Disclose or don't disclose?

NewShadow

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

we also have a duty of disclosure to DVLA about any medical condition and a corresponding contractual duty of disclosure to our insurance companies.

Actually, if you read the link, it says you MAY have to disclose those medical conditions. If you check ASD for example, it says "You must tell DVLA if you have an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) and it affects your driving...Check with your doctor if you’re not sure whether your ASD affects your driving."

There are other conditions that you MUST disclose if you are diagnosed (epilepsy/ Alcohol abuse), but there is a judgement to be made for others - and in the first stage it is to be made by the driver - if they are not SURE then they should check with their Dr - exactly what I suggested as reasonable for medications - opiates and alcohol (and possibly some other drugs) being mandatory and others (paracetamol and anti-histamines) being discretionary, and if you're not sure - check with your doctor.

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.

Emphasis added. Not while consuming, whilst that consumption renders you unfit.

A drug is defined the taking of an illicit or other chemical substance into the body in an un-prescribed manner.

... so not relevant then?

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

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

Luckily where I work I highly doubt such a blanket approach would be approved - public sector - we have a very strong (actually 3 strong) trade union side. That I don't always agree with but do appreciate in times like this.

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

But H&S is everyone's responsibility - it's a partnership... and does that mean you think employees of a co-op would have different liabilities?

- 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

You would hope. Unfortunately I can't tell if this is optimism or luck based on the companies you've worked at. certainly bigger companies are more likely to have legal advice on HR and employment law as a matter of process - one of the reasons I doubt this policy would ever be enacted where I work.

Smaller companies are unlikely to have an in house legal department and company doctor, they may not even have a very large, experienced or qualified HR department. I worked as a contractor designing a database for a charity once and their HR and payroll department was one lady that had done one course at college - they employed c50 people and she got together with the management team and they wrote and amend the policies as needed as problems arose.

I could completely see them thinking this is a great idea, writing it in and most definitely not paying for anyone to check it was okay. remember - HR and Management are just job titles.

I theoretically have the right to insist people call me Dr (even if my PHD still has wet ink on it... :rotfl:) that's something I earned. It indicates knowledge and experience in a specific field.

My role in management (thankfully) is just a title indicative of my salary band, I don't actually have to line manage, and don't automatically gain wisdom, knowledge, and experience.

Assuming that the HR professional or manager is infallible and that all policies they enact are reasonable, well thought out, appropriate and for the greater good....

Well... the government is one very large employer, and they most certainly receive tailored legal advice... if we assume they're infallible, reasonable and the like - would most of this board exist?

If employers were... would most of the employment board exist?

But either way - sorry if I'm being confrontational - as always the above is only my experience - but I'm on limited time as I'm running out the door. Happy to hear your counter arguments

dori2o

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- 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

No I'm not, but I have one thing that trumps all of those, I live with the condition. I am the one who takes the medications, it is my body and it affects me and me alone. That gives me far more information and ability than any of those you have mentioned to dictate what is and isn't acceptable.

FWIW my employer knows all of my medications and which of the side effects I suffer from whan i take the meds. What I have not told my employer s the side effects that are listed on the information leaflet that I don't suffer from. There is no reason to mention them if I don't suffer from them.

If they are that bothered then they can Google the information themselves as all the information on side effects for prescribed drugs are available on the internet.

System

I have disclosed to my employers the effects if my medication, one of which is drowsiness which makes it nigh on impossible to cope with the early shifts, so as a reasonable adjustment i now work the late shifts