It had to come. Sooner or later someone, somewhere would decide that they could use the denormalisation process to their advantage. A bus company in Blackpool has suspended two of its drivers for being too fat.
Managers at Blackpool Transport say the men, who weigh a combined 40 stone, are too fat for their own welfare. They have been ordered to lose half a stone each in the next month or risk having their pay docked.
It is understood that the company fears that the driving seats will be unable to bear their weight.
Since when did it become the place of employers to “order” people to lose weight? What seemed far away in Japan appears to have made it fairly expediently to these shores. Have the seats collapsed under the weight of these drivers? Have any bus seats collapsed under the weight of similarly fat bus drivers? Has the bus company checked with the manufacturer and received advice about the maximum weight for sitting in these seats?
Our engagement with our employers is a contract – we provide time and expertise in exchange for remuneration. That’s it. Outside of work is none of the employer’s business. How much we weigh, whether we smoke, whether we like a tipple, how long our hair is; none of these should concern an employer except in those strictly limited circumstances where it directly affects one’s ability to comply with the contract of employment.
“It’s discriminating against them and they are very upset,” he said. “Why can’t they give incentives to lose weight rather than send people home with the worry of possibly losing pay in the future?”
No, no, no. It is not up to the employer to incentivise such things. It is none of the employer’s business and it is from this stance that any resistance must come. You do not win these arguments by giving the employer a stick to beat you with. It’s none of their business; that is the line in the sand and that is what we do not cross.
Simon Blackburn, the leader of the Labour group on Blackpool council, has also criticised the suspensions.
“I don’t think it is for your boss to tell you that you have to lose weight,” he said.
Simon Blackburn is perfectly correct. Remind me, which party over the past decade or so enabled such behaviour with its policy of denormalising sections of the population? Oh, yeah…
“The role of a tram or bus driver is naturally sedentary and there must be better ways of managing such issues.”
There’s nothing to manage. If they physically cannot get into the driving cab, well, that’s another matter.
Trevor Roberts, the managing director of Blackpool Transport said: “The matter in question is a result of a health and safety assessment and a full risk assessment.”
Bollocks! Yet another tinpot totalitarian hiding behind health and safety. It’s got nothing to do with health and safety.
I spotted this story too and noted the hypocrisy of Cllr Blackburn: http://libertarianbulldog.blogspot.com/2010/10/labour-hypocrisy.html
I’m not sure you’re ire against the management is necessarily warranted. The claim is that they are so heavy they may well break the driving seats. It’s likely that this was not discussed in the contract but surely it’s obvious that their choices (getting fat) have impacted on their performance. They now pose a higher financial risk to the company than was originally agreed upon. It may well be that they have breached the contract.
Consider a similar but more obvious example. Suppose I hire someone to carry boxes of glass objects for me. Later he stops looking after himself and now I think he may well drop one or more of those boxes. They’re expensive so now I have to consider the increased risk of damage to them. His labour is now worth less to me than it was when we came to an agreement. Could it not be argued that he has not kept to his end of the bargain? Surely the agreement was that I would hire him for a given wage and he would carry the boxes with a given risk of damaging them. That last bit is not explicit but may well be implicit.
“Simon Blackburn is perfectly correct. Remind me, which party over the past decade or so enabled such behaviour with its policy of denormalising sections of the population?”
So glad you wrote that bit – I instantly wound myself into a right tizz on reading his quote. Irony central.
Surely sending them home with threats of loss of pay will have the opposite of the desired effect.
Now they will be say on the couch worrying and eating comfort food all day.
Anthony, hence my question; had they asked the manufacturer? I also made the point that the employer may take action if it has a direct effect on the employee’s conduct of his duties. Not convinced that this is the case here. Plenty of fat people travel around in all sorts of vehicles without them collapsing.
Longrider, of course if the management have no basis for their assessment of the risks then they’re wrong and they can be sued for breach of contract.
But in principle I can’t quite see that they’re wrong. Surely an employer is not obliged to simply accept it if one of the employees changes his lifestyle in such a way as to significantly reduce the profit generated by their continued employment?
“Suppose I hire someone to carry boxes of glass objects for me. Later he stops looking after himself and now I think he may well drop one or more of those boxes.”
A more reasonable approach would be to take a view on this if and when he started dropping boxes.
Does this open the door for the bus company to start charging more to fat passengers on the grounds that they my break seats? What about a multi-tiered charging system for using the toilets at train stations, can’t have fat folk breaking toilet seats for the rest of us.
I’m not sure that they have.
Let’s put it another way, supposing that the employer is correct and that there is a genuine risk that the seats will fail. In this instance, yes, there is a safety risk. It would be fine in that case for the employer to lay it on the line and offer the drivers a choice; lose weight in order to comply with the vehicle specifications or, unfortunately, terminate their employment. It is up to the drivers then to decide which way they want to jump. What is absolutely not on is giving orders to people to lose weight. They have no right to dish out such orders.
The interesting thing here is that if there is such a safety risk, why is the company merely threatening to dock their pay? It doesn’t make sense. Either there is a risk that needs addressing or there isn’t. If there is, then docking pay isn’t going to make it safe.
Furthermore, if there is such a safety risk, how does losing half a stone make any difference?
There does come a point though when the fat person just doesn’t fit into the bus any more, without a crane. That’s no one’s fault, not even the Romans.
