Should obesity be treated as a disability?

First topic message reminder :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2656063/Should-obesity-classed-disability-Debate-rages-25st-man-takes-employer-sacked-fat.html

Cant see this on a search so thought I would start it.

I think this is a difficult one - on first thoughts it looks simple but the more you think about it the more confused it gets.

Joy Division wrote:You know Rags, it's easy for you to speak in such a care free tone of the disabled trying to find work,for you are employed  and have not been in a life long term of being  disabled with some restrictions and continually getting knock backs from employers which gradually make people lose heart and run wear them down.

Most employers just don't want to know disabled people.

Perhaps they are overwhelmed at the changes they might have to make. Most employers have enough trouble running their business from day to day without having to rearrange a whole building or rearrange a job description.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well actually, I'm somewhat incapacitated myself at the moment, and I feel guilty that I can't do my job. It's just a temporary thing hopefully, but still I feel that others are having to do extra work because of it.

Please don't patronise me in that manner.

It's not often I agree with a sphinx, but where was she patronising you Rags?  Disabled people ARE too pissed off to be embarrassed  in that society views the, as a burden and assume disabled people wouldn't be up to the job, whereas if more adaptions were put in place to accommodate them and have some faith in them by giving them a chance to prove themselves  then maybe we would see a rise in disabled people being employed...

And many Employers who use the ' positive  about disabled people' logo at business premises are anything but...that's just a thing  SOME Employers do to look good.

She is patronising me because she assumes that I don't have any health issues myself, and that I don't know about that kind of thing.

I always thought that there would be more jobs people could do at home, what with advances in technology. Employers don't seem to have gone for that though.

This is actually one of my favorite issues, being someone who has worked from home for years, supervising a team of people who do all their work from home.

It's a really simple concept that a lot of employers seem to have trouble grasping, but the idea is that if you evaluate employees solely on the basis of their results, you can successfully manage people who work from home.

The problem with a lot of managers is that they think "face time" on the job is important (and it is for some jobs) and that they have to be able to see what you're doing. As long as a system is in place for managers to monitor whether you're fulfilling your responsibilities, there is no need for them to watch you work.

In fact, there are several ways a company becomes more efficient without having this constant interfacing. Employees who tend to use their managers as a crutch when they run into problems are often more likely to take more initiative and solve their own problems when they don't share work space. Managers thus have more time for their own work.

Sorry to go off on a tangent; I get a little evangelical about this stuff

http://rippleit.com/ripple-and-rowe/

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She is patronising me because she assumes that I don't have any health issues myself, and that I don't know about that kind of thing.

I always thought that there would be more jobs people could do at home, what with advances in technology. Employers don't seem to have gone for that though.

This is actually one of my favorite issues, being someone who has worked from home for years, supervising a team of people who do all their work from home.

It's a really simple concept that a lot of employers seem to have trouble grasping, but the idea is that if you evaluate employees solely on the basis of their results, you can successfully manage people who work from home.

The problem with a lot of managers is that they think "face time" on the job is important (and it is for some jobs) and that they have to be able to see what you're doing. As long as a system is in place for managers to monitor whether you're fulfilling your responsibilities, there is no need for them to watch you work.

In fact, there are several ways a company becomes more efficient without having this constant interfacing. Employees who tend to use their managers as a crutch when they run into problems are often more likely to take more initiative and solve their own problems when they don't share work space. Managers thus have more time for their own work.

Sorry to go off on a tangent; I get a little evangelical about this stuff

http://rippleit.com/ripple-and-rowe/

It's not a tangent actually, it's very relevant. In the UK most employers still think in terms of hours worked rather than the actual results. They pay for your time as much as anything, so maybe they just think that someone working at home would be having too many tea breaks.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Then I can only presume that your employer is very small with probably under 10 employees.  If they have more you might want to read up on the disability discrimination act.

No, they are not small. I know the nature of the job, and there would be no practical alternative.

I think people have to stop lumping employers together and understand that there are many different types of jobs and many different types of companies housed in different types of premises.

So you are telling us that as a large company they do not have any employees in such roles as receptionists, telephone operators, admin support, human resources etc?

