The Morris Plan

One Employer's View of Job Hunting Screw-Ups

You may be aware from my prior posts that I don’t think any adult should be working for someone else. It’s okay in high school, and perhaps while you attend college (although I personally think everyone should be running t-shirt businesses or starting the next Apple out of their dorms), but at some point it’s time to take charge of your own destiny. You can never be completely in charge of your destiny if someone else gets to decide whether you will continue to be employed.  If you want control, put yourself on a plan to someday work for yourself.  The only acceptable violation of this rule would be working for me.  I am told that is the closest thing to heaven on earth.

But many of you will never take this advice to heart, and will continue in the job market.  As many have said to me, "some people just like being employees."  That's cool; as I recall from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, the betas loved being betas.  So, for purposes of this post, let's assume you will continue in the job market, either by choice, while you get your escape plan in place, or because you experienced chemical interference while maturing in a decanting bottle (that was another reference to Brave New World).   

As I was sitting here going through the many resumes I receive from people wanting to work for me, I thought it might be worthwhile to post a few of the mistakes I see. I would think that these are common sense, but if that was the case, then why are so many people making the same bad moves?  As you read these, you'll see that some are simply a matter of personal preference.  Some employers would not consider these to be mistakes at all, but following these suggestions will nonetheless serve you well.  So, here are some tips for your next job search.

1. Use a professional e-mail address.  We all understand that you came up with a cute email address that had tremendous significance among your friends. But when I get an email from 2cuteforyou – you’re right – that is too cute for me.  Take two minutes and sign up for a professional address.  Just use your name or some variation.  And admittedly I may be alone in this, but I have an automatic bias against anyone who has an email address with numbers, such as LawMan1004@qmail.com. My first thought is that this prospective employee is not very imaginative, using a name that 1003 before him had already picked.  (Unless you actually were the 1004th law man somewhere, in which case I apologize.)

2. READ the job listing. Sites such as Monster.com make it easy to review and respond to job listings, but there is no reason to respond in a mass-mailing format. When I recently advertised for a part-time billing clerk, I received responses from people looking for jobs as a graphic artist, office manager and even as an attorney. How does that happen? Are they only going as far as the name of my business, without bothering to see what position is being offered? Many of the responses that did make mention of the billing clerk position, also made clear that they were looking for a full-time position "with an opportunity for growth."  Respond to the specific job listing, and customize your presentation for that position.

3. Check your spelling and send only PDF files. I receive many emails with attached resumes in Word format, which is an automatic strike against the applicant because I don’t like the evil empire that is Microsoft, and it shows that the candidate makes false assumptions (many law firms do not use Word).  I even receive resumes with the "docx" extension.  Yes, I have installed the upgrade that allows me to view docx files, but trust me many employers have not.   But what really amazes me is when I open these Word files, there are all the misspellings, conveniently underlined in red.  Even if there are no misspellings, all the words that are not recognized are underlined in red, and all the formatting boxes are shown.  It just looks horrible.  All resumes should be submitted in PDF, unless the employer requests a different format.  You spent all that time crafting an attractive resume, don't then trash it by sending it in Word format; the modern-day equivalent of sending a resume on onion skin paper.  Many Word documents come with prior versions still included in the metadata.  While the version sent to me professes the applicant's life long desire to work in the legal field, the prior versions of the document state his lifelong desires to work in advertising, work in retail and to work on a crab boat.  I have noticed that some employers state that they want all resumes submitted in Word format, and I suspect that some of them make that demand specifically to peek at the metadata.  If you respond to such a request, be sure to remove that information.

4.  Target the Employer.  The applicants that get the most attention are the ones that create the impression that they really want to work for my business.  Back in my misguided days, when I was still working for other people, I went to every interview armed with information about the company, and if possible, the interviewer.  I don't recall ever not getting a job offer (I probably was rejected, but selective memory is a wonderful thing).  In many instances, the interviewer would go to bat for me to the exclusion of more qualified candidates, just because I had wowed him with my knowledge of the company.  With the Internet, not knowing about a company prior to the interview is inexcusable.  An applicant should never ask me during an interview what kind of law we practice.  That demonstrates a lack of homework.  The question should be, "I know you have a number of defamation cases, and that is an area that really interests me.  Do you think I would have the opportunity to work on those cases?"

5.  Follow up without being a pain. I get busy and the stack of resumes that have avoided the circular file sits there, waiting for my attention. The last time I hired someone, I had already done all the initial interviews and was just trying to make a final decision. One of the applicants sent me almost daily emails, each one offering another reason why she would be perfect for the position. She was not the most qualified applicant, but I was so impressed with her initiative that I hired her. With some, this might backfire, but I can’t imagine that many employers would be put-off by someone making it clear that they really want to be hired.

