Company asks on job application: Do you have any health conditions which could affect your ability to perform this job?



  • I found this on the job application interface of this company.

    Do you have any health conditions which could affect your ability to perform this job?

    Along with

    Do you have any business interests that may be in competition or conflict with [insert business entity name] and its commercial interests?

    Also they have dropdown boxes for

    Which ethnic group do you most identify with?

    What is your age range?

    Pretty nosy, ey?

    Anyway, I applyed for it with a comment in the expected salary textarea since there weren't anywhere else I could write something about it.

    Do I have business interests that may be in competition with [your company]. Yes, I'm interested in [this field] and if I'm going to work in this field, I damn will be ambitious about it. So yes. I may realise my ambition by working at this company, or not.

    Do I have any health conditions? Well, kinda. I've had [this] since [some horrible death of very close family members].

    That's basically what I wrote in the "expected salary textarea".



  • Where do you see yourself in five years?



  • @tar said:

    Where do you see yourself in five years?

    In the field I desire in a country I desire to be.



  • England has nice fields. They pride themselves on it AFAIK.



  • So do the Scots and Kiwis, I think. But I wasn't sure what you were asking.

    I'm sorry. So what is your question again?



  • From the OP, I figured this was some kind of job interview.



  • @Ascendant said:

    Do you have any health conditions which could affect your ability to perform this job?

    I did have severe burnt out due to prolonged work hours back in 2003, so that I was unable to do any programming job for about half year. That's way I had worked as computer hardware salesperson for some time those days.

    Does that count? :stuck_out_tongue:



  • @tar said:

    Where do you see yourself in five years?

    I don't, at least not right now. My ESP only works for a few minutes into the future.



  • @tar said:

    Where do you see yourself in five years?

    I see myself in a role where I am interviewing candidates for a position and asking them interview questions much more insightful and useful than that one*.

    *Plus, five years is an outdated guideline for this industry. There'd better be a compelling reason for staying that long, such as great pay, independence, lots of interesting projects, etc. Many people have three-year gigs and no one bats an eye. Some people, early on in their careers, have one-year gigs and no one bats an eye.



  • Half of those are illegal questions in the US.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Half of those are illegal questions in the US.

    The employee handbook probably makes talking about salaries among coworkers a firing offense and the employee is expected to sign non-competes that would prevent him/her from touching a computer for the next five years.



  • The salary one is legal. The healthcare-related ones I think are illegal, and I'm sure the age range one is (unless perhaps the ranges are 1-18, 19-9999.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Half of those are illegal questions in the US.

    Yeah, this one is from New Zealand and it claims it has offices in the States, Europe and Asia.

    So maybe it's legal in New Zealand?

    But still, it's quite nosy.



  • @Groaner said:

    The employee handbook probably makes talking about salaries among coworkers a firing offense and the employee is expected to sign non-competes that would prevent him/her from touching a computer for the next five years.

    Yeah I get that part but certainly not the health condition part.



  • New Zealand is a weird place. Not an awfully great job market, though if I ever return from this point on, I imagine i could find something. Not worth the cost of things though.



  • I have no idea how it is in New Zealand.

    Could you tell me your experiences or what you know about that place?



  • @tar said:

    Where do you see yourself in five years?

    Too late for 2020 vision


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    In the EU the ethnicity questions have to be optional and they're not shared with the people deciding whether you get an interview. Not sure where the law stands on the other two



  • In Denmark at least, the health question is blatantly illegal. They CANNOT ask you health-related questions.
    That being said, I do believe you are actually obligated to tell them by yourself :wtf:

    They can ask for age, but they can't decide based on it. Usually a company will ask for your civil-registration-number anyway.

    As for wage sharing, most employers around here frown upon it (I know it says in my contract that I can't talk about wages with coworkers). However, they cannot legally stop you from talking about wages, and the contract would be thrown out in a court.



  • @tar said:

    England has nice fields. They pride themselves on it AFAIK.
    Ireland has nicer fields but I wouldn't recommend you go there for them.

    @tar said:

    Where do you see yourself in five years?
    At the same desk doing the same shit with a 5% increase in pay.



  • @MHolt said:

    As for wage sharing, most employers around here frown upon it (I know it says in my contract that I can't talk about wages with coworkers). However, they cannot legally stop you from talking about wages, and the contract would be thrown out in a court.

    Curious. In Sweden, your tax records are publicly accessible, meaning that you can figure out most people's wages fairly easily.



  • Yeah I think i heard about that...
    In Denmark your tax records are considered highly-senstive.
    In fact, SKAT has exposed an API for e.g. a bank to retrieve tex information from a citizen, which actually took a law-change to be considered legal. There was no legal way for SKAT to ask the citizen for consent.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Ascendant said:

    Pretty nosy, ey?

    And illegal, as others have pointed out. In the UK...

    Disability:

    This quick start guide is intended to help employers and job applicants understand new provisions in the Act which prevent employers asking job applicants questions about health or disability during early stages of the recruitment process. It explains the types of questions that are not allowed at these stages and situations when questions about health and disability are permitted.

