As reported by Guangzhou Daily, Lin Zhiyong, the chairman of a company that makes paper for various devices, told his workers that their year-end bonuses had been...
Reading further, walking is only counted at a 0.3 : 1 ratio of distance, for no conceivable reason. So you can run for ~12 minutes or walk for ~1 hr, it seems.
But why should my bonus be tied to something that is not at all related to my work? Should I get a pay cut if I eat a Dorito? Am I worthy enough of a pittance, CEO? Or should I be jumping through literal hoops?
Is it overstepping? If the bonus criteria aren’t laid out in the compensation package at the time of hiring, it’s petty much whatever they want, provided they can find a suitable way to accommodate employees that would be at a disadvantage due to protected class.
I wonder how they are ensuring the collected data is accurate.
Edit: If it’s just a fitness app, then I’m crushing it on the daily just existing, and I am not a fit man. Hell, I’d be getting a 130% bonus.
Absolutely it is. Anything that is not related to my job performance is none of my employer’s business and should be off the table when it comes to determining compensation or bonuses.
The overall health of a workforce affects health insurance rates and every employee. The more unhealthy a workforce is, the more money comes out of your check for insurance. This is why wellness programs exist at companies.
The boss believes their employees’ fitness is a direct correlation to the success of the company, which makes it related to their job performance.
I agree this is a strange belief to be held by an employer. The business gets to define the relevance, especially if they are gonna base so much of your compensation off of it.
I’m sure there are lots of ways bosses might want their employees to change in their personal lives because it might benefit the company. But that’s the part that’s overstepping.
Yet, the SJWs of America come out of the wood work to berate an idea of trying to move a little bit more and use “disabilities” as a shield to trying to do something that is healthy for
I assumed you were addressing me and my point since you posted your comment as a direct response to me and my comment. That is usually how internet comments work.
If you’re not doing it getting a giant bonus would be a good motivator to go out
A better motivator would be giving credit for improvements rather than requiring the same of all regardless of age, fitness level, and disability. The only thing this would motivate me to do is find another job.
One mile a day is really really easy to do. Jogging or walking.
Walking only counts for 0.3 of jogging, so it is 3.33 miles of walking
My doctor has specifically advised against jogging due to the impact on my knees.
62 miles a month is slightly over a mile a day.
Math isn’t your strong suit, huh? That is over 2 miles a day, Or 6.67 miles if you walk.
Why not if this is both easy to do and a benefit for your own health?
You miss the point. It may be easy for you, but it is not easy for everyone.
Buddy I can walk just fine but if you ask my hypermobile and asthmatic ass to run, I’m just not going to. I can’t. My legs and lungs are fucked up. Guess I don’t get the extra bonus, oh well. Sucks.
If you’re heavy, running can be a real challenge. ‘Promoting fitness’ isn’t done through a braindead scheme like this. Not for people who need guidance and help to get into a body shape they can be happy and healthy in.
You know who will get the extra bonus? Healthy people who are able to run, and who have no health conditions to begin with.
You are really, really underestimating the range of disabilities people can have while they can still function at their jobs. And how this braindead scheme excludes people for things outside of their control.
And also, ‘not be a slob’. Am I a slob because I can’t just run a mile? You take my legs that bend like a silly straw and my lungs that collapse in on themselves and feel like they’re filled with cat litter that is on fire, and see if you run a mile.
Lmao NO. Disabled people work. We have this whole law about it and everything in the United States where employers have to provide reasonable accommodations and allow you time off work without compromising your job status.
I’m disabled. I work full time. I could not fulfill these exercise requirements, but I can hold down a job. That is not a rare category of human being.
We should have universal healthcare, not this nonsense from a private employer.
If you have a condition that prevents you from moving/ elevated heart rate, chances are you not working and already on disability.
Ah, no. Plenty of us work. Desk jobs exist. I sit at one now. I have been told by my doctor I should not jog or run due to the impact to my knees.
I understand the article says this but how do you police it. Put your fitness tracker to “Outdoor run” and call it day. Unless there are stricter measurements around heart rate and minimum speeds I don’t fully buy this.
So you don’t know how they police it, but 1 sentence later you see how easy it is to police.
So start. If a company is going to incentivize you to not be a slob maybe just go do it. Life isn’t fair. Stop making excuses and be a better version of yourself.
Ah, the old “life isn’t fair” copout. Why should we not do our best to be fair?
Idk, maybe they want their employees to not die of heart failure at 40 and see them grow to be old and successful.
Ah, yes, because there is no daylight between the binary options of heart failure at 40 and growing old.
Clearly. I said likely, not “all”. Likely assumes situations in which that is not true which in this case is the exact thing you said. Thank you for reiterating.
You still have it wrong. You can’t just show up and easily get disability benefits. And that statement still reinforces the lie that the disabled are lazy, when the disabled want to work. And that is only people that meet the definition of disabled. There are surely more people with physical limitations that don’t otherwise qualify as “disabled”.
No where do they talk about this.
They specifically say walking only gets 1:0.3 credit. How can you assume that is unpoliced when it is a specific policy? The logical assumption is that is IS policed since they took the time to give lesser credit to walking.
Life isn’t fair. It’s not a cop out. Exceptions can and need to be made.
And they have no exceptions. That is the point.
So let’s just prevent all people in society from healthy activities because it discriminates. Let’s drag all of society down to the same playing field for fairness. Solid reasoning. You know what’s easier reasoning to reconcile. Exceptions to the rule.
