"Biggest Loser" contest at work....GRRRRR!!!!

[loaslaen]

I'm not sure I follow that logic about the unfairness of incentives for specific things (unless participation is mandatory). Does that mean that performance bonuses are inherently unfair? Wouldn't that pedometer idea be unfair to any wheelchair bound employees? What about company sponsored talent shows? Is it unfair that not everyone can sing, dance, or have any other easily displayed talent? I don't disagree that a focus on overall health is better, but I don't see the unfairness here.

XU, is participation mandatory or is there a penalty for not participating? Sorry if it was addressed earlier and I missed it.

I don't think any bonuses related to actual work are unfair because they are directly related to a job position. I do agree with what you said about wheelchair bound employees, and I actually thought about that while typing. I guess you can't appease everyone, but a company is likely to have more employees that don't fit into the overweight category than there are employees that are wheelchair bound. That's also why I included other health related activities that aren't restricted to just physically doing something. Health AWARENESS is very important and doing BP, diabetes, cholesterol, etc., screening will encourage people to know how healthy/unhealthy they really are and do something about it. A wheelchair bound employee could be excluded in walking, but wouldn't be excluded with the other activities and could still participate and earn points. Someone that is at a healthy weight or even underweight could not, or even SHOULD NOT compete in losing weight.

If a company had a contest or "talent show" directly related to the job, then I don't see a problem. But I just don't see the purpose in extracurricular activities that reward based on performance other than job related. Sweepstakes, drawings, and raffles that don't focus on performance/skill and are randomly awarded are more fair IMO.

BTW, I'm not saying there should be a LAW prohibiting or limiting such things, this is just my opinion based on what I feel is fair and appropriate.

[XUfan]

No it's not mandatory. Apparently, they've done this before, and it was one of the things that some of the employees asked them to do again.

I do not agree that all contests at a workplace need to be tailored to fit everyone. That would be impossible. Not everyone enters the chili cook-off, because not everyone can cook. But they still have it. Should they stop having it, if some of the employees don't know how to make chili? When we have our annual garage sale to benefit the Hug Fund, they hand out "bucks" that you can use to order new uniforms or shoes for work...to the people who donate items for them to sell. So, if someone doesn't have something to donate, should they cancel the whole thing? Our little nursing home employs about 150 people. We're all different.

[loaslaen]

I do not agree that all contests at a workplace need to be tailored to fit everyone. That would be impossible. Not everyone enters the chili cook-off, because not everyone can cook. But they still have it. Should they stop having it, if some of the employees don't know how to make chili? When we have our annual garage sale to benefit the Hug Fund, they hand out "bucks" that you can use to order new uniforms or shoes for work...to the people who donate items for them to sell. So, if someone doesn't have something to donate, should they cancel the whole thing? Our little nursing home employs about 150 people. We're all different.

Well the Hug Fund could be a tax write-off for charity, and the "bucks" are for work-related uniforms, so the company benefits. Therefore, awarding employees for donations that benefit the company doesn't seem unfair. I also don't see where there's a restriction on others for donating. ANYONE is capable of donating items.

I just don't see the purpose in a chili cook-off. I suppose if it's a company event where outside customers are invited and money can be raised in some fashion, and awareness of the company is generated in the community, then it benefits the company, but other than that, it seems odd to me.

I can see how a bunch of friends or co-workers could get together and have a challenge or contest, but it just seems odd to me that a company would do this. It almost seems discriminatory. Instead of saying, "You're overweight and a liability", it's like "Here's some money if you lose weight."

Alot of weight issues can also be due to emotional stress that losing weight in itself does not solve. I watch "Biggest Loser" and the trainers try to get in touch with that and increase the contestants' self-esteem and educate them properly. A contest or a monetary incentive does nothing to solve those problems or educate.

I don't have a problem with companies offering better foods in their cafeteria, or having a gym available for employees, or free gym memberships to local gyms, or free health screenings, or similar types of programs, but a cash incentive just seems wrong IMO.

[billig]

She might have $250 bucks, but she'll still be ugly!

[Rene S]

She might have $250 bucks, but she'll still be ugly!

And unhealthy!

[amys]

hmm - I find the entire idea with the manner that they are implementing the "contest" to be discriminatory, demeaning, and dangerous.

[kymberly21]

She is gonna need that $250 , Cottage cheese is Expensive for those non couponers. Seriously though. 2 months with out eating and she should have lost more weight than that if it already hit her appearance.

It sounds as if she has slipped into Starvation Mode, and her body is now hoarding calories.

Friend of mine was in a Coma in ICU with A Post op infection for 8 Days. She was a pretty big woman before the surgery, but she lost 48 lbs in the week she was in the coma. She was given nutrients and liquids, but no food because of the infection.

Sounds like a similar intake as this woman.