    The general position is that it is unlawful for an employer to ask any job applicant about their health or disability unless and until the applicant has been offered a job.

    Ethnicity:

    ###4.To monitor diversity among job applicants.
    Monitoring information should be kept separate from application forms in order to minimise the risk that this information will influence the selection process.

    Age:

    ...there are very few reasons an employer may need to ask for your age.
    Of course, you will need to be over 18 years of age to sell certain products (alcohol, for example). However, beyond stating that you are over this age, an employer should avoid asking for specific details.

    Are you married?

    Not only are these questions of a personal and potentially discriminatory nature, this particular line of questioning could also be used to determine a person’s sexual orientation – something which has no bearing on a candidate’s ability to do the job.

    Ever been to gaol?

    There is no obligation for a candidate to disclose criminal convictions if the sentence has already been spent. For this reason, an employer should not refuse employment to an individual because of a previous crime, unless, of course, it relates to the role in question (for example teacher, childminder, a senior banking or financial role).



  • My wife filled out an application form (NHS, UK) just last night where they enquired as to her fitness. I queried the legality, but if anyone's going to have a massive team of lawyers checking forms it's the NHS.



  • Not neccessarily.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Boner said:

    My wife filled out an application form (NHS, UK) just last night where they enquired as to her fitness. I queried the legality, but if anyone's going to have a massive team of lawyers checking forms it's the NHS.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85013/employment-health-questions.pdf (again)

    Exceptions:

    3.To find out whether a job applicant would be able to undertake a function that is intrinsic to the job. An intrinsic function of a job is a function which, if it could not be performed, would mean that the job could not be carried out.
    Example

    Mary applies for a job at a residential care home as a care assistant.An intrinsic element of the job is the ability to be able to help lift and physically support residents.The employer would be allowed to ask Mary questions relating to health or disability in order to determine whether Mary is capable of lifting and physically supporting residents because it is intrinsic to the job.



  • I think this will be it. We're not going to rock the boat as she's already been given the nod that she's got it.



  • @PJH said:

    Are you married?

    Not only are these questions of a personal and potentially discriminatory nature, this particular line of questioning could also be used to determine a person’s sexual orientation – something which has no bearing on a candidate’s ability to do the job.


    LOL. Gays are so full of themselves :rofl:

    I mean, in Poland, such question is asked to determine whether to expect the employee to go on maternity leave in near future, and nothing else. I figure other countries have similar laws that make hiring married young women extremely risky to employers?


  • mod

    @Gaska said:

    whether to expect the employee to go on maternity leave in near future

    Also illegal in the US: passing someone over due to suspecting they'll need maternity leave.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Gaska said:

    I mean, in Poland, such question is asked to determine whether to expect the employee to go on maternity leave in near future, and nothing else.

    That's the other reason it's illegal to ask it in the UK.

    You cannot ask a candidate if they are planning a family, if they are pregnant or about their childcare arrangements.



  • @Gaska said:

    I mean, in Poland, such question is asked to determine whether to expect the employee to go on maternity leave in near future, and nothing else.

    1. That's illegal in the US. You can't make a hiring decision based on whether you "think" someone will go on maternity leave soon. (Sadly, being fired for, or directly after, taking maternity leave is endemic in some industries-- retail for example. Of course they don't give that as the REASON you get laid-off.)

    2. How fucking backwards is Poland? The whole, "recently married woman is going to get pregnant" thing has been passe in the US for at least 50 years for many, many reasons. A lot of unmarried people have babies, sometimes as couples, sometimes on their own. A lot of married people (including most same-sex marriages, another protected class) have no desire to have children.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The healthcare-related ones I think are illegal

    Is it? They're not asking if you have any health issues, they're asking if you have any health issues that might affect your ability to do the job you're applying for.

    This is, more or less, a "generic hiring question." You see it everywhere in the exact same form. Hell, I saw it when I was in high school applying for a job working in retail.

    As for IT type jobs, can you think of any health-issues that could affect your job? I mean, short of being blind? So... the answer is automatically No.

    The age and ethnic questions can go die in a fire, though.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    That's illegal in the US. You can't make a hiring decision based on whether you "think" someone will go on maternity leave soon.

    Same in Poland.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Sadly, being fired for, or directly after, taking maternity leave is endemic in some industries-- retail for example.

    Are you surprised? Imagine you hiring someone to do their job, and said person suddenly stopping appearing at workplace, while you still have to pay this not-worker his salary, and a second salary to a person that you have to hire in their place. And when the maternity leave ends, you find yourself with two employees, one of which is useless to you. Who do you pick - the one that worked for you, or the one that didn't?



  • @Gaska said:

    Are you surprised? Imagine you hiring someone to do their job, and said person suddenly stopping appearing at workplace, while you still have to pay this not-worker his salary, and a second salary to a person that you have to hire in their place. And when the maternity leave ends, you find yourself with two employees, one of which is useless to you. Who do you pick - the one that worked for you, or the one that didn't?

    In the U.S., they do not have to pay you for maternity leave, just hold your job for you for when you get back. And they do not have to do that until you have been with the company for 18 months.



