Disclosing personal medical info

Andy_L

TheGardener said:

It's so frustrating - it's a petty rule with no real purpose that any of us can see.  No one should be obliged to make a medical condition public knowledge (it's a small workplace and everyone will know if they have to make an allowance for him) when it has no relevance to the job. Not being able to keep a bag in the restroom area is bizarre. And if this 'concession' related to his ability to do his job then I'd understand but this just seems like change for change's sake when no change was needed - just a way to flex a new manager's muscles. None of us want all our stuff over in the main building - if it's cold/raining we'll all get soaked/frozen walking across a large yard without our coats (yep - coats have to be in lockers too) All this talk in the world of dignity and equality for those with a 'hidden' disability but in the end - no one really cares if the whole workplace knows your personal business.
@theoretica : the members of the team that need those products are already mutinous because they've been told the company will provide those products in the bathroom so they don't need to bring their own...as you can imagine - that hasn't gone down well either. Apparently, the items to be provided will be whatever the procurement team (all male) chooses to supply - not the brands or types of products the people who need them use or want...
It is also the case that these rules, although they apply to the staff in the main building too - do not have any impact on those colleagues as their lockers are in the restroom area. 

So raise that with management as to why everyone needs to keep their stuff in the restroom

Brie

obviously management hasn't thought this through.  Or are doing something to address an issue about theft or similar perhaps?  

I think it may be one of those things that if everyone is together on this and say they all need lockers that would be the best solution.  It is not reasonable for people to have to walk between buildings without coats etc if it is tipping down with rain or freezing cold. 

Does it also mean that you have to leave your lunches etc in the other building, go fetch them to eat in your work building and then return your lunch boxes, flasks to the other one again?  So losing maybe 10 minutes out of a break?  

I quite agree if you state that you know there are lockers available that would suit everyone that could be installed, easily, cheaply that's a solution management might like.

TheGardener

Andy_L said:

TheGardener said:

It's so frustrating - it's a petty rule with no real purpose that any of us can see.  No one should be obliged to make a medical condition public knowledge (it's a small workplace and everyone will know if they have to make an allowance for him) when it has no relevance to the job. Not being able to keep a bag in the restroom area is bizarre. And if this 'concession' related to his ability to do his job then I'd understand but this just seems like change for change's sake when no change was needed - just a way to flex a new manager's muscles. None of us want all our stuff over in the main building - if it's cold/raining we'll all get soaked/frozen walking across a large yard without our coats (yep - coats have to be in lockers too) All this talk in the world of dignity and equality for those with a 'hidden' disability but in the end - no one really cares if the whole workplace knows your personal business.
@theoretica : the members of the team that need those products are already mutinous because they've been told the company will provide those products in the bathroom so they don't need to bring their own...as you can imagine - that hasn't gone down well either. Apparently, the items to be provided will be whatever the procurement team (all male) chooses to supply - not the brands or types of products the people who need them use or want...
It is also the case that these rules, although they apply to the staff in the main building too - do not have any impact on those colleagues as their lockers are in the restroom area. 

So raise that with management as to why everyone needs to keep their stuff in the restroom

It's 'management' that implemented the change...

General_Grant

TheGardener said:

Andy_L said:

TheGardener said:

It's so frustrating - it's a petty rule with no real purpose that any of us can see.  No one should be obliged to make a medical condition public knowledge (it's a small workplace and everyone will know if they have to make an allowance for him) when it has no relevance to the job. Not being able to keep a bag in the restroom area is bizarre. And if this 'concession' related to his ability to do his job then I'd understand but this just seems like change for change's sake when no change was needed - just a way to flex a new manager's muscles. None of us want all our stuff over in the main building - if it's cold/raining we'll all get soaked/frozen walking across a large yard without our coats (yep - coats have to be in lockers too) All this talk in the world of dignity and equality for those with a 'hidden' disability but in the end - no one really cares if the whole workplace knows your personal business.
@theoretica : the members of the team that need those products are already mutinous because they've been told the company will provide those products in the bathroom so they don't need to bring their own...as you can imagine - that hasn't gone down well either. Apparently, the items to be provided will be whatever the procurement team (all male) chooses to supply - not the brands or types of products the people who need them use or want...
It is also the case that these rules, although they apply to the staff in the main building too - do not have any impact on those colleagues as their lockers are in the restroom area. 

