Dutch Companies Not Allowed To Fitness-Track Their Employees (www.nu.nl)

If obesity ever becomes a protected class by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2016-03-08 04:03 · Score: 1

I would think that companies that collected health data would be screwed if obesity ever became a protected class and they showed a pattern of firing or not promoting unhealthy fat people.

Companies that collect this stuff would already seem to be in borderline territory with race and age, which are already protected classes, since race and age can predict certain health conditions. (If health conditions were used in personnel decisions, someone could potentially say that's a round-about way of discriminating on race/age...)

Re: If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Type44Q · 2016-03-08 04:21 · Score: 1

If obesity ever becomes a protected class
If obesity ever becomes a protected class, we put a wall around Texas and Oklahoma (might even be able to monetize that shit: "World's Most Mundane Safari," we'll call it). ;)
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

It should be some sort of middle-ground class. Overweight people generally know they will spend more on various things due to their obesity, and are willing to accept this as often being overweight is a choice (however, exiting that state is much less so, only some manage it). If you are able to do the work satisfactorily, the employer should be required to treat you as they would any other employee with similar performance, with the understanding that extra costs due to your weight would be born by you (For example, if you're 800 lbs and require a $10,000 office chair to hold your weight, the company pays $500 or whatever they would have for standard furniture, the employee pays the rest). This would be a deviation from "reasonable accommodations" as you'd have to make for disabled persons, but I think it's a fair deviation in that nobody chooses to lose their legs (or whatever) but people do, over time, choose to be overweight.
The overweight should be protected from harassment at work due to their condition. It's not helpful and it's just plain rude.
If you don't provide at least base protections for the overweight at work, enough that they can at least keep their job and progress in it as normal, here's the deal: You're just going to end up paying for them in your taxes when they lose their job and end up on welfare. Consider that before you say "Fatties deserve the insults and I shouldn't have to work beside one!"
And yes, you don't have to put up with certain other bad life decisions, such as someone who never washes. But you have to understand that while that guy can wash tonight and the problem "goes away", the fat guy can't just stop eating tonight and have the problem disappear for you tomorrow. A lasting solution takes well over a year and from years of medical study, still provably has a low chance of permanent success.
Now, I'm a libertarian, so obviously, in my la-la-land world I'd just say fuck it, no regulations at all one way or the other and no taxes, let the overweight build their own companies and compete on their own terms (or find companies that have a heart), but that's not how it is right now and if you want a "right now" solution that doesn't involve pressing a reset button on government, you need to fit it into what we've got. I believe this is a reasonable compromise.
FWIW, I'm an obese IT guy myself (about 295 lbs) and I have not experienced any issues at work regarding my weight, from colleagues or in any other fashion. However, I completely believe it is an issue elsewhere. As to how I ended up this way? Several decades of bad diet that started from bullies at school and a ridiculously difficult body and mind that really just doesn't want to lose weight. I'm sure if you tied me to a chair 24 hours a day and didn't feed me more than 800 calories a day I'd be thin in a few months. But think about that yourself---pretty sure that counts as torture! Other methods outside of surgery don't work because your brain just doesn't want to let it happen. Until you're overweight don't say "willpower" because you seriously don't get it. Those that were overweight and are now thin do get it and know it's easier to quit smoking.
Re: If obesity ever becomes a protected class by simcop2387 · 2016-03-08 04:33 · Score: 1

(might even be able to monetize that shit: "World's Most Mundane Safari," we'll call it). ;)
If it's Texas and Oklahoma, it'll be a pretty terrifying Safari. The game will be shooting back at you.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:35 · Score: 0

"We didn't hire you not becomes your gay, but just because we couldn't justify the Hep and HIV risks."
"We didn't hire the black guy because of his risk of sickle cell, not because he was black."
Employer health data access is powerful stupid.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by cayenne8 · 2016-03-08 04:37 · Score: 0

if obesity ever became a protected class

I think it already IS pretty much a protected class as you put it.
If you merely suggest that people, need to lose weight, for their health and yes, even for a better appearance, you catch hell for "fat shaming" or whatever the SJW term for it is today.
Don't get me wrong, no one should be taunted or teased, but these days, you can't even give advice that used to be noted as common sense anymore without offending someone or hurting little Suzy's self esteem.
We are actually going out of our way to tell fat kids that they "look ok" and should be proud of looking obese, out of shape and generally unhealthy.
More and more people are not only accepting fat and unhealthy as the new norm, but are actively promoting it in our kids today.
Common sense has gone out the window, with everyone dancing on eggshells to try not to offend anyone.
WFT did we get so afraid to offend anyone?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 04:42 · Score: 1

For example, if you're 800 lbs and require a $10,000 office chair to hold your weight, the company pays $500 or whatever they would have for standard furniture, the employee pays the rest.
I weigh 350 pounds and get along just fine with a regular office chair. Skinny coworkers are the ones who are demanding a $10,000 ergonomic chair for their delicate bodies.

The overweight should be protected from harassment at work due to their condition.

I may be overweight but I'm not having a baby — or even eating for two, as I'm on a low-carb diet and eat less than many of my skinny coworkers.

FWIW, I'm an obese IT guy myself (about 295 lbs) and I have not experienced any issues at work regarding my weight, from colleagues or in any other fashion.
I find it easier to go to the gym to add 50 pounds of muscle of mass. Besides weighing 400 pounds, I find it difficult to find t-shirts that large. Dropping below 350 pounds has proven problematic over the years.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:44 · Score: 0

Don't get me wrong, no one should be taunted or teased, [...]
Teasing provoke shame, shame correct antisocial behaviour. The reason there are more obese peoples every years it is because of the fat acceptance movement. Empowering peoples to be shameless is self destructing. All emotions has its purpose, and feeling ashamed is important.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Dunbal · 2016-03-08 04:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you go around suggesting what other people should do for their health I hope you are equally as willing to accept that people tell you what you should do for your health. See it works both ways.
When I was a kid that was called "being a nosy son of a bitch and butting into people's business". Live your life, and let other people live their lives. Now as a physician I only go around informing people of what they already know they should do for their health during office hours. These people don't listen to me - why the hell do you think they will bother listening to you?

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re: If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Type44Q · 2016-03-08 04:52 · Score: 1

as I'm on a low-carb diet and eat less than many of my skinny coworkers.
That has virtually everything to do with your gut bacteria; I recommend you (at least temporarily) lay off wheat and dairy (neuropeptides that, among other things, harm the lining of the intestines) and start taking probiotics... or better yet, eat kimchee...
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Locke2005 · 2016-03-08 04:53 · Score: 1

Back before I turned 30 and my metabolism slowed down, I used to get taunted and teased at work for eating so much and still being so thin. But then, I had coworkers who condescendingly referred to me as "son", too. But hey, I'm a white male, so they can do anything they want, right?

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by SirSlud · 2016-03-08 05:00 · Score: 2

>I think it already IS pretty much a protected class as you put it.
It isn't.
>If you merely suggest that people, need to lose weight, for their health and yes, even for a better appearance, you catch hell for "fat shaming" or whatever the SJW term for it is today.
If it's your own family or friend, go for it. If it's a stranger, you're being rude.
>Don't get me wrong, no one should be taunted or teased, but these days, you can't even give advice that used to be noted as common sense anymore without offending someone or hurting little Suzy's self esteem.
Unsolicited advice of almost any kind has always been a socially inept move.
> We are actually going out of our way to tell fat kids that they "look ok" and should be proud of looking obese, out of shape and generally unhealthy.
Who is we? Food companies? Fat parents to fat children? Health agencies and gyms? Everyone except for you? Using the word "we" is just you couching your whining in non-specifics.
> Common sense has gone out the window, with everyone dancing on eggshells to try not to offend anyone.
WFT did we get so afraid to offend anyone?
That could be a line straight out of a post from 1950, because people have been thinking the society is collapsing in a puddle of weakness around them since the dawn of time.

--
"Old man yells at systemd"
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 05:25 · Score: 0, Troll

Obese peoples do not grow bigger, they are still tiny under all that fat.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is considered "morbidly obese" because of his BMI score. I'm sure he is very skinny under all that fat.

Bring back the bullies, cure child obesity, save the next generation.
The only thing bullies ever taught me was to stand up to them, hit them harder and hit them where it hurts the most. Bullies are cowards. They run when they get their ass handed back to them.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by alvinrod · 2016-03-08 05:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Which is why it makes a certain amount of sense to just put healthcare completely on the government. Companies don't have to care about it or assume that risk so they can hire the candidate they want regardless of potential health issues as it doesn't cost them anything extra. It especially makes sense for small businesses who don't have the employment numbers to negotiate for less costly premiums. If employers really want to compete on health care they can always offer additional coverage or benefits beyond what the government does.

There are arguments to be made againts government-run health care, but from an employer's perspective there aren't as many. Let someone else handle it so your company doesn't have to and it then removes the reason for the employer to want any access to health data.

