Pre-employment medical ... query ?

spaghettifier

Stheno wrote: »

I've had about ten medicals for jobs and five background checks
It's company specific

Definitely hasn't been the norm for me and just a bit shocked given the very minor and seemingly totally irrelevant nature of the issue.

Anyway, you live and learn.

livedadream

as an FYI you dont fail a medical, the only way to fail a medical is to be dead.

you were deemed by the Doctor to not be fit for the role you applied for.

spaghettifier

That's very helpful, thanks.

Speedwell

The identical thing happened to me last year before the company involved pulled out of Sligo. I'd worked in the identical role I was "hired" for for fifteen years, I play musical instruments, never a problem with my hearing in any context at work in my previous job as an IT business analyst. However, at the medical they told me I had hearing loss and the job offer was withdrawn. And I did need the job and the withdrawal of the offer caused me serious hardship.

Mrs OBumble

I was thinking some more about this:

The phrase "not happy that I could fully interact with the multimedia environment" (or similar) is very specific - and not something that a doctor would make up for themselves when they were assessing your suitability for an office-based job. I'd guess it's something that the company has specifically requested the doctor test for.

Maybe you are unlucky, and it's needed for most company jobs but not for your particular one. Or maybe they do use some multi-media what'sit thing which you do need a certain level of hearing for.




Or maybe it's just a puedo-scientific way of keeping old people out of the company, which happens to screen out a few others too .... said in jest, but it's not impossible.

spaghettifier

It's worrying as it's putting people who aren't in anyway incapable of doing a job out of potential employment for nothing only theoretical reasons.

Considering a huge % of the population can't see without glasses or contacts, it just seems a bit ludicrous.

Stheno

spaghettifier wrote: »

It's worrying as it's putting people who aren't in anyway incapable of doing a job out of potential employment for nothing only theoretical reasons.

Considering a huge % of the population can't see without glasses or contacts, it just seems a bit ludicrous.

But glasses or contacts correct people's vision, you've said yourself your hearing is bad and not corrected

I worked in an environment where we did a lot of conference with a guy who had poor heating and spoke really loudly on calls as a result, meaning the rest of us couldn't concentrate on our calls and frequently had to ask him to be quieter

livedadream

spaghettifier wrote: »

It's worrying as it's putting people who aren't in anyway incapable of doing a job out of potential employment for nothing only theoretical reasons.

Considering a huge % of the population can't see without glasses or contacts, it just seems a bit ludicrous.

if i remember correctly you couldnt be an airline pilot back in the day if you didnt have 20/20 vision even if you did wear glasses

spaghettifier

Stheno wrote: »

But glasses or contacts correct people's vision, you've said yourself your hearing is bad and not corrected

I worked in an environment where we did a lot of conference with a guy who had poor heating and spoke really loudly on calls as a result, meaning the rest of us couldn't concentrate on our calls and frequently had to ask him to be quieter

Maybe I should just get lost and become a burden on the welfare system and sink into depression because someone was a bit upset about someone speaking loudly ?!?!

Honestly!

Stheno

spaghettifier wrote: »

Maybe I should just get lost and become a burden on the welfare system and sink into depression because someone was a bit upset about someone speaking loudly ?!?!

Honestly!

No we were not upset at someone speaking loudly, we were unable to do our work due to them literally yelling so much that we could not hear people on calls

It was an open plan office with no acoustic shielding, and it was common for people to ask the person to speak more quietly, he himself acknowledged it was an issue.

As I've already said plenty of jobs will not require a medical so I don't get your point here

livedadream

spaghettifier wrote: »

Maybe I should just get lost and become a burden on the welfare system and sink into depression because someone was a bit upset about someone speaking loudly ?!?!

Honestly!

that escalated quickly.

just because you dont have a registered disability doesnt mean you dont have to make allowences at work.

I do have a registered disability (blue card and everything) but i dont use it, the people i work with dont know that i am unwell and therefore dont need to do anything different.
if i sat at home and had a pity party then yeah it would be my problem.

if i do have to make allowances (ie if i need to work from home or take time off for treatment etc etc) i dont expect other people to just put up with it... if my ability to do my job was affected i would ensure it wouldnt impact on my team.

spaghettifier

Who ever said I would be doing that?!?!?!?!

Forget it!

I can see exactly the attitude now. Seems self employment is the only option for those of us who are an annoyance.

livedadream

spaghettifier wrote: »

Who ever said I would be doing that?!?!?!?!

spaghettifier wrote: »

I should just get lost and become a burden on the welfare system and sink into depression because someone was a bit upset about someone speaking loudly ?!?!

you did...

