Days off sick

Vader123

Uncertain wrote: »

Which is exactly why you are now restricted in asking these questions before making an offer.

No, I am restricted about their medical history / current condition.

I can ask about their sickness history.

There is a key difference here that people seem to struggle to grasp (nothing personal).

Vader

scooby088

When asking for health history i would have a problem putting anything down on a CV or a form as anyone could see my medical history. I'd rather put it in a seperate envelope marked private and confidential and opened once in a interview situation.

I personally wouldn't feel comfortable letting a prospective employer know anything personal before interview or even offer of a job.

westv

westv wrote: »

12 days recovery after a tooth extraction?! That must have been truely awful!

DCFC79 wrote: »

its what was prescribed by the experts, i was advised to not drive, go to work until 2 weeks,

i knew someone would pick up on that

I didn't intend in any way to criticise you for it. I was just amazed that 12 days was prescribed. I'm assuming it wasn't just a standard extraction though -wisdom teeth??

Vader123

scooby088 wrote: »

When asking for health history i would have a problem putting anything down on a CV or a form as anyone could see my medical history. I'd rather put it in a seperate envelope marked private and confidential and opened once in a interview situation.

I personally wouldn't feel comfortable letting a prospective employer know anything personal before interview or even offer of a job.

Completely agree FWIW.

I sub contract to a small company for Occy Health type services that include screening. Any offer of employment is subject to satisfactory clearance.

Vader

Uncertain

SueC wrote: »

But as yet, no-one has shown me anything that categorically states that we can't ask about a candidate's attendance record.

It may be that OU are being overly cautious but I read the part I highlighted in red as warning against any such question at the interview stage.

Unless they were malingering it follows that if somebody has had a lot of time off sick they have had one or more medical conditions.

I think the idea is that it is for a medical professional to assess how their health may affect their work and not for some HR "professional" to jump to conclusions.

SueC_2

Uncertain wrote: »

It may be that OU are being overly cautious but I read the part I highlighted in red as warning against any such question at the interview stage.

Unless they were malingering it follows that if somebody has had a lot of time off sick they have had one or more medical conditions.

I think the idea is that it is for a medical professional to assess how their health may affect their work and not for some HR "professional" to jump to conclusions.

But by outlawing questions about attendance history, the malingerers (as you call them) get away scott-free. Which potentially leads to a situation where everyone, except the malingerer, suffers. The employer is paying someone who rarely comes to work, and every other employee is expected to pick up the workload in their absence. There is no onus on anyone to demonstrate any attendance reliability, because they are never going to be held accountable for it.

I really don't think it's a case of 'jumping to conclusions' - if someone has routinely taken a large number of days' (split over several occasions) unauthorised absence over the last year(s), they are likely to continue to do so, and the employer should be aware of this at the time of recruiting. In some environments it may be acceptable, and in others not, and in some it may be possible to overcome it with 'reasonable adjustments', but surely the employer needs to know so that they can make an informed decision?

Uncertain

SueC wrote: »

I really don't think it's a case of 'jumping to conclusions' - if someone has routinely taken a large number of days' (split over several occasions) unauthorised absence over the last year(s), they are likely to continue to do so, and the employer should be aware of this at the time of recruiting. In some environments it may be acceptable, and in others not, and in some it may be possible to overcome it with 'reasonable adjustments', but surely the employer needs to know so that they can make an informed decision?

But they would find that out at the reference stage and any offer would have been subject to references so I don't see the problem.

The new law (as I understand it) is to protect the individual from being discriminated against because of their medical past.

Bobl

When you fill out the 22 days I would add a note about the tooth extraction for 12 days - 22 days in one year seems an awful lot of sick time otherwise.

SueC_2

Uncertain wrote: »

But they would find that out at the reference stage and any offer would have been subject to references so I don't see the problem.

The new law (as I understand it) is to protect the individual from being discriminated against because of their medical past.

And that's the bit I really don't get.

It's fine to change your mind and 'discrimate' against someone once a/ you've put their hopes up that they've got the job, and b/ both your's and their time has been wasted carrying out interviews and whatever else the application process has entailed. But it's not okay to save everyone the angst and eliminate them from the process in the early stages.

And as I keep saying, this is nothing about their medical past. I don't care if the absence is for a medical reason, because they own an old banger of a car that can't be relied on to start in the morning, that they have an allergy to Mondays, that they can't leave the house unless the sun is shining and they can find a pair of blue socks to put on, or anything else, other than - can I rely on them to turn up for work at a reasonable frequency?

I'm obviously in a minority of one here, but I'm really not getting it.

Vader123

Uncertain wrote: »

But they would find that out at the reference stage and any offer would have been subject to references so I don't see the problem.

The new law (as I understand it) is to protect the individual from being discriminated against because of their medical past.

:banging head:

Its not about their medical past!

Its about their absence from work!

Vader