Also, there are some jobs where you probably wouldn't want a person who's at risk for certain conditions, but there are tests for those. I suppose if you really wanted to be racist you could try to do something like you've suggested, but most companies wouldn't.
Re: If obesity ever becomes a protected class by orledrat · 2016-03-08 05:31 · Score: 0

Not to mention the pickup trucks: in Texlahoma, safari Jeeps you!
PS. I'm Dutch and you should see the police force here. It's amazing how they move their bodies considering there's no donut shops here (yet). There used to be men on duty who could outsmart Callahan any day PLUS bolt past any Usains barefooted.
Sadly, the mandatory fitness tests were scrapped since the casualty rate was too high. See, there's trouble attracting recruits and we need simply need meat on the street..
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by will_die · 2016-03-08 05:52 · Score: 1

Where are you getting those fabricated numbers?
The only calves getting slaughtered at six months are those being sold for veal aka meadow, rose or milk and meadow (some marketing terms)>
Cattle given growth promotants and then finished in a feed lot for 3-4 month will be slaughtered at 14-17 months.
For grass finished, except for some very expense beef all cattle are grass fed. That 2 years is high it would have to be open range and a bull or cow. However the majority of grass finished you find on the market are not. You are started to get a large percent that spend time in a barn or corral being feed grass products up to the time of being slaughtered. In higher end places you are finding fattening fields with a growing field of growth promoting grasses and they allow the cattle to eat all they want, comes close to duplicating the effects of the feed lot.
Also you are going to get those hormones because with those grass finished cattle they are mostly likely steer and maybe some heifers and they produce those hormones naturally.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by I4ko · 2016-03-08 05:59 · Score: 1

Well it shouldn't be.
Overweight should not be protected at all. I am obese - 5'8" and 265 lbs and have 43% body fat (so not a muscular build at all). I also do Crossfit (though I hate cardio to my guts and just skip it), regularly bike for 55-60 miles (in Phoenix), hike 10 miles at a time at a pace my skinny co-workers can't keep up with on the flat, though on the way up I may need more breaks than them, but have the power to climb things they need a little push or pull on, able to handle more meetings and customer calls than they do without losing my mind and getting panic attacks, and producing generally more then them keeping 3 teams busy - work like an ox, look like an ox, live like an ox. I sat on a upside down $9 plastic trash can for two weeks after a move because we didn't have enough chairs and gave mine to a lady coworker that didn't have one. Most others said they can't work in the office and went home. No one has had the idea of calling me obese, even though I am and I accept it and I openly tell them that I am. I eat 1700 calories a day only, and have very efficient intestines that convert everything that I eat into energy with almost nothing to get out of me. I consider protein to be construction material, fat to be energy and carbs to be poison. I can drink two buckets of drip coffee and not have my heartbeat change at all. I pull my weight for the company and for my colleagues, and I am free to express the most management disliked opinion in public without consequences.

Now there are the land whales in the office, that when going through a doorway another person can't be in the frame at the same time with them, that get tired sitting on their asses talking on the phone for 20 minutes, producing almost nothing, taking multiple 1 hour breaks in the lunch room, just complaining about how tough life is, while gulping cookies and cupcakes and coke. And I do think they deserve fat shaming, and I do think they deserve being called out on their performance reviews for drawing the middle line back, and potentially relieved, or having their pay reduced to actually go hand in hand with what they produce for the company.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 06:04 · Score: 1

How many companies are now tying wearing a fitbit to lower insurance premiums? "Oh, sure, you don't have to wear it. But if you choose not to, your monthly premium will double."
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 06:07 · Score: 1

Where are you getting those fabricated numbers?
My late father who grew up with nine other siblings on a farm in Idaho to raise cows and a prize-winning bull.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by plover · 2016-03-08 06:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just keeping the health data outside the company solves the root problem. Hiring an outside insurance company does that now; there are plenty of laws (HIPAA/Privacy) that ensure they don't share the health data back with the employer. It certainly doesn't have to be the government.
So if the Dutch company wants to help their employees become healthier while still complying with the laws, all they have to do is reimburse the price of a Fitbit to any employee who provides a valid receipt. They certainly don't need access to the employees' accounts on fitbit.com. According to their laws, they also shouldn't provide an EvilCorp Fitness Challenge group. That's what the company I work for did; although since we're in the US, there are no similar privacy restrictions on employers sponsoring their own challenge groups.
And Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQs) are always the allowed exception. You can't be forced to hire a blind truck driver. But there is no BFOQ that requires someone to wear a fitness tracker.

--
John
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by WillAffleckUW · 2016-03-08 06:23 · Score: 1

I see you've never been to Canada.
People there have rights, unlike American serfs.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by cayenne8 · 2016-03-08 06:54 · Score: 1

If you go around suggesting what other people should do for their health I hope you are equally as willing to accept that people tell you what you should do for your health.
I absolutely DO!!
I'm overweight a bit myself right now...when I get like this, my friends often give me some shit, saying "you're turning into a fat bastard" or other needling.
It is meant in good nature as that its a normal bunch of guys hazing each other a bit, but there is the grain of truth within that I see.
It does help me to get my ass back on track and start eating well again, and exercising and generally trying to have a more healthy lifestyle.
No, I don't curl up in a ball and cry if someone says something bad about me. I was raised to have a bit thicker skin as we seemed to do in the older days.
If it is someone I don't know or respect, then their comments slide off my back without much a notice.
For folks I care about and their opinions, I take it as note that I need to do something.
But no, I don't really shrink in fear if someone says something bad to me, or if they offer constructive criticism.....I know what to listen to, and often it DOES help me to notice things about myself, that I might otherwise not notice immediately as I have my attention to living life, working, etc.....

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 06:58 · Score: 1

hormones and antibiotics are metabolized by the cows - and laws regulate that they can't be given within X days of slaughter to ensure that they are no longer present in the meat.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Atzanteol · 2016-03-08 07:05 · Score: 1

This guy/gal gets it.
"Unsolicited advice of almost any kind has always been a socially inept move."
Do we really live in a society where that isn't obvious??? Telling some coworker they need to lose weight is NOT being helpful - it's being a dick.

--
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

- Charles Darwin
Re: If obesity ever becomes a protected class by delt0r · 2016-03-08 08:18 · Score: 1

You have absolutely nothing scientific to back that up. I should know. I have colleges working on the real science.

Nutrition and diet. Where every internet idiot can regurgitate bullshit and sound like they know what they are talking about.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re: If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Dunbal · 2016-03-08 08:25 · Score: 1

I should know. I have colleges working on the real science.
And I have a friend in the Vatican does that make me an authority on religion? lol

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 09:17 · Score: 0

>I'm overweight a bit myself right now...when I get like this, my friends often give me some shit, saying "you're turning into a fat bastard" or other needling.
My parents have done this for 30 years. I've been obese since being a teenager.
Guess what. I visit them about once a month, tops, despite living in the same city, and despise every minute of it--literally, visits happen only because they request it, never because I want to be there. In a few years I'll be needing to put them in a nursing home.
I'll let you guess which one I'll be choosing for them. Hint: I'll sort them by price.
I have decided at this point I'll lose their weight once they've lost their senses, or they're dead. They don't deserve it any other way.
>No, I don't curl up in a ball and cry if someone says something bad about me. I was raised to have a bit thicker skin as we seemed to do in the older days.
Neither do I. In the old days we exiled people we don't respect, and in the old days you didn't respect people who only have negative things to say. Kind of like what's happening now. That's what adults do. No fear. Just old fashioned revenge.
Re: If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 09:22 · Score: 0

You're just jealous that you don't have gut bacteria that turns carbohydrates into beer, and lucky you don't have bacteria that breaks down long-chain zero calorie dietary fibers into shorter digestible non-zero calorie carbohydrates.
Re: If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 09:34 · Score: 0

So those citations then?
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by KGIII · 2016-03-08 11:46 · Score: 1

I'd kill for the ability to gain weight. I can't seem to get about 172 pounds and stay there. I peaked at 205 when I was much younger and had a whole lot of calories available and access to a gym. (Marines.) I came out of boot at 172. After a while, I was up to 205. I came home. I was 172 inside of a couple of months. I went back in, I think I made it up to about 185. I'm 172 today. I'll probably be 172 tomorrow. I'll almost certainly be 172 next month.
I'm 5'-11" on my ID but I used to be a bit taller. I'm probably actually a bit shorter than that now. (I'm old.)
Oddly, even if I try - as a civilian, to hit the weights and eat like a horse (and I do, sometimes) then I only reshape my mass and I stay at, you guessed it, 172. I've got a whole damned gym at home now. I gave up. I was at it for a couple of years and while I got quite fit, I was still just 172. I'm kind of comfy around 205. I can't get there and keep it there. I can't (somehow) replicate the environment where I was at 205. It just doesn't work. It's a combination of mentality and whatnot.
Sometimes, I get busy and forget to eat. I might drop down to as low as 160 if that lasts for a while but as soon as I start to eat again, I'm back to 172. Very few times, and only with odd circumstances, do I fluctuate from 172 and it doesn't seem to last long. I've tried pumping thousands of calories into me. My body just flushes 'em back out and doesn't want them. I will lose some, like I said, but I bounce right back up to 172. It's so regular that I can tell if the scale's off. I haven't weighed myself in a month. I'll bet a dollar that I'm within 1 pound of 172. I can kind of feel when I'm not exactly that weight, it's like that's where my body wants to be. I do not understand the physiology of it. The best answer that I've had from a doctor is, "You're healthy, that's how your body works. Try one of the many brands of weight gain supplements but don't overdo it." I've tried. I stay 172.
I think the days where my body was able and willing to be 205 are behind me. I've gone on some raging adventures where my weight drops but that's very temporary and I'm back to my normal weight soon after. I don't have a belly but I've got thick shoulders, chest, and legs. Those increase in size when I lift but the rest decreases accordingly and, sure enough, I stay just the same with very little fluctuation. I've even done the lifting faithfully for years, in a row and without fail, and seen almost no change and no real fluctuations.
Ah well... I'd love to be about 205 and a half in shorter. I'm not tall enough to be tall. I'm just tall enough to bang my head on stuff.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 15:52 · Score: 0

The only thing bullies ever taught me was to stand up to them, hit them harder and hit them where it hurts the most. Bullies are cowards. They run when they get their ass handed back to them.
Was that lesson usefully? I certainly think it was. What a weak and insecure adult I would be without all these bullies teaching me to stand up and fight back.
Every learning experience is valuable, bullies are as well.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 17:23 · Score: 0

They certainly don't need access to the employees' accounts on fitbit.com.
That is part of the problem right there. The data should not be on fitbit.com in the first place. There is no need to have an account. There is no need for the data to ever leave the owner's possession.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 19:16 · Score: 0

172 at 5'11" doesn't sound horrible.
I'm a bit over 6' and dropped to 140. I felt like I was starving. I struggle to maintain 155. I should probably be closer to 172 and I'm sure I would still get told I'm too thin.
None of the weight I've lost was intentional.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by plover · 2016-03-09 02:20 · Score: 1

That's only a problem for people who don't want to share their data. Having the data on a server, shared with people you know, is a very useful attribute for people who need the psychological boost they get from competition. Getting 10,000 steps a day might be my original goal, but if my friend Brian always gets 11,000 steps a day, I might want to up my game just to beat him. I would see this as beneficial to my fitness as well as Brian's.
Gamification is a very powerful motivator for some people. And you can't play the game unless someone's keeping score. Fitbit's in the business of marketing their scoreboard to sell game-playing devices. And they're making money by the wheelbarrow-full doing it.
Of course, that data is useful for many other purposes. Having an aggregate view of the overall population's activity levels might be important for a government making health policies, for a local city deciding on budgets for spending on walking and biking paths, or for a medical researcher trying to understand diseases or injuries. These uses can benefit society as a whole.
But we're also seeing people who are not playing the game that are interested in the data for more nefarious reasons - insurers, employers, con-artists, all might have a potential use for this data that's not in the best interests of the participants. The Dutch are trying to put a stop to that.

--
John
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by david_thornley · 2016-03-09 07:40 · Score: 1

I have a friend with unduly low blood pressure (connected with other medical problems), who started using lots of salt in the hope of raising her blood pressure. She had strangers coming up to her in restaurants who told her not to use that much salt. It's not just fat.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-10 06:45 · Score: 0

It's not a dichotomy. You can just have private insurance not tied to companies.
Re:If obesity ever becomes a protected class by beastofburdon · 2016-03-11 06:47 · Score: 1

I would gladly trade weight problems with you. I have been trying to lose weight since 2000 and every time I lose a little I end up gaining it back plus 15-20 lbs. Every time there has been some physical problem that forced me to quit the diet/exercise program that I was doing. When I was going to the gym on a regular basis I got mrsa, likely from the gym, so I couldn't go to any gym for a while and didn't want to ever go back to that one. When I was on a diet and actually losing weight and feeling great my appendix attempted to assassinate me. Since then back problems have prevented me from doing any meaningful amount of exercise.

HooRay!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:04 · Score: 0

HooRay!!

My Data is My Data and Coercion is Wrong!

Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:06 · Score: 0, Informative

I cannot for the life of me fathom why someone would not be allowed to voluntarily provide data. Thank God I live in the USA.

Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Also voluntarily sell your kids' organs.
Freedom for all! I am stupid and over-simplify models of human behaviour! ALL HAIL THE INVISIBLE HAND!
Re:Government intrusion by AmiMoJo · 2016-03-08 04:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Because saying "no, you may not monitor my health" to your employer may have negative consequences and puts the employee in a difficult position. It's the same reason why we have maximum working hours and minimum wage. In theory each individual could freely decide to agree to more hours or less money, but in practice the balance of power between employer and employee favours the former and so we want the law to compensate.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:19 · Score: 0

I cannot for the life of me fathom why someone would not be allowed to voluntarily provide data. Thank God I live in the USA.
Luckily, I do not.
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

And if your employer were to say that you will "voluntarily" supply health information or you might not get pay rise, will you still think that? It's protection against coercion.
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:26 · Score: 0

That sounds pretty good, as long as you're a lazy employee and not an employer.
Re:Government intrusion by zmooc · 2016-03-08 04:42 · Score: 1

You would be allowed to voluntarily provide data but your employer would not be allowed to maintain a database containing sensitive data like this without a good purpose. Nevertheless, I'm glad for you to be living in the USA, where anybody can create totally insecure databases containing all your personal information without restriction whatsoever.
That means that as an employer, it's fine if you keep Strava update mails from your employees in your inbox. Organising them into a folder quickly becomes dangerous territory.

--
0x or or snor perron?!
Re:Government intrusion by epyT-R · 2016-03-08 04:52 · Score: 1

As opposed to the quite visible government dildo? Corporate powered of course, because even the most bleeding heart progressive loves money.
Re:Government intrusion by Dunbal · 2016-03-08 04:52 · Score: 1

For the same reason your boss shouldn't sleep with his secretary. It can be argued that it wasn't exactly voluntary if there was financial dependence. There's a special name for that relationship and it's called prostitutio- er I mean marriage.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Government intrusion by Dunbal · 2016-03-08 04:53 · Score: 1

Ahh yes, be sure to read the fine print on the donor card.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:55 · Score: 0

Because saying "no, you may not monitor my health" to your employer may have negative consequences and puts the employee in a difficult position.
The employers weren't making it a condition of employment, it was strictly voluntary. Other than the fitbit bracelet itself, there was no promise of bonus compensation for those employees that chose to participate, so they received no advantage over those who didn't take up the company on their offer. What's left out of the TFA, but included in a linked article within it, was the fact that employees were actually prohibited from sharing their data with their managers. IOW, the company could give all their employees the monitor bracelets with no strings attached as a gift, or perhaps as a part of a bonus package. The employees choosing to use the bracelets could share their data with the supplier of the bracelet, their healthcare provider, friends and family, and even their co-workers. What they are prohibited from doing is sharing their data with their manager. That's a bit too nanny-state for my tastes. Completely robs the worker of any agency.
Re:Government intrusion by Locke2005 · 2016-03-08 04:56 · Score: 1

No, no, I had kids to provide spare organs for myself when my original ones wear out... why would I let some other sucker have those organs?

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:57 · Score: 1

Come now, 60hr+ workweeks are not good for anyone long term.
Re:Government intrusion by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-03-08 05:10 · Score: 0

> balance of power
But what if I think it is a useful thing? The government has terminated my right based on a hypothetical. Better yet, an unelected bureaucrat has done so.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Government intrusion by Dunbal · 2016-03-08 05:15 · Score: 1

An employer who is too lazy to bother checking who actually works and who doesn't and instead resorts to a spreadsheet and a BMI calculation?

