Talk about a bad day on the job!

You're on Page 2 of 2
Go to
  •   #16  
    babymomma's Avatarbabymomma , 10-03-2006 04:00 PM
    That is seriously just wrong....especially being picked up and literally man-handled onto a scale!

    I hope they get a fair settlement, that's just wrong on so many levels.
  •   #17  
    freiamaya's Avatarfreiamaya , 10-03-2006 11:10 PM
    1. NYC IS civilized, and I love it.
    2. It would be interesting to see the work contracts. There are certain physical requirements for many jobs. I don't see many flat-chested women being hired at Hooters, for example, or many severely overweight Chippendales dancers (other than that SNL guy who did a parody of it!), or many obese policemen or policewomen, or obese supermodels (both male or female), or obese military members, or significantly overweight personal trainers (both male or female). I would like to know what kind of restaurant it was, what their clientele was, and what their work environment was, and the terms under which they were hired. Many of these service industries, including bars, pubs, restaurants, and nightclubs, hire for a specific look. Sad but true. If this look was implicit or explicit in the contract for hiring and you don't agree with it, you might be better off working elsewheres.
  •   #18  
    jillybean720's Avatarjillybean720 , 10-04-2006 06:31 AM
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freiamaya
    Many of these service industries, including bars, pubs, restaurants, and nightclubs, hire for a specific look. Sad but true. If this look was implicit or explicit in the contract for hiring and you don't agree with it, you might be better off working elsewheres.
    I understand hiring in certain industry based on appearance, but what I don't understand is why the number on the scale matters. Like I mentioned, as we all know here, you could have 2 women the same height and both be a lovely size 4 while one weighs 110 and the other weighs 140 I just think the managers were going about it all wrong. If the women looked as if they had "let themselves go," then that's one thing, but randomly forcing them on a scale (after they'd already been hired) seems completely irrational. If they still "look the part," then the number on the scale makes no difference.
  •   #19  
    freiamaya's Avatarfreiamaya , 10-04-2006 01:15 PM
    It sure would be interesting to know the real details of the case, instead of the media report! I know that in my previous job, weight and physical conditioning was a HUGE issue, and every year, and at any time necessary, we were weighed and measured with respect to height, regardless of one's appearance. A BMI was calculated, and if you were over your maximum regardless of body composition, you were put on a warning and had to do remedial diet and exercise counselling. Crazy! However, this was a condition of employment and I knew it when I took the job.
    Anyways, it would be interesting if the random weighing was indeed a condition of employment, or if things aren't exactly as the women portray and there was indeed a reason for the management to have taken the action that they did, and if indeed the actions they allegedly took were indeed as reported by the ladies concerned.
    Can you tell that I don't trust media reports????
  •   #20  
    hoodj0080's Avatarhoodj0080 , 10-05-2006 02:31 PM
    A friend of mine used to work at hooters. she was an A-cup. She said they don't really look at the chest because that's what padded bras are for. She did say that only girls with nice legs get hired though...
Closed