence of reward systems (as part of an evolved biological mechanism) set the stage for addictive behaviours to occur when the organism has access to vastly more resources than were the case when the mechanisms evolved...

[mistermack]

All I can say is that this Canadian labour law is totally foreign to me, and I've never heard anything like it in this country.
Alcoholism isn't considered a disability in this country. Certainly not as far as employment laws go.
Yes, I think any disability should be declared on a job application, if it's in any way relevant to the work. What's the justification for hiding it?
If it's not relevant to the job, then discrimination should be punished. But if it's relevant to the work, then of course it should be declared.
Like I said, the problems lie with Canada's laws.
They can afford to piss about like that, because Canada is an asset-rich country, which really doesn't have to compete with the rest of the world on an equal basis.
If industries choose to move elsewhere, Canada has enough assets to survive.
IF all they had was their ability to compete, things would be a lot different.

If you are a food addict, as you describe, do you disclose this to all new potential employers? I guess what I am asking is do you 'walk the walk' you are typing here?

It's not a recognised disability here. And as it's slight, in my own words, it's not something that would affect my ability to do most jobs. If it was relevant to a job, I would either disclose it, or be prepared to be dismissed, if I couldn't do the work because of it.
Anyway, I'm self employed.

Edit : It just occurred to me that Canada now seems to have the ludicrous situation that someone could be imprisoned for stealing drugs from the hospital where he worked, but couldn't be sacked for it.
Nice one!!

[Warren Dew]

I also am inclined to the proposition that free will is a fiction, when considered at a deep, biological level. However, I don't think that should alter the pragmatic use of the concept of personal responsibility. When people take a stance of taking personal responsibility for their own actions, and when they expect others to do the same (as much as possible, at least), society benefits, IMO...

I agree with you on both points - free will is a fiction if you dissect things enough scientifically, and that it's a fiction that's very useful in helping society work properly.

Given it's actually a fiction for everyone, though, addicts shouldn't get any more of a free pass than anyone else. The responsibility for that "third drink" still lies with the alcoholic from a legal and ethical perspective, despite the fact that there really isn't free will.

Addictions and disabilities are useful concepts only in helping to figure out appropriate treatments, not in absolving people from responsibility for their behavior.

[Cunt]

All I can say is that this Canadian labour law is totally foreign to me, and I've never heard anything like it in this country.
Alcoholism isn't considered a disability in this country. Certainly not as far as employment laws go.

Do you think it IS a disability? Or is it just bad decisions? (is there even a distinct difference, with your vague description?)
If it IS a disability, such as other legitimate medical problems, then shouldn't it follow that employment laws should treat it as such?
Have you heard of reductio ad absurdium? I think this is what is happening in Canada with these laws, and it really shows how absurd the laws are around chemical dependence and employment.

We actually had a politician run on the platform that, if he was elected, he would go into treatment.

Rehab
Former candidate Peter Liske withdrew his candidacy shortly before the nomination deadline closed in Weledeh.[2] Liske's campaign came under scrutiny after he promised to enter rehab for alcohol abuse if he was elected.

It's fucking absurd here, and that is just because things are being brought to their logical conclusion (in this case, that IS reductio ad absurdium lol)

Yes, I think any disability should be declared on a job application, if it's in any way relevant to the work. What's the justification for hiding it?

Oh, I don't know...medical privacy laws maybe...maybe the fact that, when people disclose ANY disability, their chances of being called in for an interview diminish significantly.

People who have bills to pay might just find it expedient to stop disclosing after a certain number of failed applications/interviews.

If it's not relevant to the job, then discrimination should be punished. But if it's relevant to the work, then of course it should be declared.
Like I said, the problems lie with Canada's laws.

AND with the fact that everyone is misunderstanding 'addiction' (I contend it is due in large part to it's vague and nebulous definition).
Another example - AA will tell you that they are NOT treatment - quite clearly. However, Judges, employers and family members will insist that someone get treatment or lose their liberty/job/family. They invariably accept AA as treatment, and it isn't.
This often prevents folks from pursuing other methods of treatment (such as CBT or MI) which may or may not have benefits.

Since the government (one of the larger corporations employing people) would have the 'duty to accommodate' without being able to foist off their alcohol dependent employees on a church group like AA, they might be forced to look into real treatments that work.
Not that I know of any, but I think 'no intervention' was neck-and-neck with AA the last time I checked.

They can afford to piss about like that, because Canada is an asset-rich country, which really doesn't have to compete with the rest of the world on an equal basis.
If industries choose to move elsewhere, Canada has enough assets to survive.
IF all they had was their ability to compete, things would be a lot different.

