Employment/Diabetes Diagnosis

[sam123]

Is it important to notify your employer regarding your diabetes diagnosis? I thought its not mandatory but someone told me that if you don't notify as soon as you got diagnosed, you may lose your job.

Can anyone clarify this issue or give your opinion.

Thanks.

[Evermont]

I don't know the answer, but I can add to the confusion:

Laws and employers rules in different places.

[pegasus]

The only time I believe it might be necessary is if an episode might cause a dangerous situation, tho I believe in the U.S. there have been lawsuits by truck drivers trying to keep their jobs. I don't think it's illegal not to, though. If you're in the U.S. I'd call the federal department of labor, and the dept of labor of the state you live in; it may be covered by either. I'd also check with a worker-sympathetic (as opposed to one usually hired by employers, since they often have different interpretations) lawyer before telling your employer.

Discrimination based on your diabetes would very likely be illegal, especially under the americans with disabilities act, if they treat you differently after telling them.

Let us know what you find out.

[JediSkipdogg]

My opinion...notify them and TRAIN them. You don't need to have a board meeting with all the employees of your company but if an emergency does occur they are the first ones to assist you. If you start acting weird at work they can help you to test your BG. If you go off at your boss and tell him to "F off and mind his own business" it's alot better if they think it's due to your BG than your attidude because using the diabeties exuse afterwards is not really a help.

[princesslinda]

Unless you are in a job where having diabetes could put someone at risk, I wouldn't think you'd have to tell your employer. I don't think i've ever heard the docs or managers share any medical information with us and really if its controlled, its no one's business. If you are apt to have hypos or other problems related to your condition, it would be good to let someone know what POTENTIALLY could happen and how to treat it....though it is possible they will find out anyway. I wouldn't volunteer information, though I wouldn't try and hide it either.

As for a new job, if you have a physical and have to list medical history/conditions, you'd better list it or it could be construed as lying when they find out later. The physicals are basically to determine if you are physically able to do the job you are applying for, not if you have a chronic condition.

In my situation, I work for a group of doctors and we have self-funded insurance, meaning that after "X" amount is reach company-wide, THEY pay our medical and pharmacy bills. I'm sure in this case, it would be well know amongst the doctors who is costing the corporation what as far as medical conditions.

[notme]

If you are using insulin and have a job where you could clearly put someone at risk, it is your obligation to tell your employer that you have diabetes. If you are taking oral medications or control your diabetes with diet and exercise, I don't think there is any law that requires you to notify your employer.

[Hammer]

The problem with telling them is that if they don't want a diabetic working for them, they'll use any excuse to fire you or lay you off. If you miss work because your BG levels are too low and you go slightly hypo, or if you go slightly hypo at work, they can say that you aren't doing your job or you miss too much time, and let you go.

I'd never tell my employer anything about my health. They don't adhere to the HIPAA regulations, so anything I tell the doctor or nurses at work becomes common knowledge throughout the plant. Heck when they give us our mandatory yearly physicals, they take 5 or 6 of us in at a time, and do the physicals on us in front of each other, like the military does.:mad:

We've had employees take the physical where the doctor found the employee had high blood pressure. Once they find that out, they won't allow you to work until you get it under control. If you can't get it under control, you never get to work there again. The last time they forced me to have a physical, I didn't eat anything for 30 hours so my BG levels wouldn't show anything abnormal.(they use the urine strips to test for sugar in your urine.). I wasn't on any meds at the time and I knew what they'd do if they found out I had diabetes, so I fasted for 30 hours and it worked.

If it were me, I wouldn't tell them anything....even if it was illegal to not tell them, I'd break the law and still not tell them. No good can come from it. But that's me....I'm a very private person when it comes to my health. Only my doctor and I know what the state of my health is, and that's how I like it. Telling other people won't help my health, so why tell them my personal business?

Unless you feel like you're jeopardizing your job and you don't want to take that chance, I wouldn't tell them anything.

[pokie]

I had to tell my employer because I operate machinery. I am currently looking for a new job; I don't think I will disclose my condition voluntarily until I get hired (unless a specific question about medical conditions were to come up.)

[patricia52]

I told my immediate supervisor, his is an appointed position since I work for a Board. I did not have a problem with telling him since his real profession is a physical therapist. He understands that I am trying to control my BG and I have not had any problems. I think I would be the first one to "fire" me if D caused a problem with work.

[fgummett]

As above: if you are using insulin and operate machinery then I believe you are obligated to let them know for the sake of safety... your own as well as others.

If controlled with pills, diet and exercise I don't see a need

But I don't think you should lie if asked directly... this could jeapordise insurance and employment rights.

[art]

Your employer knows if you went to the Doc and filed a claim for the visit.
Otherwise shut up!!

I've seen way too many people fired for cronic conditions. Of course they weren't ever fired for medical reasons.

Art

[pokie]

Your employer knows if you went to the Doc and filed a claim for the visit.
Otherwise shut up!!

I've seen way too many people fired for cronic conditions. Of course they weren't ever fired for medical reasons.