You Do Not Need a Special Diet

Myth: You Need a Special Diet Because You are Overweight Due to Your Gender, Genes, Parents, Hormones, Metabolism, Insulin Levels, Age, Blood Type, Carbohydrate Addiction, etc.

We all have the need to feel special. Even when it comes to the issue of weight, we want to feel that our situation is unique; that we are overweight for some special, obscure reason. That way, we don’t have to feel like a failure for our past attempts to get in shape. After all, how could you possibly have been expected to know that your problem wasn’t eating too much, it was your cursed blood type?

Forget all these diet crazes. Most of them are just nonsense, and even the ones that have some validity don’t bring much to the table. For instance, what good does it do to blame your weight problem on your genes? Does it make you feel better to know that you are predisposed to being overweight? That may be relevant to keeping the weight off (and I will show you how easy that is to do), but to lose the weight in the first place you must do what everyone else must do – burn more calories than you consume.

Let me give you a slightly crass hypothetical to illustrate the point. We are going to take a group of 50 overweight volunteers, all needing to lose about 30 pounds.  We lock them all up with nothing but water for two months (the outer limit of how long you can survive without food). So that our volunteers will burn a few calories during the two months and not just lay around moaning, we install treadmill-powered televisions. The only way for the volunteers to escape the boredom is to walk on the treadmills.

After the two months we throw open the doors and our volunteers stumble out. What do think they would look like? Do you really believe that some would emerge, plump as ever, due to their gender, genes, parents, hormones, metabolism, insulin levels, age, or blood type? I have this comical image of one rotund woman, standing among 49 thin people, saying, "I told you no diet would work with me; I am predisposed to being overweight because of my metabolism."  The only way that could happen is if she ate one of the other volunteers.

Every time I think a fad diet has run its course, it reappears.  I would have thought for certain that with all the information available, no one would ever again be foolish enough to fall for the "blood type" diet.  Now I hear that it is back.  The reason that these diets never die is because just about any diet will work if it consists of lowering your caloric intake.  Let me give you an example.

The Vowel Diet

I’ve just discovered the secret to weight loss. It’s called The Vowel Diet. Studies show that your body cannot properly process and absorb any foods that contain the vowels "E" and "I" in their name. This is a secret that was known by our ancestors – that’s why they put these letters in all the bad foods when they named them. But this secret was lost over the ages, and that’s why we are now fatter than at any other time in history. The medical world knows about the vowel diet – that is why most doctors are slimmer than the public at large – but they have kept the information secret so they can make a fortune treating diseases caused by excess weight.

Under The Vowel Diet, you cannot eat any dairy (certain dairy products are doubly bad as evidenced by their vowels, such as ice cream). Do not use the broad category of "meat" to exclude that entire group, rather look to the individual names of the meat. For example, beef is not permitted, but pork is okay. Note the wisdom of our ancestors. Even if you go to the subgroups, the rule still applies. Hamburger, a form of beef, is out because of the "E", while ham, a form of pork, is still acceptable. Similarly, for fish, you should use the specific name of the fish. In other words, salmon, trout and tuna are permissible, but halibut is not. The same rule applies to fowl; chicken and turkey are out, but you can eat all the squab you want.

As silly as this fictional Vowel Diet may sound, it is no more nonsensical than most of the garbage that is being foisted on the dieting public. In fact, it would be far more effective than much of what is being offered. It would eliminate a lot of fatty, caloric foods from your diet (beef, ice cream, milk, etc.), and almost certainly people who followed The Vowel Diet would lose weight as a result. Joy Behar would mention on The View how she had lost weight on The Vowel Diet, and zealots would take to the streets to proclaim how the ancient food code had finally been broken.

Don't fall for all this nonsense.  If someone loses weight on the Blood Type diet, it's not because the idiot author proclaimed that people with A positive blood should not eat Snickers bars; it's because they consumed fewer calories.  The next time you hear the latest rationalization for excess weight, keep in mind the image of the 50 people emerging from lock-up.

Lose the Weight First, Eat Healthy Later

Myth:  Whatever Diet You Choose, it Should be Healthy

The self-proclaimed diet experts will tell you that the diet you choose should consist of a healthy assortment of foods, so you should shy away from fad diets that emphasize too much protein or limit you to one type of food.

Let’s think about that one for a minute. As a general proposition, I will except the premise that you should not choose a diet that affirmatively harms your health. So, you should take a pass on "Dr. Barnburner’s Bacon and Broken Glass Diet." I am also not big on diets that completely turn a blind eye toward common sense, such as high-protein diets that give you the okay to eat all the fat you want.

