Boycott U-Haul: They Dock the Pay of Fat Employees.
Avery Ray Colter
NAAFA NATIONAL NEWSLETTER
Volume XIX, Issue 5
July 1990
U-HAUL Penalizing Fat Employees
Just Imagine: Your paycheck arrives and along with deductions for tax
withholding is a $5 deduction because you're "overweight".
Or just imagine: Your spouse comes home and says, "Honey, there's $5 less
in my pay envelope because you didn't stick to your diet."
Sound farfetched?
Not if you work for U-Haul International.
U-Haul International, Inc., based in Phoenix, AZ, began a new wellness
program on April 1st for their 13,500 employees nationwide. Employees
and their spouses who do not fit into U-Haul's height/weight guidelines,
or who smoke, are being fined $5 per person, per two-week pay period.
This translates into a $130 annual penalty for an employee weighing more
(or less!) than U-Haul finds acceptable.
And if the employee's spouse doesn't meet the requirements either, that's
another $130 annual fine. The penalties are deducted from the workers'
paychecks.
Employees and spouses are required to sign a statement declaring that they
are non-smokers and that their weight is within the company's guidelines.
If they lie about their weight, it is grounds for dismissal.
According to U-Haul, the plan was developed in an attempt to combat the
rising cost of providing health care coverage to employees. "All we're
trying to do is raise the common consciousness of our employees and reduce
claims," said Harry DeShong, executive vice president. According to
E. J. "Joe" Schoen, chairman of Americo, U-Haul's parent company:
"Pure and simple. It gives a reason to make healthy choices."
U-Haul considers their guidelines to be quite liberal. For example, a
5'5" person can weigh from 101 to 180 pounds, and a 6' person can weigh
130-215. If the employee or spouse stops smoking or brings their weight
to within the acceptable limits, the fines will be refunded.
Not all the employees are happy with the new policy. One told reporters,
"People around here feel like their constitutional rights have been taken
away." Others have described the plan as "horrible" and "just not right".
Louis Rhodes, the executive director of the Arizona ACLU section, called
the plan "barbaric, on the face of it." He said, "It's unconscionable that
someone would try to get away with something like this. It's just
outrageous. It looks like people are being treated like indentured servants
at U-Haul."
Commentary
We have been watching the growth of wellness programs in American industry
and government for some time. Most programs have involved "voluntary"
cooperation; but it would seem that pressure from one's employer, no
matter how mild or friendly, may not make a program feel voluntary at all!
Some firms offer employees the use of health clubs; in fact they encourage
attendance at aerobics sessions, stop-smoking classes, and weight or stress
reduction groups. But this is the first large program we have heard of that
actually penalizes employees for their weight and their spouses' weight.
It's time that our legal and legislative systems take a serious look at
the contitutionality of such an invasion into the private lives of the
American workforce.
Discrimination based on size hits women, certain ethnic and racial groups,
older people, and the poor the hardest, simply because there is a higher
degree of obesity within these groups. Based on this alone, such a wellness
program violates the very essence of the American ideal.
Some researchers now believe that 70% of all obesity is genetic in origin.
While the work is just beginning, a number of specific genes for fatness
have already been located by genetic researchers. If this is the case,
how can any employer be justified in creating an arbitrary height/weight
guideline, no matter how "liberal", and then expecting behavioral changes
in their employees in order to comply with that guideline, when those
employees may have to fight their very genetic make-up to avoid a fine?
The law protects the disabled, and by the very definition of the word
"disabled", employers could expect the possibility of higher medical
costs in caring for an employee with physical problems - but they can't
discriminate against those workers by law.
So whether you want to consider fatness genetic, a component of race or
ethinicity, a characteristic more prevalent in the female gender, the
result of simply getting older, or a "condition" or disease, there are
grounds to say that U-Haul's policy is out of line. In fact, the only
way U-Haul could possibly justify their position is if they could prove
that obesity is a PURELY behavioral issue. And there's just too much
evidence to the contrary to accept that assertion.