Art

Yeah... I was fired for missing to much time... Hello, to my ex employer: I have a medical condition; I was sick; you fired me because of my medical condition! Thanks for kicking me when I was down.

[Hammer]

Yes, I guess most employers know when you file a claim for a doctor visit, but they don't know what the visit was for. If the doctor's office tells them what is was for, the doctor's office would have violated the HIPAA regulations and are subject to fines and penalties. Medical personnel are they only people who should have access to your medical information....not your boss.

There is no way any employer should ever find out about your diabetes unless you tell them. That's up to you then....if you feel obligated, tell him. If you want to keep your job. don't. The worst that could happen if you don't tell him and he finds out, is to get fired. If you tell him, he'll eventually fire you anyway, so you're ahead by not telling him.

If you operate machinery and you tell them, most likely they won't allow you to operate the machinery any more....maybe even fire you since you can't do the job anymore. If it was me, I still wouldn't tell them. It's a choice between telling them to ease your conscience and thereby losing your job, or keeping quiet and retaining your job.

Look at it like this....if you tell them and they let you keep your job, then what changes if you don't tell them? You are still doing the same job and you still have diabetes, so why would it be more of a safety hazard if you don't tell them? Plus, if you have your diabetes under control, there really is no safety hazard.

[Scrabblechick]

About four people at work know about my DX. They are all ones I can trust to keep it mum.

I work at a family-owned newspaper in an at-will work state. That means they can fire me for bad reason, good reason, or no reason at all. The two top dogs in the newsroom are husband and wife. Even though they're late 60s and early 70s, they have no patience for anyone who has medical problems, unless they really like that person.

A dear friend and co-worker had a double lung transplant because she was born with cystic fibrosis. She was a great writer and a wonderful person. However, she started experiencing signs of chronic rejection. Instead of hanging in there with her and trying to see if she would get better, it didn't take long for the editor to start trying to get her to quit. I remember sitting with her in the bathroom as she cried, wondering if she was going to lose her job. Eventually, she did. That was in July, 2001. She died in January, 2002. One reason they were anxious to get her off the payroll was insurance. Her illness was costing Blue Cross money and they were talking about raising premiums. It was awful.

My Dx would be further proof to them that my obesity (which I'm working hard to eliminate) absolutely caused me to become diabetic (regardless of my family history), and therefore I am not worthy of living, since I allowed myself to be fat and to become diabetic. They hate fat people. I wish I were exaggerating.

I'm controlled with diet and medication. Even if I were on insulin, though, I still wouldn't tell them. My job involves working at a computer. I'm not a danger to anyone. And if I did something while hypo that ticked them off, being hypo wouldn't be an excuse. Obviously, I wouldn't have been doing what I'm supposed to do to prevent hypos, which is my responsibility. A true hypo isn't apt to happen in my situation anyway, but still...

Suffice it to say, I hardly tell these people when I have a cold, to say nothing of this.

[sam123]

Looks like its not a good idea to inform your employer until and unless its necessary. I am an engineer and work for a multinatonal company and my work involves sitting at desk and working on computer. So, I think its not that a big issue for me to inform my employer.

Thanks for your views on this issue.

[pegasus]

I checked with someone at a new client of mine that advocates for people with disabilities. She said that diabetics are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you can fulfill the core tasks of your job, even with accommodations that they are required to make, they cannot legally fire you for being diabetic. You don't have to disclose to the employer; you do have to disclose to the insurer if there is insurance, because there may be pre-existing conditions clauses in the plan. I didn't ask about the insurer telling the employer, but I'm also fairly sure, as others here have said, that it would be a violation of HIPAA for them to disclose to the employer.

If anyone thinks they've been discriminated against about this, she says, they should talk to a lawyer who knows something about disability rights, which is probably a pretty small group but they exist.

Those group physicals sound godawful, Hammer. There's probably something illegal about them, but I haven't a clue what.

[Scrabblechick]

I know, I shuddered when I read Hammer's post about those physicals. I agree: there's got to be something illegal there. Maybe HIPAA violation, since others are privy to his medical information? I don't know. Something, for sure. And I thought I had to be careful. Wow.

[Hammer]

Oh yes, those group physicals are illegal. If you notice, when you go to a doctor, dentist or any health professional's office, they have various ways that they use for you to sign it to let them know you're there. Most places now have removable strips where you sign your name on the strip then the receptionist peels the strip off of the sheet so that the next person who signs in doesn't see your name. If they don't have that, they may have you approach the receptionist's window so she can see who you are, and the receptionist writes your name on a sheet on her desk, that way, it's kept private from other patients who come into the office.

This level of privacy is a result of the HIPAA regulations. The mere fact that having your name visible so that others might see it is a violation of the HIPAA laws. The reasoning is that if you go to say, an oncologist (cancer doctor) for treatment and you sign in on a clipboard (as most doctors offices did at one time), then hours later, if another patient came there and went to sign in and saw your name, they might know you and figure that you must have cancer too. The doctor could then be blamed for revealing your medical condition by allowing others to see your name at his office.

If just signing a clipboard is a privacy violation, then having to take a physical in front of fellow employees is a major violation. The problem is, when I went to complain, the person in charge of handling the complaint was a company stooge. If you lodged a complaint, they'd just throw it in the trash, and tell you they sent it to the proper government agency. You have no way of knowing if they filed it or not. There isn't anywhere you can complain to outside of this company stooge. There's no address or phone number that an employee can can go to with the government to lodge a complaint. The employee must go through the employer's agent.(the stooge) Believe me, I tried.

It was only through refusing to take a physical with others around, and threating a lawsuit that the company finally allowed me to take the physical in a private room.

When they first started forcing you take these physicals, they had so many employees to administer to that they hired an outside firm to do the physicals. The firm brought in a hospital van which contained all the necessary equipment to do the tests.(it was more like an RV.) The van was parked directly outside the building near an exit door. You would stop before you went out to the van and sit at a table where they had a technician hand you medical forms that you had to fill out, and urine test bottles. These forms and urine bottles were stacked in rows and were arranged by name. That means that each bottle and form had all your personal information already typed on it. You name, address, age, date of birth, social security number, everything. These bottles and forms were laid out on a table in plain sight of anyone who walked by....not to mention that this technician frequently left the table to go out to the van to talk to the workers there. Your personal info was left unattended. When I saw this, I picked up my forms and blacked out my personal info with a magic marker, and tore the label off the bottle.

It's no wonder identity theft is so easily to perpetrate. :mad:

[pegasus]

The problem is, when I went to complain, the person in charge of handling the complaint was a company stooge. If you lodged a complaint, they'd just throw it in the trash, and tell you they sent it to the proper government agency. You have no way of knowing if they filed it or not. There isn't anywhere you can complain to outside of this company stooge. There's no address or phone number that an employee can can go to with the government to lodge a complaint. The employee must go through the employer's agent.(the stooge) Believe me, I tried.

It was only through refusing to take a physical with others around, and threating a lawsuit that the company finally allowed me to take the physical in a private room.

I have contacts in both health care and labor advocacy organizations. If you want to look into this further, I'd be willing to do so. I'd need to know what state you're in to start with.

[Hammer]

I have contacts in both health care and labor advocacy organizations. If you want to look into this further, I'd be willing to do so. I'd need to know what state you're in to start with.

Thanks, but it's too late. The plant that I worked at shut down three years ago. The property has been sold, the buildings knocked down, and a new industrial park has been built there.

[pegasus]

Thanks, but it's too late. The plant that I worked at shut down three years ago. The property has been sold, the buildings knocked down, and a new industrial park has been built there.

Oh, man--outsourcing hits again? Hope you've managed to find a new, more amenable environment in which to earn a living.

[Hammer]

Oh, man--outsourcing hits again? Hope you've managed to find a new, more amenable environment in which to earn a living.

Actually, I'm still with the same company. They're an international company that has divisions all over the world. When they closed, they offered us a choice to either relocate or retire. I was going to retire, but the pension would be too small to live on, so I decided to relocate. I'm now waiting for them to tell me where to report to. I should know in a month or two. Where ever they send me is fine with me....well okay, except for China.:)

[RobiJo]

I don't hide it at work but I also never went out of my way and told them either. Generally speaking most do know because of vitrectomies I had last year. The teachers around me all know a lot more, and I read a book to my students during the first week of school. The rule is if I fall over whoever sits closest to the door runs to get 2 of the teachers near me. These teachers know to get me juice/regular pop asap and also have my husbands phone number.

There are 3 teachers at my school including me that are Type 1's and have pumps as well. 1 teaches in the other building, but the other is right down the hall. Either would be easily reached if I had a problem.

[pegasus]

Actually, I'm still with the same company. They're an international company that has divisions all over the world. When they closed, they offered us a choice to either relocate or retire. I was going to retire, but the pension would be too small to live on, so I decided to relocate. I'm now waiting for them to tell me where to report to. I should know in a month or two. Where ever they send me is fine with me....well okay, except for China.:)

They haven't reassigned you after 3 years? Wow. Well, hopefully they won't be trying any more group physicals wherever you end up.;)

[Hammer]

They haven't reassigned you after 3 years? Wow. Well, hopefully they won't be trying any more group physicals wherever you end up.;)

Yeah, I know three years is a long time to sit around and wait to hear from them. I'm hoping the physicals at the place they relocate me to isn't run by the same idiots that ran my old place. If they are, you'll probably hear about it in the news because I'll make a whole lot of noise.:)

It really bugged me if you had to go to the company "hospital" as they called it, if you had a problem. If you needed to see them because you cut yourself, or had a strain or whatever, you'd sign in on a clipboard outside the door to this hospital and then you'd sit in a chair outside the open door and wait to be called. When you were called you walked into the hospital and had a seat at a stainless steel table, which was close to the front door. Anything you said could be heard by anyone else who was waiting in the chairs out front.

