Disclose or don't disclose?

NewShadow

There's an interesting thread here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5116644

The OP has been sent a note (it went to everyone) requesting information about any and all medication with any side-effects that could effect them at work (in any way) - which is basically absolutely anything if you read the 'potential' side effects on over the counter painkillers...

I feel this could force someone to disclose a condition/disability they're not ready to yet for the sake of very unlikely side-effects.

I agree the employee should disclose any symptoms that are currently or are likely to effect them, but the blanket request seems inappropriate.

While I generally think (in most environments) honesty is the best policy - I'm not sure what the OP should do, but (as I'm sure you can tell) I'll defend to the hilt their right for it to be their choice.

I was just wondering if you guys would have any input?

Is this a case of the right of the OP to privacy Vs the Bureaucracy, or am I just being (looking for the right word) a pedant...?

Richie-from-the-Boro

requesting information about any and all medication with any side-effects that could effect them at work / slightest possibility of affecting ability to carry out duties in a safe manner

All medicines are drugs, change the above word medication to drug and its clear to me. For example we also have a duty of disclosure to DVLA about any medical condition and a corresponding contractual duty of disclosure to our insurance companies.

The '74 HSWA requires employers to ensure as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of employees and also requires employees to take reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and others who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work. Operating machinery is covered by the Transport and Works Act 1992, here the act makes it a criminal offence to carry out certain work whilst unfit to do so through drink or drugs. All responsible organisations have this written into their procedures.

Alcohol abuse is self explanatory, it is also drug abuse under the acts. A drug is defined the taking of an illicit or other chemical substance into the body in an un-prescribed manner. A drug under most companies policy document would include :

- Substances covered by the Medicines Act 1968 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 [referred to as 'controlled drugs', some examples of which are, Heroin, Cannabis, Ecstasy, Amphetamines etc
- prescribed and over-the-counter drugs some examples of which are, Tranquillisers, Anti-depressants, Sleeping Pills, some Anti histamines for hay fever and some medicines for coughs, colds and indigestion
- alcohol, glue, solvents and any other such substances

Self disclosure to an employer seems a perfectly reasonable request to me !

NewShadow

i have no problem with telling someone if you've consumed any alcohol, taking any opiates, or if you're suffering any symptoms or likely to suffer any symptoms that effect your ability to work - all that is reasonable (more than reasonable).

I just feel its a little unreasonable to expect someone to inform of any and all medication - regardless of if it's actually having an effect on your performance or not.

tomtom256

What if that person doesn't actually realise they are experiencing any side effects?

NewShadow

I think there's a difference between drugs which are likely to cause dangerous (or potentially dangerous) side effects and those that are unlikely to effect your performance - which as I said above, if you have reason to believe your medication is likely to effect your performance, or if you are suffering symptoms you should inform someone.

If your doctor thinks there may be side-effects - he's liable if he doesn't talk to you about them.

I don't see the point (and find it unbearably intrusive) to have to report taking a paracetamol (as an example of something innocuous with almost no chance of negative side effects) just because it may possibly cause a problem.

A stable diabetic who has been managing their symptoms, an epileptic who has (with meds) been fit free for months or years, someone taking birth-control meds!

All of these people will be taking drugs which have side-effects that have a chance of effecting performance - and according to the OP i posted, would have to report these drugs (potentially disclosing their condition) for no good reason, and no practical benefit to the employer.

Richie-from-the-Boro

What you appear to be saying is only you can decide what's right ~v~ wrong and what can be obtrusive ~v~ unobtrusive and even what is of practical benefit to the employer ~v~ no practical benefit to the employer. So only your good self, not the owner of the company or the named responsible H&S department or even a company occy-health department or a company appointed doctor can decide. Ok you have made you views very clear, you are the only one in the entire organisation at any level that is trained certificated and qualified to decide on anything and everything. Good - that's sorted then !

NewShadow

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

What you appear to be saying is only you can decide what's right ~v~ wrong and what can be obtrusive ~v~ unobtrusive and even what is of practical benefit to the employer ~v~ no practical benefit to the employer.

No. Sorry (really and truly) if I'm coming across that way. I don't mean that at all and I really appreciate your input and time.

I'm really interested in how someone other than me views this - I can't understand how a list of any and all medication (over the counter and not) that could possibly effect performance, could be useful to an employer.

It's the any and all bit that I'm stuck on.

One assumes this info will be treated confidentially, meaning its unlikely to be useful in the event of an emergency (when the people on the ground may not have prior knowledge or instant access to records), so its only really useful for planning purposes - risk assessments.

It seems it would be much more of an administrative burden (and records management risk) than a useful and practical data set when trying to carry out a risk assessment. My only experience of risk management is PPM, so a completely different field - I'm assuming the processes and principles are the same.

To an extent I'm working from the position that I do think that people are (and should be) responsible for making judgements about their ability to carry out jobs safely - as someone else said, its a partnership.

Me telling someone in HR that I'm taking (say) opiates doesn't absolve me of my responsibilities to make judgements about what I should and shouldn't do - I mean, what if someone in HR doesn't pass on a message and something happens? I should always be responsible for my choices.