With that said, keep in mind that you are already in an unhealthy state (being overweight) and on an unhealthy diet (eating whatever it is that made you overweight). Your goal should be to move as quickly as possible from your current unhealthy state (fat) to a far more healthy state (thin).  Rather than to subscribe to the dogma that your diet must be healthy, you should apply your common sense.  If eating unhealthy for two months would allow you to drop, say, 50 pounds, that is better than taking six months on a healthier diet to reach the same result.

Remember most of all that a low calorie diet is not unhealthy. Indeed, as discussed more fully in The Morris Plan, reducing caloric intake is the only definitive "fountain of youth" that has been discovered thus far. It is true that with any low calorie diet, it is very unlikely that you will receive all the appropriate food groups, vitamins and minerals. But guess what? You’re not receiving all the appropriate food groups, vitamins and minerals now. Why are diets required to be healthy when our "normal" eating habits don’t even achieve that standard?

Don’t worry that the diet you choose may not provide the daily minimum requirement for selenium. That’s why God invented supplements.

Go Strong or Go Home

Myth:  You can get a good workout without ever breaking a sweat.

I was listening to a radio talk show one day, and some poor woman called the resident shrink to ask a question about losing weight. The caller broke into tears almost immediately, stating that she rides her exercise bike six to eight hours a day, and she still doesn’t lose any weight. "I’m even riding it while I’m talking to you now," she cried.

Sadly, the therapist gave her the usual nonsense about how she should more accepting of her body, go to counseling to try to determine the roots of her overeating, and perhaps try to cut some fat from her diet.

What the therapist should have said is, "Turn up the damn resistence on your exercise bike!" The caller was delusional. She was deluding herself into thinking that she should be gaining some benefit from sitting on a bike for hours, moving her feet around. Obviously, if she could ride the bike that long, and even carry on a conversation on the radio while doing so, she was not working hard enough to gain any physical benefit.

I see this type of person at the gym all the time. They might be on a stationery bike, treadmill or stair machine. The machine is set to zero resistance or to such a slow pace, that their heart rates never go more than 20 beats above their resting heart rates.

When I rail against these pretend workouts, I often hear, "well, it’s better than nothing." Wrong; it's worse than nothing. A wimpy workout is worse than no workout at all. The reason for this is that it is providing false information to the putative exerciser. We all walk around with an ever changing and evolving health plan. Even when a person is not on an active diet, hopefully they are still monitoring their overall health situation. For instance, if you had an especially big dinner last night, you might elect to skip the Krispy Kreme donuts today. If you went to the lunch buffet on Monday and Tuesday, Wednesday you might opt for a salad.

But, as the old computer expression goes, garbage in, garbage out. If you are leading yourself to think you are working out at the gym when all you are really doing is sitting on a bike moving your feet, that misconception will go into your internal health dialog. The result is that you have a third slice of pizza while watching the football game because, after all, you worked out. You may elect to super size your fries, because you worked out.

Further, this delusion is harmful to your attempts to incorporate a real exercise plan into your life. How do you think our woman on the radio would react to the suggestion that she just needs to exercise more? "I tried exercising eight hours a day, and it didn’t do me any good," she would likely say. Exercise is no longer a part of her health plan, because in her mind she tried it with no results.

Don’t fake yourself out. Pick an exercise, and then do it right. Whichever aerobic exercise you choose, it should leave you sweating and slightly winded. Your body offers a great internal barometer for your workout. If you are really out of shape, then you will be sweating and winded in very short order. As you become more fit, it will take more and more effort to achieve the same level of fatigue.

When you decide to exercise, do it right. Don’t waste your time only pretending to exercise.  Invest in a heart rate monitor.  Most gyms have equipment that wirelessly monitors your heart rate and adjusts the resistance automatically to keep you in the exercise heart rate zone.  This is an easy way to keep yourself honest.

Save the Behavior Modification for AFTER Your Diet

Myth:  A Good Diet Must Include Behavior Modification Or You Will Put All the Weight Back On

Here is how the logic goes for this boneheaded statement. If you need to lose weight, then obviously you have an eating pattern that is causing weight gain. A diet provides an artificial eating pattern, telling you when to eat your grapefruit and dry toast. This artificial eating pattern will result in weight loss, but if you go back to your old ways after you lose the weight, you will put the weight back on.

That’s all fine, but there is no reason to start your behavior modification campaign during the diet. In fact, that is the worst possible time to do so. Any diet is by definition an artificial situation. Let’s say you decide the follow the Slim Fast plan – three shakes a day and a sensible dinner. How much behavior modification can you accomplish while following this plan? Well, you could learn to put the shake down after every swallow, savoring each one. You could learn that blending your drinks with a little crushed ice makes them more like a milk shake, but that too much ice makes them watery. You might even learn that a 72-ounce steak does not qualify as a "sensible dinner" even if you skip the garlic toast.

