Walking too much

Les79

matt8282 wrote: »

Its effecting the older guys and also the ones with diabetes.

Would be interesting to explore whether the requirement to walk for 12 hours is indirectly discriminatory towards older/disabled people and whether the employer could justify it given previous work didn't involve as much walking. BUT that would boil down to whether there is a less discriminatory way of achieving the aim or not. Sadly, I think that their aim would be something like "make staff a more visible presence" or "make staff monitor the whole site" and there may not be any other way of achieving this aim other than to walk! So might not have a case to make anyway (so don't go in tomorrow all guns blazing on my post!).

That could also be academic if you don't have such a protected characteristic (so if you bring it up to employer, you will likely be a martyr).

I appreciate that my advice isn't particularly helpful, but just a bit of a flavour of the sorts of things I'd be researching further at this stage (ACAS, CAB etc). Maybe also look at HSE website?

Ultimately, and particularly if you aren't affected aside from it clashing with your principles, it may be a case that this is a "like it or lump it" scenario.

Blatchford

Les79 wrote: »

Would be interesting to explore whether the requirement to walk for 12 hours is indirectly discriminatory towards older/disabled people and whether the employer could justify it given previous work didn't involve as much walking..

Of course the client could claim that not properly securing their site is indirectly discriminatory towards their profit margins, sack the security firm and get in someone who does the job properly. Problem solved. The only place people will be walking to is the dole office.

Being older and /or disabled doesn't mean that you cannot walk and/ or walk for part of 12 hours (even the poster hasn't claimed that). Some peoples health or fitness levels, regardless of age or disability, may mean they are not suited to work that requires them to be active. That's not discrimination. It's common sense.

Q*bert

Also if the company has a website you can always check the website and look for other opportunities.

Meantime - Look for work elsewhere and at least you are gaining experience and a realistic picture of what your capabilities/limitations work wise are, whilst you are still there.

And if there is another opportunity - register an interest, send a CV....

Les79

Blatchford wrote: »

Of course the client could claim that not properly securing their site is indirectly discriminatory towards their profit margins, sack the security firm and get in someone who does the job properly. Problem solved. The only place people will be walking to is the dole office.

Wouldn't pan out like that. Employer wouldn't support employees if it risked the relationship with client. They would likely just "take their chances"

Being older and /or disabled doesn't mean that you cannot walk and/ or walk for part of 12 hours (even the poster hasn't claimed that). Some peoples health or fitness levels, regardless of age or disability, may mean they are not suited to work that requires them to be active. That's not discrimination. It's common sense.

OP mentioned:

Its effecting the older guys and also the ones with diabetes.

Im only asking as I am seeing colleagues struggle with poor feet conditions and complaining of aches due to a new procedure at work.

Those employees may be able to query this further, potentially starting with ACAS.

Don't think OP has got much to query, aside from maybe pointing anyone with a disability (and who is being impacted by this new way of working; less confident about age after your valid points about fitness/health) to them. The first question of mine being whether the old way of working has now become an improper way of securing a site, or whether less walking can still achieve the same aim that the employer is trying to achieve here.

Blatchford

The problem is that every single time anyone doesn't like something you suggest they claim it is discrimination and you place a narrow world view on every si single fact that twists it into supporting your almost always incorrect viewpoint.

People who are "older" - and that is not a definition of anything - or who have diabetes (or any other health condition) are not automatically rendered incapable of walking or unfit for walking. The job requires people to walk to act as security for sites, based on the unreasonable fact that they are security guards. Just as other professions, as explained elsewhere in the thread must be on their feet, because that is the nature of the job. The fact is that how this would "pan out" is that those incapable of doing the work will be given their notice.

Les79

Blatchford wrote: »

The problem is that every single time anyone doesn't like something you suggest they claim it is discrimination and you place a narrow world view on every si single fact that twists it into supporting your almost always incorrect viewpoint.

People who are "older" - and that is not a definition of anything - or who have diabetes (or any other health condition) are not automatically rendered incapable of walking or unfit for walking. The job requires people to walk to act as security for sites, based on the unreasonable fact that they are security guards. Just as other professions, as explained elsewhere in the thread must be on their feet, because that is the nature of the job. The fact is that how this would "pan out" is that those incapable of doing the work will be given their notice.

Listen, don't take this the wrong way but I actually can't be bothered going 10 rounds on this issue.

I've had my say, you've had yours. Up to OP what they want to take away from either of our posts