6 votes (100%)
No votes (0%)

6 members have voted

Joined: Sep 9, 2013
  • Threads: 81
  • Posts: 208
October 2nd, 2015 at 6:22:07 AM permalink
The court has said that Borgata servers agreed to the weight gain limit policy when hired so they have to abide by it.


What do you think of this?

My opinion is Many jobs have conditions of employment that workers have to follow. The servers make big Money and they should be expected to keep up their end of the agreement
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 895
October 2nd, 2015 at 7:01:26 AM permalink
I would agree that if you sign a contract,. you should be held to its terms. However, it sounds like management was harassing the servers about their appearance, rather than taking a professional approach. It looks like the harassment cases are going forward.

I'm just glad my job doesn't have a weight gain policy. I would have been fired years ago!
"Dealer has 'rock'... Pay 'paper!'"
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 4284
October 2nd, 2015 at 7:23:50 AM permalink
Quote: Joeman

I would agree that if you sign a contract,. you should be held to its terms. However, it sounds like management was harassing the servers about their appearance, rather than taking a professional approach. It looks like the harassment cases are going forward...

Well, once they sign the contract and you agree management has the right to "remind" them, it kind of becomes a grey area on how they do it. I mean, how on Earth do you even approach that conversation? Have you ever tried telling your gf she should maybe just watch what she eats? I'm not saying the managers didn't harass them, but I also can't see a conversation about a girls weight where she's not going to be upset and 'feel' harassed... professionally done or not.

Unless the girls have recordings or specific comments to prove harassment, I can't see it going well for them. Even then, if a manager says "Hey, you're getting a bit chubby" is that harassment? Surely it could have been handled in a more "professional" way, but at the same time I don't know if I'd qualify that as harassment in a job where you agree up front your manager can tell you about your weight. Just seems like a cluster-F* to me.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 895
October 2nd, 2015 at 8:33:43 AM permalink
I agree with much of what you say, Romes. It's often a very touchy subject.

Borg should have specified the terms (for all I know, they did). Something like, your limit is X, and weigh-ins will be every quarter. Two quarters in a row above X, and you're fired. That way, there is nothing more to be said than, "Q1, you weighed Y, which is above X, if your weight is >X at the Q2 weigh-in, you lose your job."

What I read here mentions "pig snorts" and pregnancy inquiries (which may very well be legitimate, but in the context of the story seem insulting). I don't see this as professional. Harassment? Maybe. Who knows what was really said/done?
"Dealer has 'rock'... Pay 'paper!'"
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 1483
October 2nd, 2015 at 11:12:47 AM permalink
... and not once did I see the term "models who serve".

It's a cruel, cruel practice.

I would hope that they have other server positions - maybe a "Babes" group that gets first choice of premium hours & events, and a regular group that doesn't wear corsets. You gain 10% weight, you get moved to the regular server pool from the premium pool.

People still want beverage service at 10am on a Tuesday, and that clientele is slightly less picky about having their server be a bombshell in a corset than the weekend nightlife crowd that I expect the "Babes" are there to cater to.
May the cards fall in your favor.
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 77
  • Posts: 9233
October 2nd, 2015 at 3:04:21 PM permalink
Having the policy and how it's enforced are two very different things.

I think they can specify up front, in the employment contract, that it is a condition of employment, and if the server agrees to it, they can monitor the situation and it can be a justifiable separation for cause.

I don't think it's a subject which can be a source of casual remarks, inconsistent enforcement, or harassment. They wanted the clause, they have to be the ones who maintain the highest, impersonal standards in enforcement. Privacy for weigh-ins on at least a monthly basis, employee counseling, disciplinary actions as necessary, and no tolerance for peer criticisms or public shaming in this area would have demonstrated a lot more respect for their employees, and not allowed a hostile work environment to develop around it.

I don't doubt in the slightest that there was harassment, because if you're the target of personal remarks at work that can affect whether you keep your job, even if meant teasingly, your perception is not necessarily going to match the intent of the provoker, and harassment is usually a matter of perspective at least in part. So I'm guessing they still have a case, but possibly not as a group, though the prevailing culture could be a component of the harassment.
"If the house lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game."
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 104
  • Posts: 9427
October 11th, 2015 at 4:45:06 AM permalink

If anyone is interested, I wrote an Article pertaining to this very matter recently:

Vultures can't be choosers.
Joined: Aug 16, 2014
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 260
October 11th, 2015 at 8:14:45 AM permalink
I do agree that if the servers agreed to the weight gain policy as a condition of employment they must abide by it or possibly forfeit their jobs.
However, it must be applied fairly across the board and not used for selective discipline. with exceptions for pregnancies.
Joined: Nov 7, 2014
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 164
October 20th, 2015 at 5:09:54 AM permalink
This is why we have eating disorders in this country. I know they agreed to abide to the weight gain policy, but we really don't know by what parameters they use and 7% of what. As a woman, I know that weight fluctuates 5-10 lbs. for a variety of different reasons. (no need to go into those here) baring pregnancy and illness. I think that monitoring weight should be a quarterly requirement not daily or multiple times in 1 day, This gives you 3 months to loose those extra lbs. and not have to starve or become bulimic in a short amount of time. I remember when stewardesses had the weight requirement and they sued the airlines and now that's a thing of the past.

High school wrestling is an example of where many boys starving (and more) to make weight class. It does such damage to the body.

What also get me is that it is men who are evaluating these women and it all comes down to how this requirement is monitored and judged.
You only go around once, but if you play your cards right, once is enough. ¯ Francis Albert
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 148
  • Posts: 1626
October 20th, 2015 at 5:23:23 AM permalink
I'm surprised nothing has been mentioned of age. Are these servers able to keep their jobs till retirement?

If the purpose of the weight gain policy is to have sexy voluptuous desirable women serving then what happens when a server keeps their weight and is now sixty-five years old?

And I know plenty men that would take a thicker twenty-something to a skinny fifty year old.

Not hurling age insults, just laying it bare. I personally think there should be no age or weight requirements except for sports.

  • Jump to: