Employers Monitoring Employee Weight Re-Do

Should Employers monitor the health of their employees through weight?  Would other statistics make better options?  Should employers be able to penalize the employees for not revealing their weight?  These are the questions that need to be asked, and answered.

Should employers monitor the health of their employees through weight?  I believe that the answer to this question is as simple as it possibly could be, NO.  The pictures at the bottom of the article demonstrate how different 2 men can be in body composition and health at the same weight.  Fat is a contributor of body weight, but it is not the only contributor, which makes this a reasonably unfair judgement.  Fat is one major contributor to body weight, while muscle mass is a close second, and then we can't forget about water retention, it may not sound like a big contributor but you'd be surprised.  Water retention can be responsible for anywhere from 5 to 35 pounds of weight added to your body.  Essentially this is up to 35 pounds that do not show any less health that anyone else.  Other statistics such a blood sugar levels, cholesterol, and body fat percentage would make much more sense in health terms.

I can see where the employers are coming from with their side of this argument as well though.  Ensuring the health of their employees is a crucial aspect to maintaining a solid workforce.  If employees are unhealthy and commonly becoming ill, therefore missing work, then the company begins to suffer.  It also becomes more expensive for the company to provide medical coverage to employees like this.  I see this side as very reasonable as well.  The health of employees can also affect their performance at work.  Heavier more out of shape employees may fatigue faster, and therefore be less productive.

I do understand both points of view in this argument, but the fact that employees should not be judged by their weight.  The most simplified of all of these reasons being that weight does not show anything about a person.  Many other statistics would be good to help show health, but weight is the least effective way to determine employee health.

 

REDO: Does gun ownership cause crime or deter it? Can you imagine a town where gun ownership is mandatory by law?

    What's so wrong with having possession of guns in the community? Polices and other law enforcements have it, so why can't we, citizens, have it in hand just in case the law enforcers that we rely on do not make it in time before the danger occurs. Guns have been known to the society for being unsafe, powerful, and somewhat scary. Many places not only around our area, but around the world has ban the fact that only authorities such as the police are able to have these weapons with them. Despite a majority has decide that it should not be amongst the people who live in the society. Some places such as Kennesaw, Georgia has placed a law where the society is able to wield a gun there. They believe that guns help the environment to be safe, but in my opinion I disagree and think that it causes crimes instead of preventing them from occurring.
     First of all, it can lead to tragic homicides. Examples may include children accidentally playing with the weapon and pulling the trigger or shooting the wrong person at times of danger. Despite the shooting may have been an accident, the person who owns the gun is at fault for having it in the first place. If the gun was never in the possession of a person in the first place, nothing would have happened.
     Gun ownership may show ferocity to other people like it did in Kennesaw, Georgia, where the safety of the area was ranked high in the United States, but I believe it may lead to more dangers. I also believe that it depends on the environment. In Kennesaw, Georgia, there are about 33,000 people living there. It is not a big community so there would not be more crimes being occurred. Think about New York City, where so many people live. I do not think it would be a good idea, if gun ownership passed as a law. Since there are more people, there has to be more bad guys in New York City. I believe that this will bring chaos to countries despite the law being accepted in only some parts of the country.
     Another problem that can occur from this is unfairness. The Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms protect us and make us equal amongst each other in the community. If one place was able to own guns and another place was not able to, it may bring discord of being unable to have the same equality rights. I believe that people will try to obtain these weapons which is breaking the law and may lead to unwanted crimes to occur.
     There was an article about having guns in schools to be kept for the safety of children. I strongly believe that it is necessary and will lead to accidents. It may develop curious feelings and wonder among the students which may drive the students to trying to obtain the weapon and to play with it.
     I cannot imagine a town where gun ownership is mandatory by law, but I have read news articles stating that there are some towns that have this law. Personally, I think it is in a positive affect because of the environment of the law being enforced. Kennesaw, Georgia relatively has 33,000 people living in the area that already has the law in place and there is a town with 140 people living in western Maine considering the law to be in place. Due to the small population of the community, crimes happen less compared to big cities since there are a lot of people. (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/are-big-cities-more-dangerous-small-ones) It is interesting that a law like this is forced in some areas, but I am not for it.