To make matters worse, they would call the next patient in and he/she would sit next to you at this table and get examined right next to you. The nurses would take your medical file open it up, then lay it down on the table so both you and the other patient could see it. Sometimes they needed to take you to a back room to administer to you. When that happened, your medical file stayed on the table for anyone to read. They had employees medical files laying all over the place. Anyone could pick one up and walk out with it, and the nurses wouldn't even notice. I know because I did it once, just to see if anyone would say anything.(I brought it right back without opening it, and they still didn't say anything.)

I would have loved to see someone walk out with another person's medical file and make the person's medical condition public....especially if the person had something serious like aids. If this had happened, they would have closed down the hospital and fined the heck out of them...not to mention the lawsuits that would have been filed by the employee. Unfortunately, this is what it would take to get them to change their ways.

[pegasus]

Wow! That's gotta be a HIPAA violation. And there are probably other laws predating HIPAA that it violates. Like some part of the ADA, as my client said. I'm assuming this company is not unionized?

[Hammer]

Actually, the company is unionized, but the union doesn't seem to care that much about the employees. They just want you to pay your union dues, shut up and don't create waves.:(

[JediSkipdogg]

Actually, the company is unionized, but the union doesn't seem to care that much about the employees. They just want you to pay your union dues, shut up and don't create waves.:(

That's the way most unions are....

****Me goes and hides as he's in a union that is pointless as his employer finds ways to punish it's employees for being in a union that are 100% legal.

[Hammer]

Yes, the union does whatever the company wants, then turns around and tells you how hard they're working for you. Whenever an employee goes to the union for anything, their most used comment is, "Our hands are tied". Even if you research the union contract about a particular issue and show it to the union, the contract might indicate that you are right, but the union always comes back with, "Oh, we have a side agreement with the company on that issue." The side agreement always favors the company, not the employee. Plus, no one can ever produce a copy of this side agreement.

[pegasus]

Yes, the union does whatever the company wants, then turns around and tells you how hard they're working for you. Whenever an employee goes to the union for anything, their most used comment is, "Our hands are tied". Even if you research the union contract about a particular issue and show it to the union, the contract might indicate that you are right, but the union always comes back with, "Oh, we have a side agreement with the company on that issue." The side agreement always favors the company, not the employee. Plus, no one can ever produce a copy of this side agreement.

I've been involved with unions, and there's a few possible reasons for these responses: 1) labor law sucks in many ways (esp under the current US govmt, which has appointed a National Labor Relations Bd that has set us back about 30 years); 2) the union was set up by the company to do exactly what it's doing to the two of you; 3) it's a really crappy union.

The *idea*--and in some cases the reality--of unions is great: the employer has more power than the individual employee, so the employees get together to change that power imbalance. Making it work is the challenge.

The response to (2) above is, decertify the sweetheart union and get a real one, and to (3) is: get more involved and get new officers. If people you work with have similar problems, you've got an organizing committee. If one's gonna be working at the same place for a long time, the question is, which is worse: Submitting to the **** management hands out (and those group physicals come to mind) or submitting to what the crappy union hands out.

At least in the latter there's some semblance of recourse.

[art]

Hammer:
There's no violation of HIPPA. when you signed up for insurance from your employer you authorized the release of information to the insirance carrier so the claim could be processed.
The insurer sends a quarterly report to the employer to justify the current cost of the policy. Every claim and the DX of every employee and their families is enumerated.
As the CFO I saw the reports.
Up in Boston there is a big computer called the BMI. The Bureau of Medical Information. Every claim you ever made is in the big box.
I know corporate executives that have gone on "vacation" and had heart surgery and never filed a claim. A DX of a heart condition would kill their careers.
Just the way it is.

Art

[Hammer]

Pegasus, it's a real crappy union. You wouldn't think so when you see all the publicity we always get. This is the UAW...United Auto Workers....and the problem is, if you're not in the union in Michigan, then they don't care about you. At one time we had 6000 members in my local. When we had that many dues paying members, the International union listened to us. Before the plant shut down, we were down to 1,000 members. Since the international wasn't making that much money off of our little 1,000 members, they ignored us. If you listened to the news media, you'd think we were getting rich, what with the ridiculous stories that we're making $75/hr in pay and benefits.(yeah, right, we make less than half that in pay and benefits.)

Art, I don't understand, why would any company officer get private medical information about it's employees? There's no need for the insurance company to reveal who got what in medical services, they'd only need to know what those services were, not who got them. Since you were privy to personal medical info, then if you were to reveal this info to other employees, wouldn't that be a HIPAA violation?

[art]

I was the guy that had to negoiate the medical insurance contracts and such. I had to know the WHO so when I discussed premiums with a carrier I coudl tell who was still employed by the company. The VP of HR had the same info and at times I suspected even more info.
Revealing it to anyone else in theory would be a HIPPA violation. But the number of people having access to the data was enormous.

Art

[pegasus]

Hammer,
I know the UAW pretty well--I'm also a member, but of an oddball "national" local. We've had problems too, because since we're not traditional "employees" they didn't quite know how to handle us. But I also freelance for a small UAW local that's gotten pretty good service from the international, so to some extent it may depend on how your local leadership deals with them.