Speedwell

livedadream wrote: »

you did...

Well, in my case I didn't. I hadn't been in Ireland long enough to qualify for any benefits, hence the hardship.

spaghettifier

livedadream wrote: »

you did...

I did not say at any point that I would be shouting in the office.

I have zero, none, not a single allowance that I need to make!

This doesn't impact me at all other than in hearing tests. I may have to use a telephone on one ear and not the other but as far as I am aware most offices do tend to have right-eared telephones !! The exclusively left ear handsets are rather rare.

livedadream

spaghettifier wrote: »

I did not say at any point that I would be shouting in the office.

I have zero, none, not a single allowance that I need to make!

This doesn't impact me at all other than in hearing tests. I may have to use a telephone on one ear and not the other but as far as I am aware most offfices do have right-eared telephones !!

i was referring to your little pity party...

not you shouting. but im gunna take your exclamation marks as you kinda shouting so... :cool:

sullivlo

spaghettifier wrote: »

Maybe I should just get lost and become a burden on the welfare system and sink into depression because someone was a bit upset about someone speaking loudly ?!?!

Honestly!

???

Nobody is saying anything about the welfare system? Stheno was merely pointing out a situation where hearing impairment may impact a work environment.

If you feel you've been mistreated or unfairly excluded from the job, by all means take it further. But if it was a specific requirement of the company and they said that your application wouldn't be taken further because of your hearing loss, then they're within their rights to say no. The only way that they would be in the wrong is in a situation where you said "I have hearing loss" and they didn't hire you on that basis. But even then, the waters are still murky.

spaghettifier

livedadream wrote: »

i was referring to your little pity party...
l:

yeah, a discussion about employment rights is a "pity party" now....

sullivlo

spaghettifier wrote: »

yeah, a discussion about employment rights is a "pity party" now....

But you don't have any employment rights as they can't discriminate against you for having a disability if you haven't got a registered disability.

spaghettifier

Grand! So my previous point remains : I need to go self employed as I will be potentially discriminated against in future during recruitment and have no protections.

That's all I wanted to know.

livedadream

spaghettifier wrote: »

Grand! So my previous point remains : I need to go self employed as I will be potentially discriminated against in future during recruitment and have no protections.

That's all I wanted to know.

okay, this has all clearly gotten WAAAYYY out of hand.

if a job has a requirement where someone with less than perfect hearing is not suitable then no, you cant do that job if they have a medical.

there are millions of companies that dont do medical checks, apply for those jobs.

you havnt been discriminated against because you dont have any grounds to be discriminated against, ie you are not disabled.

to clarify I will adderess your original post:

spaghettifier wrote: »

Is this legal?

there is nothing illegal about what happened.

spaghettifier wrote: »

I got to the final stage of an interview process and there was a medical before they would sign a contract. I turned up at the place and had what I would actually regard as a rather intrusive medical, given that it is for a job that has zero requirement to do anything physical - IT related.

medicals dont happen just for physically demanding jobs they are to asses your health and fitness for work.

spaghettifier wrote: »

Anyway, I've hearing loss in one of my ears, quite serious but nobody notices and it's never in any way impinged on my ability to do my job.

irrelevant if the Doctor said it would.

spaghettifier wrote: »

I had particularly bad tinnitus the day of the hearing test and didn't hear most of the tones on one side. The other side was perfect.

you clearly need 100% audio function for the role.

spaghettifier wrote: »

They failed me on the medical!

again you cant fail a medical unless you are dead. you were deemed not fit for the role

spaghettifier wrote: »

I can't see how stereo hearing has anything to do with the job.

you havnt said what the job was etc etc but perhaps it does have something to do with the job? using a phone perhaps, applying audio to videos, wiring things correctly so they deliver balanced sound from both speakers, all guesses but its possible that it does.

spaghettifier wrote: »

I don't particularly want the job anymore,

convenient considering you didnt get it.

spaghettifier wrote: »

but I just was wondering if this is going to make me somehow unemployable. As I am thinking maybe I should just go self-employed.

why would you think that, one company says no and you think your unemployable? has this happened before? did the Doctor that assessed you advise you to consider a different career? its all a bit over dramatic... you were found to not be suitable for one job in one company. apply for a different one.

other case is appeal the doctor decision and ask for the reasoning behind it. but if you dont care anymore then thats a waste of time.

spaghettifier

Sorry, due to my newly acquired "disability" I have mysteriously become unable to read your posts.