Will any of this have much application when you go off your Slim Fast regimen? The far better approach is get on a diet that will allow you to lose the weight as fast as possible, and plan your behavior modification for after the diet when you are back to eating real food.

The best known diet centers – Jenny Craig and NutriSystem – both claim their success comes at least in  part from the behavior modification they teach. Jenny Craig calls the plan "a comprehensive approach to Food, Body and Mind." I have no beef with these two reduced-calorie diet plans, beyond the fact that the plans are too much work and the weight loss is far too slow. I’ve tried both plans over the years. But don’t for a second think that these plans offer any practical behavior modification. While on the diet, you look at the chart, see what you are supposed to eat next, pull out the proper boxes and prepare the food. True, you are eating smaller portions and are probably eating a much more balanced diet, but that is only because you are eating what you are given. If anything, the lesson you learn from Jenny Craig and NutriSystem is, "eat everything that is put in front of you."  Not a behavior modification you want to adopt.

Forget the myth that a diet should include behavior modification. Indeed, it is far better to save the modification until after the diet. If you have any dieting experience, then you know that food starts to taste really good when you are depriving yourself. After five days of consuming nothing but green tea, a saltine cracker dipped in pasta sauce tastes like ambrosia. Thus, after a diet it is actually far easier to modify your eating habits since you’ll gladly accept any type of real food. Your old, unmodified self may have fallen into the ritual of ordering a large double-cheese, double-pepperoni, stuffed crust pizza every Friday, but the post-diet you will be very happy with the prospect of chowing down on something far less caloric.

Whether you elect to follow The Morris Plan or some other diet, get rid of the all-or-none mentality.  Use a transition diet when you end the rapid loss diet, and save your behavior modification for when you go back to unrestricted foods.

Fast Weight Loss is Better than Slow Weight Loss

Myth:  You Should Strive to Lose No More Than One to Two Pounds Per Week

Dogs have four legs. Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer has four legs. Rudolph is a dog.

This is the common flaw in logic that has led to the ridiculous claim that you must limit yourself to losing no more than one or two pounds per week while on a diet. It is also a perfect example of the basic assumption made by most of the so-called experts: that you cannot be trusted to apply some common sense to your dieting efforts.

Here is what has led to the slow weight loss nonsense. Statistically, people who lose weight very rapidly are more likely to put it back on. This is because such rapid weight loss is usually accomplished with a very low calorie diet, and the dieter, feeling deprived, goes back to his or her old ways and lets the weight creep back on. Dieters who lose the weight more slowly have the time to assimilate to the new regimen, and do not feel as deprived at the conclusion. A slow dieter does not feel compelled to reward himself with a week at the Bellagio Buffet in Las Vegas as a reward for losing weight.

But this is where the logic breaks down, because the connection between cause and effect is blurred.  The diet gurus reason that if dieters who lose weight quickly tend to put it back on, then dieters should be told to slow down their weight loss. In fact, this belief is so strongly held by some that they suggest you sabotage your diet if it is working too well. On the Slim-Fast web site, you are told that if you find yourself losing more than the maximum two pounds per week, you should find ways to add more calories to your diet. It is suggested, for example, that you might want to add Parmesan cheese to your Slim-Fast pasta. In Weight Loss, Dr. Art Ulene finds even that rate of loss to be too much, suggesting just one pound per week.  But the rapid weight loss is not causing the problem, it's what the dieters do after the rapid weight loss. 

Let’s apply a little logic here (understanding that logic to most diet "experts" is like Kryptonite to Superman). It is true that if you starve yourself for several weeks, it’s like throwing chum to a shark when you return to regular food. But why does everything related to dieting need to be an all-or-none proposition? Here is a shocker for the industry: you are not limited to one diet. Why not plan a diet that allows you to dump as quickly as possible 90 percent of the weight you want to lose, and then switch to the sort of slow loss plan the other experts suggest?

Don’t let false logic cause you to stay overweight a moment longer than necessary. Excess weight is not just a matter of aesthetics, it is a health issue. If you discovered a possible skin cancer on your arm, you would not wait a year or two to deal with the situation. If you are overweight, you are unhealthy, and you should not listen to anyone who tells you to take your time in dealing with that health issue. The slow weight loss proponents are saying, "losing weight too fast is unhealthy, so stay fat and unhealthy longer so you won’t be unhealthy." Could the logic be any more tortured?

