This Gym Pissed Me Off

Off Topic
41

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:
OP, do you own the company? Did you pay for the equipment? Did you pay for the building? Do you pay to use the equipment?

If the answer is NO to any question, than your opinion doesnt matter nor do you have a right to complain.

Slightly on topic, I actually built my company’s ‘wellness center’. There are huge legal and insurance issues with free weights. I was given pretty strict guidlines what I could and couldnt have in the center by our HR and Legal team. I also understood that I wasnt building a hardcore bodybuilding, PLing, OLYing gym. I was creating something that would give people who sit on their butts for 8+ hours a day a chance to move. So I got treadmills that have Facebook in them, a ping pong table, etc. Stuff people can use and enjoy and get moving.

Also my last point, Shell does not have a flawed view of what a gym should be, you have a flawed view on entitlements. Never complain about something that is free for you and costs others money. Also never complain about something you pay for, just stop paying for it. [/quote]

What are the insurance risks of free weights? Everything you do that can hurt you would be your own fault not the companies. I guess that does not keep someone from suing.
[/quote]

Hopefully someone in the field can chime in here since my knowlegde on this is second hand. It was my understanding that regardless of waivers etc, getting hurt on site allows the employee to qualify for workman’s comp and opens the door for negligence lawsuits.

We are talking about a country where an 80 year old woman can sue for spilling coffee on her crotch for millions despite no 80 year old crotch being worth that much. [/quote]

This, also machines are viewed as more stupid proof. Example, newbie puts the pin on the max feeling good one day, he barely moves the handles. Newbie loads up a bench with 315, he manages to unrack it but it barely slows down as it descends. Of course he doesn’t have a spotter so he is stuck. The bench also gives free weights a bad wrap in the injury department as the overwhelming majority of gym deaths are from the bench. Squats get a really bad wrap, even though the Leg Press is statistically more dangerous. Anything that can pin a man down, machines cannot, is viewed as an extra liability by most insurers.[/quote]

Just curious… how many people are dying per year from bench presses in the US, both at corporate and commercial facilities as well as at home? Not arguing the point, I genuinely would like to know.

42

[quote]Krinks wrote:

[quote]Nards wrote:
97% of the population would benefit from a few sets of machine exercises and stationary cycling.[/quote]

*** I doubt it. I speak as a 49 year old who has been inactive for the first 45 years or so. There is nothing worse that a slow bike or treadmill that burns 100 calories tops. All that does it cause a person to give up and eat more when their trips to the gym do nothing and have no effect.

It wasn’t until I dropped the cardio and went for some heavy lifting that I saw some real improvement. The weight is up as is the strength and stamina across the board while the waist line is shrinking. Right up to and including parallel bar dips and pull ups at 240 lbs. That is motivation to keep going. That and the young hotties that come out in their yoga pants after their kids have gone to school ~ 830am. [/quote]

This was part of the point I was trying to make. All this shit equipment is only giving the illusion of fitness to most of the users. On top of that, pseudo “wellness centers” like Shell’s are setting the message of quantity over quality.

43

[quote]rdavis4559 wrote:

This was part of the point I was trying to make. All this shit equipment is only giving the illusion of fitness to most of the users. On top of that, pseudo “wellness centers” like Shell’s are setting the message of quantity over quality.[/quote]

I think you have an unrealistic expectation of what a wellness center should do.

44

[quote]Krinks wrote:

[quote]Nards wrote:
97% of the population would benefit from a few sets of machine exercises and stationary cycling.[/quote]

*** I doubt it. I speak as a 49 year old who has been inactive for the first 45 years or so. There is nothing worse that a slow bike or treadmill that burns 100 calories tops. All that does it cause a person to give up and eat more when their trips to the gym do nothing and have no effect.

It wasn’t until I dropped the cardio and went for some heavy lifting that I saw some real improvement. The weight is up as is the strength and stamina across the board while the waist line is shrinking. Right up to and including parallel bar dips and pull ups at 240 lbs. That is motivation to keep going. That and the young hotties that come out in their yoga pants after their kids have gone to school ~ 830am. [/quote]

Yeah, but you’re doing a good thing and I’d put you in that top 3%.

I still think that so many people out there would be better off if they did even just the machines (still recommending that after they do a couple of warm up sets they push hard) and some silly light cardio.

45

I always laugh at people getting a sweat on with machines, like seriously? Walking flights of stairs is more strenuous than that anyday and people still go on about how their gym routines take the wind out of them when they are sitting down for the most part.