If my sister had a dink, she'd be my brother.
What's your point? Other than to compliment Canada on having more assets?

If you are a food addict, as you describe, do you disclose this to all new potential employers? I guess what I am asking is do you 'walk the walk' you are typing here?

It's not a recognised disability here. And as it's slight, in my own words, it's not something that would affect my ability to do most jobs. If it was relevant to a job, I would either disclose it, or be prepared to be dismissed, if I couldn't do the work because of it.
Anyway, I'm self employed.

How would you deal with an employee who started to show signs of being an alcohol/drug/food addict? (before you think I am attacking you, I will admit that I would NEVER have employees, due in large part to the rules you mock a bit further in your post)
I am sincerely interested in your perspective on it. Assume a long-term employee who has done a damn good job for 10 years, if you would please.

Edit : It just occurred to me that Canada now seems to have the ludicrous situation that someone could be imprisoned for stealing drugs from the hospital where he worked, but couldn't be sacked for it.
Nice one!!

I ran into that exact situation. I can't say much about details, but he WAS imprisoned, but not fired. (he did, however, quit until he felt he could trust himself around the drugs again)

I wonder if the fat fucker from the OP wouldn't be doing the UK a favour if he won...maybe pointing out the governments responsibility (they profit from the fattening of their citizens, and from making them alcohol-dependent) by stinging them in the wallet could make some changes...I don't know what....

[Coito ergo sum]

All I can say is that this Canadian labour law is totally foreign to me, and I've never heard anything like it in this country.
Alcoholism isn't considered a disability in this country. Certainly not as far as employment laws go.

Alcoholism is a disability in the US, like it is in Canada. Note: alcoholism can be a disability, but drinking on the job can be prohibited by employers - and a disabled person still has to follow work rules. So, the idea is that an alcoholic can't be fired for being an alcoholic, but he can be fired for being drunk on the job.

In the UK, though, you are right that it is specifically excluded. However, it's possible to have one's "depression" caused by alcoholism found to be a disability under UK law.

Yes, I think any disability should be declared on a job application, if it's in any way relevant to the work. What's the justification for hiding it?

The justification for not disclosing it would be to avoid not getting hired. An employer doesn't want to bring on a problem. Obviously, they can't not hire you because you're disabled, but they can find some other non-disability related reason for not hiring you - point to some discrepancy, some failure on the resume, or paper the file with lots of comments about how awful you were in the interview.

Edit : It just occurred to me that Canada now seems to have the ludicrous situation that someone could be imprisoned for stealing drugs from the hospital where he worked, but couldn't be sacked for it.
Nice one!!

That's not correct. A person stealing drugs, even if they are a drug addict or a kleptomaniac, can be sacked for the theft. They can't be sacked for the disability. It's distinction between the act and a condition - one can be a recovering drug addict with a disability, but not use drugs while at work and not come to work on drugs. As long as one performs the essential functions of one's job with or without reasonable accommodation, then one cannot be terminated because of a disability. If, however, the person can't perform the essential functions of their job (with or without accommodation), or one violates reasonable work rules, then one can be fired whether disabled or not. That's about the same in the US and Canada.

[Warren Dew]

Yes, I think any disability should be declared on a job application, if it's in any way relevant to the work. What's the justification for hiding it?

The justification for not disclosing it would be to avoid not getting hired. An employer doesn't want to bring on a problem. Obviously, they can't not hire you because you're disabled, but they can find some other non-disability related reason for not hiring you - point to some discrepancy, some failure on the resume, or paper the file with lots of comments about how awful you were in the interview.

In the U.S., the employer can generally fire you for lying on your job application if you hid such a disability. For that matter, if it will affect your work performance, rather than merely requiring an accomodation, they can legitimately refuse to hire you for that reason. U.S. employers are not yet required to hire people who can't do the job.

I think that's reasonable. In the case of obesity, you can't really hide it when applying for most jobs, anyway.

[mistermack]

Do you think it IS a disability? Or is it just bad decisions? (is there even a distinct difference, with your vague description?)
If it IS a disability, such as other legitimate medical problems, then shouldn't it follow that employment laws should treat it as such?

You seem to have a problem with things that are vague, or fuzzy, or not black and white. That's your problem. I accept that most things human are never clearly defined.
You can call alcoholism a disability, that doesn't magically make it the same as blindness, or deafness. Each and every condition is unique, and should be treated in a unique way. Why should conferring the word disability on a condition make a difference?

I already made a distinction that I would personally draw in employment law between self-inflicted conditions, and ones that happen to you without any choice in the matter.

