Casino Stands Firm On Firing Waitresses Who Gain Weight

The Associated Press ^ | March 3, 2005 | The Associated Press

[numberonepal]

I like and agree with the song, but what the aych-ee-double-toothpicks did Freddy Mercury know about women?

[Atlas Sneezed]

So far yours is the only strongly dissenting opinion I've received.

---

No it isn't:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355423/posts?page=46#46

So, when you would deny the freedom of a business to have attractive waitresses, would you criminalize policies that required non-discrimination? And which bureaucrat or judge would you let decide what was a reasonable appearance standard, and what was unreasonable?

Or do you think that businesses should be forced to hire people with bright colored hair, prominent tattoos, gals with exposed shaggy armpit hair, and a tackle-box face full of piercings?

Or shall we just appoint you (and not the businesses who know their customers' preferences) to decide what standards to apply?

Freedom isn't always perfectly pleasant, but that is not its point.

[Sybeck1]

If a man wanted a fat woman to serve him a beer, he could just stay home.

[Hudobna]

Ciao Beelzebub,

Thank you for your response. Who's to judge when a look is a political / social statement or when it's just a natural outcome of life? Both require a modicum of good sense, which is something that cannot - yet in the end - must be legislated.

We were talking about waitresses that were already hired who cross a weight line.

As I said, I draw a line, between entertainers who are necessarily cast for a part and workers.

If I'm a movie producer / Director who needs an actress I am well within my right to pick and choose and be demanding. If I need a front office receptionist, good sense dictates that I be less so.

Good sense says that for option A, I can choose an Oriental bombshell, (girls of Lithuanian heritage needn't apply), whereas in option B, race considerations would indeed be racist. Something that a society might wish to avoid.

The Borgata business is borderline. Are the sexy serving girls part of the show? Yes and no. More importantly, will the demands being placed on them be allowed to cross over to all commerce and industry?

If so then you allow an employer to run people's lives completely. He can hire and fire at his total aesthetic / racist / sexist whim. Something which I doubt is very close to the spirit of America.

Why just the Borgata and not a hardware store, diner, desntist's office? Are you happy with normal working jobs becoming beauty contests?

Better for the borderline Borgata case to take the hit than set a precedent for all of society.

One can be just as blinded by lack of ideals as with them. The object of the excercise is not to satisfy the extreme cases that come about by following logic to absurd conclusions, but to set broad guidelines suitable for most parties in most instances.

Probably the key of interpretation of the issue is the nature of the work. At the Borgata, there admittedly IS an argument for the girls being considered "entertainers" (entreneuses), despite the fact that a chubby Plain Jane can serve tables just as well if not better (seeing as she's less likely to be hassled by the customers and lose time) than a bombshell.

It would be a shame for brutally sexist rules being set for all working girls because of a ruling in favor of La Borgata.

That wouldn't be pretty at all. A concession in favor of Borgata with a crossover effect to societies' hiring / firing practices at large would generate far more abuse against women than vice versa.

Ciao

[Atlas Sneezed]

>>Who's to judge when a look is a political / social statement or when it's just a natural outcome of life? Both require a modicum of good sense, which is something that cannot - yet in the end - must be legislated.

A conservative would argue that it must NOT be legislated. Let business owners who make smart decisions prosper, and those who make bad decisions be punished by the marketplace.

>>As I said, I draw a line, between entertainers who are necessarily cast for a part and workers.

When $1 of gin is charged at $10 a glass, we ARE talking about entertainment. This is not about supermarket checkers, it is about where rich guys go to feel like big wheels, and enjoy the eye candy while they are plunking down the bucks. Anyone who thinks a casino is serving commodities, and not entertainment has not spent much time in casinos.

>>If I'm a movie producer / Director who needs an actress I am well within my right to pick and choose and be demanding. If I need a front office receptionist, good sense dictates that I be less so.

Receptionists are often hired based on looks. The first contact is important, and the receptionist is the face that represents the company. That charm (combined with good looks) with the client in the waiting room can be very valuable. A cocktail waitress is somewhere between actresses and receptionists in terms of the value of good looks.

