Quote:
Originally posted by 33girl
What if he said you weren't allowed to motorcycle ride or sky dive because it was risky? Would you enjoy that?
|
Many contracts include clauses of this type - even professional athletes have contracts voided for doing things like that. Again, it's a massively dick thing to do to employees, but it's probably legal - and it will alienate some, but it doesn't infringe on their right to work, really.
Quote:
Originally posted by 33girl
How about if you weren't permitted to do anything involved with your fraternity, because fraternities are huge insurance risks don't cha know, and they might get sued and if people know you're a member it would make the company look bad. Or if you were told you weren't allowed to join either the John Birch Society or Greenpeace (take your pick).
|
This really rings as specious to me - these aren't parallels to smoking, neither in scope nor scale. However, again - not protected groups, just dick moves to make.
I'll get anecdotal here, and say that in my current position I would not be allowed to work here if I joined Greenpeace, and it would be perfectly legal and justifiable (NDA and anonymity concerns) - and I'm sorry, I'll never do that again, I hate anecdotal evidence.
Quote:
Originally posted by 33girl
The gym vouchers were for $45 - I don't know what it's like in MI, but that's pretty much what it costs to walk in the door at most decent gyms around here.
|
Eh, even if it's just paying the initiation fees, it's a start. I do think, however, that punishing for obesity may be (legally) over the line.
Saying that, on a grander scale than you and I here, 33, it troubles me that Americans demand insurance (and cheap, at that) from their employers, but there is outcry over employers taking steps to ensure their employees' health in a much more active (and some would say over-active) manner. We've truly gotten to the point of sloth, where we're burning it on both ends . . .