Dr. Art Ulene tested his weight loss program as part of NBC’s Today Show, using 20 volunteers.  Two or three of the volunteers were very overweight, but most just had the 40 pounds or so that creeps on with age.  Dr. Ulene is a card-carrying member of the slow weight loss club.  After six months, following the good doctor's slow loss approach, the average weight loss among the 20 volunteers was 18.5 pounds (around three-quarters of a pound per week).  Since larger people drop more actual pounds as a percentage of total weight, I'm confident that the two or three very obese volunteers skewed the results somewhat, meaning that the remainging volunteers probably lost less than 15 pounds on average.  Dr. Ulene proudly displays in his book a picture of the volunteers, taken at the six month reunion.  Sadly, while the volunteers are all smiles, you can see that they are all still overweight, most of them very much so.  In other words, they have been depriving themselves for six months, and are still fat.  Who wouldn't find that discouraging?  Think how much happier and healthier these people would have been if they had followed The Morris Plan, dropping an average of 50 pounds during that same six months (or at least a far higher percentage of their weight if they didn’t have that much to lose).  In that same picture, all but the three heaviest would have been completely trim, already living their new healthy lives as lean, attractive people.  Should they be deprived of that because statistically they might put it back on?

Don't fall for the slow weight loss nonsense.  Rapid weight loss affords instant gratification, you are healthier faster, and following The Morris Plan, you don't have to worry about putting it back on.

Diets Absolutely, Positively DO Work

The Claim that "Diets Don’t Work" is Absolute Nonsense

The statement that "diets don't work" is the biggest load of crap that has ever been dumped on the overweight community (i.e., just about everyone in America). This unfortunate phrase has become a part of our lexicon. Mention you are dieting while in a group of people, and inevitably some yahoo will chime in with, "you shouldn’t diet, diets don’t work."

This phrase was popularized by Bob Schwartz, author of Diets Don’t Work (as well as The One Hour Orgasm, if that tells you anything). The statement is fallacious for a few reasons. First, it really doesn’t even make sense. Every human on earth is on a "diet" because that word simply means "food and drink regularly provided or consumed." If someone is in the habit of lunching on two Big Macs and a large chocolate shake, then that is their "diet."

But let’s give Mr. Schwartz the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he was using "diet" in the colloquial sense of limiting one’s food intake in order to lose weight. He takes the position that diets don’t work because, according to him, only one out of every 200 people that loses weight on a diet manages to keep it off. And even that one person, he asserts, only manages to keep it off because he or she is "compulsive." So, according to Mr. Schwartz, a diet is a failure unless the weight loss is permanent.

To what else in life do we apply such a standard? I washed my car a week ago, and now it is dirty again. Watch for my new book, Carwashes Don’t Work. When I was in grade school, I could rattle off every State capital, but as I sit here now, I can’t recall the capital of South Carolina. This means, of course, that Studying Don’t Work. And finally, you can work your whole life with no problem, but just try to stop showing up and that lousy no good boss of yours will stop paying you, meaning that Work Don’t Work.

When you look beneath these claims of weight loss without dieting, the truth is quite amazing. In his book Weight Loss with Dr. Art Ulene, Dr. Ulene states that his weight loss program "is not a diet, because diets don’t work." In fact, he claims his plan contains "no rigid menus or meal plans, no forbidden foods, no calorie counting, and no meal substitutes . . . ."  Quite a deal. How does he manage weight loss without a diet?  Sign me up.

It turns out his groundbreaking plan is two fold: He tells you to exercise more, and provides a low-fat diet plan. You are instructed to "count all of the calories you are consuming throughout the day, accounting separately for fat calories and those derived from protein and carbohydrates." Then you are required to determine which foods must be eliminated from your diet in order to reduce your total fat intake to no more than 20 percent of your total calories for the day.

But hold the phone, Maud. The good doctor promised that this was not a diet, and that there would be no calorie counting. As you can see, in reality Dr. Ulene and Mr. Schwartz are both just playing a game of semantics. They are defining a diet as a strict menu plan, intended for some limited period of time. Their weight loss plans, on the other hand, simply lay out the foods that you should eat, tell you which ones to avoid, and tell you to eat right for the rest of your life, with a little exercise thrown in. Follow these suggestions, and you should find yourself losing about a pound a week. But no, no, no, we didn’t tell you to diet, because diets don’t work.

This line of nonsense would be humorous if it weren’t so tragic. People have a hard enough time staying on a diet for a few months. Now they are being told they have to diet the rest of their lives. On top of that, they are told that they should lose weight very slowly, meaning that they will be carrying unhealthy weight much longer than necessary (assuming they even lose the weight at the suggested glacial pace), and they give up perhaps years of the tremendous satisfaction and self-esteem that comes with being fit.  Picture the poor sap that needs to lose 65 pounds and is unfortuneate enough to buy one of these "no-diet diet books" that tells him to lose 3/4 of a pound per week.  For three months he faithfully weighs and calculates the caloric content of everything he eats, and deprives himself of all the fatty foods he loves.  Assuming he never cheated and actually lost the promised nine pounds, he probably won't see much or any difference in the mirror, and he'll be facing another one and a half years of this non-diet until he loses the rest of the weight!