Unfortunately, the old-line manufacturing unions have really been under siege, and as tankers have had a hard time adjusting course--and structure, and how they function--to meet the demands of outsourcing, independent contracting, low-wage labor in Mexico, China, an alien NLRB, etc. That's not to excuse the way they've treated you and your local, only by way of trying to figure out how to deal with it. Unions are by nature "reactionary"--and I don't mean that in the traditionally nasty "ultra-right wing" definition. They "react"--always have--to the industries that they formed around; you're not going to deal w/members of the Screen Actors Guild the same way you'd deal with members of the UAW. And especially w/large organizations like the UAW, steelworkers, etc., that succeeded incredibly well in their heydays, with internal structures in place for those industries, change has been slow. The steelworkers have reacted in part by getting involved in "green jobs"; I think the UAW has been slow if not recalcitrant in going there.

All this is to say that the international's abandonment of your local may not be malice or deliberate but flailing. And the thing I'd suggest would be to learn a helluva lot about how things work internally and see if there's a way in that you can have your say, maybe see if there's a way to influence what's been going on.

I generally think it's worth a shot, because there's real potential in numbers.

Art,
It's really obscene, though not surprising, that employee medical info was so readily--illegally--avaiable to the higher echelons of that company. At the very least, if employees felt they were discriminated against because of their medical and/or disabled condition--even if they didn't know it was known--they'd have recourse to ADA and/or HIPAA (I'm not sure what if any the consequences of the latter are; hopefully there actually are some penalties in the law). But of course it makes it much tougher, as such discrimination can often be easily disguised.

Sigh. :mad:

[JediSkipdogg]

It's funny that we've been talking about work seeing medical information. THere's an insurance committee right now at my work and it was brought up that maybe the city I work for should go self-insured. I'd say we have maybe 150-200 employees in the city that have health benefits. The city refuses to go self-insured because they know they would need 2-3 people to process all the paperwork which they don't want to hire so most likely they would hire one to oversee it then use the rest of the HR people to assist. They are then worried that since the employees dealing with it will see medical claims and since we are such a small city, that HIPPA would be violated too many times by accident.

I could see so many HIPPA problems in a place that is self-insured and unless you make the employees dealing with the management of the healthcare act like an outsourced company, it's going to happen.

[princesslinda]

Self-funded plans give the employers a lot of say about what they will cover. In our office, we're self-funded, and a couple of years ago a lady had breast reduction due to severe back and neck problems. The next calendar year, we got a memo stating that breast reduction was no longer covered under our plan, regardless of medical necessity.

Another year a woman had gastric bypass and the next year we got a memo stating that no weight loss procedures or medications would be covered under our plan, again regardless of medical necessity.

Our docs routinely mention how much they've had to pay for various surgeries and meds for employees. I agree that this should be handled by an outside source, but the "powers that be" will still know the medical costs of each employee.

I'd much rather be under a traditional insurance plan.

[Evermont]

...a couple of years ago a lady had breast reduction due to severe back and neck problems. The next calendar year, we got a memo stating that breast reduction was no longer covered under our plan, regardless of medical necessity.

Another year a woman had gastric bypass and the next year we got a memo stating that no weight loss procedures or medications would be covered under our plan, again regardless of medical necessity...

So what's the lesson here? Make sure you're the first one in your group to get any particular medical problem? :shot:

[art]

Pegasus:
there's nothing ILLEGAL about it.
When you signed up for coverage you allowed a lot of people access. Part of my job as CFO is being the Chief Risk Officer too. I had to manage insurance premiums, workman's comp claims, disability claims.
Were there limitations on who I could tell what, of course.
I never exceeded those limits.
Did I know stuff I didn't want too. You bet.

But as an example, a very good friend of mine was an accounts receivable manager for a Fortune 500 company. He'd been with the company for 18 years.He was DX'd with MS. I begged him not to tell anyone.
The good loyal employee he was, he told his immedate supervisor. In 6 months he was fired for sexually harassing another employee. No pension, No disability, no nothing.
He tried to sue but as he was fired for something not related to his disease the company was within it's rights. . It was fully documented.

So I still say, shut up!!!

Art

[notme]

I agree with you Art. There is no reason to disclose, so I wouldn't. If a employer wants you gone for any reason, they are very good at creating a difficult work environment until you leave.

I say "don't do it".

[pegasus]

Pegasus:

But as an example, a very good friend of mine was an accounts receivable manager for a Fortune 500 company. He'd been with the company for 18 years.He was DX'd with MS. I begged him not to tell anyone.
The good loyal employee he was, he told his immedate supervisor. In 6 months he was fired for sexually harassing another employee. No pension, No disability, no nothing.
He tried to sue but as he was fired for something not related to his disease the company was within it's rights. . It was fully documented.

So I still say, shut up!!!

