health screening at work

mynameistallulah

mildred1978 wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more. Try having one of your staff have a bi-polar episode in the middle of the office with absolutely no idea that the individual had the condition. As their manager you have a duty of care by how can you do that without warning?

Or someone prone to blackouts in a 10 storey building with no lift. Said person blacked out and fell down the stairs without anyone knowing for a good hour.

I had a member of staff confess to be HIV positive, confidentially, just in case something happened.

I informally told colleagues when I was 12 weeks pregnant, and just as well I did as someone in the office had shingles.

Your medical state may well be private to you, but you can be pretty sure it will affect your colleagues/employer at some point.

As someone with a MH condition I do agree with you - even if the condition is well managed, seemingly normal events can trigger a relapse or extreme behaviours. It would be irresponsible both not to ask and not to disclose.

surreysaver

kpwll wrote: »

Thank you all again for your replies.
The union rep is away from work having a knee op at the moment.
It is not being put forward as a fit for work test.
No-one is sure what the tests/screening will be made up of, this is why I'm trying to get as much information as possible before they start. Hubby hasn't seen the questionaire yet so I can't tell you what is asked.
Even the people who don't work nights are being screened.
I realise I'm asking 'how long is a piece of string' but they don't want to blindly give over control when it is unnecessary.

I would be wary of complying with any tests or filling in any forms until you have been informed why they are being done, why the information is being collected and how the information will be stored and who will be advised. If they give you a health questionnaire on the day of the medical itself, refuse to fill it in on the spot so you can have time to mull it over and give it appropriate consideration. Consent to nothing until you have had time to research into whether you wish to comply.

Medical professionals have a habit of not telling people the entire truth about why they are collecting the information they are harvesting, and what they will be doing with it. Just be very wary. And don't give them your GP details unless you know they will be contacting them, and you consent to it. Don't let them store this information 'in case' they might need it in the future.

hcb42

until we know all the facts it would seem the OPs OH employer might be acting reasonably..

however there are a lot of companies out there that routinely ask for medical information, when it is not relevant, not appropriate to be asked for, and being collated by individuals who are in no way medically trained.

there is no way I would fill in a random questionaire under "those" particular circs. No matter what HR Administrators say.

C_Mababejive

Emmzi wrote: »

Wow. I would hate to live in a head as paranoid as yours.

Just to add to my apparent paranoia, my employer has given themselves the right to require me to have alcohol/drugs tests in certain circumstances which they proscribe. The person undertaking the test is from an outside company (not NHS or GP) and a refusal is deemed to be a guilty plea and results in suspension.

dickydonkin

surreysaver wrote: »

Hasn't the Medical Records Act been replaced by the Data Protection Act for people who are alive now? The AMRa I belive only applies to the dead?

To be honest surreysaver I'm not sure - but I'm certain someone will come along to clarify.

That legislation rang a bell somewhere when I initially responded to this thread, but you may be correct in suggesting that it may now be incorporated into or replaced by the DPA.

Emmzi

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Just to add to my apparent paranoia, my employer has given themselves the right to require me to have alcohol/drugs tests in certain circumstances which they proscribe. The person undertaking the test is from an outside company (not NHS or GP) and a refusal is deemed to be a guilty plea and results in suspension.

Depends on the job. I used to work at a power company and you really didn't want people under the influence up power lines. Administered properly I see nothing wrong with this. You do have the choice not to work at organisations with this policy so your human rights are intact!!!

dickydonkin

mildred1978 wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more. Try having one of your staff have a bi-polar episode in the middle of the office with absolutely no idea that the individual had the condition. As their manager you have a duty of care by how can you do that without warning?

Or someone prone to blackouts in a 10 storey building with no lift. Said person blacked out and fell down the stairs without anyone knowing for a good hour.

I had a member of staff confess to be HIV positive, confidentially, just in case something happened.

I informally told colleagues when I was 12 weeks pregnant, and just as well I did as someone in the office had shingles.

Your medical state may well be private to you, but you can be pretty sure it will affect your colleagues/employer at some point.

Good points - and it highlights how important it is to notify your employer of any conditions that may affect you and indeed your colleagues.

It would be relevant for someone who works on ladders for example to notify the employer if he has been diagnosed with diabetes that could result in a blackout.

Not only would that person be a liability to himself, but potentially other people in the vicinity. Risk assessments would need to be reviewed and additional controls may need to be put in place. As you have clearly highlighted - if you are not aware of a persons condition, you cannot put precautions in place.

Whether such conditions should be revealed by notification or discovery via a workplace medical is another issue and where H&S legislation may not reasonably require such screening, this (as already proved in this thread) is a contentious issue.

I have a feeling that the OP's employer will cite H&S legislation to justify the medicals, but the wording of the reasoning would be interesting.

C_Mababejive

Emmzi wrote: »

Depends on the job. I used to work at a power company and you really didn't want people under the influence up power lines. Administered properly I see nothing wrong with this. You do have the choice not to work at organisations with this policy so your human rights are intact!!!

Not really. It is unfairly administered in that anyone wearing a suit seems to be immune from it. Also its a new policy and so was introduced long after i started without any consultation or agreement.

kpwll

Thank you all, this is turning out to be more complicated than I thought it would be (I thought it would be a straightforward they can insist on this but not that). I can understand disclosing a medical/health problem that could affect your job or work colleagues but don't see what cholesterol level or BMI has to do with your employer in this instance (don't know for sure that these tests are being suggested).
No-one knows if the office staff are included in the tests, what the firm will do with the information, or what the outside firm, doing the testing, will be doing with the results.
I don't want to give the impression that hubby has anything to hide, in 20+ years he has been off sick once with flu, once with a nasty tummy bug and 2 years running he broke the same ankle ( very careless, lol).

pjcox2005

At work we are required to have Private health medicals once a year once you've reached a certain grade.

I know of at least two people who have found out about a serious illness early, and as a result got the appropriate treatment to cure it. Seems fairly good option if it could save your life.