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 05:17 · Score: 0

Saying "they received no advantage over those who didn't take up the company on their offer" might be true but it is not opposite to, nor does it exclude, "those who did not accept the offer suffered a disadvantage".
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 05:38 · Score: 0

But there is already a regulatory process to handle those kinds of complaints. An employee has legal recourse to remedy an unfair labor practice should the employer decide to punish him for not participating in their program.
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 05:42 · Score: 0

>You would be allowed to voluntarily provide data but your employer would not be allowed to maintain a database containing sensitive data like this without a good purpose.
Actually, you would not be allowed to voluntarily provide your data to your employer, even if your employer provided the monitoring device as a no-strings-attached gift.
Re:Government intrusion by Jahta · 2016-03-08 05:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

> balance of power
But what if I think it is a useful thing? The government has terminated my right based on a hypothetical. Better yet, an unelected bureaucrat has done so.
If you *personally* choose to wear a Fitbit (or similar device), you can give the data to whoever you want. There is nothing stopping you. So your rights are unaffected.
As the GP said, this is about preventing companies from coercing employees into intrusive monitoring; especially outside working hours. And BTW, in Europe the national Privacy (or Data Protection) Authorities are established by (and accountable to) the elected governments to enforce the privacy legislation enacted by the government.
Take a similar scenario. Some car insurance companies offer drivers a discount if they agree to have a device fitted to their car which records everywhere they go, when they go, and how they are driving. Drivers are free to voluntarily accept such a device if they choose. But the companies cannot penalise drivers like me who prefer to forego the discount rather than submit to such intrusive monitoring.
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 06:13 · Score: 0

Did you read the title? "Dutch...."
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 06:27 · Score: 0

If business is too hard for you to run within the bounds of the law, sounds like entrepreneurship isn't your field.
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 06:32 · Score: 0

(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
On the other hand "Yet another libertard screed" is a fine reason for a -1, Overrated. So here you go. Enjoy.
Re:Government intrusion by plover · 2016-03-08 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because there's precedent for "voluntary" activities not actually being voluntary. Many years ago, there was a very large US automobile maker who had a secret hidden step in the hiring process. They'd hand the prospective employee a form to fill out for taking a "voluntary" charitable deduction from your paycheck. It turned out that if he filled out a zero, he was shown the door because they didn't want to hire anyone who wasn't charitable.
So, apply that kind of mentality here. "Welcome to EvilCorp, here's your Fitbit. You should know that EvilCorp has a Fitbit challenge to see which company division can get the most steps, and I'm proud to say that our division always beats the accounting department because everyone in our department participates. Of course you don't want to let us down, do you?"
Now ask yourself: Is that employee voluntarily providing his health data?
What difference could that data possibly make to an employer? What if the HR department is told to control the costs of providing long term disability benefits, so they decide to put out a sliding scale: healthy employees pay $5/week, non-healthy employees pay $10/week. And they assign your "healthy" status based on whether or not you get 10,000 steps a day, and whether or not you use tobacco. How much of that is voluntary? How much of that should be permitted?

--
John
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 07:45 · Score: 1

And to think that nobody would have figured that out if government wasn't pressured into limiting the length of the legal work day. Our lives use to be as much "all work, no pay" as it was in China long ago prior to the government stepping in.
ie: In reality, employers will work you to the bone then replace you if they could. It's cheaper than keeping you around for 30-40 years and giving you raises.
Consider some of the big industrial projects starting off in North America lately tend to adopt a fly-in-fly-out setup. Fly you in (generally as a temporary contractor) for 4-6 weeks in, 2-3 weeks out. During those weeks in you're worked to the bone 12+ hours a day and live in company lodging. If you can't recover in those weeks off, you'll eventually get worn out. At which point your contract is just not renewed, no questions asked.
There are some operations that have been around longer and had a fully unionized workplace with a town springing up around it... that are now desperately trying to change into the above model... with fairly damaging results for the town.
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 08:04 · Score: 0

Let me guess, you're a libertarian aren't you?
I'm guessing that because you're an ignorant fuck who can't even be bothered to read the summary.

Privacy Authority it is impossible to truly give 'free consent' when there is a 'financial dependency.'
Do you not fucking get it?
Do you not fucking understand that money is power, coercive force, and thus economic violence?
No of course you don't because you did not think things through.
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 11:55 · Score: 0

The government has terminated my right based on a hypothetical.
No, the Dutch government has restricted what companies can do. You're still free to e-mail spreadsheets of your fitbit data to whomever within your company it might concern, or drop a stack of dead-tree data on some poor secretary's desk every Monday morning. No new government restriction has been put on you whatsoever. Of course, after this ruling, the company will ignore your fitbit data.
- T
Re:Government intrusion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 13:09 · Score: 0

You mean like the military.

finally some sanity! by Gravis+Zero · 2016-03-08 04:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

why has it taken governments so long to realize that if someone you works for asks for something, saying "no" can hurt you and therefore it should be illegal to ask for an employee to do anything that is not directly job related. that bullshit with disney asking for "donations" is a perfect example. i wish our regulatory agencies would do something about this kind of bullshit.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

Re:finally some sanity! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

If by virtue of your employment (job), an employer is required to provide for your healthcare expenses, then they are asking you for something that is job-related if they ask for fitness data.
I happen to think this is a good argument for not requiring employers to provide for your healthcare expenses.
Re:finally some sanity! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:38 · Score: 5, Informative

If by virtue of your employment (job), an employer is required to provide for your healthcare expenses, then they are asking you for something that is job-related if they ask for fitness data.
I happen to think this is a good argument for not requiring employers to provide for your healthcare expenses.
Exactly. Fortunately, in the Netherlands your boss has nothing* to do with your health insurance. I've always found the American system completely insane, having friends lose insurance simply because they are fired. You don't want your boss to provide you with housing or holidays, why would s/he have anything to do with your health insurance? That only causes trouble like Christian employers not wanting to cover contraception/abortion and things like this where your sleeping or eating habits suddenly because a rightful concern of your employer
*) they can offer collectively bargain insurance, which can have slightly lower premiums, but it's usually something like 10 euro per month max. Also, they have some liability for you if you call in sick, which is justified on the grounds that sick leave is very often work related (stress, accidents)
Re:finally some sanity! by hey! · 2016-03-08 04:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

It hasn't taken governments so long; there are other governments who do have stronger privacy protections (e.g., the Netherlands). It's American voters who are the problem.
American voters have all been taught about the American Revolution in a special, narrow way that primes us to conceive of tyranny as something that comes exclusively from governments. We've forgotten about the tyranny that come from allowing an aristocracy to exercise overwhelming power. That's what government was in most places in the world prior to the 1700s: minorities of powerful individuals who advanced their mutual interests by imposing their collective will on the majority and calling it government by traditional or god-given right.
The single most important event in the history of Western liberty was the Black Death. A medieval peasant couldn't take his labor elsewhere if he was unsatisfied with conditions on the manor; the landlords were effectively an agricultural cartel. But with nearly the entire work force exterminated by plague in many areas, labor prices rose. It became feasible for a peasant to take his labor elsewhere to sell -- if he wasn't caught and forced back onto the manor. The Black Death was the first crack in the aristocratic monopsony hold upon the labor market. That's why serfdom was enforced by law (which the aristocrats made) in so many places, and why attempts to re-create aristocracy relied upon the slave trade (the US South) or the legal and economic subjugation of new groups of people (colonialism).

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:finally some sanity! by Moof123 · 2016-03-08 04:39 · Score: 1

Maybe companies should be lobbying for single payer healthcare instead of H1B's?
I find all this wellness crap to be very awkward on both sides, and usually in bad faith. The penalties for not meeting BMI (well debunked), cholesterol (often genetically driven), and so on are far worse than what the company actually invests to improve health. A once a year 2.5k fun run/walk is a joke, and usually an insult to the workers who are working long hours and catch flack for taking an hour off for even a company sponsored even.
Re:finally some sanity! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:42 · Score: 0

Insurers aren't billing employers on individual policies, so Jan in accountings fat ass has nothing to do with the employer insurance costs.
Re:finally some sanity! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:45 · Score: 1

Not an issue here in the Netherlands.
Everybody has to have their own private health insurance (and it is a crime not to, it is also a crime for insurers to refuse insurance). Your employer can contribute to that, but the contract is between you and the health insurer, not between your boss and the insurer.
Re:finally some sanity! by Locke2005 · 2016-03-08 05:01 · Score: 1

You don't necessarily lose insurance when you're fired, the COBRA law says you can keep your company insurance for as long as you keep paying for it yourself after you're terminated. I have had a different problem: every time I change jobs, the new health insurance takes at least a month to take effect; apparently they expect you to pay for your own insurance for the first month. And then there was the company that started charging me $300 for health insurance, but never gave me my health insurance card, so I couldn't actually use the health insurance I was paying for...

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:finally some sanity! by epyT-R · 2016-03-08 05:02 · Score: 0

Yes, but we are Building Socialism, comrade. The People demanded that their health be cared for by their employers. Therefore it is acceptable for them to track employee health.
Re:finally some sanity! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-03-08 05:05 · Score: 0

If this in turn implies you are not permitted, by the government, to say yes, then that is a far graver problem.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:finally some sanity! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2016-03-08 05:20 · Score: 1

why has it taken governments so long to realize that if someone you works for asks for something, saying "no" can hurt you and therefore it should be illegal to ask for an employee to do anything that is not directly job related.
I am concerned, that the females who work in my company are not performing necessary washing hygiene on their breasts. Therefore, every female employee will be required to install a webcam in their shower. And lather up appropriately.
A female executive issued a memo that all males will also have to install webcams in their showers, and have a wank every morning. These videos will be reviewed by her and her giggling girlfriends while they comment, "(giggle) . . . I couldn't even pick my teeth with that toothpick! (giggle)" . . .