Art

Art,
I've said throughout this threat that I believe people shouldn't tell employers; that that's what potentially opens them to discrimination--and I still say illegal discrimination, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Your friend's example makes the point I made in my last post--if someone's condition is known and they're fired, the discrimination can be hidden by other reasons.

Workers' comp is a different issue--that's on-the-job injury, so of course employers would know. And if you're claiming disability, of course the employer would know, because you're either asking for an ADA-required accommodation, if you want to keep working for the same employer, or something else has happened that makes one un-able (i.e., disabled) to do the job. What this thread has been about is, who is allowed to/must know about one's condition that has no impact on the job.

I could see that it would be possible that a higher-echelon person would be allowed to know, but as you say, there are limits. And, to still answer the initial question, no employer has to, legally, be told by the diabetic. And, we cannot be discriminated against because of it. And, of course, employers will try to get around that.

Pegasus

[JediSkipdogg]

And I'll disagree with the above post. Remember, if there is a medical emergency your fellow employees are the first ones to assist you and many times may catch the problem before it requires medical attention. And if it gets to the point of needing medical attention, the entire office will find out you are diabetic then anyways.

[Hammer]

And I'll disagree with the above post. Remember, if there is a medical emergency your fellow employees are the first ones to assist you and many times may catch the problem before it requires medical attention. And if it gets to the point of needing medical attention, the entire office will find out you are diabetic then anyways.

Yes, but you're assuming you'll still have a job after you tell them. ;)

[JediSkipdogg]

Yes, but you're assuming you'll still have a job after you tell them. ;)

Well, 5 jobs later of telling my employee I have never had any problems or been terminated from a job. They have all respected it and assisted me anytime I needed something. And all 5 of these jobs have been ones that have not had set lunch periods but they have allowed me to eat when I needed to and take more than one lunch break if required.

The other disadvantage of not telling is you can't scream ADA (which I hate people doing anyways) when they won't give you extra time for a medical problem.

Here's an example. Say you are an employee that is on time every day for 3 years. One day you wake up running 20 and know you have to wait a bit before you should drive. However, this is going toput you late to work. At least every one I have dealt with would be more than happen to give an additional 15-30 minutes arriving late if I told them it was for my diabetes. If I just called and said I needed to be late without a good reason then I could expect a write-up when I got to work.

Maybe I've just worked with great employers in my 10 years of jobs. I'm also an employer of about 5 people for video work and have allowed slippage now and then with great reason for people being straightforward to me.

[pegasus]

Well, 5 jobs later of telling my employee I have never had any problems or been terminated from a job. They have all respected it and assisted me anytime I needed something. And all 5 of these jobs have been ones that have not had set lunch periods but they have allowed me to eat when I needed to and take more than one lunch break if required.

The other disadvantage of not telling is you can't scream ADA (which I hate people doing anyways) when they won't give you extra time for a medical problem.

Here's an example. Say you are an employee that is on time every day for 3 years. One day you wake up running 20 and know you have to wait a bit before you should drive. However, this is going toput you late to work. At least every one I have dealt with would be more than happen to give an additional 15-30 minutes arriving late if I told them it was for my diabetes. If I just called and said I needed to be late without a good reason then I could expect a write-up when I got to work.

Maybe I've just worked with great employers in my 10 years of jobs. I'm also an employer of about 5 people for video work and have allowed slippage now and then with great reason for people being straightforward to me.


I think you are indeed fortunate, Jed. I've been an independent contractor most of my 30+ year work life, but I've heard of many attempts at discrimination in my health care advocacy work (I'm now consulting for a group that provides services and advocates for people with disabilities).

I think everyone individually has to decide what their needs for help/security/support are. I'd be more inclined to tell trustworthy, friendly coworkers, esp if there are ones in the same location, than I would a supervisor or employer. Per your example: If your employer has a strict lateness policy, and you tend to have early morning problems, then that is the sort of "reasonable accommodation" that ADA should cover. It's wonderful that your employer is supportive, but for those who are new to a job or less secure, then they can say they need a reasonable accommodation to occasionally be late.

As for "screaming ADA": I hope you're then never in a position to need it.

[JediSkipdogg]

I'm glad we can agree/disagree on this subject in a calm manner. With that said...

It's wonderful that your employer is supportive, but for those who are new to a job or less secure, then they can say they need a reasonable accommodation to occasionally be late.

In my honest opinion then that person should not be applying for that job. Now, the difference would be if say one worked 9-5 all the time and then switched to shift work. I could understand that certain accomadations may need to be made then....however...the problem comes in how will your other co-workers then respect you? If you say get stuck on 3rd shift (generally 11-7) but you have to take your meds and eat at 6 am and you want off work at 6 am all the time, that is not a reasonable accomadation. Your other employees may not respect that either and keep in mind that your fellow employees are what generally determines how enjoyable a job is.

But if they have always worked say 9-5 and are applying at a new job that is 9-5, then that new job in my honest opinion, should not make any accomadations for the employee to "occasionally" be late. If the employee can't work the hours, then they should look at a job that starts at 10 instead of 9 or bring up starting an hour late in the interview, of course, at this point, they would need to tell of the diabetes (which you and I will disagree on if it should be brought up.) If that job won't accomadate, then there are about a billion other companies out there that may.