I also made it clear that I think you should have to declare any pre-existing conditions that will affect your ability to do a job. (or at least, the employer should be entitled to ask, and receive a truthful answer).

Oh, I don't know...medical privacy laws maybe...maybe the fact that, when people disclose ANY disability, their chances of being called in for an interview diminish significantly.

People who have bills to pay might just find it expedient to stop disclosing after a certain number of failed applications/interviews.

You couldn't blame them for that, but if they do deliberately mislead the employer about their ability to do the job, then the employer should have the right to sack them for that deception, if he finds out.


As far as alcoholism goes, I wouldn't say it's grounds for dismissal, unless you're a pilot or coach driver, or something like that.
But neither would I agree that it should be allowed as some sort of excuse for not being able to do your job properly.
If an employer hires a fit person, and they become disabled in a way that reduces their ability to do the job, it's a new situation, and it should be up to the employer if they want to keep that person on in the new circumstances. What you have in Canada is mental.

If my sister had a dink, she'd be my brother.
What's your point? Other than to compliment Canada on having more assets?

My point is perfectly obvious. You won't get this kind of crap happening in India or the Phillipines. And how is it a compliment to observe that Canada is rich in assets like land and minerals?

How would you deal with an employee who started to show signs of being an alcohol/drug/food addict? (before you think I am attacking you, I will admit that I would NEVER have employees, due in large part to the rules you mock a bit further in your post)

I think I've answered that. Each would be different, and it would depend if it affected their performance.
And you illustrate the point I made earlier. Companies will re-locate to places like India or the Philippines, if possible, if the labour laws become a real impediment. Canada can probably handle that loss for now, but not for ever.

I am sincerely interested in your perspective on it. Assume a long-term employee who has done a damn good job for 10 years, if you would please.

Like I said, it depends how it affects performance. If someone did a good job for ten years, I'm sure they got paid for every single hour. If they were a friend, I might try to help. But I wouldn't feel obliged.
If you run a business, you have obligations to your family, your creditors, your other staff and yourself. You can't start spending money on one employee, without taking it from others.
If the law says that you must, then you naturally have to pay less, and charge more, to cover that liability. Money doesn't grow on trees.

[charlou]

I suspect Cunt is wrestling with an issue which is important in ethics and criminology; the issue of personal responsibility for their own criminal, or generally destructive actions.

That seems to be the case, and Canadian law in regard to it seems to suck indeed, particularly as far as employers are concerned.

Personally, I am rather cold and merciless here; the addiction may indeed be a reality, but it should not in anyway dimish personal responsibility, or reduce possible punishments. The ultimate source of the addiction is to be found in the actions of the person at some stage in their life; more importantly, there is a pragmatic purpose to justice, that of protecting society and deterring offenders. Unless someone tied you down, and kept injecting you with heroin until you were addicted, you cop the consequences of the bad decisions you make in your life, and don't whinge about it to society in general.

I agree with everything you say there, except for the "responsibility" thing. To me, punishments - and the mere possibility of them - are no more than aversion therapy, but that is precisely why they are needed. The concept of free will that is behind every assertion that we can make decisions autonomously - and hence are ultimately responsible for what we do - is a fiction.

I also am inclined to the proposition that free will is a fiction, when considered at a deep, biological level. However, I don't think that should alter the pragmatic use of the concept of personal responsibility. When people take a stance of taking personal responsibility for their own actions, and when they expect others to do the same (as much as possible, at least), society benefits, IMO...

I tend to agree. What is also very important, though, is how this is best achieved. Views on that vary greatly.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, I think any disability should be declared on a job application, if it's in any way relevant to the work. What's the justification for hiding it?

The justification for not disclosing it would be to avoid not getting hired. An employer doesn't want to bring on a problem. Obviously, they can't not hire you because you're disabled, but they can find some other non-disability related reason for not hiring you - point to some discrepancy, some failure on the resume, or paper the file with lots of comments about how awful you were in the interview.

In the U.S., the employer can generally fire you for lying on your job application if you hid such a disability.

In the U.S., the Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits employers from asking about specific health conditions or disabilities on an employment application or otherwise during the hiring process. A correctly worded employment application will ask something like "Is there any reason you are unable to perform the essential functions of your job, with or without reasonable accommodation." If an application asked "Are you currently suffering from any medical conditions? If so, what are they?" That would be illegal.

For that matter, if it will affect your work performance, rather than merely requiring an accomodation, they can legitimately refuse to hire you for that reason.

Not if you can perform the essential functions of your job, with or without reasonable accommodation. If an employer refuses to higher a disabled person because of their disability when that person can perform the essential functions of their job (with or without accommodation) then that employer is in violation of the ADA.