>>Good sense says that for option A, I can choose an Oriental bombshell, (girls of Lithuanian heritage needn't apply), whereas in option B, race considerations would indeed be racist. Something that a society might wish to avoid.

You are changing the subject. While Walt Williams and I would argue in principle that businesses ought to be free to foolishly discriminate based on race, and suffer the consequences, the subject was about beauty (weight) and not about race.

>>Are the sexy serving girls part of the show? Yes and no.

We half agree. I (and more importantly, the people who own the place and decide who to hire to maximize profits) think "yes".

>>More importantly, will the demands being placed on them be allowed to cross over to all commerce and industry?

"Allowed"? Businesses are allowed to set their own standards, and enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences.

>>If so then you allow an employer to run people's lives completely. He can hire and fire at his total aesthetic / racist / sexist whim. Something which I doubt is very close to the spirit of America.

Leaving race out of it, businesses get to do what *they* think is best, not what the Central Planning Kommittee thinks best. Employees can quite at their whim and work for someone who isn't a sexist, or pick a career that values their other talents.

>>Why just the Borgata and not a hardware store, diner, dentist's office?

Because the rational people who own those businesses generally put other talents first. You need to realize that "serving girls" since time immemorial have generally required few skills other than good looks and a pleasant personality. Hardware clerks and dental assistants need other skills. Your slippery slope fears are unwarranted.

>>Better for the borderline Borgata case to take the hit than set a precedent for all of society.

They aren't setting precedent, they are following ancient tradition: guys prefer their booze served by pretty girls, and will pay more for it.

>>It would be a shame for brutally sexist rules being set for all working girls because of a ruling in favor of La Borgata.

How can it be sexist when all the employees in that position ARE WOMEN?! It's "looks-ist" if anything. And that is rational, and good business.

I think you still have some DU residue on you. Get used to freedom. The first word in Free Republic is "free."

[melbell]

"If ever there was a thread that needed pics, this is one."

you want pictures of woman who have gained at least 7% of their body weight? ;)

[LaBradford22]

Am I reading that right that cocktail servers are unionized? Yikes. Only in New Jersey.

[Trampled by Lambs]

lol.. no. But I wouldn't mind seeing the 'before' pictures.

[TChris]

I may be in the minority but I kind of agree with the company.

I agree with them completely. A business has the right to make rules about employment, especially when its directly related to the work.

A ballet company has every right to refuse to hire a 300 lb. dancer, a fire department doesn't have to hire blind people, and a restaurant built around a particular image for its waitresses should be allowed to control that image. The workers are always free to quit.

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

Damn!

Tat brunette is a babe!

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

Tat=That

[Plutarch]

Airlines take note, bring back weight standards for flight attendants!

[xone]

Thank you, it is about time.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I think that if the ladies who work there, create a positive image for the company, and attracts customers to the establishment, they should be able to keep their jobs. Course, I'm not the boss, and I don't set the standards, but everyone has different set of standards. A woman with curves is A-O-K by me.

[Hildy]

I just returned from Laughlin, NV! I think the rejects would be more than welcomed there!

[BigSkyFreeper]

If ever there was a thread that needed pics, this is one.

Two of the casino hotel's 160 "Borgata Babes" - cocktail waitresses the company says should have "natural hourglass figures."  (Photo: AP)

[Pablo64]

"Queen is the greatest band ever on the face of the whole entire planet. So there."

"But still I fear and still dare not laugh at the Madman."

[BBell]

No wonder Freddy was gay. He got banged by his fat nanny.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Hmmm company can tell girls to look like toothpicks but the threads about not having guns or smoking goes into the hundreds as to why they're wrong.

What we need is a thread about girls, guns, and rock'n'roll music.

[A CA Guy]

They are selling an image and perception at a casino.

They knew the deal when they got hired, so there should be no recourse to get out of shape.

They have the option of leaving anytime.