Strange how not being able to hear in one ear impacts on my ability to use an iPhone to type much like my ability to code.

Anyway helpful thread. Really eye opening about attitudes in general. I'll just bear them in mind for any future recruitment process.

Speedwell

All of the above objections don't seem to have a lot of relevance in my case; I was applying for a role identical to the job I had already been doing successfully (that I left only because of staff reductions, and was invited to reapply later when there were new openings). I supplied the employer with seven outstanding references (my references were only too happy to tell me what they'd said). There's no reason to assume I wasn't qualified for the job, since none of the requirements of the job needed someone with a certain defined standard of hearing. It wasn't a job where perfect hearing was critical, as demonstrated by the fact that I had already been doing every part of the job as defined.

Stheno

Speedwell wrote: »

All of the above objections don't seem to have a lot of relevance in my case; I was applying for a role identical to the job I had already been doing (that I left only because of staff reductions, and was invited to reapply later when there were new openings).

I think the main point of the replies in the thread is that as op has no disability there is nothing illegal in their not getting the job as they didn't meet the criteria specified

spaghettifier

So, if for example the employer decided that tall people couldn't be employed because emm (insert ridiculous made up reason here) would it be acceptable turn them down?

Could an employer for example decide not to hire a man who doesn't have a full head of hair because they fell a full head of hair is essential for sales...

How about people with a slight limp ?

Seems to me there's a hell of a lot of scope for discrimination here.

Stheno

spaghettifier wrote: »

So, if for example the employer decided that tall people couldn't be employed because emm (insert ridiculous made up reason here) would it be acceptable turn them down?

Could an employer for example decide not to hire a man who doesn't have a full head of hair because they fell a full head of hair is essential for sales...

How about people with a slight limp ?

Seems to me there's a hell of a lot of scope for discrimination here.

None of that falls under discrimination legislation .

Nody

Mod:
Temporary lock while I review the thread; will be opened shortly again.

Review done:
Spaghettifier I suggest you take a deep breath and a step back from the thread. You've been given clear answers to why this is not a discrimination case by posters in their opinion (no legal opinion allowed) and you keep working yourself up with more and more hyperbole examples over it.

The facts as stated in the thread is simple; according to most users you were not discriminated against for a disability. No one knows what or why the role required except the company and no one knows what another company will request. If you think that means you need to go self employed or sit unemployed on benefit is on you but nothing backs up those claims except you and your claims. For the rest of the user a reminder to be helpful with the replies or don't bother to post.

Thread unlocked again.

Mrs OBumble

Speedwell wrote: »

All of the above objections don't seem to have a lot of relevance in my case; I was applying for a role identical to the job I had already been doing successfully (that I left only because of staff reductions, and was invited to reapply later when there were new openings). I supplied the employer with seven outstanding references (my references were only too happy to tell me what they'd said). There's no reason to assume I wasn't qualified for the job, since none of the requirements of the job needed someone with a certain defined standard of hearing. It wasn't a job where perfect hearing was critical, as demonstrated by the fact that I had already been doing every part of the job as defined.

In that case, you'd have to conclude that someone important didn't want you to get the job.

Speedwell

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

In that case, you'd have to conclude that someone important didn't want you to get the job.

It happens. If they didn't want me, they didn't want me, whether it was my American accent, or someone complained that their friend didn't get the job, or it was Tuesday. I just wish I hadn't had to live with bare cupboards for two weeks and not knowing where the rent was coming from when I thought I had a job and was ineligible for benefits.

Irish_Elect_Eng

spaghettifier wrote: »

So, if for example the employer decided that tall people couldn't be employed because emm (insert ridiculous made up reason here) would it be acceptable turn them down?

Could an employer for example decide not to hire a man who doesn't have a full head of hair because they fell a full head of hair is essential for sales...

How about people with a slight limp ?

Seems to me there's a hell of a lot of scope for discrimination here.

• Very Tall or Heavy people will struggle to meet the requirements for becoming a Ballet Dancer, Jockey or a Formula 1 Driver due to the physical limitations of the role.
  
• A bald man would indeed be a poor salesman for Rogaine, or indeed as simply a man not be the appropriate salesperson for many products targeted at a female market.
  
• A person with a slight limp would probable fail the medical for the Police and Army.

But as has been mentioned, it is acceptable to discriminate between candidates based on capability when measured against the needs of the role.