46

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]rdavis4559 wrote:

This was part of the point I was trying to make. All this shit equipment is only giving the illusion of fitness to most of the users. On top of that, pseudo “wellness centers” like Shell’s are setting the message of quantity over quality.[/quote]

I think you have an unrealistic expectation of what a wellness center should do.[/quote]

I accept that I do not have a realistic view based on the current state of fitness for the average working individual in the US but I am so unaccepting of this reality because said reality doesn’t necessarily make it fair. Sure it is free and based on that I have no right to complain to Shell but from what I gather, it is not Shell’s fault but rather the average person’s fault. You have a sedentary nation and buy them all these nice things to entice them into the slightest little workout but forget the fit person, they get nothing special, no commendation, not a single token gesture.

47

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]

Hopefully someone in the field can chime in here since my knowlegde on this is second hand. It was my understanding that regardless of waivers etc, getting hurt on site allows the employee to qualify for workman’s comp and opens the door for negligence lawsuits.

We are talking about a country where an 80 year old woman can sue for spilling coffee on her crotch for millions despite no 80 year old crotch being worth that much. [/quote]

If its covered by workers’ comp., negligence suits against an employer are barred. Workers’ comp. is a no-fault system with limited damages and limited defenses.

You also ought to read up of the facts of the coffee case before repeating a bunch of bullshit about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case[/quote]

What part of what I said was inacurate? She was 79(i said 80 sorry), she spilled coffee on her crotch. She recieved millions of dollars in punative damages. No 80 year old crotch is worth millions of dollars. [/quote]

She didn’t get “millions” or even “a million” and the “punitive” award isn’t “compensation” it is punishment for reckless behavior, which the evidence in the case easily supported. So the value of her “old [third-degree-burned] crotch” is largely irrelevant to this aspect of the judgment.[/quote]

But it’s completely relevant to my casual one-liner that you are in a sense heckling. [/quote]

So, are people supposed to ignore it when someone repeats falsehoods about a person that almost got screwed by a multibillion dollar company, and especially casts aspersions on such companies being punished for trying to screw over helpless old ladies (for sums that barely register to the company, no less)?[/quote]

So because McDonalds has a lot of money they should be held to a different standard than a regular person. If I bought something from you, lets say a knife, took it home and accidentally cut my own finger off with it, how much would you feel like you owed me??[/quote]

You seem to be stuck on the preconceived notion that this was a frivolous lawsuit.

McDonalds sold a scaldingly hot beverage from a drive-thru window in a poorly manufactured cup. They knew the coffee was scaldingly hot because they had received complaints about once a month for the past decade, and settled such claims previously. However, they refused a settlement that amounted to the doctor’s bill and loss of income, whose total was 20 thousand dollars something like a rounding error for McDonalds but devastating to a normal person.

It is in part because of that last point that I think people (legal or natural) with more money should be held to higher standards. They would not have been inconvenienced by at least making an honest counter offer instead of the 800 they did offer to pay.

Another part is that money is power, and a person with power should be required to wield that power responsibly. McDonalds can similarly eat the cost of a legal battle that would be prohibitively expensive to a normal person.

So yes, a wealthy entity should be held to a different standard than a less wealthy entity, much like you would hold a ninth-grader to “a different standard” than a fourth grader for purposes of picking a fight in the playground.

And before you start barking “nanny state”, I do in fact believe that the justice system’s job is to keep everyone “playing fair”, and not interfere as long as everyone does.

As to your example with knives, you expect a knife to be sharp enough to cut flesh and sever joints, and if I suspected you to fool around with it to the point of hurting yourself I’d at least warn you against it. With coffee, the hottest you’d expect it to get is causing first or maybe second degree burns if you spill it in your lap. What you don’t expect is a near boiling point liquid that is not entirely safe to ingest. On the McDonald’s side, when you hand someone a lidded container of coffee and separate packets of sweetener, you are expecting them to open the lid, and when this transaction happens in a drive-thru, you expect this opening to happen inside a car.

48

[quote]rdavis4559 wrote:

I accept that I do not have a realistic view based on the current state of fitness for the average working individual in the US but I am so unaccepting of this reality because said reality doesn’t necessarily make it fair. Sure it is free and based on that I have no right to complain to Shell but from what I gather, it is not Shell’s fault but rather the average person’s fault. You have a sedentary nation and buy them all these nice things to entice them into the slightest little workout but forget the fit person, they get nothing special, no commendation, not a single token gesture.[/quote]

Do you find it unfair that hospitals tend to care for the sick far more than they care for the healthy?