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:finally some sanity! by asylumx · 2016-03-08 05:26 · Score: 1

Um, this article is specifically about the government in the Netherlands and how they finally decided to protect their constituents' privacy in this way, so you are very clearly wrong when you say:

It hasn't taken governments so long; there are other governments who do have stronger privacy protections (e.g., the Netherlands). It's American voters who are the problem.

It literally *has* taken the Netherlands government this long to do this. The article isn't even about America, and neither is the comment you replied to (at least not stated).
Re:finally some sanity! by alvinrod · 2016-03-08 05:31 · Score: 1

Just out of curiosity, do you believe the same should be applied to unions as well? There are plenty of jobs where union membership is mandatory.

What you're suggesting would have a rather large effect on a lot of unions and they way the currently operate.
Re:finally some sanity! by Overzeetop · 2016-03-08 05:31 · Score: 1

This is why any benefit other than salary should be forbidden. Put it on the table, make it transparent, eliminate the lock-in, put some options back on the table for tens of millions of workers.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:finally some sanity! by hey! · 2016-03-08 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

*has* taken the Netherlands government this long to do this. The article isn't even about America, and neither is the comment you replied to (at least not stated).
The Dutch court ruled according to Dutch and EU law. They didn't make up new law, just ruled on how pre-existing law applied. There is no corresponding framework in the US law, other than the "Bill of Rights Penumbra" logic used in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down anti-birth control laws. However that is a much weaker privacy framework in that it does not apply to private entities like employers, only to US and state government intrusions on individual liberties.
So yes, I have thought about this, particularly from an American perspective as I am an American. I realize not all readers of this site are Americans, but many are.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:finally some sanity! by swb · 2016-03-08 05:45 · Score: 1

Employers are constantly one the lookout for tools that they can use to coerce employees into doing what they want.
"Being healthy" has in many ways become a secular religion and fitness trackers tie into both the instant gratification impulse of validating "healthy" behavior as well as the on-trend desire to display the latest gadgets. Displaying your good taste in cutting edge technology *and* your adherence to the fitness/health dogma seems almost identical to a religious person prominently wearing a crucifix -- your good taste in jewelry AND your piety gets displayed at the same time.
It's almost evil genius for corporations to co-opt this. They gain the potential (however dubious it may prove to be) of reduced healthcare costs while all the while leveraging all the social power associated with fitness trackers. It wouldn't surprise me if we find out at some point that they're able to exploit location tracking from them as well, allowing employers to use location criteria to exploit personal details they might not otherwise be able to (eg, employee shows up at gay bars frequently).
And employers then gain a socially desirable coercive tool, able to ratchet up "goals" with reverse incentives tied to them that increase company profit -- ie, if you're not able to "meet the new fitness quota" you pay more for health insurance (or the company pays less).
Re:finally some sanity! by DNS-and-BIND · 2016-03-08 05:52 · Score: 0

What the fuck...you just toss the Black Death out there like it was nothing...imagine ebola, happening to everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone in the world, forever. It kills more people than communism, but that's OK because the shattered, grieving survivors - the ones that are going to be killed in a few years when ebola makes a comeback - got moderately better labor conditions afterwards? Do you even hear yourself when you say these monstrous things?

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:finally some sanity! by mlw4428 · 2016-03-08 05:55 · Score: 2

COBRA is prohibitively expensive for the majority of people it would apply to. There's no real good argument against Single Payer other than "it would hurt precious insurance companies." I wouldn't feel uncomfortable in a Japanese, British, Nordic, French, or German hospital. Arguably their care is about the same as the care that 99% of us get at a hospital. Where 'MURICA shines is the few who can afford to pay far beyond what insurance pays and bring in the absolute best...but that's not 99% of us.
Re:finally some sanity! by hey! · 2016-03-08 06:11 · Score: 1

I didn't say it was nothing; I'm saying it was a big deal -- so big it began the transformation society. Or are you saying that the Black Death changed nothing because it was a catastrophe?
I can give another example of a catastrophe that is commonly held up as a textbook example of a good thing: the enclosure movement. Yes, it's good for us that the enclosure movement happened, but it was a catastrophe for most people at the time. It was an expropriation of economic interests held by the majority of people in the land for the benefit of the aristocracy that controlled parliament. The forcible expropriation of something valuable with neither consent or compensation would be regarded by most reasonable people as theft.
The whole point of universal suffrage is to prevent catastrophe being foisted on people who don't have a say in government. You could still have an enclosure movement if the people being kicked off the commons had a say, but you'd have to offer them compensation -- say by turning the manor into a corporation and giving them preferred stock shares.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:finally some sanity! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 06:21 · Score: 0

If by virtue of your employment (job), an employer is required to provide for your healthcare expenses, then they are asking you for something that is job-related if they ask for fitness data.
By that reasoning, your personal finances are also a job-related matter. After all, if you're not spending wisely or have too many expenses, you might cost the company more money by asking for a raise or leaving for a higher-paying job! Better give us your bank statements so we can help you make sound financial decisions...
Re:finally some sanity! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 06:22 · Score: 0

And then there was the company that started charging me $300 for health insurance, but never gave me my health insurance card, so I couldn't actually use the health insurance I was paying for...
Please keep in mind that most of the time the card is mailed to you from the insurance company, not your employer. Sounds like you didn't try hard enough to follow up on why you didn't get the card in time.
Re:finally some sanity! by tnk1 · 2016-03-08 06:43 · Score: 1

I don't think most people oppose single payer by suggesting that health care will get worse. Although if you look at the VA hospital system, I'm not really enthusiastic about how the government runs health care in the US on even a more limited level.
Ultimately, its about where you want to see your country going. I can't argue that health insurance in the US leaves something to be desired, but does that mean that government single payer health care is the only other option? I understand why it is the *default* answer, but if you look at most of the countries on that list, they're at most the size of a large US state. Some of them are very culturally homogeneous. And some of them have actually had problems with their systems. You can't take Denmark, for instance, and suggest it's policies are a model for the United States just because they are successful, to some degree, for their own specific situation.
I really have little interest in the government becoming involved in my choices and eventually that's what it is doing more and more.
All I can say is, if we did go down that path, I hope someone came up with the best plan possible, because it will literally require an armed revolution to seriously reform a health care system like this once it is in place. Just look at what kind of failure that Social Security is. Yet, no one dares restructure it because it is untouchable. I am very uncomfortable with the government controlling more and more untouchable programs.
Re:finally some sanity! by tnk1 · 2016-03-08 06:46 · Score: 1

I've never seen a company with penalties for failing to make BMI or any other measurement. The HR department usually runs a wellness initiative, and the insurance companies push that because healthier people cost them less money, but I have never felt overly pressured to do anything like that.
Now, if this Dutch company was forcing compliance and holding that information and using it. That's a big no-no. I'd never tolerate that in a place I worked. I would quite literally tell them to go fuck themselves.
Re:finally some sanity! by Gravis+Zero · 2016-03-08 06:47 · Score: 1

it seems unreasonable to have a job requirement unrelated to the job itself. i realize that unions only exist because of rampant abuses by employers but a hard requirement on membership to a particular union opens the door for abuse of the members of said union. making requiring union membership illegal seems fair despite weakening the grip that unions have on employers.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Re:finally some sanity! by tnk1 · 2016-03-08 06:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

In the US, we were taught pretty comprehensively about the dangers of aristocracy as well.
The problem is that in the US, we have trouble sometimes telling what aristocracy looks like because we shortsightedly removed all noble titles. That removed the show-off aspect of nobility but made it harder to find the real aristocrats like your Bushes, Kennedys, Clintons, and etc. It might be a little easier to understand the country and where it was going if we'd been looking to elect Prince George II of the House of Bush or Baroness Hillary Clinton of Harlem.
Re:finally some sanity! by hey! · 2016-03-08 07:19 · Score: 1

Historians would disagree with you. But what would they know? They're probably, as you say, "Dumericans."

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:finally some sanity! by bkr1_2k · 2016-03-08 07:26 · Score: 1

You've picked some seriously shitty companies to work for. I've never had to wait longer than a week to receive my insurance cards and all insurance was active the day I started, with or without an insurance card.

--
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Re:finally some sanity! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 07:29 · Score: 0

Overpopulation brings tyranny. If you want freedom start working on a bioweapon to eliminate about 6.5 billion of us. It could also be quite good for the environment.
Re:finally some sanity! by kheldan · 2016-03-08 07:41 · Score: 1

Pretty much any government, left unchecked for long enough, will treat it's citizens like farm animals, or like criminals in prison: Monitored 24/7/365, with no rights whatsoever, and treated like a numbered resource, not a living, sentient being.

