|
|
|
|
HighHeat
Big Daddy
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 6682
Location: Out of the frying pan, and into the fire.
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 06/06/05 - 13:02 Post subject: Another salary discrimination question...
| Quote: | The NAAFA study found that overweight men pay a salary penalty of $1,000 per year per pound they're overweight. Other research has found that upper-level managers who are 20% overweight earn about $4,000 less per year than their thinner peers. In addition, overweight people earn salaries 10% to 20% lower than their thinner colleagues and are less likely to receive promotions than slim people, regardless of their job performance, NAAFA reports
The consequences of being overweight hit women harder than men. Most companies judge male executives against a medical standard - the most common being a table of desirable weights and heights published by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. But female executives, particularly younger ones, are expected to abide by an aesthetic standard that Berkeley, Calif.-based legal consultant Sondra Solovay calls "the size-eight straitjacket."
One recruiter recalls presenting a female candidate with a superb reputation for a division president position with a Fortune 100 company. "She was short, chunky and very outspoken," says the headhunter. "Our client told us he liked her but wanted someone who was taller and less aggressive." Ms. Solovay, author of "Tipping the Scales of Justice" (Prometheus Books, 2000), cites a study in which 16% of employers admitted they wouldn't hire obese women under any conditions; an additional 44% would only hire them under certain circumstances. An 1993 article in the New England Journal of Medicine reports that, on average, overweight women earn $6,710 less per year than thin women.
|
http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/climbing/20000905-voros.html
Unlike other forms of discrimination, weight discrimination is generally not illegal,...but is it ethical to hire someone based on their weight or appearance for a job that does not have considerable face time with a client or board?
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4776
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/05 - 13:04 Post subject:
Why just operational? Why should even someone with plenty of face time with a client, donor or board get shut out?
|
|
|
|
|
HighHeat
Big Daddy
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 6682
Location: Out of the frying pan, and into the fire.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/05 - 13:08 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | Why just operational? Why should even someone with plenty of face time with a client, donor or board get shut out? |
I'm allowing for the fact that a salesperson or representative (in whatever capacity) IS the face of the company, and that first appearances mean a whole heck of a lot.
But feel free to include them in the ethical discussion if you want. 
For the record, I'm not talking about someone who is unkempt or sloppy...only overweight.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/06/05 - 13:13 Post subject:
I think if one wants to portray an image of a company that he/she owns, he/she has a right to decide standards of hiring.
It may not be "fair" but at least the standard is known.
The military has fitness requirements that must be kept up every year. They also have uniform policies and "knock" people for unkemptness.
Appearances mean a great deal and have a lot to do with first impressions.
|
|
|
|