  • @powerlord said:

    Is it? They're not asking if you have any health issues, they're asking if you have any health issues that might affect your ability to do the job you're applying for.

    Phrased like that, yes it's illegal. (The irony is, of course, now that insurers are required by law to take pre-existing conditions, there's less reason for it to be illegal. But whatever.)

    If the job requires lifting 25lbs, they need to ask specifically, "this job requires lifting 25lbs several times a day. Are you physically capable of that?" That would be legal. "Give us a laundry list of all your medical conditions" is not.

    @powerlord said:

    As for IT type jobs, can you think of any health-issues that could affect your job?

    Yeah, like a million. Carpel tunnel syndrome would be the most obvious.

    @Gaska said:

    Imagine you hiring someone to do their job, and said person suddenly stopping appearing at workplace, while you still have to pay this not-worker his salary, and a second salary to a person that you have to hire in their place. And when the maternity leave ends, you find yourself with two employees, one of which is useless to you. Who do you pick - the one that worked for you, or the one that didn't?

    Tough shit. We're trying to run a civilization here; that means sometimes you have to just suck it up and be civil instead of a selfish jackass all the time.



  • Oh, also - the employers wouldn't screen so much for maternity plans if this whole thing wasn't severely abused by young married women.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Tough shit. We're trying to run a civilization here; that means sometimes you have to just suck it up and be civil instead of a selfish jackass all the time.

    It's funny, because this line works for both maternity laws and immigration crisis in Europe.



  • I mostly was there for high school and uni, and rather enjoyed it. There's a lot to see and do. But things are overpriced like nothing else. Like when I went over there, the latest Pokemon game was $30 here. It was $100 there. The exchange rate was around 78% at the time, and they have a 15% sales tax, and it's far away from anywhere else people want to go. (Cut me some slack, I lived in NZ, I have to insult Oz) Buying things hurts.

    I miss it frequently. Most of my friends are still over there. But the job market is relatively bad, since it's a tiny country. They don't have large businesses apart from small divisions of foreign ones, so they can't afford to hire graduates like they can here. They're pushing for tech right now, though.

    Anyway, I want to go back some day, but I don't know if I want to live there...



  • @DogsB said:

    At the same desk doing the same shit with a 5% increase in pay each year.

    5% across 5 years? I'll be searching for a new job...



  • @powerlord said:

    Is it? They're not asking if you have any health issues, they're asking if you have any health issues that might affect your ability to do the job you're applying for.

    I think you need a 'significantly' in there. There are many minor health issues that might make it slightly harder for you to fill a job than for a hypothetical perfectly healthy person.



  • @Gaska said:

    Oh, also - the employers wouldn't screen so much for maternity plans if this whole thing wasn't severely abused by young married women.

    Yes. Of course, any and all women first have to drop out of their jobs before they're allowed to become pregnant just so they don't "abuse" their employers.

    :rolleyes:

    @Gaska said:

    Are you surprised? Imagine you hiring someone to do their job, and said person suddenly stopping appearing at workplace, while you still have to pay this not-worker his salary, and a second salary to a person that you have to hire in their place. And when the maternity leave ends, you find yourself with two employees, one of which is useless to you. Who do you pick - the one that worked for you, or the one that didn't?

    Do you hire permanent staff to cover for a pregnant worker? If so, dumbass.

    Over here, we have special contracts explicitly for covering such cases.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    That's just shifting the problem to the person who gets hired permanently. They get a job, but only for a set time and then they're job hunting again - even if they work miles better than the person they're temporarily replacing. They might be OK with it, or they might be desperate and would have never taken a job like that otherwise.



  • I'm not really seeing the problem with your argument here.

    By that logic, any kind of temp work is inherently evil.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    As far as I know, the employer can't decide to keep the temp replacement and fire the person who went on maternity leave, even if the temp worker is much better. That's the problem. Obviously specifics will vary between countries, but I think that's how it works in most of Europe at least.



  • And how often does this mythical-magical "oh noes, such hardship on the employers!" scenario actually come to pass?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    It's not hardship on the employer, it's hardship on the temp worker who is better but is still shit out of luck due to law.



  • And how, precisely, did that answer my question?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    By explaining you misinterpreted what I was saying, and therefore asked a wrong question.



  • Dodging the question, more like.

    Okay, let's try again: How often does this magical-mythical "Oh noes such hardship on the poor temp worker!" scenario actually come to pass?

    ...

    It's not as if you couldn't have worked out yourself what the next question would be. And you could have already answered it instead of trying to :moving_goal_post:


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Around here it happens almost every time someone is hired as a temp worker because someone at a company went on maternity leave. The "working culture" (or however you want to call it) here is probably different from where you live, and independent contracting is quite uncommon, so companies can't hire a contractor (there are too few) - they have to pick up someone and employ them using a standard employment contract, but for a limited time.

    And trust me, almost nobody wants that kind of contract and the uncertainty it brings. The few people who are OK with looking for new jobs often are already contracting, with the benefits that tends to bring (e.g. more money). So most the temp workers end up being people who had no other choice - it was either have a job at least for a limited time - or unemployment. Not a situation I'd like to find myself in, but a few people I know had that "choice".


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.