Of course citizenry, left unchecked for too long, will turn 'personal freedom' into utter chaos, with no laws to speak of, and everything falling apart around them. Ironically enough both sides have to battle with each other constantly in order for there to be any sort of healthy balance. Over long periods of time it all averages out, but in the short term the needle swings back and forth, which we see a prime example of here.

I think the only way to avoid this phenomenon is to ensure that there are never more than three people in the same place at any given time.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Re:finally some sanity! by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 07:49 · Score: 1

The problem is that in the US, we have trouble sometimes telling what aristocracy looks like because we shortsightedly removed all noble titles.
The Wall Street Journal ran an article a few years ago that the affluent ($100M+) were pissed off that the merely affluent ($10M+) looked exactly like them in terms of conspicuous consumption.
Re:finally some sanity! by thegarbz · 2016-03-08 08:51 · Score: 1

therefore it should be illegal to ask for an employee to do anything that is not directly job related
Because the idea of single source compensation died when contract law was created. If I wish to offer a company something more than basic rights to get something else in return, why should it be up to the government to stop it?
Protect by forming a base minimum requirement, nothing more. These employees gave up information voluntarily in exchange for something. I don't understand why you think that needs protecting beyond ensuring that they have a) a base salary and b) no claims of unfair dismissal.
Re:finally some sanity! by KGIII · 2016-03-08 12:38 · Score: 1

Hmm... I'm not sure how to approach this one? See, I'm a big fan of freedom.
I used to own my own company and sometimes I brought in things like a financial advisor and had work-groups for us/them. At the end of one, I wanted everyone to be able to *reasonably* put 20% of their salary into retirement. Preferably more.
One employee said that he was unable to do so, this was after work while we were getting a few beers together. We talked about it and he had a large family. I knew this but he was already making more than many others. I also knew that he was still fairly frugal. The key was 'reasonable.' I asked him what his finances looked like and he brought in a copy of his records, trimmed down a bit, to show me an example monthly budget. Using that budget, and having been invited to do so, I thought about the things that I'd consider reasonable.
He was paying a reasonable mortgage, paying it off quick. He was not paying for a brand new car. He was putting aside money for his kid's education. He was paying for his kids to get a reasonably good education. He was participating in a few healthy activities and was the sole financial supporter of the family (they had four or five children at the time). His grocery budget indicated that they weren't buying luxury items and things like that. The list goes on.
I determined that he could not reasonably put 20% away while maintaining his lifestyle. I gave him a raise to be able to meet that goal. He did not have to provide that documentation and it would not have affected his employment one bit. In fact, he could have walked and been paid less at a competitor as they were starting to spring up. I was already paying well above the average rates for similar jobs but I'd rather retain talent than replace it - it's just good financial and morale sense. If I were not prepared to give him an increase in salary, I'd have not been willing to even see the documents.
I did make it so that it was an earned raise. He was given a bit more responsibility than he had before and was able to earn the increased salary. We were both satisfied. It's things like this that make me leery of making things strictly illegal. I don't recall the exact figures but this was in the late 1990s and his pay rate would have been greater than 120/year, prior to the raise. It's not like I was stiffing the guy and it's not like he was asking for an unreasonable standard of living. Using the information available, and freely shared, I was able to retain him and keep it so that his wife would not have to enter the work-force while still being able to put a goodly sum of money away for retirement.
I'm not sure that I'd want to outlaw the free-flow of data between two willing parties though I can certainly see where it's open for abuse. That and, well... If he hadn't given me the data then I'd have just asked his wife for it. ;-) (He'd have gotten the raise, pretty much regardless. I was not fond of losing talent. That's why I hired them in the first place.)

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:finally some sanity! by Gryle · 2016-03-08 22:18 · Score: 1

I'm interested in reading that. Can you provide a link to the article? My google-fu is failing me today.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Re:finally some sanity! by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-09 04:12 · Score: 1

I think it might be this link. I don't have my WSJ login at work to verify.
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/09/03/wealth-adviser-serving-the-merely-affluent/
Here's an alternative story in the NY Times that defines the merely affluent as between $114,000 and $394,000, and the affluent as greater than $394,000.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/the-21st-century-silver-spoon/
Re:finally some sanity! by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2016-03-10 01:48 · Score: 1

Sure, Denmark (or my own Sweden for that matter) is perhaps a stretch. We're after all very much smaller and somewhat homogeneous (well, we were).
But Brittain is 60+ million, Germany is 80 million, and France is almost 70 million. These are not homogeneous countries, and not small by any stretch of the imagination. Their health care systems work reasonably well by all accounts, esp. the German and French, with the French being top-notch. (The NHS does have its problems though). Now, of course the French spend quite a lot on their system, but at least they're getting their moneys worth. You spend even more than the French and you're way down there...

--
Stefan Axelsson

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:14 · Score: 0

I hope you die of cancer.

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 04:14 · Score: 1

Your so-called freedom to choose doesn't make much sense when you cause problems for everyone around you.

Are you talking about the fat person who eats less because they are on a diet or the skinny person who eats too much from a super-size menu?

Google Translate by halivar · 2016-03-08 04:16 · Score: 4, Funny

At least the Google Translate of the article was more readable than most Slashdot summaries...

Free consent when dependent by Notorious+G · 2016-03-08 04:16 · Score: 0

... according to the Privacy Authority it is impossible to truly give 'free consent' when there is a 'financial dependency.'

Think about that next time Bernie or other socialist/big government types try to give you something for "free" or suddenly discover a new "right" that they will provide for you.

Re:Free consent when dependent by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 04:20 · Score: 0

Think about that next time Trump or other corporatist/big government types try to give you something for "free" or suddenly discover a new "tax break" that they will provide for you.
FTFY
Re:Free consent when dependent by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:23 · Score: 0

But this is a prime example of that system working to protect employees. I don't see the CEO working on privacy rules.
Re:Free consent when dependent by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:33 · Score: 0

Which has what to do with anything? It's not government being invasive here. It's private companies. Government is what stops private companies from being abusive because your holy free market sure as hell doesn't.
Think about that the next time some free market worshipping right winger tries to sell you on the concept of "small government".
Re: Free consent when dependent by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:35 · Score: 0

Or think about housewifes that don't work and are dependant on the husband. They can't consent.
Re:Free consent when dependent by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:58 · Score: 0

Single out Trump. The reality is it's ALL of them who are in the pockets of the corporations. EVEN pinko Bernie. Haven't you noticed yet?
Re: Free consent when dependent by Dunbal · 2016-03-08 05:02 · Score: 1

They consent. That's what marriage is all about. And that's why there usually are "penalties" when a marriage ends. You can't consent to being raped or murdered or beaten, but marriage is (unless other arrangements are specifically made) a sharing of all matters financial. Try getting out of that loan your husband defaulted on when the bill collectors come around by saying "but that was him not me!".

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Why not by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:19 · Score: 1

Shouldn't a company have all of the data on their slaves that they can get?

Re:Why not by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:36 · Score: 0

They're still called "employees". It'll be a few more years until they are slaves. At least in those countries lacking any sort of employee rights.

Would this logic ever fly in the US? by swb · 2016-03-08 04:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

A small consulting company I worked for asked me after about two years to sign a non-compete agreement. I talked to an employment attorney who reviewed the agreement. He said it was a generic boilerplate with no obvious negatives, but then he asked me what I was given in consideration for signing the agreement -- raise, new title, any material benefits?

I said no, should I ask for any? He said no, that might cause problems -- your best bet is to just sign it, but knowing that its not enforceable, as signing a non-compete when you already are employed without being given consideration has generally rendered non-compete agreements unenforceable in our state under the assumption that the relationship is coercive.

I'm wondering if the coercive nature of employment could be used to block fitness tracker use in the US under a similar kind of logic.

I think the entire concept is bogus. What I do away from work is my own business, and if that includes sitting like statue for the 16 hours I'm off work, so be it. I also think there's good reason to question what and how much exercise is ultimately beneficial. I'd also think companies would want to be cautious about implying penalties or career limitations from not meeting arbitrary fitness goals -- those in the worst physical shape may be coerced into levels of activity that are unhealthy for them, believing if they don't post numbers that meet some arbitrary employer standards they could lose their jobs, benefits or compensation.

Ultimately I view these fitness trackers as a kind of confessional for the fitness religion, either affirming one's adherence to fitness dogma or one's place as a fitness heretic.