Another point. The article says they weighed a combined 40 stone. Say it’s 20 stone each, that’s not overly heavy especially for a well-built man. If the seats can’t cope with that they should be talking to their bus supplier about it.
We’re talking fit rugby player type proportions here.
One wonders if they would be taking the same stance if both were 6 foot 6 and heavily-muscled, or if it’s general shape which has influenced their decision.
MackemX – I don’t see your objection. He starts to cost the employer money as soon as he poses an increased risk. The employer now must either take our more insurance or leave aside more spare cash to cover increases likelihood of costs resulting from breakages. Seems reasonable to adjust his pay in accordance.
Likewise, it seems reasonable to charge people different amounts for a service depending on how much the provision costs the provider.
So the point I’m making (and it is not specifically about this case where we obviously don’t have all the details) is that it is (prima facie at least) reasonable for an employer to seek to lower the wages of an employee who has, through his own voluntary actions, made his labour less valuable.
No, when he drops those boxes. Up until that point, it is perceived risk that may not lead to loss.
The usual procedure in the event of someone’s changing health – that may or may not be down to lifestyle choices is to move them to another role. Depends on the nature of the company and whether or not it has the capacity of course. British Rail used to do this with signallers who became colour blind for instance. With the break up of the industry, there were fewer options, so they were paid off instead.
I take your general point, but I don’t see it being the case here. What I do see is the righteous taking advantage.
Managers at Blackpool Transport say the men, who weigh a combined 40 stone, are too fat for their own welfare.
Surely the combined weight of these two men is only relevant if they are sitting on the seat together!
If they are then it must be accepted that there are serious health and safety risks. Sitting side by side would carry a real risk of at least one of them falling off. If one is sitting on the lap of the other would this suggest some sort of relationship between this pair? Is the issue not about weight but about the sexuality of the couple/two men? Is there more to this than meets the eye?
Is it now legal for an employer to combine the weights of any two employees and then reduce their pay packets if they exceed a certain weight?
If these men were women would this threat to their conditions of employment be made? Unlikely. Disabled? All hell would let loose. Not conforming to the perfect citizen size and image regulations? Fair game.
This is the slippery slope and no one is safe.
No not even you!!!!
God help us.
Costing the employer money?!
How does anyone work that one out?
Do less pasengers get on buses that have fat drivers?
Where is the research to back this one up?
I know that many companies work on tight margins these days, but surely the extra egg cup full of diesel required per week to pull the drivers gut around town isn’t going to bankrupt the bus company.
Yes, this combined weight thing is a bit fishy. And, frankly, I’d like to know how their weight is costing the employer money. If they damaged the vehicle, then yes, loss has occurred, but nowhere is there any indication that this has happened. DP makes a valid point that 20 stone isn’t outrageous and you don’t have to be obese to tip the scales at that kind of weight. Without further corroboration, this has denormalisation written all over it.
Does anyone actually believe the company’s claim that their weight would damage the driver’s seat in the bus? It sounds like totally implausible bullshit to me. or do they make their seats out of papier mache?
Sorry to hijack the thread but I have to gloat. Anyone see that the disgusting little New Labourite turd Denis MacShane has been reported to the police for fraud, over his Parliamentary expenses? I know it’s innocent until proved guilty but this depraved cunt didn’t care about such niceties when it came to his support of detention without trial and totalitarian anti-terrorism laws. Fuck him. I hope he goes to jail, the dishonest gobshite. That was me being Mr Angry. Sorry, you can return to business as usual now.
Likewise, it seems reasonable to charge people different amounts for a service depending on how much the provision costs the provider
Depends what you mean by ‘reasonable’. The consequences to society, however, by having a sub-class of disabled people who are routinely charged more because of their disabilities, because, for example, the costs of installing wheel chair ramps, would not be good. Better in my view to average those costs across all punters so that the disabled are protected. Of course there are counter-examples to that view – such as car insurance – where people are charged in proportion to the risk they pose to the insurer, but overall I think the principle is good, even if there are a handful of counter-examples to it.
Actually, the theory and practice with that one, are two different things. In theory, I can charge different rates for working out of hours, for example. Doesn’t happen because clients won’t pay for it. The market dictates.
Actually, the theory and practice with that one, are two different things. In theory, I can charge different rates for working out of hours, for example. Doesn’t happen because clients won’t pay for it. The market dictates
Except that charging, say, disabled people more to use services, would work in market terms, unless there was mass action and a boycott of suppliers who behaved like that. That’s why we have laws that generally make such practices illegal.
I suspect that mass action is exactly what would happen. A Facebook campaign, a twitterthon and a special domain set up. I may have misanthropic tendencies on occasion, but I do believe that any organisation pulling a stunt like that would offend the basic decency inherent in the majority of people – and I do believe in that basic decency.
I think this is a work of towering genius.
It’s one of the things that future generations will look back at and laugh about, like we now laugh about people in the Middle Ages being scared of witches or thinking the earth was flat or whatever.
What will really have them rolling in the aisles is the fact that simultaneously, our Beloved Leaders were waging war on Size Zero Models.
I’m pretty fat myself (“morbidly obese” in NHS parlance) and losing weight. I’ve already lost a stone and half and that makes bugger all difference to, well, anything. Especially things like getting squidged into your airline seat or, I would imagine, being a bus driver.
If they are too fat to do their job then say so and give them an ultimatum. If not, leave them the fuck alone. Simples.