So raise that with management as to why everyone needs to keep their stuff in the restroom

It's 'management' that implemented the change...

And so that's why the matter has to be raised with management.

TheGardener

So - in an example of the subversiveness of the British workers faced with unreasonable management requests  we have between us, come up with some workarounds..Our building is old and we know there is a 'hidden' cupboard in the male and female bathrooms that used to house a sort of heater vent. The ladies have apparently used this cubby hole for storing sanitary products for years - and will continue to do so. My colleague's wife has found a 'double-decker' lunch box and the lower part is plenty big enough for his 'supplies'. We wear overalls so he can have a spare pair of them hanging in the restroom (he rarely needs to get completely changed - just a clean-up and pants)  
We have formally asked for a set of lockers in our restroom (same as they have in the main building) which would be a wholly reasonable request in our view - but TBH, a complete waste of money because the old system of bench and hooks (like a school gym) has served the building and its occupants well for many decades - but there you go...

TheGardener

General_Grant said:

TheGardener said:

Andy_L said:

TheGardener said:

It's so frustrating - it's a petty rule with no real purpose that any of us can see.  No one should be obliged to make a medical condition public knowledge (it's a small workplace and everyone will know if they have to make an allowance for him) when it has no relevance to the job. Not being able to keep a bag in the restroom area is bizarre. And if this 'concession' related to his ability to do his job then I'd understand but this just seems like change for change's sake when no change was needed - just a way to flex a new manager's muscles. None of us want all our stuff over in the main building - if it's cold/raining we'll all get soaked/frozen walking across a large yard without our coats (yep - coats have to be in lockers too) All this talk in the world of dignity and equality for those with a 'hidden' disability but in the end - no one really cares if the whole workplace knows your personal business.
@theoretica : the members of the team that need those products are already mutinous because they've been told the company will provide those products in the bathroom so they don't need to bring their own...as you can imagine - that hasn't gone down well either. Apparently, the items to be provided will be whatever the procurement team (all male) chooses to supply - not the brands or types of products the people who need them use or want...
It is also the case that these rules, although they apply to the staff in the main building too - do not have any impact on those colleagues as their lockers are in the restroom area. 

So raise that with management as to why everyone needs to keep their stuff in the restroom

It's 'management' that implemented the change...

And so that's why the matter has to be raised with management.

Ok so we were given news of the change. We asked our manager to reconsider the change - he declined. So we asked the big boss/owner and he said it was up to the new manager... that's it - that's the end of the management chain - there is no one else. 

Jude57

I suppose that the workers aren't Union members? Otherwise I'd be recommending that the workplace Rep take it up with management as a health and safety issue from the standpoint of members having to cross outdoor space in all weathers without adequate outer clothing, the new rule being punitive to members who menstruate because they are unable to use their chosen protection as it cannot be stored in their break-room and punitive to members with temporary or permanent health conditions needing to store toiletries and changes of clothing on site. 

I'm not sure a discrimination case could be made out but the management seem clueless and that could work to the staff's advantage. In the absence of Union representation, a group asking for a meeting with senior management, with an appointed spokesperson (you, OP?) to formally request an explanation of the reasoning for the change, and to present possible solutions, such as lockers in your break room, could perhaps make management see that the new rule is unduly onerous on at least two protected groups.

Savvy_Sue

Agree with union involvement if at all possible, and failing that then definitely a group approach. 

Although sounds as if a suitable solution is already at hand, and you may prefer to use that rather than antagonise a new manager. Tricky to know whether being presented with a solution would make them happy if it's not 'their' solution - and you don't want to have that solution banned.