Right to Die

     The issue that is brought upon us today is whether or not assisted suicide should be legalized. The notion that individuals should have the “Right to Die” has been constantly debated in Parliament due to an increase of protesters against this movement. The arguments that Members of Parliament must deal with includes violations of rights, potential for criminal activities, religious aspects, as well as societal acceptances. 

     As specified in the Canadian Charter of Rights, it is clearly stated that it is embodied in the Constitution of Canada to protect its citizens. On this note, by prohibiting suicide, we are essentially protecting the emotional or psychological disturbed individuals and delivering them to safety. The Charter is not violated or restricted if one chooses to view the standpoint of protection. 

     By stabilizing the charter, we are also preventing other legal issues such as euthanasia and elderly abuse. If assisted suicide was to be legalized, senior deaths may increase in significant digits along with financial values. Since insurances can be manipulated from positive usages to corruption, seniors now face the risk of being pressured into suicidal states due to financial burden of being taken care of. 

     For these reason, the concept of suicide should not be legalized because it would run counter to basic societal values as well as religious values. In emphasis to what Udo Schuklenk once said, “Canadians should have the right to choose death within a regulated system, even if they have not been diagnosed with a terminal illness.” This quote suggests many levels of developing corruption as exemplified by taking advantage of human life for money; thus, a degradation to human morals.

     Therefore, this is a tough decision for humans to handle and must be kept as God’s decision for any deaths; hence, a natural death is the purest death and nobody in society can be blamed.

Does gun ownership cause crime or deter it? Can you imagine a town where gun ownership is mandatory by law?

   Gun ownership do cause crimes instead of preventing them from occurring. It can lead to homicides. Examples may be children accidentally playing with the weapon and pulling the trigger or shooting the wrong person at times of danger. Despite the shooting may have been an accident, the person who owns the gun is at fault for having it in the first place. If it was not in the possession of a person in the first place, nothing would have happened. Gun ownership may show fear like it did in Kennesaw, Georgia, where the safety of the area was ranked high in the United States, but gun ownership may lead of more dangers. There was an article about having guns in schools for the safety of children. I do not think it will lead to safety of students, but more of a curious wonder among the students that may lead to chaos like getting possession of it and using it dangerously for fun.
   I cannot imagine a town where gun ownership is mandatory by law, but I have read news articles stating that there are some towns that have this law. Personally, I think it is in a positive affect because of the environment of the law being enforced. Kennesaw, Georgia relatively has 33,000 people living in the area that already has the law in place and there is a town with 140 people living in western Maine considering the law to be in place. Due to the small population of the community, crimes happen less compared to big cities since there are a lot of people. (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/are-big-cities-more-dangerous-small-ones) It is interesting that a law like this is forced in some areas, but I am not for it.

Employer Monitoring Employee Weight?

This whole topic of whether or not an employer should be allowed to require health statistics from their employees is one that is very controversial, considering many factors can affect numeric health without making a person unhealthy at all.

I do not believe that a person should have to report their weight to their employer, because in my industry I know very well, that weight is only a number.  It means absolutely nothing.  For instance one person could weight 240 pounds at a height of 6 feet and have a good amount of muscle with a healthy 15 percent body  fat, while another could be 240 pounds at a height of 6 feet and be at 30 percent body fat and morbidly obese. (Pictures At End) This just goes to show though, how insignificant a numeric value of weight can be.

The fact that the company is requiring the personal information from the employees under penalty of a fine for failure to provide information, is immoral in our modern society that already places too much emphasis on body image.  This blood pressure and blood sugar levels are much more reasonable in my mind as numbers that can be used to monitor the health of employees for health care plan purposes.  I believe that the company providing medical coverage to their employees has every right to be collecting health data from employee, but the information collected should be relevant and not just a number on the scale.

To summarize what I have stated here, employers should be able to collect health information from their employees, but should stick to relevant pieces of information, not simply useless scale results.

Here are the picture comparisons of 240 pounds.