It's actually based on this report from a Forbes "contributor," which is incredibly bad and dumb. I'm fairly certain anybody can post anything directly to Forbes.com these days; it's like Kinja that people actually use.

Eh, it sounds a bit stupid at first glance, but if it disencourages companies to use pseudo-science to try to sell things, this can only be good.

I don't find slippery slope fallacies to be convincing. "Today, macadamia nuts, tomorrow you're RyanAir" is absurd bullshit.

But on the other hand, you also have to applaud Korean Air for not allowing their service standards to slip, even the tiniest bit.

Actually, the list of job requirements, include the hygiene and behavioral codes, is directly tied to whether these ladies were employees, independent contractors or volunteers. Employment law arcana, maybe, but definitely relevant to the legal case. I think the level of detail, particularly vis-a-vis firing…