Re:Would this logic ever fly in the US? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 05:16 · Score: 1

A small consulting company I worked for asked me after about two years to sign a non-compete agreement.
I had an employer who used to threaten me with the contract I signed. One day I told them to stop threatening me because the contract was unenforceable in CA. Their NY attorney reassured that it was enforceable in CA. After I insisted that they review it with a CA labor attorney, they discovered that the contract was unenforceable and I should have been threatening them with a lawsuit.
Re:Would this logic ever fly in the US? by swb · 2016-03-08 06:15 · Score: 1

I just ended up signing it with the notion that it was unenforceable.
My sense is that cost and complexity of bringing a breach of contract suit makes it unlikely they would bother unless I "stole" one of the major accounts (which I never worked on).
For run of the mill "violations" like going to work for another consultancy without treading on any of their existing accounts, I don't think they would bother. If I even thought there would be a hassle, I wouldn't tell them where I'm working (or tell them that I didn't even have a job lined up) and just the effort and cost of figuring that out would make them lose interest -- actually hiring an attorney to put together a lawsuit would make it unlikely to happen.
Re:Would this logic ever fly in the US? by Krishnoid · 2016-03-08 06:27 · Score: 1

Would it have been enforceable in NY?
Re:Would this logic ever fly in the US? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 06:35 · Score: 1

The company was in NY and had a NY labor attorney. I was a contract worker in CA and CA labor laws applied to me. If I sued them, it would be from a CA court. I'm presuming that they would have to sue me in a CA court and not a NY court.
Re:Would this logic ever fly in the US? by thegarbz · 2016-03-08 08:55 · Score: 1

I'm wondering if the coercive nature of employment could be used to block fitness tracker use in the US under a similar kind of logic.
Given what I've seen of US employer use of fitness trackers amounts to: "Here's your base salary without fitness tracker, and here's your same base salary but with a discount on health insurance with a fitness tracker" I see no reason why anyone would block it. I've yet to come across someone who's forced to wear one, and even those people who wear them in return for some benefits generally game the system when they want to.
Re:Would this logic ever fly in the US? by swb · 2016-03-08 09:35 · Score: 1

I would expect gadgets on Amazon any day that you can attach the tracker to that simulate various types of movement to fool the tracker -- long walks, intensive exercise sessions, etc.
Re:Would this logic ever fly in the US? by thegarbz · 2016-03-09 03:17 · Score: 1

No need. If you have a dog, the number of steps increases linearly with the size of a dog. Strap it to the dog collar on a German Shepard you get 2-3x the number of steps. Strap it to a poodle when going for a walk and it's more like 4-5x.
If you don't feel like walking the dog, these things are water proof. Sending them "accidentally" through the wash. That gives you a good 3000 steps, 5000 if you have a drying cycle at the end.
Also it's wise to put the fitbit on your dominant arm. Suddenly eating an entire bag of M&Ms has the health benefits of walking 100 steps, rather than eating 100 chocolates.
Can you tell I work for a company that does this?

About time someone admits it... by shaitand · 2016-03-08 04:34 · Score: 1

"However, according to the Privacy Authority it is impossible to truly give 'free consent' when there is a 'financial dependency.'"

This is true in the US as well. It should be impossible to lose your rights regardless of what you agree to as a condition of employment.

Re:About time someone admits it... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:50 · Score: 0

When money in involved, all contracts are void because the party receiving payment cannot consent. Bravo.
Re:About time someone admits it... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:53 · Score: 0

When money in involved, all contracts are void because the party receiving payment cannot consent. Bravo.
Sound like something a feminist would have come up with.
Re:About time someone admits it... by shaitand · 2016-03-08 05:42 · Score: 1

Terms of employment are not the same as contracts on other matters. Treating them as if they were the same in most respects is a bug in the legal code.
Re:About time someone admits it... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 08:07 · Score: 0

"However, according to the Privacy Authority it is impossible to truly give 'free consent' when there is a 'financial dependency.'"
This is true in the US as well. It should be impossible to lose your rights regardless of what you agree to as a condition of employment.
Nope.
In some states, you can be asked to sign a background check, after you have been employed for a length of time even, and if your do not you can be fired for insubordination. IANAL, but I did call a lawyer, one that I was paying at the time, about that specific issue and that's the answer I got.
Re:About time someone admits it... by shaitand · 2016-03-08 08:41 · Score: 1

I said should be, I'm well aware that isn't how it is interpreted in the US. If it were there are plenty of common business practices imposed on employees that would go away.
Re:About time someone admits it... by ZorroXXX · 2016-03-09 01:03 · Score: 0

Sound like something a feminist would have come up with.
Sound like something someone that have no valid arguments and resorts to ad hominem would have come up with.

--
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").

Mod up by shaitand · 2016-03-08 04:35 · Score: 1

If I hadn't already commented on this story I would.

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:38 · Score: 0

Don't have a super sized menu. Problem solved!

Seriously, no one needs a 3000 calorie meal. Just put the breaks on a bit.

insurance is the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:45 · Score: 0

they are just trying to lower their insurance premiums, my company in the US does tons of stuff link this to help them negotiate - they can get better rates if they can backup claims of employee health or provide more data

Re:insurance is the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:58 · Score: 0

The Netherlands doesn't have a system like that, ours is semi-private and your premiums are not related to your health-status (that would be discrimination, which is also not allowed here BY LAW)

Why bother? by Locke2005 · 2016-03-08 04:47 · Score: 1

They could just do what I do: attach my fitbit to the dog and let the dog run around in the back yard all day. Here's your frickin' exercise data, suckers!

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

Data Gaps by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:47 · Score: 1

Boss: Why are there gaps in your fitness tracking data on Thursday evenings
Intern: I took the tracker off as I wanted some privacy
Boss: But we need that data for our analysis. My wife always does the same thing, she has data gaps all over the place whenever she goes out.
Intern: (looks at the ceiling trying desperately not to make eye contact)

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 04:49 · Score: 1

Don't have a super sized menu.

Have you been in a restaurant in recent years? Everything is big. I order the smallest menu item, eat one-third at the restaurant and the other two-thirds over the next several days at home.

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:50 · Score: 0

Show me on the doll where the fat person touched you.

Seriously what business is it of yours what anyone does with their life? As if YOU were a paragon of virtue. If fat people bother you so much I suggest that maybe you also have a problem.

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by epyT-R · 2016-03-08 04:50 · Score: 1

Typical shaming socialist. You sound as bad as christians crying about sex on tv.

Re:'Fitness tracker' indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 04:55 · Score: 0

you're an A$$hole we get it...

lay off the steroids, you're raging.

we used to have unions to fight BS like this and by Joe_Dragon · 2016-03-08 05:03 · Score: 1

we used to have unions to fight BS like this and then the work place got there GOP friends to kill them.

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 05:06 · Score: 0

>Seriously, no one needs a 3000 calorie meal. Just put the breaks on a bit.

Since you need about 2000000 calories per day meals tend to contain significantly more than 3000 calories.

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by Dunbal · 2016-03-08 05:14 · Score: 1

Just because they put it on your plate doesn't mean you have to eat it.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

job discrimination health is not ok in the usa by Joe_Dragon · 2016-03-08 05:27 · Score: 1

job discrimination based on your health is not ok in the usa

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 05:30 · Score: 1

Just because they put it on your plate doesn't mean you have to eat it.

I very rarely eat out at restaurants because the portions for their smallest plates are too still large for me to eat in one sitting.

Technically a violation of Canadian Constitution by WillAffleckUW · 2016-03-08 06:22 · Score: 1

Canadian Citizens have rights afforded by the Constitution which can not be signed away, no matter how deep you buried it, and privacy is one of those rights.

Trust me on this.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:'Fitness tracker' indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 06:25 · Score: 0

First part of your post was OK, maybe even good. Second part horrible inspiring a single reaction: fuck off you lying twat!

Re:'Fitness tracker' indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 06:27 · Score: 0

Nobody believed those sad little boasts. We all immediately saw you for the insecure, lonely little tub of lard that you are and always will be.

Sorry, but no cigar by golodh · 2016-03-08 06:30 · Score: 1

@asylumx

The fitbit has been on the market for how long now? Two years?

Before the fitbit there was simply no convenient, off-the-shelf and affordable way to collect people's body operating characteristics.That emerged with fitbit.

Then it will have taken awhile for knowledge of this technology to spread as far as those employers. They will have taken some time to hit on the idea, and set up a programme to start keeping tabs on their workers in this way. How long will that have taken? Half a year from the launch of fitbit?

Then it will have taken whatever governmental department we're talking about here some time to take notice in the first place (I'm guessing they only noticed because someone complained), assign it a priority, set up a team, officially figure out what was actually going on, and formulate a Governmental Position on the subject.

So if this governmental department issued a ruling now, it can't have taken them more than about 1.5 - 2 years to go from complaint to ruling. Not all that slow, as governments go, right?

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 07:04 · Score: 0

Keep making excuses for your life of excess. The blame falls squarely on your shoulders, brother. You walk through the door, you sit at the table and you place an order. And I don't know what place you're going to but what I consider a normal meal at the restaurants I go to never tip the 1500 calorie level. If you're living on 1500 calories for "several days" then you should be razor thin.