WHAT YOU CAN DO!
As potential U-Haul customers, you can write to U-Haul's Chairman of the
Board to express your opinion on their employment policies:
Mr. E. J. Schoen, Chairman
Americo/U-Haul International
2727 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
You can also remember U-Haul's weight policy when you're in the market
for a truck, trailer, self-storage rental, or set of tire chains.
--
Avery Ray Colter Internet: av...@well.sf.ca.us | {apple|hplabs}!well!avery
o/~ Mama, mama, mama, keep those skinny girls at home,
o/~ `Cause this skinny boy wants a BIG FAT BLONDE! - The Rainmakers
Caryn S. Prater
>
>NAAFA NATIONAL NEWSLETTER
>
>Volume XIX, Issue 5
>July 1990
>
>U-HAUL Penalizing Fat Employees
>
>Just Imagine: Your paycheck arrives and along with deductions for tax
>withholding is a $5 deduction because you're "overweight".
>
>Or just imagine: Your spouse comes home and says, "Honey, there's $5 less
>in my pay envelope because you didn't stick to your diet."
>
>Sound farfetched?
>
>Not if you work for U-Haul International.
>
>U-Haul International, Inc., based in Phoenix, AZ, began a new wellness
>program on April 1st for their 13,500 employees nationwide. Employees
>and their spouses who do not fit into U-Haul's height/weight guidelines,
>or who smoke, are being fined $5 per person, per two-week pay period.
>This translates into a $130 annual penalty for an employee weighing more
>(or less!) than U-Haul finds acceptable.
>
>older people, and the poor the hardest, simply because there is a higher
>degree of obesity within these groups. Based on this alone, such a wellness
>program violates the very essence of the American ideal.
>
>
This may not be the approriate discussion but here goes, when they
made drug testing ( random or mandatory) part of the accepted Amer-
ican working condition could we really have believed this was far
behind. This is another example of corporate America buying not,
your labor but your life. You owe your soul to the Company Store,
now and forever more. Hey, this may give rebirth to the union
movement.
Caryn
--
Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do.
Bertrand Russell
james d. Del Vecchio
As far as this matter is concerned, the constitution is a non-issue.
The constitution merely pertains to what government is allowed and
forbidden to do, not with the behavior of individuals or groups.
A thing like this would never occur in a country that didn't force
people to pay their employees medical bills. The weight and health
habits of employees is the kind of thing that no employer would see as
pertinant otherwise. As it stands, employers are coerced by the govern
-ment into having a vested interest in the health of the employee, the
five dollar charge is a "user fee" to offset the higher cost of insuring
the worker. The solution is not more legislation, but a repeal of the
employee health insurance legislation which helped to establish the
"big daddy" relationship between employer/employee in some companies.
Jim Del Vecchio
Bellingham, Wa
Eric Bell
>
>behind. This is another example of corporate America buying not,
>your labor but your life. You owe your soul to the Company Store,
>now and forever more. Hey, this may give rebirth to the union
>movement.
I'm not sure I approve of this weight program, and I know I don't approve of
blanket drug testing, but one could make the argument that the company has
bought your life. When you expect them to pay your medical insurance, your
retirement, your social security, retraining when your skills become obsolete,
etc. it seems like you are making your life part of their bottom line. And
when they start to try to control costs, people start complaining.
This is not a justification, but it is another way to look at it. The more
you get a company involved in your life, the more the company is involved
in your life!
Eric Julian Bell
Business Administration Computer Services, DJ-10
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Paul Hager
Corporate Big Brotherism strikes again. It fits in the same
continuum with employee drug testing. This is another of
the legacies of the Reagan administration which was pro-business
and anti-worker.
--
paul hager hag...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
--from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
Michael Endrizzi
>Corporate Big Brotherism strikes again. It fits in the same
>continuum with employee drug testing. This is another of
>the legacies of the Reagan administration which was pro-business
>and anti-worker.