As for "screaming ADA": I hope you're then never in a position to need it.

I have huge issues with the entire ADA thing to begin with and it's very evident on this forum. In case A people want the ADA to give them special accomadations but then in case B people want to be treated like everyone else.

Look at driver's licenses...most on here will agree that it's no business of the BMV that they are diabetic however they are the same ones that want to time to test and eat at work. I'll bet you that those people will not pull over to the side of the road every 1 hour of driving to test.

[pegasus]

I'm glad we can agree/disagree on this subject in a calm manner. With that said...

Likewise! :) :party:

In my honest opinion then that person should not be applying for that job. Now, the difference would be if say one worked 9-5 all the time and then switched to shift work. I could understand that certain accomadations may need to be made then....however...the problem comes in how will your other co-workers then respect you? If you say get stuck on 3rd shift (generally 11-7) but you have to take your meds and eat at 6 am and you want off work at 6 am all the time, that is not a reasonable accomadation. Your other employees may not respect that either and keep in mind that your fellow employees are what generally determines how enjoyable a job is.

But if they have always worked say 9-5 and are applying at a new job that is 9-5, then that new job in my honest opinion, should not make any accomadations for the employee to "occasionally" be late. If the employee can't work the hours, then they should look at a job that starts at 10 instead of 9 or bring up starting an hour late in the interview, of course, at this point, they would need to tell of the diabetes (which you and I will disagree on if it should be brought up.) If that job won't accomadate, then there are about a billion other companies out there that may.

I have huge issues with the entire ADA thing to begin with and it's very evident on this forum. In case A people want the ADA to give them special accomadations but then in case B people want to be treated like everyone else.

Look at driver's licenses...most on here will agree that it's no business of the BMV that they are diabetic however they are the same ones that want to time to test and eat at work. I'll bet you that those people will not pull over to the side of the road every 1 hour of driving to test.

I think every individual employment case has to be evaluated individually. If someone is qualified in every other way, and can get the work done even if a bit late occasionally, why should they not get a job? That is what ADA is there for--for people who can do the job. Figuring things out with coworkers, keeping their respect--regardless of reason--is always a challenge on the job. Find me one person who never needs some kind of accommodation--to go home early frequently for a sick kid, to make phone calls on the job when a parent is dying, to check in on a sick spouse who's home. Those occasional accommodations should also be worked out with coworkers. If people will disrespect you for needing to take your medication, or calling home frequently about a sick kid, well, that's just something one has to live with. People having these other issues are also occasionally fired, and that's a shame too. Unfortunately (IMHO) that's not illegal too.

Disabilities are simply--usually, unlike diabetes--more visible, and so easier to discriminate against in advance. Diabetics don't always need accommodations, unlike, say, a brilliant scientist (Stephen Hawking) needing wheelchair access. But occasionally we do.

These are work-life balance questions that haven't been taken seriously in the U.S., and I think that's a shame. There's all kinds of data that show that businesses actually do better, their workers are more productive, and happier, when work-life balance needs are respected. But most companies think that holding a whip over someone's head is somehow going to get the heart and mind and body to do better. I disagree.

As for finding another job that's more flexible--unfortunately that isn't really viable for many people in today's world. Jobs are essential to survival, and companies are laying off thousands at a time, and especially when one lives in small communities that have often been dependent on a couple of fleeing/closing industries, it's virtually impossible. So if one can fully do the job with occasional accommodations, I think they should take it.

For those who are concerned while being hired, there are subtle ways to ask about company flex-time options without revealing one's whole life, especially if one's called back for a 2nd or 3rd interview. Clearly they're desired, and so benefits and/or work-life options are something a prospective employee would want to consider and an employer would expect to be asked about.

IMHO :o

PS: Sorry for the really long post!

[Scrabblechick]

You know, I've been with this newspaper for 15 1/2 years. I've been a good employee, on time, rarely absent, hardly ever use up all my vacation days. But if my exec. editor found out, I'd never have another day's peace. Not a day would go by when he wouldn't ask me about: what I'm eating, have I lost weight, what's my BG, am I exercising, have I taken my meds. You name it. And it's not kindly concern for my health, either.

As I said, a hypo would be very unusual for me, since I'm not on insulin, and don't take a sulfonyurea. I keep regular peppermints on my desk, just in case (I don't like them so I'm not apt to just munch on them. LOL). So there you are.

[jdftwrth98]

I worked for a financial company in the DFW area and was up for a major promotion, part of the new job would have entailed attending mgmt meetings after hours, shortly after was informed of my pending promotion i was diagnosed with t-2. This put me in a bad position, if i attended the mgmt meetings i could have a problem with going low and i happened to mention this to the vp i worked for, nothing was said for 2 months and one day i happened to ask him about when the promotion was going become official, he told me that it was decided that i was incapable of doing the job because i might have a problem attending the after hours mgmt meetings.

