The totally off-topic thread

[erkpod]

That is none of your (or anyone's) employer's business. If your GP says your mum needs a carer, then she needs a carer. How is a train service more qualified than a doctor to determine if the conditions warrant you to have the time off you need?

I tell my staff that certificates only need to have "suffering from a medical condition" or words to that effect.

If your boss/HR dept push this, then get onto your union pronto.

I had this exact conversation with my manager yesterday. If it was my medical conditions we are talking about, I'm not obligated to detail the nature of my conditions if they are temporary & the sick leave is under 7 days in duration. But if it leads to coming that could affect my level 1 health status, I have to.

I agree with what everyone has said here in relation to relying details of someone's medical condition that isn't me.

Being a state government organisation, I'm not surprised that there's red tape & paperwork that is borderline unethical.

I am going to talk to a friend who has gone through the same process to look after his wife & parents & based on what he says after that, a call to the union may well be in order.

Part time work in my particular job is a new thing. You can't apply off the street to be part time - it is only an option for current employees.

 

[medhead]

As stated by others it is non of their business.

The information between mum and her doctor is none of their business. But the relationship between the employer and the employer is their business. If the employer wishes to undertake some assessment then the proper way is to seek independent advice from their own doctor about the need for a carer.

The management of their employees very much is the employer's business. The only question is how much information they're allowed to have. Nowhere have I suggested the employer should get the information listed previous, that list is none of their business. That doesn't preclude independent advice from a qualified professional.

 

[whatmeworry]

Inflation predictions...

 

[JessicaTam]

The information between mum and her doctor is none of their business. But the relationship between the employer and the employer is their business. If the employer wishes to undertake some assessment then the proper way is to seek independent advice from their own doctor about the need for a carer.

The management of their employees very much is the employer's business. The only question is how much information they're allowed to have. Nowhere have I suggested the employer should get the information listed previous, that list is none of their business. That doesn't preclude independent advice from a quailed professional.

I would still assert that the details of the health condition of the person who needs caring for are none of the employers business. If the GP says they require caring, then that should be sufficient.

If the employee is ill, then that is a different matter. I had a couple of months off due to illness some years ago, and I was required to produce a certificate stating I was fit to resume normal duties. They were within their rights to ask me to visit my employer's doctor at their cost so he could sign off that I was fit for duty.

 

[Pushka]

That's weird. I seem to have two duplicated posts on the App. I didn't do it, promise.

I said that phrase on Christmas Day to young nephew who is learning to talk. He decided that was his favourite phrase. Now anytime anything goes wrong eg milk spills etc etc he pipes up "I didn't do it".

 

[RooFlyer]

Inflation predictions...

<snip>

Fair enough ... but that's Adelaide for you

 

[medhead]

I would still assert that the details of the health condition of the person who needs caring for are none of the employers business. If the GP says they require caring, then that should be sufficient.

Again I haven't suggested the employer get the details. I've said that they should pay for their own doctor to advise whether they agree with the GP or not that a carer is required. For example: "mum has been assessed, agreed a carer is required". There is no need for the employer to get details in that case. The details remain between a medical professional and the mum.

Obviously, there are also requirements for permissions and consents between mum and the independent doctor. So mum retains control.

 

[erkpod]

Again I haven't suggested the employer get the details. I've said that they should pay for their own doctor to advise whether they agree with the GP or not that a carer is required. For example: "mum has been assessed, agreed a carer is required". There is no need for the employer to get details in that case. The details remain between a medical professional and the mum.

Obviously, there are also requirements for permissions and consents between mum and the independent doctor. So mum retains control.

If I'm reading this right, does that mean mum's GP's opinion plus one of my employer's choice to confirm I'm telling the truth? Last time I looked, my mum isn't an employee at my place of employment so she's under no obligation to see another medic just because my employer wants proof.

She's on the DSP so she's been assessed by the government & her conditions are way worse than when she want put on the DSP.

Or have I got this totally wrong?

If the medics want to talk between themselves (my employer does have a CMO), can they do that?

 

[markis10]

If I'm reading this right, does that mean mum's GP's opinion plus one of my employer's choice to confirm I'm telling the truth? Last time I looked, my mum isn't an employee at my place of employment so she's under no obligation to see another medic just because my employer wants proof.

She's on the DSP so she's been assessed by the government & her conditions are way worse than when she want put on the DSP.

Or have I got this totally wrong?

