Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By clairel
Completely agree.
But Arran does not seem to understand that medical ethics is not being discussed here and so just keeps coming back to it again and again and again....
Give it up Arran!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GasSystems
The circumstances to refuse a test, depends upon the industry that the person is working in?
Does the monitoring actively
either provide some preventive monitoring
or is the lung function test required as part of an assessment to be able to carry out a certain function whilst at work?
Is the test for a general medical that an insurance company now requires?
Is the test a voluntary test introduced by the company and possibly the person commenced employment prior to this test being introduced.
Not an open & shut case...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards
I am truly impressed by the insistence of the employers rights to force an employee to undergo a variety of tests (masquerading as health surveillance), while totally unimpressed by the extent to which health and safety professionals (mainly undertrained and poorly qualified (medically) (if any quals at all) enable the employer to avoid health surveillance at any (and usually every) opportunity.
The amount of employees killed and made ill by exposure to a large variety of substances ( many of which could be substituted) is only rivaled by the number shown the door at the flimsiest of [medical] excuses.
Oh, and automatic unfair dismissal is now history as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Clairel,
You simply cannot take ethics out of medical surveillance!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Juan Carlos Arias
Lung functioning tests are required where I work by law - HSAWA 1974 - COSHH etc. if an employee refuses to undergo the test. we either reallocate them to an areas where the risk does not exist or dismiss them in order to protect their health and ultimately to protect the company too. this is the law.
totally agree that this matter should, in the first instance, be dealt with diplomatically.
end of thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards
They were required at the last company I worked for, by law.
They were not done though. And many other companies do not "do" health surveillance even though they have to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By SteveD-M
'Love the contradiction by the way - preach about the importance of saying things in the right way and then say that you'd just cut to the chase and lay down the law because it's quicker! Do as I say not as I do!!'
Claire
Explanation of the legal requirements as a basis for understanding is essential. Understanding of the employees standpoint is also essential. There can be a number of reasons for it, some work related and some not. There is not substitute for direct, albeit confidential, discussion to get to the bottom of the issue. Dancing around the issue can only prolong the employees issues and create more rather than sorting the matter out properly.
The reference to automatic dismissal being a thing of the past - is agreed, technically (as there are other avenues for redeployment of staff to be considered) - however there are still cases as recently as 2007 that have resulted in dismissal of employee for breech of their employment contract in this context.
Can we take the emotion out of this...Everyone has an opinion and entitled too it, some informed and some not. 'People in glass house shouldn't throw stones'
The facts are:
There is a legal requirement.
The employer has a legal duty to carry it out.
The employee has a legal obligation to comply.
There are mitigating factors that may be part of the investigation into why the employee refuses to comply. All of which need to be addressed.
The skill (At the risk of being accused of contradiction again!) is dealing with it in a compassionate way to get the right result for both parties. Is it not?
More coffee needed...:-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By clairel
You misunderstand - I'm the queen of 'do what I say not as I do'! It wasn't a criticism, so I wasn't throwing stones.
I agree with what you say. The only person in disagreement is Arran. Who still cannot grasp the fact that those who carry out the test are subject to medical ethics but those who are required to have the test are not.Therefore the point he keeps making is not valid within the nature of the question asked.
I will persist until he understands....and he still hasn't withdrawn his statement that none of us are competent to answer the qustion.
This debate has nothing to do with medical ethics and everything to do with the law.
My feelings about attempting diplomacy before discipline are personal preference. Come the end of the day though if diplomacy fails throw the book at them!
...prefer tea please!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Clairel,
Isn't the ethical principal established by Hippocrates in the 4th century BC now incorporated into UK law?
It is also worth looking at Code Point 1 of our Code of Conduct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards
Can we also throw the book at employers who fail to "offer" medical surveillance ?
Or would that be financially unrewarding ?
May we also comment upon employers who fail to offer MS and then put their workers at [serious] risk by having poor work conditions ?
Or would that also be financially suicidal ?
Maybe more employees would respect the profession if health and safety professionals did not rely on employers for their bread and butter ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By clairel
When I was an Inspector yes I did throw the book at employers who didn't do what they were supposed to.
Now I am a consultant my job is to tell employers what they are doing wrong and what they should be doing and I do just that thank you. I am not paid to flatter their egos.
Sounds like you are tarring everyone with the same cynical brush.
(and this thread was about employees refusing not employers not providing)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
Can we stop this as we do not have ALL the information to make an INFORMED jusgement,only partial information, which would not be the case in a real situation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Colin
What a great Thread! Ancient Greek Philosophy, MHSWA, COSHH, HASAWA, Noise at Work Regs, Data Protection Act, Medical Ethics and grammer or grammar!
All coupled with real input from so many senior IOSH Members. Excellent!
And we haven't yet touched upon the Human Rights Act?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards
Human rights is not empowered when a health and safety professional wants something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By SteveD-M
'Human rights is not empowered when a health and safety professional wants something'
John I am almost sure from your comment that you are not a member of IOSH!? Pretty arrogant statement if you are not!