U.S. employers are not yet required to hire people who can't do the job.

That is correct. But, they can't refuse to hire someone who is disabled if that person can, in fact, perform the essential functions of the job - even if the employer has to reasonably accommodate the disability.

I think that's reasonable. In the case of obesity, you can't really hide it when applying for most jobs, anyway.

Obesity is not always a disability. It's only a disability under US employment law if it is a condition which "substantially limits a major life activity" (as that term is defined under the ADA regulations and case law).

[Cunt]

Do you think it IS a disability? Or is it just bad decisions? (is there even a distinct difference, with your vague description?)
If it IS a disability, such as other legitimate medical problems, then shouldn't it follow that employment laws should treat it as such?

You seem to have a problem with things that are vague, or fuzzy, or not black and white. That's your problem. I accept that most things human are never clearly defined.
You can call alcoholism a disability, that doesn't magically make it the same as blindness, or deafness. Each and every condition is unique, and should be treated in a unique way. Why should conferring the word disability on a condition make a difference?

Mainly because, in law, there are particular rights and responsibilities associated with the word 'disability' which are not applicable to anyone else.

Personally, I think a good set of human rights would make it unnecessary to have 'black rights' or 'womens' rights' or 'disabled rights', but I don't run the country.

I already made a distinction that I would personally draw in employment law between self-inflicted conditions, and ones that happen to you without any choice in the matter.

Is lung cancer a self-inflicted condition? How about if someone got it from working for years with insulation? What about smoking for years? What about both?

I also made it clear that I think you should have to declare any pre-existing conditions that will affect your ability to do a job. (or at least, the employer should be entitled to ask, and receive a truthful answer).

There are no laws here requiring disclosure. What I tell employers is that if they write a good job description, and the person they hire can't fulfill the duties, they could certainly fire them.
You would be surprised how many employers don't want to write that job description. First, it's time-consuming and second, you can't keep adding duties without adding money if there is a business agreement in place first.

You couldn't blame them for that, but if they do deliberately mislead the employer about their ability to do the job, then the employer should have the right to sack them for that deception, if he finds out.

Fair.

As far as alcoholism goes, I wouldn't say it's grounds for dismissal, unless you're a pilot or coach driver, or something like that.
But neither would I agree that it should be allowed as some sort of excuse for not being able to do your job properly.
If an employer hires a fit person, and they become disabled in a way that reduces their ability to do the job, it's a new situation, and it should be up to the employer if they want to keep that person on in the new circumstances. What you have in Canada is mental.

What we have in Canada is a Human Rights Commission which is a bit out of touch with law.

My point is perfectly obvious. You won't get this kind of crap happening in India or the Phillipines. And how is it a compliment to observe that Canada is rich in assets like land and minerals?

Where do you live? I can hop on my sled or boat and be alone in beautiful country in ten minutes. I can (and will) finish paying for my modest home with a modest job in just a bit over 10 years.
I have health care and good cold beer.
I don't have to piss a scrim of ice off the toilet every morning.
It's pretty fucking good, though I admit I haven't lived elsewhere...

I think I've answered that. Each would be different, and it would depend if it affected their performance.
And you illustrate the point I made earlier. Companies will re-locate to places like India or the Philippines, if possible, if the labour laws become a real impediment. Canada can probably handle that loss for now, but not for ever.

I guess I knew there couldn't be a template answer.

If you run a business, you have obligations to your family, your creditors, your other staff and yourself. You can't start spending money on one employee, without taking it from others.
If the law says that you must, then you naturally have to pay less, and charge more, to cover that liability. Money doesn't grow on trees.

The law doesn't say you must, it says you must 'accomodate to the point of undue hardship'. For instance, if you have an employee lose their sight, and can demonstrate that the assistive devices to help them continue to be your bookkeeper are going to cost you too much money (undue hardship), then you can fire them and get on with it. If you don't try to accommodate, and do not attempt to demonstrate undue hardship, then you open yourself up to legal action.

I don't think that part is very unfair. I think the rotten part is allowing anyone who claims to be 'addicted' to be able to claim they are disabled.

Pretty black and white, that law (though I suspect more 'nuance' as the test cases flood past...)

Now back to fat fuckers...if you were the judge, and had to rule in the OP's favour, what kind of award would best serve justice and the public good?

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you think it IS a disability? Or is it just bad decisions? (is there even a distinct difference, with your vague description?)
If it IS a disability, such as other legitimate medical problems, then shouldn't it follow that employment laws should treat it as such?