Yeah, 5% unemployment and 4% inflation is pretty anti-worker.
Any doctor or statician will tell you that insuring fat
people is more expensive then skinny people.
I resent how fat people drive up the cost
of health care. I also resent smokers, drug abusers (coffee,nicotine,
steroids, diet pills included) and lawyers. So if I was
U Hall I wouldn't hire fat,smoking,drug abusive lawyers.
Thank Alah that U-Hall cares about the people who try to
contain health care costs by staying healthy.
When I was in Europe, people would ask me "Why are so many
Americans soooooo fat???". I couldn't agree more.
Whatever you do, don't flame bald people.
Dreez
=================================================================
=================================================================
Michael J. Endrizzi
Secure Computing Technology Corp.
endr...@sctc.com
*Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are not of my employer
but of the American people.
=================================================================
=================================================================
Bob Alberti
>hag...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
>>Corporate Big Brotherism strikes again. It fits in the same
>>continuum with employee drug testing. This is another of
>>the legacies of the Reagan administration which was pro-business
>>and anti-worker.
>Yeah, 5% unemployment and 4% inflation is pretty anti-worker.
Sure is, when employment counts are changed to lower unemployment results, when
the average income across the decade declined (so that yeah, more people have
jobs, but they can't make ends meet), and when the minimum wage doesn't keep up
with the 4% unemployment rate for over a decade. That is anti-worker.
>I also resent smokers, drug abusers (coffee,nicotine,
>steroids, diet pills included) and lawyers.
And I resent ***holes, does that mean you shouldn't have a job? Or should
have $5/month taken off your paycheck? (See? I can* tie this flame back
in with the main topic).
>Whatever you do, don't flame bald people.
It's nice to see you're not a completely* uncompassionate person. Of course,
I'd have to assume you're bald from reading this: you only have sympathy for
others 'just like you'. Do you have sympathy for all bald people, or just
"white upper-middle class conservative bald people"?
>*Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are not of my employer
> but of the American people.
I've seen some really pompous signatures, but that one takes a prize.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Bob Alberti Micro and Wkstn Networks Ctr, U of MN /// aka: Albatross
UUCP: nic.MR.NET!boombox.micro.UMN.EDU!alberti /// Images at Twilight
INET: alb...@boombox.micro.UMN.EDU \\\/// (612) 884-7951
Disclaimer: My employer does not mean what I say. \XX/
Ingredients: 30% header, 30% quote, 10% content, 30% cutesy signature.
Robert D. Silverman
:NAAFA NATIONAL NEWSLETTER
:
:Volume XIX, Issue 5
:July 1990
:
:U-HAUL Penalizing Fat Employees
:
:Just Imagine: Your paycheck arrives and along with deductions for tax
:withholding is a $5 deduction because you're "overweight".
I'm not even going to begin to address what a gross violation of employee's
rights is taking place here.
I will note, however, that according to their 'definition' of overweight,
Arnold Schwarzeneggar is 'overweight'. Muscle weighs more than fat.
This whole thing is too ludicrous for words.
--
Bob Silverman
#include <std.disclaimer>
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Paul Hager
>hag...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
>>Corporate Big Brotherism strikes again. It fits in the same
>>continuum with employee drug testing. This is another of
>>the legacies of the Reagan administration which was pro-business
>>and anti-worker.
>Yeah, 5% unemployment and 4% inflation is pretty anti-worker.
Yes, and as Kevin Phillips pointed out in his book, the wealthiest
1% of the population nearly doubled its share of the economic pie
at the expense of the bottom 40%.
Volker and the Fed's tight money policy (which started under Carter)
led to the recession of '81-'82 (remember that?) which rippled
through the other industrial countries. With recession came a
lowered demand for oil and the breaking of ranks of OPEC. Amazing
that with OPEC in dissarray for the first time in a decade and
with the prospect of cheap energy, the Reagan administration could
run up a $3 trillion deficit and lay the groundwork for the
junk bond frenzy and the S&L failures.