Red Rag and bull....I've typed about 4 replies ....but I'll get moderated!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sen Sar
Hi Martin
Employees have to co-operate, under most regulations that have a requirement for health surveillance, if the surveillance is being carried out within the working day and they are being paid.
That said generally the reason for reluctance/refusal is borne out of fear.
I perform such Health Surveillance on an almost daily basis and I have been to companies that give me a list of employees with some names marked with an * saying “these are the trouble makers” and this I can assure you is not a one off.
I have found that a large percentage of employees have not had explained to them why the need for Health Surveillance and if they have had any information it has been somewhat lacking!!
On a recent visit to a company one employee was refusing to have Health Surveillance, I asked to speak to the person, after a few minutes I was told that the person knew that they had an existing issue and was worried that would be moved or even lose their job. The person had worked for the company over 25 years and actually enjoyed what they did. After our chat the person agreed to the Health Surveillance offered and as a result was offered extra/different PPE that made their working day easier. Good result, however this could have been avoided if adequate information had been given to the employee for the beginning.
It should be made very clear from the onset what the Health Surveillance involves and what the outcomes will be used for.
Another thing to bear in mind is that sometimes people may struggle with literacy and if they think you are asking them to complete Health Questionnaire etc their response will be negative.
I have also had the reverse side of the coin with employees asking as their initial question “Can I make a claim”…....…another day another day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Rose
I have read most of the above.
The duty to provide HS is 'absolute' under MHSW R6, so long as there is an identifiable disease or condition, valid HS technique etc etc.
There duty under HSW S7(b) also looks to be absolute as well.
My (very experienced) HR colleague has suggested trying everything to get this person to attend HS, even if necessary to the point of making and appointment and then if the employee still does not attend then use the disciplinary route and potentially dismissal.
She used another example to help illustrate the point. Drivers of LGV are required to have a medical report D4 (a form of HS) and then every 5 years from age 45 onwards. If you employed an LGV driver and they refused to have the medical report, would you allow them to continue driving? Would you dismiss them?
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank E. Davidson
I wouldn't do it unless my employer actually carried out their duties to control respiratory hazards by means further up the risk cotrol hierarchy.
Health surveillance is way too late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By SteveD-M
BUPA are just after more money for OccH...sort of spoils your argumanet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards
Everybody is after money for OccH, and for H&S, so it does not spoil my argument.
I'm SOLELY on the side of the workers, my experience of both OccH and H&S is that neither is overly concerned about the actual HEALTH or SAFETY of the WORKER but are very concerned about having to pay someone for any damage caused to their health.
From small employers, who do not do any sort of medical surveillance, to large employers who pay legions of "health and safety advisors" large sums of money to avoid the risk of litigation, the entire industry is corrupt to the ideals of occupational health and safety.
So, next time you spend time figuring ways for your client to avoid paying for anything to protect their workers, look to the moral argument (sorry, dirty word: moral)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By paulw71
Martin.
Ridiculous
Ill health and injury - no workers
No workers = no industry
No industry = no jobs
no jobs = no economy. we all starve
Your entitled to your opinion no matter how ill thought out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Scotty
John (Richards),
That's a very bitter and blinkered view of H&S (and OccH), albeit based on your own experience, as you say.
At least try to have a modicum of courtesy when posting on these fora and not assume all H&S professionals fall into this category.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By paulw71
sorry martin. I meant John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Rose
John
I most certainly do not consider myself 'corrupt' and would not use that word to generalise or describe the industry.
I personally regard securing the health and safety of people to be a moral duty (I think Robens looked at it that way as well). As far as I am concerned if I take reasonable steps to ensure peoples health and safety then I have little to worry about by way of enforcement action or litigation.
Phil (an amazed Phil!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Rose
" the entire industry is corrupt to the ideals of occupational health and safety"
I can't help but think, that many here will find that particular assertion to be offensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By SteveD-M
I think the conversation is drawing further to AUG 2!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sen Sar
I work in Occ Health and almost daily bang my head up brick walls. I try very hard to inform/educate people into taking a positive/pro active approach to their own well being.
Many blinkered people think that Occ Health is just another “Management Tool”, they could not be more wrong.
Some early health issues are ONLY identified by health screening therefore if ignored will only become apparent to the employee when the “damage” has been done!
I am not offended by comments that I only wish to line my own bank account, I just find them amusing and very uneducated. I could probably earn a lot more in another sector with less stress, but I enjoy what I do and if along life’s way I make a difference to just one person then I have done my job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank E. Davidson
In reality, at least on construction sites.
ill or injured worker = get a new one from the agency.
We see lip service paid to health and safety day in day out. We're aware when the company HSEQ Officers visits, they must think the world smells of fresh paint.
But as long as we're wearing PPE all is fine, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards
"Some early health issues are ONLY identified by health screening therefore if ignored will only become apparent to the employee when the “damage” has been done!"
Quite.
But many companies do not bother with health surveillance, even when they are required to. Since many of those companies use health and safety advisors you can safely say that the H&S company advising them is not doing the job it is supposed to be doing.
Still: Horse. Water. Lead.
Many companies, especially small ones, have a proactive policy towards health and safety. Cause trouble: dismiss worker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.