It is not a case of knowing the nature of the job you do now, it is a case of knowing how many other roles are employed by your employer because if you are unable to do the one you do now then the first thing they should offer you is training in another role - even if that role is less skilled, less well paid etc. Many of the roles I mentioned can be done fully and properly by disabled people.

Of course you might want to turn such a role down and just resign. Your choice.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Working from home is the probably the biggest reasonable adjustment going.  

Don't you agree though that most employers don't seem to like that idea? Perhaps they're so used to employees being in a certain place for a certain number of hours that they wouldn't trust anyone to work at home.

Irrelevant - if it is a reasonable adjustment they have no choice.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, they are not small. I know the nature of the job, and there would be no practical alternative.

I think people have to stop lumping employers together and understand that there are many different types of jobs and many different types of companies housed in different types of premises.

So you are telling us that as a large company they do not have any employees in such roles as receptionists, telephone operators, admin support, human resources etc?  

It is not a case of knowing the nature of the job you do now, it is a case of knowing how many other roles are employed by your employer because if you are unable to do the one you do now then the first thing they should offer you is training in another role - even if that role is less skilled, less well paid etc.  Many of the roles I mentioned can be done fully and properly by disabled people.

Of course you might want to turn such a role down and just resign.  Your choice.  

They do have those jobs but not in my area.

That last sentence sounded rather harsh, considering your alleged "sympathy" for people who are incapacitated.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't you agree though that most employers don't seem to like that idea? Perhaps they're so used to employees being in a certain place for a certain number of hours that they wouldn't trust anyone to work at home.

Irrelevant - if it is a reasonable adjustment they have no choice.

I was speaking generally - for people who don't currently have a job.

Do try to sound a little less hostile.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So you are telling us that as a large company they do not have any employees in such roles as receptionists, telephone operators, admin support, human resources etc?  

It is not a case of knowing the nature of the job you do now, it is a case of knowing how many other roles are employed by your employer because if you are unable to do the one you do now then the first thing they should offer you is training in another role - even if that role is less skilled, less well paid etc.  Many of the roles I mentioned can be done fully and properly by disabled people.

Of course you might want to turn such a role down and just resign.  Your choice.  

They do have those jobs but not in my area.

That last sentence sounded rather harsh, considering your alleged "sympathy" for people who are incapacitated.

Ah that wonderful thing sympathy. So close to the dreaded pity. So far from the necessary empathy.

If the company has those roles in a different area they should still offer you retraining if the temporary issue becomes long term or forever, combined with help relocating to another area.

It is of course far more understandable if you turn down relocation.

If I sound hostile it is because to a point I am.

I talk about legal requirements but as someone has pointed out it can be very difficult sometimes to say whether a company is discriminating and as you yourself point out the reality is there are plenty of employers who equate disability of any sort with inability to do anything as a job of any sort.

As for those who become disabled while in work, who turn down retraining and resign because their new role would be lower and paid less than before I understand them but no I have little sympathy for them - and as time goes by they tend to have little sympathy for themselves and wish they had taken the retraining.

I often wish I had taken the relocation and retraining offered to me - I did not because at the time of choice i still did not have a diagnosis, neither I nor my employer knew what was wrong with me, and there was no guarantee any retraining would be appropriate. I made the right decision at the time with the information I had - I just wish I had had more information or could see into the future a bit when I made that decision.

Nems wrote:

Sassy wrote:I've already reply to Sphinx about the OP.   Funnily enough, I know someone with your problems as well, and it doesn't make her a control freak who stabs friends in the back when they won't post the way you want them to post.   Now, as all of that is very old hat, and I'm sure you don't want to bore the forum to death, perhaps you could try and move on, so much better for your health.  

How could anyone ever stab you in the back? You've that many faces we wouldn't find the back

Yes you did, and even WELL AFTER knowing those parasites had been tormenting a grieving mum, you decided to befriend them and support them against Sassy.

But then that's what your like...you will use anyone you can to get to whoever you don't like, you do it with me too, Nems.

Your not to be trusted.

Sorry, just the truth.