Weight/Health limits to restrict right to live and work in a country?

[Rupert_Baehr]

Authorities in New Zealand have told a South African chef he is too fat to be allowed to live in the country.

 

Immigration officials said Albert Buitenhuis, who weighs 130kg (286 pounds), did not have "an acceptable standard of health".

 

I suppose it's one way of reducing health costs.

 

Apparently, 30% of New Zealanders are obese.

 

I wonder whether that ruling will catch on elsewhere? Will employers decline to hire people who 'do not have an acceptable standard of health', in that they are obese?

[Moosey]

Can't do that here. Can't even ask health questions on interview. DDA and all that.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[El Cid]

 

I wonder whether that ruling will catch on elsewhere? Will employers decline to hire people who 'do not have an acceptable standard of health', in that they are obese?

 

There was a program on BBC1 about fatism, and the fact that employers can refuse a person a job because of the likely effects of being fat. Fat people, it was said, are not as healthy.

[Moosey]

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Rupert_Baehr

 

 

I wonder whether that ruling will catch on elsewhere? Will employers decline to hire people who 'do not have an acceptable standard of health', in that they are obese?

 

There was a program on BBC1 about fatism, and the fact that employers can refuse a person a job because of the likely effects of being fat. Fat people, it was said, are not as healthy.

 

That would be illegal under DDA.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[El Cid]

That would be illegal under DDA.

 

 

A fat person on the program said it had happened; is a fat person disabled, in law?

[Moosey]

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Moosey

 

That would be illegal under DDA.

 

A fat person on the program said it had happened; is a fat person disabled, in law?

 

Can be. It's illegal to ask health questions at an interview and under the equality act I'd say being overweight was a protected characteristic.

 

Not saying it doesn't happen. Just saying as a matter of strict law it shouldn't.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

 

---------- Post added 27-07-2013 at 12:55 ----------

 

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by El Cid

 

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Moosey

 

That would be illegal under DDA.

 

A fat person on the program said it had happened; is a fat person disabled, in law?

 

Can be. It's illegal to ask health questions at an interview and under the equality act I'd say being overweight was a protected characteristic.

 

Not saying it doesn't happen. Just saying as a matter of strict law it shouldn't.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

 

Sorry, to add I mean equality act as well as DDA so not necessarily disabled, just discrimination.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[El Cid]

 

Sorry, to add I mean equality act as well as DDA so not necessarily disabled, just discrimination.

 

 

Not sure if it was train driver or guard, but I recall a friend going for that job and there is requirement to be within a certain range on the BMI scale.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Can be. It's illegal to ask health questions at an interview and under the equality act I'd say being overweight was a protected characteristic.

 

Not saying it doesn't happen. Just saying as a matter of strict law it shouldn't.

 

...

 

So if you were hiring somebody to, for instance, fly people around the world in an airliner and one of your candidates was blind (as a result of diabetes [ a recognised disability]) had just had a heart attack, had elevated Blood Pressure, and weighed 180 Kg it would be illegal for you to ask 'health questions'?

 

Quite clearly, it would not.

 

Why should a company - any company - be prohibited from requiring its employees to undergo a pre-employment medical examination and why should that company be prohibited from making an employment decision based on the results of that medical examination?

 

If the disability is such that it would not be an impediment to the employee carrying out his or her duties, then quite clearly it would be wrong for the employer to discriminate against that employee, but where the disability prevents the employee from carrying out his/her duties, the employer might be acting recklessly were he to ignore the medical results.

 

If you, as an employer, had an employee who worked in a high-stress environment; if that employee suffered a heart attack and needed to be moved to a lower-stress position (if one was available in the company) and if you decided to ignore your employee's medical history, I suggest you would be laying yourself open to a hefty lawsuit if he had another heart attack.

 

If an employer is obliged to take the health of his employees into consideration when allocating them to posts within a company, is that employer not to be permitted to find out about the health of his employees?

 

At first glance, the decision by the New Zealand Government does appear to be extreme, but AFAIK, neither New Zealand or any other country is obliged to accept as immigrants / grant work visas to people who they consider are likely to place a significant drain on the economy.

 

If countries are not obliged to support people who they suspect will be a financial burden, why should companies (which are usually rather smaller) be faced with the burden?

 

There are, AFAIK, a number of companies which decline to employ smokers. Smoking is not a disability - but it's widely believed to cause disabilities in later life.

 

If it's acceptable to decline to employ somebody because he abuses tobacco, why is it unacceptable to decline to employ somebody because he abuses food?