The truth is that a diet works if you lose weight, and the faster the better. I will show you how to lose weight incredibly fast. And as you will see, once it is gone, I show you a foolproof method that will keep the weight off forever.

It is Not OK to be Overweight

Hopefully with my last several posts I've shown you the wisdom of working for yourself.  While you work to get your financial life in order by seizing your own destiny, let's turn to your health.  Over the next few posts I'll be publishing some excerpts from my upcoming diet book, The Morris Plan.  I begin by fightning the concept that overweight people should just "accept themselves."

Putting the "accept your weight" nonsense to rest once and for all.

If bald guys (a club I will be joining if my father is any indication) want to start a club and shout from  the rooftops that "bald is beautiful" – more power to them. Baldness is a natural condition in many men, and it’s great that they can have some fun with it.  But if it should someday be discovered that heart disease and diabetes are caused by lack of hair, we would expect that the follicle challenged men of the world would be looking for ways to regrow their hair.  We would not deem such behavior to be narcissistic, nor would we tell them to accept the missing hair and all the health problems that come with it.  We would not write books telling them that they should just accept themselves and to reject the message being sent by the media, that thinks all men should have hair. (After all, no men really have hair like that; it’s all airbrushed.)

Magazines like Radiance (which thankfully has cratered) and BBW tout the wonders of being overweight. I’ve never actually caught them arguing that fat is better, but they make very clear that you should not be concerned about being fat. Here is a quote from a recent issue of BBW that nicely summarizes the position of the pro-fat crowd:

"As plus-size women, we have a tough row to hoe in this society. Stereotypes about us - we're stupid, we're lazy, we're unhealthy and we're unattractive - are so pervasive that they impact our education, our careers, our medical care and our relationships. Negative attitudes about people of size are so ingrained that preschoolers develop size prejudice before they exhibit any other kind of prejudice. There's an annual $33 billion dollar diet industry in this country that perpetuates those stereotypes in order to improve their bottom line."

There you have it.  There is no problem being fat.  In fact, the idea that being overweight is bad is a huge conspiracy propagated by the "diet industry" and supported by our schools. 

No matter how much some people want it to be otherwise, seriously overweight people do not get a politically-correct pass. I hope I can finally make this distinction clear enough for everyone to understand.  A fat person is not a bad person, nor should he or she be subject to any derision because of their weight. Overweight people should not walk around in a state of depression because of their weight. Nor should they feel shame for being overweight (as long as they are doing something about it). At the local water park, I overhear comments about the fat people, such as, "how can that guy go out in a bathing suit in public like that?" It’s just stored fat for crying out loud.

But overweight people should never be told to "accept" their weight.  A fat person that is not doing anything about their weight is bad becasue they are being self-destructive, no less than someone who drinks too much.  Being fat is bad, and no one should ever argue otherwise or encourage someone to remain fat.  Here is just a partial list of the health problems associated with excess weight that have been confirmed through research: hypertension, cancer (especially breast, colorectal and endometrial), sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol), gastroesophageal reflux disease (severe heartburn), diabetes, coronary artery disease and strokes.

There is a movement to remove all stigma from society. Stigma, when appropriate, is good. What the "accept yourself" crowd fails to realize is that a certain level of stigma is appropriate toward people that  engage in self-destructive behavior, and doing nothing about being overweight is self-destructive. Going back to the days when it was necessary to eject Og from the cave when he exhibited bizarre behavior, if society can use stigma to direct people back toward non-destructive behavior, that is a good thing. Smokers, drug users and people who drink to excess should be stigmatized, and yes, fat people should not be exempt from disapproving looks.  How many times have you heard a story about someone who, after being called fat by some jerk, finally got serious about losing weight?  A recent high-profile example of effective stigma involves the beach pictures of Jennifer Love Hewitt. Within two months of the release of the unflattering bathing suit photos, and despite her ensuing "real women have curves" protestations, she had dropped 20 pounds.

As The Morris Plan makes clear, there is no justification for remaining fat. The stigma that befalls fat people is based on the fact that they are failing to take proper care of themselves. Just as you would have a negative reaction to someone who refused to bathe, because it reflects a lack of concern over hygiene, it is understandable that people see obesity as a lack of concern over health. 