49

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]

Hopefully someone in the field can chime in here since my knowlegde on this is second hand. It was my understanding that regardless of waivers etc, getting hurt on site allows the employee to qualify for workman’s comp and opens the door for negligence lawsuits.

We are talking about a country where an 80 year old woman can sue for spilling coffee on her crotch for millions despite no 80 year old crotch being worth that much. [/quote]

If its covered by workers’ comp., negligence suits against an employer are barred. Workers’ comp. is a no-fault system with limited damages and limited defenses.

You also ought to read up of the facts of the coffee case before repeating a bunch of bullshit about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case[/quote]

What part of what I said was inacurate? She was 79(i said 80 sorry), she spilled coffee on her crotch. She recieved millions of dollars in punative damages. No 80 year old crotch is worth millions of dollars. [/quote]

She didn’t get “millions” or even “a million” and the “punitive” award isn’t “compensation” it is punishment for reckless behavior, which the evidence in the case easily supported. So the value of her “old [third-degree-burned] crotch” is largely irrelevant to this aspect of the judgment.[/quote]

But it’s completely relevant to my casual one-liner that you are in a sense heckling. [/quote]

So, are people supposed to ignore it when someone repeats falsehoods about a person that almost got screwed by a multibillion dollar company, and especially casts aspersions on such companies being punished for trying to screw over helpless old ladies (for sums that barely register to the company, no less)?[/quote]

So because McDonalds has a lot of money they should be held to a different standard than a regular person. If I bought something from you, lets say a knife, took it home and accidentally cut my own finger off with it, how much would you feel like you owed me??[/quote]

You seem to be stuck on the preconceived notion that this was a frivolous lawsuit.

McDonalds sold a scaldingly hot beverage from a drive-thru window in a poorly manufactured cup. They knew the coffee was scaldingly hot because they had received complaints about once a month for the past decade, and settled such claims previously. However, they refused a settlement that amounted to the doctor’s bill and loss of income, whose total was 20 thousand dollars something like a rounding error for McDonalds but devastating to a normal person.

It is in part because of that last point that I think people (legal or natural) with more money should be held to higher standards. They would not have been inconvenienced by at least making an honest counter offer instead of the 800 they did offer to pay.

Another part is that money is power, and a person with power should be required to wield that power responsibly. McDonalds can similarly eat the cost of a legal battle that would be prohibitively expensive to a normal person.

So yes, a wealthy entity should be held to a different standard than a less wealthy entity, much like you would hold a ninth-grader to “a different standard” than a fourth grader for purposes of picking a fight in the playground.

And before you start barking “nanny state”, I do in fact believe that the justice system’s job is to keep everyone “playing fair”, and not interfere as long as everyone does.

As to your example with knives, you expect a knife to be sharp enough to cut flesh and sever joints, and if I suspected you to fool around with it to the point of hurting yourself I’d at least warn you against it. With coffee, the hottest you’d expect it to get is causing first or maybe second degree burns if you spill it in your lap. What you don’t expect is a near boiling point liquid that is not entirely safe to ingest. On the McDonald’s side, when you hand someone a lidded container of coffee and separate packets of sweetener, you are expecting them to open the lid, and when this transaction happens in a drive-thru, you expect this opening to happen inside a car.[/quote]

Fine I want say anything about that being a very socialist way to look at it because apparently realize that your beliefs on this don’t line up with what your saying you believe the judicial system should do. Otherwise you wouldn’t have qualified it. I missed the part where the cup malfunctioned? Also, my post about the optimum serving temp of coffee holds true and they should not have to serve an inferior product because people are allowed to see because they burn themselves. McDonalds should not have accepted any responsibility because there was none.

The moral thing to do would have been to pay for her medical bills, however, most people I know would have never considered suing McDonalds for their own mistake, unless McDonalds was somehow at fault and making the coffee the appropriate temp is not being at fault. This was a frivolous lawsuit and yes I read the website posted.

50

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:
It is in part because of that last point that I think people (legal or natural) with more money should be held to higher standards. They would not have been inconvenienced by at least making an honest counter offer instead of the 800 they did offer to pay.

Another part is that money is power, and a person with power should be required to wield that power responsibly. McDonalds can similarly eat the cost of a legal battle that would be prohibitively expensive to a normal person.

So yes, a wealthy entity should be held to a different standard than a less wealthy entity, much like you would hold a ninth-grader to “a different standard” than a fourth grader for purposes of picking a fight in the playground.[/quote]

I actually very much disagree with this. Those with power have the right to wield that power any way they choose, in the same way as those without power have the right to wield that lack of power any way they choose.