>Any doctor or statician will tell you that insuring fat
>people is more expensive then skinny people.
>I resent how fat people drive up the cost
>of health care. I also resent smokers, drug abusers (coffee,nicotine,
>steroids, diet pills included) and lawyers. So if I was
>U Hall I wouldn't hire fat,smoking,drug abusive lawyers.
>Thank Alah that U-Hall cares about the people who try to
>contain health care costs by staying healthy.
The solution is to alter the situation with regard to health
insurance, not violate people's civil rights. You haven't
thought this through. If you can justify intervention in the
private affairs of others on this basis then you must be
prepared for the same sort of intervention in YOUR private
affairs. You are probably not as immune to this as you
think.
>When I was in Europe, people would ask me "Why are so many
>Americans soooooo fat???". I couldn't agree more.
I agree, too. We differ in that I'm not willing to endorse
a system that threatens my privacy and lifestyle in order
to coerce overweight people to lose their excess avoirdupois.
I think your opinions exemplify a kind of neo-Puritanism --
that and a rigid intolerance of any lifestyle that does
not conform to one of ascetic good health and actuarial
salubrity.
Peter R. Cook
In article <19...@well.sf.ca.us>, av...@well.sf.ca.us (Avery Ray Colter) writes...
>
>NAAFA NATIONAL NEWSLETTER
>
>Volume XIX, Issue 5
>July 1990
>
>U-HAUL Penalizing Fat Employees
>As potential U-Haul customers, you can write to U-Haul's Chairman of the
>Board to express your opinion on their employment policies:
>
> Mr. E. J. Schoen, Chairman
> Americo/U-Haul International
> 2727 North Central Avenue
> Phoenix, AZ 85004
How about a phone number?
/prc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter R. Cook -Don't blame DEC for my opinions
Digital Equipment Corp. or my spelling errors.
Marlboro, MA. (MR01-3/SL1)
508-Don't-Call-Me! "1984 has past, forget about Big Brother.
Welcome to the 90's where the government's
your mother!" - Scatterbrain
Iraqnaphobia(tm), coming soon to a gas station near you!
Sergeant D is coming, and you're on his list!
Avery Colter
>When I was in Europe, people would ask me "Why are so many
>Americans soooooo fat???". I couldn't agree more.
Interesting note on this part:
Many European countries, especially Germany and those adjacent,
take a not very friendly attitude toward diet sellers.
In fact, Belgium does not allow commercial diet groups to advertise
in the primary media.
Go figure this one.
Maybe your answer for your European friends is...
The more you tug at the snare, the tighter it digs into your neck.
This seems to be the experience of many fat people I've met in my travels.
--
Avery Ray Colter Internet: av...@netcom.uucp | {apple|claris}!netcom!avery
Bernie Cosell
}I'm not sure I approve of this weight program, and I know I don't approve of
}blanket drug testing, but one could make the argument that the company has
}bought your life. When you expect them to pay your medical insurance, your
}retirement, your social security, retraining when your skills become obsolete,
}etc. it seems like you are making your life part of their bottom line....
Careful now, the medical insurance *IS* part of their bottom line, but
all of the others you mentioned are not, generally. I know of very few
places that still have true pension plans --- most [including BBN]
simply have some kind of retirement-investment plan, which is nothing
more than some additional compensation you get, but thanks to loopholes
in the tax laws it is advantageous to you for it to be paid via some
kind of retirement-fund or another. The company has no vested interest
in whether I retire at 50 or 70, or if I try to live off my retirement
for 10 years or 40 years...
Similarly, *YOUR* social security will be paid by workers probably
not-yet-born. In fact, if your company is planning on being in
business for the next fifty or so years, the _best_ investment is to
encourage you to do things that'll arrange for you to die young,
thereby minimizing their _future_ SocSec outlays.
/Bernie\
Peter Caress
>P.S. Yes, I voted in favor of 103. :)
>
What the heck is 103?