What a straw man. No one is preventing people from healthy activities.
deleted by creator
Reading further, walking is only counted at a 0.3 : 1 ratio of distance, for no conceivable reason. So you can run for ~12 minutes or walk for ~1 hr, it seems.
But why should my bonus be tied to something that is not at all related to my work? Should I get a pay cut if I eat a Dorito? Am I worthy enough of a pittance, CEO? Or should I be jumping through literal hoops?
deleted by creator
The issue isn’t whether it’s a healthy idea. The issue is that the employer is overstepping personal and professional boundaries.
Is it overstepping? If the bonus criteria aren’t laid out in the compensation package at the time of hiring, it’s petty much whatever they want, provided they can find a suitable way to accommodate employees that would be at a disadvantage due to protected class.
I wonder how they are ensuring the collected data is accurate.
Edit: If it’s just a fitness app, then I’m crushing it on the daily just existing, and I am not a fit man. Hell, I’d be getting a 130% bonus.
Absolutely it is. Anything that is not related to my job performance is none of my employer’s business and should be off the table when it comes to determining compensation or bonuses.
The overall health of a workforce affects health insurance rates and every employee. The more unhealthy a workforce is, the more money comes out of your check for insurance. This is why wellness programs exist at companies.
Just because it’s good for the company does not mean it’s not overstepping boundaries.
The boss believes their employees’ fitness is a direct correlation to the success of the company, which makes it related to their job performance.
I agree this is a strange belief to be held by an employer. The business gets to define the relevance, especially if they are gonna base so much of your compensation off of it.
I’m sure there are lots of ways bosses might want their employees to change in their personal lives because it might benefit the company. But that’s the part that’s overstepping.
What if you got a bonus for taking an external training? Still no? This seems like a weirdly hard line to draw fo a bonus
Training in a job related field is actually related to job performance.
But it’s not really about the bonus. It’s about the boundaries. I see no problem with setting hard boundaries between personal life and work life.
deleted by creator
🙄
I haven’t said anything about disabilities.
deleted by creator
I assumed you were addressing me and my point since you posted your comment as a direct response to me and my comment. That is usually how internet comments work.
Thank you for clarifying.
deleted by creator
Oh, grow up.
First, disabled people exist.
Second, the article makes it clear walking only counts for 30% credit.
Third, if you are not doing it, starting can be very difficult.
Fourth, the top bonus requires 62 miles per month.
Last, why should there be a bonus based on something unrelated to your work?
If you’re not doing it getting a giant bonus would be a good motivator to go out
One mile a day is really really easy to do. Jogging or walking. If you can’t do that then quite honestly you’re not in any sort of good shape.
62 miles a month is slightly over a mile a day. If you’re not walking at least a mile a day you are doing your body a massive disservice
Why not if this is both easy to do and a benefit for your own health?
A better motivator would be giving credit for improvements rather than requiring the same of all regardless of age, fitness level, and disability. The only thing this would motivate me to do is find another job.
Walking only counts for 0.3 of jogging, so it is 3.33 miles of walking
My doctor has specifically advised against jogging due to the impact on my knees.
Math isn’t your strong suit, huh? That is over 2 miles a day, Or 6.67 miles if you walk.
You miss the point. It may be easy for you, but it is not easy for everyone.
deleted by creator
‘Prevents you from moving’
Buddy I can walk just fine but if you ask my hypermobile and asthmatic ass to run, I’m just not going to. I can’t. My legs and lungs are fucked up. Guess I don’t get the extra bonus, oh well. Sucks.
If you’re heavy, running can be a real challenge. ‘Promoting fitness’ isn’t done through a braindead scheme like this. Not for people who need guidance and help to get into a body shape they can be happy and healthy in.
You know who will get the extra bonus? Healthy people who are able to run, and who have no health conditions to begin with.
You are really, really underestimating the range of disabilities people can have while they can still function at their jobs. And how this braindead scheme excludes people for things outside of their control.
And also, ‘not be a slob’. Am I a slob because I can’t just run a mile? You take my legs that bend like a silly straw and my lungs that collapse in on themselves and feel like they’re filled with cat litter that is on fire, and see if you run a mile.
Jfc calling us slobs. Go fuck yourself.
deleted by creator
I’m disabled. I work full time. I could not fulfill these exercise requirements, but I can hold down a job. That is not a rare category of human being.
We should have universal healthcare, not this nonsense from a private employer.
deleted by creator
Ah, no. Plenty of us work. Desk jobs exist. I sit at one now. I have been told by my doctor I should not jog or run due to the impact to my knees.
So you don’t know how they police it, but 1 sentence later you see how easy it is to police.
Ah, the old “life isn’t fair” copout. Why should we not do our best to be fair?
Ah, yes, because there is no daylight between the binary options of heart failure at 40 and growing old.
deleted by creator
You still have it wrong. You can’t just show up and easily get disability benefits. And that statement still reinforces the lie that the disabled are lazy, when the disabled want to work. And that is only people that meet the definition of disabled. There are surely more people with physical limitations that don’t otherwise qualify as “disabled”.
They specifically say walking only gets 1:0.3 credit. How can you assume that is unpoliced when it is a specific policy? The logical assumption is that is IS policed since they took the time to give lesser credit to walking.
And they have no exceptions. That is the point.
What a straw man. No one is preventing people from healthy activities.
And research has proven walking those 20 minutes is a very beneficial for your health