@Mahkno :Club Chub has 'em

@Mahkno To make sure one person at a time.

Removed By Request

@cjsummers :I know that. Based on their size, they still might have a policy regarding hostile work environments. Religious organizations are not entirely immune to sexual harassment and discrimination issues.

We have some policies about workplace environments but I think the discussions would have to elevate into arguments with antagonizing comments directed at a specific person to be relevant. Just the topic alone wouldn't be considered hostile. If I asked them to stop and the intentionally continued, that would cross over into hostile. I would hope from my silence and body language they got the hint it wasn't a popular discussion but if not, I will let them know if it comes again.

@Whit :So does Al's although it's not to make sure one person goes in a stall at a time because it is definitely not enforced in that bathroom. Al's old location used to have a different bathroom for the dancers but at this new one, they use the main restroom with the guests.

@tapeworm :More and more health care facilities are doing it if they are religious or not. Pekin and Hopedale Hospitals both do. I'm sure the lawyers were paid handsomely in advance of this policy to ensure it wouldn't be an issue. I think they want to paint a picture of pro-healthy initiatives. And $10 says they get a huge $$ break from the insurance company who run their employee health insurance programs. That and they don't lose any work time for additional smoke breaks (which is now 10 minute bathroom breaks to play on our cellphones). Trouble is this policy hurts current employees because it takes a lot longer to hire qualified employees to fill positions. This along with background/criminal/drug checks, fingerprinting and a slew of other things (physicals, blood work) it takes forever to find and employee people.

@ChefKevin :I understand that it's much easier to put smokers in the spotlight because so many of them litter and don't give any consideration to others, but that's partially OSF's fault for removing all of the designated smoking areas and providing very little support to actually help people quit. They actually had a "street team" at one point walking around telling people to put out their cigarettes... At a hospital... Where people are stressed out and emotional.The point is it's still blatant discrimination and I don't understand how they can get away with it legally. It's no different than refusing to hire someone over weight or who drinks too much caffeine.

I get asked about local issues at work all the time. A high number of questions revolve around the practice of developer welfare and why there is always money for developers and not enough to fix the roads and hire more police.

@tapeworm :I wouldn't be too sure people are not being hired due to obesity. More and more health care facilities are requiring physicals for new hires. Once again, I have a feeling that it isn't so much the employer as it is pressure from their insurer. And of course both probably have enough high dollar attorneys to ensure against discrimination cases. If it is the insurers who are requiring these things, you know they are ready to fight any discrimination cases against them.BTW, I'm NOT sticking up for them. I've just seen this in action.

If a person's weight is impairing their ability to perform their job satisfactorily then yes a person can be fired for being overweight.There is nothing illegal about refusing to hire or terminating someone for their weight. There are some employers who are very upfront about promoting a healthy image and lifestyle.