Stuff and Things
I had a phone screen yesterday that went ok. It was for the Leave of Absence Specialist. Get this: the organization has 15,000 employees. Guess how many NEW leave of absence cases were processed last year? 4,400. That is almost a 1/3 of their workforce, yo! Geez. Anyhow the in person interviews aren't until a few weeks from now due to vacations. So, we'll see.
I was called for an interview for a generalist type position yesterday as well (with no phone screen - they obviously don't know what they are doing). It's today so I'll be able to report back shortly. I'm guessing I don't want the job but I still want the interview practice. Plus, you never know it could be something cool.
The cats are all irritated with me today. I woke up earlier than usual and went on my walk. When I came back my alarm clock had been ringing for half an hour. Oops! The cats were all, "hello, that hurts our baby ears!" Sose' has been muttering to himself since then and Pan is still hiding.
Here are some interesting posts for you all to peruse:
Kris Dunn talks about the latest law on the books in Florida. Employees can now keep loaded guns in their cars as long as they are locked up. You have a policy banning firearms on your company's property including the parking lot? Too bad.
Lisa Takeuchi Cullen talks about the Peace Corp's bone head move of not providing reassignment/reasonable accommodation for an HIV positive volunteer. The ACLU wrote a letter on his behalf so things are getting interesting. I can't wait to see how this one plays out.
Lou Michels discusses the limits of questioning a plaintiff about their sex lives in sexual harassment cases. An example from Ohio describes a plaintiff's lawyer not objecting on the behalf of her clients soon enough. We have not come as far as we need to as a society, that is all I can say.
Enjoy!
7 comments:
My cats are now waking me up at 6AM so I can give them treats. When I don't oblige, they knock shit over until I wake up.
Molly, my dilute calico, looks at me like I'm her slave. You have no excuse,she seems to be saying. You're unemployed.
So I get up and give them treats. I like their initiative!
Hmm, Wenchie, I agree that number is crazy high but . . . I wonder about their policies. How short of a timeframe does their LOA policy kick in? How many "repeat offenders" are there who took multiple leaves for whatever reason? Chemo to lousy employees, etc.
Good luck today. Did you set the alarm because of the interview? If you set it every day, you're a much better wench than I'll ever be.
We've been letting the cats out a little bit while we're working in the garden or whatever. That practice is coming to a stop - as hubby put it, my calico is getting a bad attitude. (!)
L - The first cat I ever had would put her cold, wet nose directly into my ear when I wouldn't get up "on time" to feed her. I could never be mad at her though because she was like the sweetest thing ever besides that little trick. :)
N - The numbers are only for fed and state leave. Of course the one of the state leave laws they have to follow is the absolute most generous type of leave known to man outside of freaking Sweden. Don't get me started.
Oh, and I set the alarm everyday for 8:30 because I take comfort in some routine. But sometimes I wake before that time and sometimes I just turn it off and go back to sleep.
The twist in the Peace Corps case is that the guy was diagnosed after he passed his initial physical. Peace Corps doesn't admit people with hazelnut allergies (or that's why the wife of a fellow volunteer was not admitted), so why would they admit someone whose medical expenses (thank you, US taxpayer) are going to be much higher?
Peace Corps will not allow a volunteer who becomes pregnant to continue to serve. One of my fellow volunteers was medically separated for mental problems.
The Peace Corps wants volunteers who are physically capable of living in a stressful situation and whose medical expenses are not going to be excessive. I think that's a reasonable policy.
CF - According to their "Medical Information" document on their site http://www.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/library/peacecorpsmedinfo.pdf
PC is "typically unable" to provide reasonable accommodations for certain conditions (including life threatening allergies or allergies that require desensitization injections). HIV/AIDS falls into this category. However, they also state "Recent changes in these conditions or medication regimes (both medical and psychiatric) are evaluated on an individual basis and may require a period of proven stability prior to Peace Corps service."
Nowhere have I read that the expense of a person's medical conditions are what counts to PC. If they do, in fact, go by cost they are in worse trouble than they already may be with the guy who sicced the ACLU on their ass.
You say, "The Peace Corps wants volunteers who are physically capable of living in a stressful situation..." and I absolutely agree that is true and is a good policy. Considering cost is NOT a good policy nor is it legal (for an employer/volunteer organization). Not taking into account the individual nature of each disability and what, IF ANY, reasonable accommodation may be needed is wrong, bad policy, and ILLEGAL.
They may have found through working with the volunteer, HIS medical providers (not their "medical officer" or by using their own "medical knowledge" i.e. bias), etc that they just weren't able to reasonably accommodate his needs anywhere in their huge volunteer program, including a volunteer desk job back in WA, DC. If that were so then great, no harm no foul. But that is not what they did. They automatically terminated his service, no questions asked. Now, in part, it was due to Ukraine law which they have to follow and I understand. But to not even consider reasonable accommodation elsewhere is simply illegal. It just is.
I hope the EEOC (which has their own problems as a fed agency, heaven knows) clamps down on them regarding these issues. We have the Rehab Act of '73 for a reason. If they can't follow it because the expectations are just too out of control for the nature of the PC (like the military - who obviously can't follow all of it) then exempt them from it/certain parts but do it legally.
HR Wench, It is fair to consider costs before allowing someone to be a volunteer. When I was a PCV (15 years ago), they wouldn't let you in if you needed dental work. You had to get all that done before you started.
I'm all for "reasonable accommodation" (emphasis on "reasonable") -- but how do you accommodate someone who needs drugs that cost a lot of money (PC -- and you -- is on the hook for this guy's medical expenses no matter what now because his condition appeared after he joined), that are not available in the host country, and require the PCV to spend three days a month traveling to the capital to get the drugs that have been sent through the embassy's diplomatic pouch?
Incidentally, there are no volunteer desk jobs in the US. His options would have been to go to another country. Are there countries that issue work visas to HIV-positive persons? (There is a list here of what countries require what re: HIV status – I didn’t read the whole thing, but got the quick impression it is not easy for someone with HIV. Looks like his options are Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Guatemala so far – I wouldn’t want to be in any of those places with a serious illness: http://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071219135631AA7Zlll)
I agree that the PC makes stupid decisions, but what do you expect? They are a government agency.
CF - I invite you to reread my last comment remembering "fit for duty" type assessments are one thing and group insurance coverage is another. Both are HR topics I have pretty good knowledge of and experience in.
I understand you feel that costs of medical care should be considered prior to accepting a volunteer. Unfortunately, in the good old U.S. of A and the companies/agencies that operate from and within it, it is just not legal. I cannot say it any plainer than that.
As far as reasonable accommodation goes, many an organization has gotten itself into legal hot water through ignorance as alluded to in your last comment: that THEY KNOW what a person needs for accommodation, that they UNDERSTAND the person's medical condition/stage/outcome because they have heard of the disease/disability, that they are doctors when they are not or they may be doctors but not the actual patient's doctor and privvy to all info needed to make such judgments.
Again, it may very well be that after taking the proper steps to determine if and what accommodations were needed in this volunteer's specific case that none were reasonable. That is understandable - just do it the right and legal way I say.
I expect govt organizations to follow the law or face the consequences like everyone else. It's pretty simple.
Post a Comment