If the medics want to talk between themselves (my employer does have a CMO), can they do that?

Since the workplace relations act has come into play there is actually a lot more scope for what levels of evidence are required by employers, and you need to look at your award. I had a quick look at what I thought was yours and it is not very specific in terms of evidence, other than to say you need proof of being a carer, which is easily done by getting a doctor to supply said proof. Anything else would appear to be just someone pushing an agenda beyond what they legally can do, but at the end of the day this is an internet forum, speak to your union if you have one or a lawyer, they will know exactly where the boundary is, don't use an internet forum.

 

[medhead]

If I'm reading this right, does that mean mum's GP's opinion plus one of my employer's choice to confirm I'm telling the truth? Last time I looked, my mum isn't an employee at my place of employment so she's under no obligation to see another medic just because my employer wants proof.

She's on the DSP so she's been assessed by the government & her conditions are way worse than when she want put on the DSP.

Or have I got this totally wrong?

If the medics want to talk between themselves (my employer does have a CMO), can they do that?

I just think that if they don't seem to trust you, or your mum's GP and they also clearly can't have your mum's medical records. Then they need to pay for a medical type to talk to the GP to check things out.

I don't know the laws around this but I assume it is allowed if you mum consents. You would also want to make sure there is a clear agreement about the information that will be provided back to the employer.

Anyway, if they don't trust you. Then this might be a solution.

But as you've already mention. The union will know what is required.

 

[Pushka]

markis10 has explained with much more clarity the points I was trying to make earlier.

 

[RooFlyer]

In a similar vein ... a few years ago I looked at taking out some "major trauma" type health insurance via one of the big 4 bank's insurance arm. The questionnaire went well beyond the type of questions relevant to the type of things the policy would cover. When I queried this, I was told that yes, it was a generic, 'cover all' questionnaire for all policies and the insurer would pick out the responses relevant to the policy in question. And no, the non relevant questions don't go to 'risk assessment' etc. Totally irrelevant to the things being covered (according to my GP).

Another question was to the close effect: 'Do any of your parents, or brothers or sisters suffer from any of these conditions ... <long list>. If yes, please provide details'. When I queried this, I was told 'Oh, don't worry about that, just answer if you want to.'. Then I pointed out that I was required to sign a declaration to the close effect that "all my responses were complete, truthful and to the full extent of my knowledge" and so signing it would be at odds with the advice just provided. Again I was told it didn't matter.

Yeah, right. Needless to say the CEO of the insurance arm got a pretty pointed letter of complaint pointing out the behaviour of their sales people AND the outrageous attempt at breach of my family's privacy by more-or-less insisting I divulge their entire medical histories if I wanted to honestly submit an application for insurance.

These try-ons at hoovering up personal information of people not the subject of agreement/insurance/etc should be resisted at every opportunity. And pretty bluntly so if the type of fatuous situation I found myself in.

 

[JessicaTam]

Again I haven't suggested the employer get the details. I've said that they should pay for their own doctor to advise whether they agree with the GP or not that a carer is required. For example: "mum has been assessed, agreed a carer is required". There is no need for the employer to get details in that case. The details remain between a medical professional and the mum.

Obviously, there are also requirements for permissions and consents between mum and the independent doctor. So mum retains control.

I think for the most part we are in furious agreement.

I am just not sure that another doctor should be examining/interviewing the mother of an employee. Does the original doctor's statement not hold water? And it is not as if Erkpod wants to take sick leave, which is a cost to the organisation. He just wants to reduce the hours he works.

Anyway, I am happy to agree to disagree, and to discuss it further over a glass of red when we are next at the same bar!

 

[medhead]

I think for the most part we are in furious agreement.

I am just not sure that another doctor should be examining/interviewing the mother of an employee. Does the original doctor's statement not hold water? And it is not as if Erkpod wants to take sick leave, which is a cost to the organisation. He just wants to reduce the hours he works.

Anyway, I am happy to agree to disagree, and to discuss it further over a glass of red when we are next at the same bar!

I think it all depends on what the employer's issues, what they're trying to achieve and whether Mum agrees. I agree an examination would be inappropriate.

Another question was to the close effect: 'Do any of your parents, or brothers or sisters suffer from any of these conditions ... . If yes, please provide details'. When I queried this, I was told 'Oh, don't worry about that, just answer if you want to.'. Then I pointed out that I was required to sign a declaration to the close effect that "all my responses were complete, truthful and to the full extent of my knowledge" and so signing it would be at odds with the advice just provided. Again I was told it didn't matter.