-- pnc (citizen of the Great Commonwealth of Virginia)
Andrew Bell
>program on April 1st for their 13,500 employees nationwide. Employees
>and their spouses who do not fit into U-Haul's height/weight guidelines,
>or who smoke, are being fined $5 per person, per two-week pay period.
>This translates into a $130 annual penalty for an employee weighing more
>(or less!) than U-Haul finds acceptable.
U-Haul could do a really simple thing that would make this all perfectly
acceptable, and it would work out pretty much the same in the end anyway.
The simple change?
Don't penalize workers for being overweight or for smoking, reward them
for being healthy. If they offer just slightly lower raises the next time
around, the net result will be the same, but no privacy will be
invaded involuntarily.
---Andrew Bell, be...@cs.unc.edu, Presidential Candidate in 2000-----
If you're not outraged enough to get active, you're not outraged.
John Berryhill
>
>[is peeved about paying higher insurance rates on account of fat folks]
Of course, you probably feel differently about Catholics having higher
average maternity claims than other groups. Why should Protestants
pay for Catholic dogma in the form of higher insurance rates?
--
John Berryhill
143 King William, Newark DE 19711
Michael P. Deignan
>Yes, and as Kevin Phillips pointed out in his book, the wealthiest
>1% of the population nearly doubled its share of the economic pie
>at the expense of the bottom 40%.
Assuming that this is true, that's the capitalist system at work. Also,
Darwin's Theory on the Survival of the Fitest[sic]. Just because the more
intellectually astute get ahead, and the human dredge fall more behind,
that's nothing to worry about. Point is... There is always going to be
someone at the bottom. Unless, of course, you're a proponent of a
communist system - which we all know is also a chaste system as well,
with "party officials" getting their own stores to shop at, etc.
>Amazing
>that with OPEC in dissarray for the first time in a decade and
>with the prospect of cheap energy, the Reagan administration could
>run up a $3 trillion deficit and lay the groundwork for the
>junk bond frenzy and the S&L failures.
Yes, and the Reagan Administration was responsible for bankers selling
babies, I suppose. What other ills of society can your liberal mind
twist?
>The solution is to alter the situation with regard to health
>insurance, not violate people's civil rights. You haven't
>thought this through. If you can justify intervention in the
>private affairs of others on this basis then you must be
>prepared for the same sort of intervention in YOUR private
>affairs. You are probably not as immune to this as you
>think.
But, when you choose (<-- Read, Your Choice) to work for an employer,
you must agree with their terms of employment. Otherwise, don't take
the job. But, with your logic, even McDonalds is "violating" people's
civil rights, because their poor employees have to wear uniforms to
work - they can't exercise their freedom of choice in picking out their
own appropiate work clothing. Phhhft!
>I agree, too. We differ in that I'm not willing to endorse
>a system that threatens my privacy and lifestyle in order
>to coerce overweight people to lose their excess avoirdupois.
Its not an invasion of your privacy if you are aware of the policy and
decide to take the position anyway. If anything, it shows your stupidity,
if you're that against it.
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan # m...@anomaly.sbs.com # ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd --
-- Author, SCO Ported Software Compendium, and Maintainer of Online Archives --
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 Login: xxcp Password: xenix (local rmail ok) --
-- Files: anomaly!~/SOFTLIST anomaly!~/ARCHELP --
2664-Marguerite T Czajka(Z550102)0000
*Any doctor or statician will tell you that insuring fat
*people is more expensive then skinny people.
*I resent how fat people drive up the cost
*of health care. I also resent smokers, drug abusers (coffee,nicotine,
*steroids, diet pills included) and lawyers. So if I was
*U Hall I wouldn't hire fat,smoking,drug abusive lawyers.
*Thank Alah that U-Hall cares about the people who try to
*contain health care costs by staying healthy.
But thin does not always mean healthy. I know some alcoholics, coke
addicts and an anorexic who are skinny. I don't believe they are
healthy.
