Surprises with Initial Medicals

Epic Eir Epic

In my most recent interview for a lab position I was asked if I was allergic to penicillin. I said 'no' as I don't think I'm allergic to anything. But then the person interviewing me said "you'll be tested for it anyway". So I do have to wonder what that involves! Does that mean I'll have to take an antibiotic even if I don't need to? I haven't taken an antibiotic in 25 years and I intend to keep it that way. I don't want an inevitable awkwardness, where someone says "oh don't worry, this antibiotic is different because blah blah" and I stubbornly respond "no I'm not taking it".

I've already found it hard to come to terms with the fact some companies want to carry out medicals along side interviews before they even consider hiring candidates. What other surprises lie ahead? It's seems in today's world that they find an excuse to demand anything and everything.

This is yet another unexpected discomfort. I've heard of others who felt they weren't treated very nicely in medicals.

Wesser

What??!! Are you going to be working in a penicillin factory?

Epic Eir Epic

Wesser wrote: »

What??!! Are you going to be working in a penicillin factory?

Not specifically

Wesser

...........generally so?
Can you provide more information?

Twenty Grand

It's a skin test though? They scratch a bit on your skin and it goes red if you're allergic.

Epic Eir Epic

Twenty Grand wrote: »

It's a skin test though? They scratch a bit on your skin and it goes red if you're allergic.

That's doesn't sound so bad. At least it won't be getting into my gut, right. Still I'd be bloody nervous in that medical... even if they don't ask me to bend over a desk.

Epic Eir Epic

Wesser wrote: »

...........generally so?
Can you provide more information?

It's a lab role.

dreamers75

The person who started this thread has a degree, has went to college to attain this degree.

Epic Eir Epic

dreamers75 wrote: »

The person who started this thread has a degree, has went to college to attain this degree.

Yeah?

gibgodsman

Go lick some mold, see what happens

.......

Twenty Grand wrote: »

It's a skin test though? They scratch a bit on your skin and it goes red if you're allergic.

Not for penicillin it isnt.

I did a series of (very expensive) skin scratch allergy tests with a doctor last year.

Ive been told since childhood Im allergic to penicillin and when I asked him to test it he told me that in order to test for allergy to penicillin he would have to admit me to hospital for at least 2 days (and that was the optimistic length of time, if I showed no reaction) but that if I got a reaction I would be in longer and Id have to sign a disclaimer that if I died as a result of testing for allergy to penicillin that my family wouldnt sue.

So his professional opinion was that rather than do expensive and possibly lengthy dangerous hospital testing - we just assume I am allergic to penicillin and go about our business.

djan

I would argue it really depends on the role you are applying to? If it is something where there is even a tiny chance that you would be exposed to it, it is to your benefit to see if you are allergic to it. On the off chance that you are severely allergic to it eg.: anaphylactic shock, I would think it's worth it?

missmatty

That's a bit mental. I have a slight allergy to penicillin and I've worked in a lab for 15 years, not with it but there is a lab nearby that works with antibiotics. Never heard of any staff there encountering this issue either.

Epic Eir Epic

missmatty wrote: »

That's a bit mental. I have a slight allergy to penicillin and I've worked in a lab for 15 years, not with it but there is a lab nearby that works with antibiotics. Never heard of any staff there encountering this issue either.

Yes, it's a bit mental. Should I be suspicious?

listermint

Whats mad is having a degree in Chemistry and being militant about taking an antibiotic.

Thats what mad

listermint

missmatty wrote: »

That's a bit mental. I have a slight allergy to penicillin and I've worked in a lab for 15 years, not with it but there is a lab nearby that works with antibiotics. Never heard of any staff there encountering this issue either.

Would that not indicated negligence on your employer should be exposed to it.


Il give you the easy answer.


Yes.

Epic Eir Epic

listermint wrote: »

Whats mad is having a degree in Chemistry and being militant about taking an antibiotic.

Why?

AndrewJRenko

Epic Eir Epic wrote: »

I've already found it hard to come to terms with the fact some companies want to carry out medicals along side interviews before they even consider hiring candidates.

It's a strange approach, for cost reasons amongst many reasons. They're spending time/money on medicals for people who will never be employed.


Was it an in-house doctor or did you visit the doctor seperately? There's an interesting GDPR question about what medical information the employer and the doctor retain about you.

Twenty Grand

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a strange approach, for cost reasons amongst many reasons. They're spending time/money on medicals for people who will never be employed.


Was it an in-house doctor or did you visit the doctor seperately? There's an interesting GDPR question about what medical information the employer and the doctor retain about you.

It gives your employer a base line should you suffer any health issues after you start.