But also work can put plans in place, make decisions, and mitigate risks with information i give them - This is where I think we agree. Where a risk is likely, or even reasonably foreseeable, it should be reported.

I just think blanket approaches like the one outlined are a blunt instrument and (to my initial impressions) have the potential to cause more harm than good.

dori2o

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

What you appear to be saying is only you can decide what's right ~v~ wrong and what can be obtrusive ~v~ unobtrusive and even what is of practical benefit to the employer ~v~ no practical benefit to the employer. So only your good self, not the owner of the company or the named responsible H&S department or even a company occy-health department or a company appointed doctor can decide. Ok you have made you views very clear, you are the only one in the entire organisation at any level that is trained certificated and qualified to decide on anything and everything. Good - that's sorted then !

The fact is in many cases the person taking the medications knows far better than anyone else in the business they work in how these drugs affect them and what the side effects are. Therefore for that reason if it were me, I would only disclose those medications and side effects that I know would be an issue to performance/Health.

Richie-from-the-Boro

dori2o wrote: »

The fact is in many cases the person taking the medications knows far better than anyone else in the business they work in how these drugs affect them and what the side effects are. Therefore for that reason if it were me, I would only disclose those medications and side effects that I know would be an issue to performance/Health.

- then there is no issue is there, your judgements are better than stupid overpaid trained managers and directors
- you clearly know everything there is to know about managing a company's policy, risks, insurances etc
- and clearly you would never ever do anything that would put your fellow workers at risk
- you disclose all that management asks, or lie [selectively answer] to your management, and get trapped by your dishonesty later
- you too are not a qualified medical practitioner, HR management nor a company director with H&S responsibilities, they for whatever reason need to know
- you dori2o like NewShadow have shown that you know 'better' than anyone else, better than trained certificated and qualified officers of the company

thomathy

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- you dori2o like NewShadow have shown that you know 'better' than anyone else, better than trained certificated and qualified officers of the company

I suppose you intend that sarcastically. But I, for one, think their points very reasonable. It is clearly unreasonable and disproportionate for an employer in most fields to require a blanket disclosure of any and all medications being taken.

As it happens, I am fit and well, and on no medication. However, were I to be asked this blanket question, I would certainly refuse to answer.

As it also happens, I employ and manage a number of staff myself. An employment relationship must be based on mutual respect. It may be convenient for an organisation to simply ask a blanket question, with every good intention of using the information property. But convenience does not a necessity make. The law is clear that medical information should only be handed over when it is necessary and directly relevant.

Employees should absolutely resist any attempt to simply strong-arm them into handing over their personal medical history. I do think it is an important matter - employers are just that, employers - not owners - of their employees. It is simply not an employer's business, except in the specific circumstance that it has a direct effect on the job in question.

You may feel that an employee has no right to decide whether or not it has a direct effect on the job in question, and should disclose all information to an employer, and let them decide. But I do not think the law backs this stance up at all.

You also suggest that a company officer is particularly qualified or trained to make judgments of that kind. I disagree - being an officer of a company is proof of nothing whatsoever.

The NHS website contains a quick guide to help citizens understand the (very limited) health information an employer is permitted to ask (copied from http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2313.aspx?CategoryID=190&SubCategoryID=1905 on 19th Nov 2014). It reads as below. I can see nothing in this entitling an employer to request a blanket disclosure such as the one you support.

When can an employer ask questions about health or disability?

An employer can ask questions about health or disability when:

they are trying to find out if you need reasonable adjustments for the recruitment process, such as for an assessment or an interview

they are trying find out if you (whether you are a disabled person or not) can take part in an assessment as part of the recruitment process, including questions about reasonable adjustments for this purpose

they are asking the questions for monitoring purposes

they want to make sure that any applicant who is disabled can benefit from any measures aimed at improving disabled people’s employment rates, such as the guaranteed interview scheme

where the questions relate to a requirement to vet applicants for the purposes of national security

where the question relates to a person’s ability to carry out a function that is absolutely fundamental to that job

Richie-from-the-Boro

thomathy wrote: »

I suppose you intend that sarcastically. ~snip~

It is clearly unreasonable and disproportionate

- then tell the employer it is clearly unreasonable and disproportionate and you refuse to answer their question

I would certainly refuse to answer

- good, do that - just do not tell your employer lies

You may feel that an employee has no right to decide whether or not it has a direct effect on the job in question

- I absolutely do, its not the employees company, investment or risk

You also suggest that a company officer is particularly qualified or trained to make judgements of that kind

- I said the personnel / HR function would have cleared what is legal or not and that the company H&S section, occy-health department or a company appointed doctor would decide

being an officer of a company is proof of nothing whatsoever

- being a company officer is the individual appointee in the role of deciding how to affect the management demand of requesting information about any and all medication that could effect them at work
- that's all the proof needed !, there's nothing iniquitous in the management question, it fits perfectly with legislated needs
- don't like it - just ask why in the particular they are asking, if you don't like their answer say no and don't answer the questions