This is an exchange between two parties with no deception involved. It’s not as if she ordered an iced coffee and got a hot one instead. It’s not as if she had any reasonable expectation for the coffee to not be hot.

If someone chooses to open the lid to add sweetener or cream/creamer, that’s their decision. If they spill it on themselves, that’s their doing.

51

[quote]rdavis4559 wrote:
Does nobody think that my company is sending the wrong message? Spend 30 minutes a day just getting your heart rate up and save the company a bit on health benefit costs but do not dare set the message that true fitness does not include working muscles only as single joint movements and in isolation with low intensity and in an ultra safe environment? I might as well walk around the gym wearing a helmet.

You have all these ignorant (excuse the negative connotation that comes with the word, i don’t intend that here) employees from 25-60 years old that get drawn into a shiny new sea of machines that won’t do the best job of building strength or even a general fitness level and Shell setting them up this way will leave half of them with cardio bunny bodies and little muscle so that by the time they all hit 80 years old they will be living skeletons.

Maybe I am ungrateful, I don’t know. I just believe that at least one single barbell or one single half rack would have been a nice gesture rather than shutting our the entire powerlifting demographic. Heck, it isn’t just powerlifters that use barbells.[/quote]
With BB and racks come shoulder and back surgeries that up premiums.
I am sure Shell is getting a tax write off for this also.

52

[quote]LoRez wrote:
This is an exchange between two parties with no deception involved. It’s not as if she ordered an iced coffee and got a hot one instead. It’s not as if she had any reasonable expectation for the coffee to not be hot.

If someone chooses to open the lid to add sweetener or cream/creamer, that’s their decision. If they spill it on themselves, that’s their doing.[/quote]
Reasonable expectations are important in this case. First, when you order coffee, the reasonable expectation is that the coffee is at a safe drinkable temperature or will reach such within a short period. In fact, the coffee that McDonald’s was selling was way above a safe drinkable temperature.
Second, given that a reasonable person would open the cup and add the sweetener, etc., a reasonable expectation is that the cup will not collapse in the process of the lid being taken off. In fact, it did collapse, spilling the hotter than it needed to be coffee.

The point about a richer individual being held to a higher standard is being framed incorrectly. It’s not that McDonald’s has a higher responsibility. It’s that the penalty has to be greater in order to motivate them to be responsible. For me as an individual, the threat of a $1000, for instance, is a strong motivation not to do something. For McDonald’s, if that threat is unlikely to be frequent then a $1000 is a poor motivation. By changing the fine based on the finee’s ability to pay, we insure that the fine is an effective deterrent to those behaviors deemed to be unacceptable (selling a hot liquid in a cup that does not fulfill reasonable expectations of safety).

54

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
This is an exchange between two parties with no deception involved. It’s not as if she ordered an iced coffee and got a hot one instead. It’s not as if she had any reasonable expectation for the coffee to not be hot.

If someone chooses to open the lid to add sweetener or cream/creamer, that’s their decision. If they spill it on themselves, that’s their doing.[/quote]
Reasonable expectations are important in this case. First, when you order coffee, the reasonable expectation is that the coffee is at a safe drinkable temperature or will reach such within a short period. In fact, the coffee that McDonald’s was selling was way above a safe drinkable temperature. [/quote]

Maybe I’m just the odd one out, but I’ve never expected that a hot beverage, or soup, or even most hot meals are served at a safe drinking or eating temperature. (In fact, most of the time they’re not.) I always ensure it’s at a safe temperature before I consume it, or I wait until it is.

I don’t actually think that’s a reasonable expectation at all.

I expect a paper cup to behave like a paper cup. I expect a styrofoam cup to behave like a styrofoam cup. If she was handed an insulated plastic, ceramic, or metal container and it collapsed like it was made of paper… that would be different.

I don’t really think it’s unreasonable to expect physics to work correctly.

Why is McDonalds the one in the wrong here? They didn’t force anyone to buy their product.

The purchaser chose to purchase the product, and the product that was received was what they purchased. And, for that matter, the packaging remained stable throughout the sale.

The problem occurred when the purchaser decided to open an unstable paper-based container in a vehicle (you know, something designed to move, and everyone should know that movement can cause liquids to splash)… when they were in the passenger seat and had no control over the movement of the vehicle… by putting it between their legs (which seemed to not be covered by anything, but maybe they were), which, 1) is not a place I’d want a spill to occur, 2) could easily put pressure on the container and push the liquid up… with a liquid they knew was hot (and scalds happen as low as 140 degrees)

I’m not seeing how the purchasers behavior was reasonable… unless:

  1. they didn’t know that vehicles can move
  2. they didn’t know that coffee was hot
  3. they didn’t know that paper isn’t a very stable material
  4. they didn’t know that hot liquids cause burns

All of those things, most people learn by the time they reach kindergarten.