It is tragic that so much of our energy and money is spent treating the health issues caused by excess weight, instead of attacking the weight itself. When I hit my 40s, I started having severe heartburn problems. I spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with this issue, including more than one trip to the emergency room.  I chalked up all of this as a normal part of aging, because most of my friends were experiencing heartburn problems, albeit to a lesser degree. No doctor ever told me that losing weight might help the problem. If any doctor had offered surgery as a possible solution, I would have jumped at it.

When I dropped 50 pounds, the heartburn stopped. I’ve stop taking all the medicine. Words cannot express how nice it is to be able to go to a restaurant with friends and eat and drink whatever I want with no fear of heartburn. I also used to suffer from sciatica – a back related problem that causes pain (or sometimes numbness) to radiate down your leg. As an added bonus, that too has disappeared, although I also attribute that to exercise.

It is beyond dispute; excess weight is a serious health problem. In your weak moments, when Dr. Phil is telling you to be happy with yourself and not to fixate on your weight, keep telling yourself that the desire to lose weight is not narcissistic, it is an essential part of maintaining your health. Don’t rationalize to the contrary with anecdotal evidence. Yes, we all know or have heard of someone who was seriously overweight, ate a high-fat diet their whole lives, and lived to 100. Just as there are smokers that never develop any smoke-related health issues, there are exceptions to every rule. However, you cannot guide your life by the anomalies.

When you feel like quitting, or a diet saboteur is telling you that you look fine and should just accept your weight, remember that this is far more than a question of aesthetics. Your excess weight is literally killing you.

At-Will Employment (part 5)

Are you convinced yet?  My final war story illustrating why you are never safe if you work for someone else.

The Unwitting Thief

David was a dream employee. A salesman for a manufacturer, his sales always far exceeded projections. His loyalty to the company was manifest – he had worked there for 30 years – even though the company did little to earn such loyalty. For example, the company continually reduced his sales area, knowing that David would somehow find a way to wring more sales out of whatever area was left to him.

One sales technique David had used very successfully was to conduct motivational presentations at the retailers that sold his company’s product. He would work the salespeople at the stores into a selling frenzy, resulting in more sales by them and more orders for him.

One day he gave one of his presentations to the sales force of his major client — a client that represented 80% of his sales. The presentation was a big success, and while the sales people were still applauding, he scooped up all his notes and materials and put them in his briefcase. What he did not know was that he had inadvertently picked up some paperwork belonging to the customer. The documents regarded about $30 in repairs that the retailer had made to some of the products, and for which the retailer was entitled to reimbursement by David’s company.

This "theft" was witnessed by some fresh out of high school, "Third-Assistant-Night-Manager" who decided that the salesman had intentionally taken the documents in order to save his company the $30. No doubt he was sure that if he reported the foul deed, he would get a raise, and thereby be able to afford more pimple cream.

Later that day the salesman discovered the documents in his briefcase, and immediately called the customer to say he was sorry, and that he would bring them right over. It was then he got the shock of his life. He was informed that the customer had already called David’s manager and asked that he be replaced. The customer didn’t feel David could be trusted anymore. More shocking, without any hearing, or even discussing the matter with David, the boss had agreed. The customer was such a major account, that the boss did not dare say no. He had already assigned the account to another salesperson, who coincidentally worked under a much lower commission schedule than David. So, for accidentally picking up some documents, David was stripped of nearly $100,000 per year in income, without any warning, hearing, or even a chance to tell his side of the story.

Obviously, David could sue, right? Well, let’s consider that for a moment. Who would he sue; his employer? Let’s all say it together. The employer did not need a reason to fire him, so it certainly did not need a reason to remove him from an account. And, indeed, even if David could show that due to his longevity with the company, there existed an implied agreement that he could only be "demoted" for cause, arguably the employer had cause. David had taken the customer’s documents, albeit inadvertently, resulting in a very angry customer. If the employer refused to replace him on the account, it ran the risk of losing the account. If you believe the law requires a company to forgo millions of dollars in orders out of loyalty to an employee, you really do have a skewed view.

How about suing the company that insisted he be replaced? Again, he did take the documents, and there is no law that says someone must work with a salesperson they no longer trust, no matter how groundless that distrust may be.

David went attorney shopping, and while several were willing to represent him on an hourly basis, the fact that none would handle the case for a percentage of the judgment properly indicated to David that they were not confident of the result. He eventually opted to go into early semi-retirement, working as a consultant for one-fifth of his prior income. He left the company he had worked thirty years for with nothing – not even a retirement party or gold watch.

My life affirming moment about self-employment came one day during lunch with a friend.  My goal since my freshman year of college had always been to open my own law firm, which I did.  I was having lunch with a friend who at age 43 was a high-ranking mucky-muck at a bank.  He was very depressed, and explained that he had just come from his evaluation, which had not gone well.  He was afraid he would either be demoted or terminated. 

It struck me at that moment what a ridiculous concept it is to work for someone, putting them in a position where they get to decide your worth and future.  Like an errant child, you have to sit and be lectured periodically about the bad things you have done.  Life Tip #1:  Grow up and become master of your own destiny by being your own boss.

At-Will Employment (part 4)

The Freedom to Speak Your Mind

"It’s a hobby. Some people like to play instruments, I like to write." That is how Sharon explained her passion for publishing her blog on the Internet. In the olden days (about five years ago) people were content to write their daily musings in a personal journal, seen by no one except close friends and trespassers. With the advent of the Internet, there has inexplicably come the desire to publish even the most mundane thoughts for all the world to see.

In Sharon’s case, her blog was a daily report of her life, which included what was going on at work. It was not at all mean spirited, but if she felt someone had acted unfairly at the office, she might elect to report that fact in her blog. Even then, however, in order to avoid embarrassing the people she discussed, she never mentioned anyone by name.

It didn’t take too long until word of her blog spread through her workplace, and it took even less time for one of her supervisors to take offense at something Sharon had written. When Sharon showed up for work the next day, she was fired on the spot.

"Now wait a second," you say, "that is a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech." An employer may not need a reason to fire an employee, but the reason cannot violate public policy. Surely this violates her right to free speech, the most fundamental and sacrosanct of all public policies in America. Not only that, but Sharon was fired for something she was doing on her own time. That can’t possibly be legal, right?

We’ll take them in turn. Since Sharon was just speaking her mind, was her termination a violation of her right to free speech? The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Contrary to another popularly held misconception, the right to free speech only protects you from intrusion by the government, not by individuals or companies.  An employer has every right to tell you to shut the hell up. The First Amendment does not prevent a private employer from limiting what you can say.  Sorry Sharon, you can say whatever you want, but your employer doesn't have to put up with it.

How about the fact that Sharon did this on her own time? Can an employer seek to control what an employee does on his or her own time? Most employees will scream, "what I do on my own time is my own business", but that is not true. To use an extreme example to illustrate the point, assume that an employer found out that one of its employees was burglarizing homes on the weekend. Few would argue that the employer is somehow required to keep a burglar on the payroll. (Some will cry "innocent until proven guilty", but again, only the government must treat you as innocent until proven guilty.) It is not in and of itself a violation of public policy to fire someone for what they do on their own time.

The issue of whether an employer can dictate what an employee does on his own time recently made big news when a large company announced that it would terminate any employees that tested positive for tobacco use. In other words, smoke at work, smoke at home, smoke anywhere and you lose your job. The vast majority of water cooler lawyers opined that the courts would shoot this down as a complete infringement of personal privacy and freedom, but they were wrong. Since an employer can fire you for any reason that does not violate public policy, that includes things you do off duty, including smoking, eating fatty foods or listening to Kenny G (which most people would consider just cause in any event).

The only time an employer cannot fire an employee for what he does on his own time is when such a limitation would itself create a violation of public policy. For example, terminating an employee because he voted on his own time is a violation of public policy because that would be an interference with the right to vote. There are also specific statutory protections for what you do on your own time. For instance, if you decide to contact other employees about forming a labor union, that is a protected activity and cannot result in your termination even though the employer may be opposed to formation of a union. However, absent a statute or a public policy, your employer can absolutely fire you for things you do on your own time. If your employer finds it strange that you collect salt and pepper shakers, the axe can fall.

In Sharon’s case, there was no protection for the musings in her blog. Posting negative comments about her employer was not deemed to be such a fundamental right that the termination violated public policy.

I know as people, especially attorneys, read these examples, they will recall a case they once read, or a story they were told, wherein people under similar circumstances did successfully sue for wrongful termination. Usually this is because while the cases sound similar, there was a crucial fact in one case that was not present in the other.

For example, I just told you the story of Sharon, and how she could do nothing about being fired for what she wrote in her blog about a supervisor. Nonetheless, I obtained a sizeable judgment for two women who were fired for what they said about a supervisor. The difference was, in the case of these two women the company was trying to evaluate the supervisor, and told the employees that they would not be fired if they said bad things about her. They said bad things about her, so she fired them. There is an equitable principle called promissory estoppel. It basically holds that if you make a promise to someone, knowing they will rely on that representation, you can be held to that promise. I successfully sued the company on the basis that the employees had relied on the "no termination" promise to their detriment, and had to be compensated. 

Don’t be falsely encouraged by friends and family that are certain someone under the same circumstances recovered a bazillion dollars, unless you can be certain the facts were identical.