Job seeking and your health

Honestly, I think the line is this: if you don't believe your condition would create a need for any sort of significant accomodations (more than the occasional doctor's appointment, which everyone has) after you've started, there is no reason to reveal it.

If you think it's probable the condition would be ongoing or require more accommodations, then you've got a tougher call. Frankly, I'd hate to have to make that decision, because neither side feels right.

 

I'm sorry, Marty, that you've had to work an extra shift or two because a weasely co-worker had an inconvenient chemo treatment.

Hope you soldiered on OK.

 

Ace, what's with this recent outpouring of liberal indignation? I mean, you are hitting everything with it ...

 

Marty and I go way back. I don't know what's particularly liberal about my indignation.

 

That type of response shows why it's worthless to attempt any discussion of depth here. As soon as people get set on a view, as ignorant or shallow as it might be, they keep running with it.

No sense in responding any further. If you guys are OK with potential co-workers withholding any details to get hired, then don't bitch when you have three people on multiple nights trying to do the work that seven used to do.

 

Bingo! Ace scores again.

 

Here's a thread about someone out of work and with cancer.

And SOME PEOPLE prove they care only about themselves and how that situation might affect them as a potential co-worker.

No regard for a person going through doubly tough times or even the clear-cut law on the issue.

So that's my non-partisan indignation here.

 

Some people prove, once again, they don't know the real definition of ethics.

Ethics aren't just a suitcase that you leave at the door, you know.

And it's good to see you still aren't reading past what you want to see. I already said I had been on both sides of the issue. The employer can choose to be an asshole, but so can the employee. In one of the situations I mentioned before, the employee wasn't even ill. He chose to get hired and then to disclose a conflict that altered when he could work.

Sorry to interrupt your victory party, but you're entirely too predictable. You think if you just keep shitting often enough, you "win." Great approach.

Now you can return to explaining why people should lie or omit details and why all of that is A-OK.

 

You're all right, Marty.

 

Ignoring the fact that at a lot of papers, three people already are doing the work that seven used to do, with or without health issues.

The newspaper industry doesn't put the employees ahead of the industry. So why should the employees put the industry ahead of themselves?

And I'd think most sick employees would rather be one of four people doing the work of seven rather than having cancer in a heartbeat.

 

Ignoring it? Citing it as a point is ignoring it?

Seriously? Saying someone would certainly choose not to have cancer is your point?

You should sit this one out, I think, if that's the best you can do.

 

I don't begrudge anyone doing what they have to do to survive. If it means that I have to do a heavier workload because my co-worker is sitting at home puking his or her guts out from the chemo, then so be it.

Now, if you want to talk about doing a heavier workload because some corporate ass decided to cut some jobs so he would get a bigger bonus, then yeah, I'd be pissed.