Generalizing that all people who don't conform to a weight chart are
unhealthy is ridiculous. What would happen to people like me? I'm
6'1" and never on those charts.
Marguerite
Mike Cripps
>
> Generalizing that all people who don't conform to a weight chart are
> unhealthy is ridiculous. What would happen to people like me? I'm
> 6'1" and never on those charts.
>
Me too. As near as I can tell, I'm genetically thin. My mother is fairly
thin. My grandfather is very thin. I've always been thin. No matter how
much I eat or how much I exercise, I am always thin.
I've even had strangers try to score drugs from me because they assumed I
was a speed freak or something. The only thing that puts weight on me is
beer, and I can't believe a beer gut is healthy.
Mike Cripps
Paul Hager
>*hag...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
>*Any doctor or statician will tell you that insuring fat
>*people is more expensive then skinny people.
>*I resent how fat people drive up the cost
>*of health care. I also resent smokers, drug abusers (coffee,nicotine,
>*steroids, diet pills included) and lawyers. So if I was
>*U Hall I wouldn't hire fat,smoking,drug abusive lawyers.
>*Thank Alah that U-Hall cares about the people who try to
>*contain health care costs by staying healthy.
You have mis-attributed the above comments to me, Paul Hager.
I took vigorous exception to those statements in my post.
Please take care when you alter attribution lines.
Thank you for your attention.
Walt Wilson
>
>Corporate Big Brotherism strikes again. It fits in the same
>continuum with employee drug testing. This is another of
>the legacies of the Reagan administration which was pro-business
>and anti-worker.
>
If you are not taking drugs, there should be no problem. Since the insistant
employer wants to violate your body, make a bet of it. The employer is betting
you will test positive, and you are betting you will not. Make the bet for your
job against, oh say, $5000.00, with the test performed by a doctor of your
choice at a lab of his choice, best two out of three.
Since you stand to lose far more, this cannot be an unfair bet. If your
employer won't go for the deal, then the employer does not have probable
cause for the violation of your body.
What I don't get are your socialistic implications of government verses
worker. How does that enter in?
WWIII
Paul Hager
>In article <53...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> hag...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
>>
>>Corporate Big Brotherism strikes again. It fits in the same
>>continuum with employee drug testing. This is another of
>>the legacies of the Reagan administration which was pro-business
>>and anti-worker.
>>
>If you are not taking drugs, there should be no problem. Since the insistant
>employer wants to violate your body, make a bet of it. The employer is betting
>you will test positive, and you are betting you will not. Make the bet for your
>job against, oh say, $5000.00, with the test performed by a doctor of your
>choice at a lab of his choice, best two out of three.
>Since you stand to lose far more, this cannot be an unfair bet. If your
>employer won't go for the deal, then the employer does not have probable
>cause for the violation of your body.
Yours might be a good idea but for the fact that in the real world, the
employee has no power to compell the company to enter into such a bet.
The company, in effect, owns your body, both on and off the job.
"Probable cause" doesn't enter in because the company is under no
obligation to apply such a standard. Under the Constitution, pursuant
to the 4th and 14th Amendments, government theoretically is restricted
from an "unreasonable search" -- this restriction does not extend to
the large private bureaucracies which ultimately have the most control
over our lives.
>What I don't get are your socialistic implications of government verses
>worker. How does that enter in?
I don't understand your statement. I'm not concerned about the "government"
versus the worker -- I'm concerned about the worker versus large, powerful
corporate entities. I operate from the historically demonstrable premise
that large bureaucracies stifle individual liberty. If anything, I'm
espousing a position much closer to Libertarianism than Socialism. Where
the Libertarians and I part company is in assuming that an unregulated
free market will maximize the benefits to the individual, whereas I
see a pressing need to limit the power of large corporations. Ideally,
the government should function as a sort of economic traffic cop.
Big government and big business are equally bad. And big unions aren't
so hot either.