Re: Why can't people just do what's right? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 07:13 · Score: 1

I think you are choosing NOT to consume the whole meal because of your weight.

That's correct.

Don't try to lie and say that it fills you up fast.

Which I didn't.

Because if you are 350+ pounds, I highly doubt you get full from a meal at a restaurant.

I feel full 20 minutes after I finish a small meal. Most people overeat because they're waiting to feel full and often end up feeling bloated instead. You're making the assumption that because I'm overweight that I must be a glutton.

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 07:31 · Score: 1

Keep making excuses for your life of excess. The blame falls squarely on your shoulders, brother.

I'm on a low-carb diet and I go to the gym. I'm doing more than what many of my skinny friends are doing. What more would you have me do?

If you're living on 1500 calories for "several days" then you should be razor thin.

No, thanks. I want to keep my muscle mass, which makes toning down a bitch.

Re:'Fitness tracker' indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 07:33 · Score: 0

Wow, it's just amazing and amusing how much jealous fat pieces of butthurt SHIT you guys are. I'm not a fatass like you fuckers are and you just can't stand it can you? Not my fault you have no personal discipline and can't get the goddamned fork out of your mouths, and the FACT that I COULD AND DID just burns you, burns you right down to the ground, doesn't it? YOU are the liars; you're crying tears of regret, failure, and utter contempt -- contempt for your worthless, fat, weak, sickly selves -- and for ME, because I'm grinding you into the ground with my oh-so-fit, strong, healthy heel, and loving every minute of it! Thanks America, for allowing my First Amendment rights to include anonymously commenting to fat fucks on the Internet, so I can shamelessly gloat about my successes, it's SO awesome.

..oh, you don't like this? You aren't having any fun now, fatties? You're HATING on me, because that's all you can do? TOUGH SHIT. You want revenge on me and people like me? Take my advice: The best revenge is living well! Get the fork out of your fat mouths, get your fat ass into the gym. Then you'll be able to shame some other weak fatasses out of their deep, deep denial, and into an actual healthy weight.

Now you guys can fuck off until you don't jiggle when you walk anymore. You disgust me.

Re: Why can't people just do what's right? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 08:05 · Score: 0

Fatty tissue not only requires calories to acquire, it requires calories to maintain. A 350lb person on a 2000 calorie a day diet will lose weight, no exceptions. Calorie requirements to maintain weight go up the more you weigh. The laws of conservation of matter and energy say that you cannot be pulling those extra calories out of the aether. They're coming from somewhere, porky. Either you are eating the wrong foods with too high a calorie content, or you are eating too much food. And don't give me the "glands" bullshit the only glandular problem fatties have are with overuse of the salivary glands. Not everyone is hypothyroid - and if you are then why did you stop taking your levothyroxine?

Re:'Fitness tracker' indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 08:23 · Score: 0

You were crying through your third Big Mac when you typed that, and you're crying through your sixth as you read this.

Re: Why can't people just do what's right? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 08:25 · Score: 1

A 350lb person on a 2000 calorie a day diet will lose weight, no exceptions.

The last time I ate 2,000+ calories per day was when I did weight training, going from 325 pounds to 400 pounds. I fell back to 350 pounds after I stopped weight training and went on a 150 grams low-carb diet four years ago. My calorie intake is probably less than 1,500 calorie per day these days.

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by Dunbal · 2016-03-08 08:29 · Score: 1

Everyone knows that dietary calories are in fact kilocalories. EXCEPT YOU APPARENTLY. Smartass.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 08:37 · Score: 0

You have a lot to learn about diet apparently. Unless you're a world class bodybuilder you probably can do without all the food. It's damn near impossible to go protein deficient if you're taking in a normal amount of calories in a day. Exercise will prevents muscle loss, not gorging yourself on protein.

You've probably talked yourself into thinking you're doing more than you really are and are trying to compensate with calories. That's a dead end. You can't outrun your fork.

Re:Technically a violation of Canadian Constitutio by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 08:47 · Score: 0

Until someone changes the constitution. Like the incumbent's daddy did.

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 08:48 · Score: 1

Unless you're a world class bodybuilder you probably can do without all the food.

I've read a few books.

You can't outrun your fork.

The only time I ever outrun my fork when weight training pushed up from 325 pounds to 400 pounds on 2,000+ calories per day. I stopped weight training and settled down to 350 pounds because I had trouble finding 4XL shirts.

Re: Why can't people just do what's right? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 08:57 · Score: 0

150 grams of carbs isn't low carb at all. LOL!!!! What a stooge!

I'm starting to think you're a loon. The stuff you post just doesn't gel together in a reasonable fashion.

Re: Why can't people just do what's right? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 09:19 · Score: 1

150 grams of carbs isn't low carb at all.

An average American male eats 2,512 calories and 296 carbs per day. So I'm restricting myself to one-half the average.

http://livehealthy.chron.com/average-american-diet-calorie-intake-2960.html

The stuff you post just doesn't gel together in a reasonable fashion.

This is Slashdot. You must be new around here.

Obligatory ST:TNG reference by hackwrench · 2016-03-08 09:51 · Score: 1

mmm...nuralpeptide cake.

Re:Why can't people just do what's right? by KGIII · 2016-03-08 12:15 · Score: 1

Right there... *points at his penis*

Years ago, I passed out drunk and woke up with some fat chick blowing me. I did the only sensible thing, I let her finish. I passed out there a week later and damned if it didn't happen again! I was traumatized! Well, not really traumatized. I never did see her a third time and I'm not even able to remember her name, if I ever knew it. She could suck a dick.

But yes, I guess that counts as a fat person touching me sexually without permission. I was only in town for a short while so we've never stumbled into each other again. She had the body of a Greek god, in fact, several of them. At least a couple of Silenus (spelling? the fat one that was a follower of Dionysis). But man, she could puff a pee-pee. No, no I was not traumatized at all.

For those playing the home game, she's a friend of The Grape Ape's* sibling. Or at least was, buggered if I know what happened in the intervening years.

*: His nickname. We went home with him on leave. Good people and not to be mistaken for Boddie.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."

Re: Why can't people just do what's right? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-08 14:10 · Score: 0

And you're still fat. I don't get where you think you're doing something right when the results say different. You're a fucking retard.

Be all smug about your so called diet but you're failing. I have more respect for fat asses who admit that they're fat asses and don't give a damn.

Re: Why can't people just do what's right? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-03-08 16:50 · Score: 1

You're a fucking retard.

I can't deny that. I was misdiagnosed as being mentally retarded due to an undiagnosed hearing loss as a kid and spent eight years in special ed. I skipped high school and went straight four years at community college (two years for remedial courses, two years for major courses). A decade later I went back to community college to learn computer programming and made the college president's list for maintaining a 4.0 GPA in my classes.

Be all smug about your so called diet but you're failing.

I'm not one of those extremists who eat 27 grams of carbs per day. My diet works because it was the same diet my late father was given after he became diabetic and got out of the hospital. I was forced to go on it because he was living with me for two months. My mood swings leveled out after I lost 20 pounds. That was four years ago. This is a journey of ups, downs and plateaus.

I have more respect for fat asses who admit that they're fat asses and don't give a damn.

I don't. They're the ones who have given up. Then again, you probably feel comfortable around people who have given up.

Re: wall around Texas and Oklahoma by ChickPea · 2016-03-09 02:00 · Score: 1

If you manage to build a wall around Texas and Oklahoma, the obvious thing to do next would be to fill it with water.

Re:'Fitness tracker' indeed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-09 10:32 · Score: 0

Gee, what a total surprise, that anyone would use something intended to be worn 24/7/365, that connects wirelessly to 'The Cloud', to monitor people's lives and make assumptions about them? Some of us saw this immediately. Devices like 'Fitbit' aren't even very accurate to start with, and anything that uses 'The Cloud' is a bad idea to start with. Throw the damned things in the trash and never use anything like it again. If you can't be bothered to keep track of your own 'fitness' without using some hinky device on your wrist all the time then you must not really care about it anyway. What's next, people? You going to consent to having somethign surgically implanted in you? The stupidity of the average person astounds me.

Oh and before you jackasses chime in with your bullshit, let me launch my own pre-emptive strike: I'm documentally between 10 and 15% bodyfat, have a huge amount of muscle, race bikes on a semipro team, and am overall healthier and eat better than 99% of you, without ever falling for the 'Fitbit' troll or any other stupid alleged 'fitness tracker', so fuck the fuck off with your baseless insults. You suck, I don't, I win, you lose, end of story. Got a problem with that? Tell your therapist, I have no interest in your pointless bleatings. Be sure to enjoy using your points to put me down to negative one, that's the only power you have to affect anything here, losers.

You mad bro?

Slashdot Mirror

Dutch Companies Not Allowed To Fitness-Track Their Employees (www.nu.nl)

173 comments