AndrewJRenko

Twenty Grand wrote: »

It gives your employer a base line should you suffer any health issues after you start.

I understand the reason for a pre-employment medical, though we could have a long debate about them.


The real question here is why they are doing pre-employment medicals at interview stage, which is far from standard practice. Usually a medical would only be done at the final recruitment stage, after the selection decision has been made.

.......

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I understand the reason for a pre-employment medical, though we could have a long debate about them.


The real question here is why they are doing pre-employment medicals at interview stage, which is far from standard practice. Usually a medical would only be done at the final recruitment stage, after the selection decision has been made.

Ive experienced both and neither.

Ive been sent for a medical at the interview stage - with a company doctor.

So were the other interviewees - this was 20 odd years ago, in Ireland.

It didnt cost the company anything much - they already had a company doctor on retainer.

SortingYouOut

listermint wrote: »

Whats mad is having a degree in Chemistry and being militant about taking an antibiotic.

Thats what mad

Well he hasn't dropped dead

seamus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The real question here is why they are doing pre-employment medicals at interview stage, which is far from standard practice. Usually a medical would only be done at the final recruitment stage, after the selection decision has been made.

As mentioned above, in a lab scenario the company might have a doctor permanently (or at least regularly) placed onsite. So the only extra cost to the company is the equipment for the tests, which is probably negligible if they're a large pharma company.

If we assume also that the medical requirements for a lab position are more onerous considering you might be handling dangerous agents, then the company might find the number of disqualified candidates is higher than for, say, an office job. So in this case rather than spending time preparing contracts and the rest for candidates only to have 30% fail the medical, instead you test everyone who gets to the last round of interviews and then you know that everyone who is offered a position is capable of taking it up.

This is also beneficial from the candidate's point of view. Imagine you were offered a job, accepted it and handed in your notice and then failed the medical?

To the OP's point, a doctor would never give you an entire pill to check if you're allergic to its primary ingredient. Not only is that insanely reckless, but in the context of antibiotics is in direct contravention of clinical guidelines for combatting antibiotic resistance.

Epic Eir Epic

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a strange approach, for cost reasons amongst many reasons. They're spending time/money on medicals for people who will never be employed.


Was it an in-house doctor or did you visit the doctor seperately? There's an interesting GDPR question about what medical information the employer and the doctor retain about you.

I spoke with the college internship manager about the matter. She said that she would get onto them and let them know that I would be happily willing to do the medical once they'd made a decision on the interview. Perhaps I should have told them this myself.

So I ended up taking the the interview but refused to do the medical. I think that might have looked quite arrogant. I didn't get the intern position. The other girl from my class who took the medical got a place with them. So maybe we would both have been hired if I'd done the medical!

Epic Eir Epic

Twenty Grand wrote: »

It gives your employer a base line should you suffer any health issues after you start.

Yeah, but like he said, why do they go to the money and effort of getting it from candidates that won't be hired?

Epic Eir Epic

seamus wrote: »

To the OP's point, a doctor would never give you an entire pill to check if you're allergic to its primary ingredient. Not only is that insanely reckless, but in the context of antibiotics is in direct contravention of clinical guidelines for combatting antibiotic resistance.

I think we all know that nothing can really be done about antibiotic resistance anyway. It's something for professors to have conversations about.

Epic Eir Epic

SortingYouOut wrote: »

Well he hasn't dropped dead

Yeah, I'm still here.

Epic Eir Epic

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Was it an in-house doctor or did you visit the doctor seperately? There's an interesting GDPR question about what medical information the employer and the doctor retain about you.

Why would they want to keep that data though?

That's not really the reason I'd refuse to do it. I'd just hate to travel the length of the country to do an interview, then do a medical, and never hear back from them. Something would feel wrong about that!

brightspark

I worked in a company making antibiotic tablets and capsules, at the time I started there I was told that the test for penicillin allergy was unreliable/unavailable. Fortunately I am not allergic to penicillin. (though I have several other allergies)

I would certainly have been exposed more than anyone working in a lab.

AndrewJRenko

Epic Eir Epic wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Was it an in-house doctor or did you visit the doctor seperately? There's an interesting GDPR question about what medical information the employer and the doctor retain about you.

Why would they want to keep that data though?

That's not really the reason I'd refuse to do it. I'd just hate to travel the length of the country to do an interview, then do a medical, and never hear back from them. Something would feel wrong about that!

Was it an in-house doctor?

HR people should have zero access to any medical information. They only thing they should get is a Yes or No response as to whether you meet the requirements of the role.

seamus

Epic Eir Epic wrote: »

Why would they want to keep that data though?

There are limitations on what a doctor (even a company doctor) may reveal to an employer.