I think the declaration about best of your knowledge allows you to answer no to the family question. I certainly don't know the full details about my families medical history.

 

[RooFlyer]

Originally Posted by RooFlyer Another question was to the close effect: 'Do any of your parents, or brothers or sisters suffer from any of these conditions ... . If yes, please provide details'. When I queried this, I was told 'Oh, don't worry about that, just answer if you want to.'. Then I pointed out that I was required to sign a declaration to the close effect that "all my responses were complete, truthful and to the full extent of my knowledge" and so signing it would be at odds with the advice just provided. Again I was told it didn't matter.

<snip>

I think the declaration about best of your knowledge allows you to answer no to the family question. I certainly don't know the full details about my families medical history.

Answering 'No' would not have been truthful in my case; it wasn't asking full details, but if certain particular diseases and conditions were in my family. I don't know the relative ages of our families, but with elderly parents you certainly get to know their aliments! It may have 'gone through to the keeper' if I did answer 'No', but it would give the Insurer a reason to void the policy if I made a claim and they investigated, or required me to sign another similar declaration at the time of claim - a false declaration at that time would have been fraudulent.

The broader point is that this insurer got everybody applying for any of their health policies to answer the entire, all-encompassing medical questionnaire, including people not involved in the policy. Stuff you, I replied.

Oh, another thing I caught them on is I asked what happens to my personal and private medical information if the declined to issue me a policy. They keep it on file was the answer. Who has access to my personal and private medical information now and while its on file? This really screwed 'em, I'm pleased to say. You could tell that they had no appropriate policy on this, and the true answer which emerged was "well, anyone in about 3 departments, including IT", but they squirmed beautifully for about a month before admitting that "your feedback has caused us to review our privacy policies."

I don't think they'll be approaching me for health insurance, again.

 

[medhead]

Answering 'No' would not have been truthful in my case; it wasn't asking full details, but if certain particular diseases and conditions were in my family. I don't know the relative ages of our families, but with elderly parents you certainly get to know their aliments! It may have 'gone through to the keeper' if I did answer 'No', but it would give the Insurer a reason to void the policy if I made a claim and they investigated, or required me to sign another similar declaration at the time of claim - a false declaration at that time would have been fraudulent.

The broader point is that this insurer got everybody applying for any of their health policies to answer the entire, all-encompassing medical questionnaire, including people not involved in the policy. Stuff you, I replied.

Oh, another thing I caught them on is I asked what happens to my personal and private medical information if the declined to issue me a policy. They keep it on file was the answer. Who has access to my personal and private medical information now and while its on file? This really screwed 'em, I'm pleased to say. You could tell that they had no appropriate policy on this, and the true answer which emerged was "well, anyone in about 3 departments, including IT", but they squirmed beautifully for about a month before admitting that "your feedback has caused us to review our privacy policies."

I don't think they'll be approaching me for health insurance, again.

Well you know the ailments that they tell you they have. But that doesn't mean you know the conditions causing those ailments. I knows brother has taken blood pressure medication, but not the condition. I know mum has been to a dermatologist, but not the condition being treated. To the full extent of my knowledge I couldn't answer yes about particular conditions.

 

[anat0l]

Why would health insurance be dependent on the medical history of one's immediate family (or more)? Do health insurance companies think they are trying to crack down or identify potential cases of health insurance fraud? Or if one of the family has a contagious disease then health insurance companies might claim that they will not cover a client for that illness?

I assume there were other more invasive questions at hand in there. And the way I see it is that even if you did complete the entire application truthfully and sign it off, that doesn't stop them later from refusing a claim anyway - it wouldn't be on false grounds but they'd then use that information against you. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but the bottom line is clearly they are not worthy of your business.

 

[Pushka]

Genetics and lifestyle.

 

[anat0l]

Genetics and lifestyle.

Didn't think of the first one at least. Seems a bit fairer in a way....

 

[LadyC]

Genetics and lifestyle.

Definitely the former. I have inherited a genetic condition which significantly increases the likelihood of getting some particular cancers. My siblings and myself were all tested for it and one of the things discussed with us, before we took the test, was to get all our insurances in order (health, life, income protection), as we would need to disclose in the future, if we were found to have the condition. Meaning we would definitely have had problems with exclusions or not getting policies at all.