Lift broken in rented office with wheelchair bound employee

shellsuit

Batchy wrote: »

Just to let you know in our small office our lift was out of service for nearly 12 months waiting for parts.

It wouldn't take 12 months to wait for a part ~ are you sure that's not just what management told you to save having to pay for the parts/to have it repaired?

sonastin

Its one of those wonderful grey areas designed to give HR and management nightmares. A mate giving a mate a piggy-back because he wants to get into work is probably fine, but asking an employee to carry a fellow employee without appropriate training or equipment is most definitely not fine. And it is amazing how quickly the former can turn into the latter if something goes wrong, which is why employers have to treat it like the latter even when that isn't what the employees say they want.

katieh86

Alan2020 wrote: »

Katieh86 don't worry about me I am not offended, just saying so, as I used to work for a University and had some disabled students under my care as H&S officer, so one of the first things I was corrected on was wheelchair bound etc :eek: by the legal bod and nurse who trained us. Very easy mistake to make but useful to know as you never know what the individual may think of it. From what I understood it means like the disabled person is cursed to their chair. I once got told off as a sexist by the people who monitor us as I said the secretary, she (all ours are female) may, I was supposed to use they (as it could be male or female) :rotfl:
Just don't worry, but be careful at work, especially if you had a boss like mine :A

Oh good! Really glad you weren't got a bit worried there! But at least now I know so thank you!!!

sonastin wrote: »

Its one of those wonderful grey areas designed to give HR and management nightmares. A mate giving a mate a piggy-back because he wants to get into work is probably fine, but asking an employee to carry a fellow employee without appropriate training or equipment is most definitely not fine. And it is amazing how quickly the former can turn into the latter if something goes wrong, which is why employers have to treat it like the latter even when that isn't what the employees say they want.

That's so true! As this thread has made me realise! What I thought was an issue about me whinging about a slow estate agency has made me realise just how naive I actually was about it all! That's literally all it was! The 2 guys went to uni together so it was a mate doing his mate a favour! But obviously in a work place it's an entirely different kettle of fish! Luckily nothing bad happened! But again, thanks to everyone for their input it's really really helped!!!

lucylucky

Glad the lift is getting sorted now.

Blodwen

Riq wrote: »

You shouldn't be using the lift in a fire even if it was fixed.

At my old office we had an awesome sliding chair thing down the fire escape. I was never allowed to try it.

True in most cases, although some lifts (like the one in my building) are fireproof and can be used by a disabled person and a helper in the event of a fire.

I'm the fire officer for my department so went on an Evac-chair training course a few weeks ago - they're nowhere near as much fun as they look, especially when a well-meaning but overenthusiatic colleague nearly tips you down the stairs!

OP: Evac-chairs aren't cheap but if your lift isn't specially designed for use in the event of a fire and you have a wheelchair user in a first floor office I would say it's pretty much essential (assuming your stairs are suitable, i.e. wide enough)

dumpy

What does your Fire Risk Assessment say about emergency escape from your workplace?

There are so many issues here, do you have a H&S advisor?

tyllwyd

katieh86 wrote: »

... ! The 2 guys went to uni together so it was a mate doing his mate a favour! But obviously in a work place it's an entirely different kettle of fish! Luckily nothing bad happened! But again, thanks to everyone for their input it's really really helped!!!

The thing is, if you think about it, if you injured your back it could haunt you for the rest of your life (my sister in law is still struggling 20 years after hurting her back at work), so in terms of medical treatment, physiotherapy, affect on your career prospects, it could potentially cost you thousands - so no matter how distasteful you found it, if you had the option of sueing your employer to compensate for some of those costs you'd have to be crazy not to do it.

Anyhow, good to know you now have a lift again and everybody is happy!

RAS

Hi

If you have a member of staff or even a visitor who has any sort of disability, you must have a Personal Evacuation Plan for each person, which they and you know all about.

Do you have a fire escape? Do you have a designated refuge for your employee?

You need to bone up on this urgently.

lucylucky

RAS wrote: »

Hi

If you have a member of staff or even a visitor who has any sort of disability, you must have a Personal Evacuation Plan for each person, which they and you know all about.

Do you have a fire escape? Do you have a designated refuge for your employee?

You need to bone up on this urgently.

Or show this thread to your boss - pronto.

puddy

Alan2020 wrote: »

Katieh86 don't worry about me I am not offended, just saying so, as I used to work for a University and had some disabled students under my care as H&S officer, so one of the first things I was corrected on was wheelchair bound etc :eek: by the legal bod and nurse who trained us. Very easy mistake to make but useful to know as you never know what the individual may think of it. From what I understood it means like the disabled person is cursed to their chair. I once got told off as a sexist by the people who monitor us as I said the secretary, she (all ours are female) may, I was supposed to use they (as it could be male or female) :rotfl:
Just don't worry, but be careful at work, especially if you had a boss like mine :A

wrong, its wheelchair user and certainly not 'disabled person', by saying that you are defining the whole person by their disability. they are a person (first), with a disability (second) IF their disability is the point of the discussion (which it is in this case)

so they are a person with a disability or mobility impairment

but that will change next week or whatever