55

I am thinking I need to sue Domino’s, Pizza Hut, and Pappa Johns. Man they put molten tomato sauce on their pizzas. That blanket of melted cheese makes sure the first bite you take burns the crap out of your mouth. Then the entire inside of my mouth sloughs off with the sandpaper Parmesan cheese.

56

Love how I accidentally hijacked this thread with one cheesy joke.

57

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
This is an exchange between two parties with no deception involved. It’s not as if she ordered an iced coffee and got a hot one instead. It’s not as if she had any reasonable expectation for the coffee to not be hot.

If someone chooses to open the lid to add sweetener or cream/creamer, that’s their decision. If they spill it on themselves, that’s their doing.[/quote]
Reasonable expectations are important in this case. First, when you order coffee, the reasonable expectation is that the coffee is at a safe drinkable temperature or will reach such within a short period. In fact, the coffee that McDonald’s was selling was way above a safe drinkable temperature.
Second, given that a reasonable person would open the cup and add the sweetener, etc., a reasonable expectation is that the cup will not collapse in the process of the lid being taken off. In fact, it did collapse, spilling the hotter than it needed to be coffee.

The point about a richer individual being held to a higher standard is being framed incorrectly. It’s not that McDonald’s has a higher responsibility. It’s that the penalty has to be greater in order to motivate them to be responsible. For me as an individual, the threat of a $1000, for instance, is a strong motivation not to do something. For McDonald’s, if that threat is unlikely to be frequent then a $1000 is a poor motivation. By changing the fine based on the finee’s ability to pay, we insure that the fine is an effective deterrent to those behaviors deemed to be unacceptable (selling a hot liquid in a cup that does not fulfill reasonable expectations of safety). [/quote]

Wrong, the preferred drinking temperature of coffee for many individuals is 175. That is only 5 degrees cooler than McDonalds minimum holding temp. When you factor in the time it sits on the counter after pouring it is probably close to that temp. No where have I read that the cup collapsed. If it did then that’s another matter. Although simply ordering medical bills to be paid should be the only judgment ever rendered. Punitive damages are, with rare exception, a simple way for the court to play Robin Hood.

58

[quote]Waittz wrote:
Love how I accidentally hijacked this thread with one cheesy joke. [/quote]

Damn you and your sense of humor.

59

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
This is an exchange between two parties with no deception involved. It’s not as if she ordered an iced coffee and got a hot one instead. It’s not as if she had any reasonable expectation for the coffee to not be hot.

If someone chooses to open the lid to add sweetener or cream/creamer, that’s their decision. If they spill it on themselves, that’s their doing.[/quote]
Reasonable expectations are important in this case. First, when you order coffee, the reasonable expectation is that the coffee is at a safe drinkable temperature or will reach such within a short period. In fact, the coffee that McDonald’s was selling was way above a safe drinkable temperature.
Second, given that a reasonable person would open the cup and add the sweetener, etc., a reasonable expectation is that the cup will not collapse in the process of the lid being taken off. In fact, it did collapse, spilling the hotter than it needed to be coffee.

The point about a richer individual being held to a higher standard is being framed incorrectly. It’s not that McDonald’s has a higher responsibility. It’s that the penalty has to be greater in order to motivate them to be responsible. For me as an individual, the threat of a $1000, for instance, is a strong motivation not to do something. For McDonald’s, if that threat is unlikely to be frequent then a $1000 is a poor motivation. By changing the fine based on the finee’s ability to pay, we insure that the fine is an effective deterrent to those behaviors deemed to be unacceptable (selling a hot liquid in a cup that does not fulfill reasonable expectations of safety). [/quote]

Wrong, the preferred drinking temperature of coffee for many individuals is 175. That is only 5 degrees cooler than McDonalds minimum holding temp. When you factor in the time it sits on the counter after pouring it is probably close to that temp. No where have I read that the cup collapsed. If it did then that’s another matter. Although simply ordering medical bills to be paid should be the only judgment ever rendered. Punitive damages are, with rare exception, a simple way for the court to play Robin Hood.[/quote]

The cup was crushed between her 79 year old thighs. Maybe she was using the Thighmaster 1000.

60

Fuck it.

10 men vs a pack of 10 wolves…