You seem to have a problem with things that are vague, or fuzzy, or not black and white. That's your problem. I accept that most things human are never clearly defined.
You can call alcoholism a disability, that doesn't magically make it the same as blindness, or deafness. Each and every condition is unique, and should be treated in a unique way. Why should conferring the word disability on a condition make a difference?

Mainly because, in law, there are particular rights and responsibilities associated with the word 'disability' which are not applicable to anyone else.

Personally, I think a good set of human rights would make it unnecessary to have 'black rights' or 'womens' rights' or 'disabled rights', but I don't run the country.

Technically, the way the law is written in the US, there are no "black rights" or "women's rights." There are certain things you can't do based on sex or race (or religion, national origin, etc.), like hiring, firing, giving raises, harassing, renting or selling houses, hotel rooms and public accommodations, etc. The "rights" are as applicable to white folks and men as black folks and women. It is just as illegal to not higher a white person because of his race, or not rent to a man because of his sex.

Disabled rights are also carefully crafted. A disability is a health condition that substantially limits a major life activity. Anyone who fits that definition is protected from being fired or not hired, etc. BECAUSE OF that condition, and anyone who fits that definition is entitled to reasonable accommodation on the job, if that person can perform the essential functions of the job. If there is no reasonable accommodation that will allow the person to perform the essential functions of the job, then the employer is not required to hire the disabled person - i.e. - if a job legitimately requires one to walk, and one is a paraplegic.

With a little care on the part of an employer, these laws present no problem. Where employers get into an issue is when they don't take a modicum of care to handle hiring and firing decisions on a reasonable basis, don't give thought to legitimate business reasons for doing things, or ignore the actions of employees that are insulting or demeaning or discriminatory against people.

[Cunt]

With a little care on the part of an employer, these laws present no problem. Where employers get into an issue is when they don't take a modicum of care to handle hiring and firing decisions on a reasonable basis, don't give thought to legitimate business reasons for doing things, or ignore the actions of employees that are insulting or demeaning or discriminatory against people.

If you start with a workplace which is people-friendly, it is a lot easier to keep it up. For instance, I think buildings with ramps could do away with stairs altogether. Many disagree, but when you are in a wheelchair, you have to go to a different entrance than your pals (if they take the stairs).


This is the 'spirit' of what I meant. When stairs are dropped in favour of ramps, our elderly don't have as tough a time. Same for the severely obese, or for drunks, or for those with spina bifida.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

This is the 'spirit' of what I meant. When stairs are dropped in favour of ramps, our elderly don't have as tough a time. Same for the severely obese, or for drunks, or for those with spina bifida.

Disability law requires wheelchair access in new buildings, and even in many old buildings. The problem comes when you have really old buildings and the cost of refurbishing is prohibitive.

[mistermack]

Mainly because, in law, there are particular rights and responsibilities associated with the word 'disability' which are not applicable to anyone else.

Well, that's wrong. Rights and responsibilies should need more than a word to be automatically conferred.
Shades of grey again. The word has a huge span of shades of meaning, so nothing should be automatic, just on a word.

Is lung cancer a self-inflicted condition? How about if someone got it from working for years with insulation? What about smoking for years? What about both?

You're back to shades of grey again. You've got to get your head round the concept. Nothing is black and white in human behaviour.
Cancer from smoking is self-inflicted, but not as much as poking your own eyes out.

Where do you live? I can hop on my sled or boat and be alone in beautiful country in ten minutes. I can (and will) finish paying for my modest home with a modest job in just a bit over 10 years.
I have health care and good cold beer.
I don't have to piss a scrim of ice off the toilet every morning.
It's pretty fucking good, though I admit I haven't lived elsewhere...

Why the fuck are you so defensive about your lump of rock? For the record I've lived in Canada and I liked it. (apart from the clear-felling and Sudbury)
I was making a point about your LABOUR LAWS. India and the Phillipines couldn't afford the luxury of that kind of stuff, and that's why they will take more and more jobs from countries like Canada as time goes on. You gift them an easy way to undercut you. And so does Britain, (where I live) and France and most of the Western economies.
It's not just the cash that employers resent, it's the admin work that goes with it that really bites.

I don't think that part is very unfair. I think the rotten part is allowing anyone who claims to be 'addicted' to be able to claim they are disabled.

I totally agree. Where I differ, is that even if you have to use the word disabled, it doesn't necessarily bestow the same rights as another disability. If it didn't, there wouldn't be the same clamour to get things labelled as a disability, if there was no cash in it.

The law should grasp the nettle that not all disabilities are worthy of the same benefits.

Now back to fat fuckers...if you were the judge, and had to rule in the OP's favour, what kind of award would best serve justice and the public good?

That's easy. Check out page 1, reply 1.