Specifically the output of the company medical is a series of questions that culminate in a simple yes or no answer: "Is there any medical reason why this person is not fit to be in our employment?".

A company would not be entitled to know any information that is not directly relevant to the job, and the depth of what they can be told would be very shallow.

In the US there are all sorts of crazy violations such as tests for the presence of drugs and such in your system, STIs, liver disease etc. In the EU none of this is relevant and the doctor could only inform you of these issues and would not be entitled to reveal them to an employer. In theory, not even with your permission since it could be considered to be coerced.

That's not really the reason I'd refuse to do it. I'd just hate to travel the length of the country to do an interview, then do a medical, and never hear back from them. Something would feel wrong about that!

If you think they'd bring you into the process, send you home and go silent, then why would you go at all?

In any case, you are legally entitled to the full results of the medical, so you could always ring up and get it.

Consider it a free check-up.

Del2005

Epic Eir Epic wrote: »

Yeah, but like he said, why do they go to the money and effort of getting it from candidates that won't be hired?

To see if they have any infectious diseases or conditions that could affect the process. Does it really matter when a company does the medical? It's their money they can spend it as they wish. It can also be used as screen for potential problem employees...

Epic Eir Epic

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Was it an in-house doctor?

HR people should have zero access to any medical information. They only thing they should get is a Yes or No response as to whether you meet the requirements of the role.

I presume it was an in house doc as it was a big company. It would have been a HR person who would have been notified of my refusal to attend the medical.

Epic Eir Epic

Del2005 wrote: »

It can also be used as screen for potential problem employees...

You mean to see if someone's stubborn enough to refuse to take it?

AndrewJRenko

Epic Eir Epic wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a strange approach, for cost reasons amongst many reasons. They're spending time/money on medicals for people who will never be employed.


Was it an in-house doctor or did you visit the doctor seperately? There's an interesting GDPR question about what medical information the employer and the doctor retain about you.

I spoke with the college internship manager about the matter. She said that she would get onto them and let them know that I would be happily willing to do the medical once they'd made a decision on the interview. Perhaps I should have told them this myself.

So I ended up taking the the interview but refused to do the medical. I think that might have looked quite arrogant. I didn't get the intern position. The other girl from my class who took the medical got a place with them. So maybe we would both have been hired if I'd done the medical!

I'm even more surprised to see that it was a college internship programme. Medicals are more important with older workers, who are more likely to have health issues. They are also more important for senior staff, where there is likely to be an extensive and expensive recruitment process.

Talk to the College person to see if this happens with other employers.

ted1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm even more surprised to see that it was a college internship programme. Medicals are more important with older workers, who are more likely to have health issues. They are also more important for senior staff, where there is likely to be an extensive and expensive recruitment process.

Talk to the College person to see if this happens with other employers.

Often they are to prove that you didn’t get anything from working for them.

I’ve worked in companies where we would be exposed to chemicals and other hazardous areas, noise levels , lasers etc.

The company did enter and exit Medicals.

seamus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm even more surprised to see that it was a college internship programme. Medicals are more important with older workers, who are more likely to have health issues. They are also more important for senior staff, where there is likely to be an extensive and expensive recruitment process.

Talk to the College person to see if this happens with other employers.

Equality legislation would make it illegal to selectively require candidates to attend medical examinations because of age, gender, etc etc.

It's all or nothing.

AndrewJRenko

seamus wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm even more surprised to see that it was a college internship programme. Medicals are more important with older workers, who are more likely to have health issues. They are also more important for senior staff, where there is likely to be an extensive and expensive recruitment process.

Talk to the College person to see if this happens with other employers.

Equality legislation would make it illegal to selectively require candidates to attend medical examinations because of age, gender, etc etc.

It's all or nothing.

That's true, but I doubt if there are many over 25s applying for the internship programme.

seamus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's true, but I doubt if there are many over 25s applying for the internship programme.

It's not necessarily even just about internships though. If a current employee was to find out that they don't do medicals for interns, then they could take a case against the company.

It's fine to selectively do medicals based on role (e.g. a finance person wouldn't need one, but a research chemist would), but if you're doing them based on age or seniority, then the purpose of doing a medical at all comes into question.

That is, a 25 year old could be far sicker than a 55 year old. If your intention is to protect the company against being sued, then it makes no sense to only test older employees; you'd be leaving yourself wide open to a case from a younger one.

lainey_d_123

listermint wrote: »

Whats mad is having a degree in Chemistry and being militant about taking an antibiotic.

Thats what mad

Are you always this disrespectful of people's boundaries and choices about their own health? Not a chance I'd take an antibiotic for a medical for a job. Totally inappropriate.