Should this be reported?

wuckfit

jamespir wrote: »

why should anyone feel guilty if it was your mate and she wasnt disabled and he said could you just keep your on her while i go into a meeting for 5 hours youd probably say yeah ok

but it seems becasue she's disabled its a totaly different story

You are clearly a weapons-grade idiot.

From what's been posted, it sounds as if all manner of laws are being broken, not least the health and safety at work act. The company clearly know that there's an issue given that they'd refuse to have a fire drill. Fires happen regardless of whether there's somebody in a wheelchair in the office. Given that this person is not even an employee makes things even more tricky.

The main issue that I see is that if she's in the office and everyone is expected to supervise/look after her, then since management have agreed to this (her being looked after while her father is absent) then there there is a big problem with CRB checks. Everyone in the office needs to have a disclosure or CRB check If they are working with Children or Vulnerable adults. The management have left themselves absolutely wide open to major problems if an allegation were to be made.
Also this must have major implications for the office productivity.

I think this is one for Social Work involvement to be honest.

MrsAnnie

jamespir wrote: »

why should anyone feel guilty if it was your mate and she wasnt disabled and he said could you just keep your on her while i go into a meeting for 5 hours youd probably say yeah ok

but it seems becasue she's disabled its a totaly different story

We are not talking about 5 hours. If you had read my posts i said she was being dropped off by the parent in the morning and picked up in the evening while the parent was away from the office.

The DD has been coming to work with the parent for a long time. No one has any issues with that! But they do take issue with the DD being left there without a responsible carer for the whole work day.

It is like me dropping off my able bodied child to work while i am on holiday and saying 'I'll pick her up at 5pm'. I bet you would take issue with that if you had to look affter her. The only difference is that this young woman has specific care needs and is being left for 8 hours a day with colleagues not trained to care for her but employed to do an office based desk job.

olias

Quote:
Originally Posted by WASHER
Who deals with the personal care whilst the carer isn't in the office.

I would feel very uncomfortable leaving my children in the company of my work colleagues, and they are abled bodied.

A friend of the worker, who works in the same building comes at dinner time to help with her food. Other than that the department has to help if she needs anything.

To the OP, sorry to be blunt, but what about when she needs her backside wiping after her toilet? Or a tampon changing?
Are any of you covered by insurance if you were to slip a disc whilst helping her onto the loo? Does her disability cause any other health problems or require her to take medication, who knows about/deals with this.

I think the whole situation is wrong and the management (and your colleague) have been completely in the wrong in putting you into this uncomfortable situation.

At the end of the day, what is your colleague doing whilst they are off work? Just having a break? If so, then they should be going through the proper channels to get some official respite care and not expecting a free service from their work colleagues when they are trying to get on with their own work.

Olias

Zazen999

jamespir wrote: »

but the company management have agreed for the child to go there so they know what there doing

they wouldnt need to be trained or wahtever

It's not up to them; that's why we have LAWS!!!!

As has been said; weapons grade. Sheesh.

Clearly the management haven't thought this through.

jamespir

wuckfit wrote: »

You are clearly a weapons-grade idiot.

From what's been posted, it sounds as if all manner of laws are being broken, not least the health and safety at work act. The company clearly know that there's an issue given that they'd refuse to have a fire drill. Fires happen regardless of whether there's somebody in a wheelchair in the office. Given that this person is not even an employee makes things even more tricky.

The main issue that I see is that if she's in the office and everyone is expected to supervise/look after her, then since management have agreed to this (her being looked after while her father is absent) then there there is a big problem with CRB checks. Everyone in the office needs to have a disclosure or CRB check If they are working with Children or Vulnerable adults. The management have left themselves absolutely wide open to major problems if an allegation were to be made.
Also this must have major implications for the office productivity.

I think this is one for Social Work involvement to be honest.

im not an idiot if the employers have agreed to it they must know what they can and can't do otherwise they would say no

Zazen999

jamespir wrote: »

im not an idiot if the employers have agreed to it they must know what they can and can't do otherwise they would say no

You are very trusting aren't you?

gilligansyle

There are 2 completely separate issues here surely?

The first is whether the young adult should be on the premises at all, and as management have approved that, it can only be assumed that they have taken all appropriate steps.

The second issue is the more serious. It is not appropriate to basically dump your child on your colleagues for a week, whether that child is a baby or a young adult, able bodied or not. To expect colleagues to supervise for a few hours is one thing, but this seems excessive.

I don't think it necessary to involve the authorities, but it should be mentioned to line management if anyone feels uncomfortable, even if to check that they are aware of it. When the parent collects the 'child' at the end of the day maybe a quiet word would be in order.

MrsAnnie

jamespir wrote: »

im not an idiot if the employers have agreed to it they must know what they can and can't do otherwise they would say no

Employers are always right That's a new one!!!

jamespir

Zazen999 wrote: »

You are very trusting aren't you?

i wouldnt do it no but is reporting it gonna make the situatuon any better?

not only has the childs father got to be culprable the employers are too
so surely the employers have taken this into account before agreeing unless there as thick as you !!




why cant this "freind " keep his nose on the job instead of worrying whose bringing their kids to work

wuckfit

jamespir wrote: »

im not an idiot if the employers have agreed to it they must know what they can and can't do otherwise they would say no

Believe it or not, most employers DO NOT know what they can and cannot do. The smart employers usually contact an employment-speciality lawyer, or have one on the payroll to advise them of employment issues. I've worked for some absolute numbskulls, who know absolutely nothing about employment law, hence they consulted their 'legal team' before doing anything suspect.

In this case:
1.There's Health and Safety from the POV of gettting her out in the event of an emergency
2. Then there's the other Health and Safety issues of risk assessment and management for dealing with her specialist care, including toileting needs.
Plus, 3, the requirement for CRB checking.
I also suspect there may be a possible case for this being a substative alteration to contracts with respect to variation of duties.

So that's at least three areas of concern.