I went back to my desk, drafted my letter of resignation and handed it in that afternoon. During my exit interview i put the fear of god in the hr manager when i described what had happened and why i was leaving. I heard that the vp came real close to being terminated.

I was on the verge of leaving that company before they stuck it to me and this was the straw that broke the camels back, i did contact a lawyer about filing a claim but it would have a been a long process with little benefit other than to have slapped that company on the hands, so it let it go.

The moral to this story is be careful of what you tell your employer and you can get in a world of trouble if you happen to test your BS in the wrong place, I used to go out to my car to do that.

[Janlaton]

Do you people not know about FMLA? Each year at the same time I set up a new intermitten FMLA case for that year for my diabetes. It gives me time off work if I am sick or hav doctor visits or if I need a couple hours in the am to get my bg under control and all the while my attendance is protected.

I do not hide my problems from my boss. He knows my problems and if he see me with something in my hand he ?s me eating he will ask if I have checked my sugar lately. It he is bringing in some food for the team he makes sure to bring something for me that is ok. My whole team watch out for me. I only blacked out once at work. I was taken to the ER by ambulance so believe me they know about my problem and complication. That's alright. United Healt Care cares.:)

[pegasus]

United Healt Care cares.:)

United HealthCare (a humongous US insurance company for all you non-US types) of all entities would know about ADA, so they *better* accommodate you. That said, it sounds collegial and caring, and that's great.

Yes, I do know about the FMLA. The difficulty with it (for others, it's the Family and Medical Leave Act, a national law that requires certain employers to give workers up to 12 weeks time off with their job secured) is that it is unpaid. Many people just can't afford that. It also applies only to companies of 50 employees or more. So while it has been helpful, it's limited. There are bills in Congress aimed at making it paid, but they haven't gone anywhere yet.

Meanwhile, New Jersey just became only the 3rd state to pass a paid family leave bill.

[Janlaton]

Hey, Hammer, are you getting a check while you wait?

Not all unions are bad. My son went to school for 5 years all paid for by his union and is still getting additional training. His pay and benefits are great. We love the steamfitters & plumber union. So sorry you have had a bad experience with yours and with HIPPA violations.:(

[Hammer]

Yes, I'm getting paid 85% of my normal pay while I wait. I'm expecting to hear from the company soon as to where they're going to send me.(should be in early June). We were told by a company rep that when they relocate us, they would put us in our present job category (skilled trades). I talked to a union rep today and he's been calling many other plants to see what their status is, and he said that there aren't any skilled trades jobs to be had. Now I'm concerned that they might force me to work on the production line....something I can't do because I can't stand in one place for more than 10 minutes because of my back. Production line workers stand in one place for 8-10 hours a day....my back would never survive that.

I could accept the company's early retirement offer, but the retirement pay isn't enough to live on, so I'd have to go back to construction work. I don't think I could go back and do that with all of my health problems.(It's h*ll getting old). The best thing is if I can stay with the company as a skilled trades worker. I'll just have to wait and see...

[Scrabblechick]

I hide my monitor kit inside a Lancome cosmetics bag and test in the bathroom stall, or back in the old camera room where no one goes.

I know all about the FMLA. However, unless you're a favored employee or having a baby, you'll get the time off, as required by law--then when you get back, the higher-ups will begin a concerted effort to make your life as miserable as possible in order to get you to quit. I've seen it happen.

Telling the exec editor about my DX would be consigning myself to utter h-e-double toothpicks until I resigned.

Hammer, I surely hope this whole mess works out in your favor!

[BrianSCohen]

I am really surprised at the comments here on this topic. There was great controversy over whether ADA (the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) would cover diabetes. After all many diabetics are able to perform their jobs without any accomodations throughout their careers, so how is that a disability. I commend our government for finally doing the right thing (generally). As a diabetic your have some clear protections under ADA and everyone should be clearly aware of these protections. Make sure you read the fact sheet from the EEOC on diabetes Questions and Answers About Diabetes in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/diabetes.html).

Not everyone with diabetes necessarily will be covered by ADA, but every diabetic has certain protections against being discriminated against because of diabetes, and we have a right to reasonable accomodations.

[Scrabblechick]

Oh, my company would never FIRE me because I have the D. They would just make me utterly miserable until I quit. Constructive eviction, as it were.

That, or they'd figure out another reason to let me go, ostensibly for something totally unconnected with my D. Downsizing, or something along those lines. And in an at-will work state, they can get away with that behavior.

Yes, we have the right to protection against discrimination, but most employers aren't going to list D as a reason for termination, in any case. They'll find something else.

These laws are good laws, and provide protection for a lot of people. However, companies with less than a full tank of integrity will often attempt to weasel around these laws--with a surprising amount of success. It's very sad.

[Cormac_Doyle]

I have "declared" my diabetes during the interview stage for every job I've ever had, with the exception of the first ... I found out about my diabetes due to the "job medical" i had to take prior to commencement.

I've never had a problem with flexibility to attend medical appointments; but I do have to keep an eye on time-keeping as there is no special allowance for lateness caused by the diabetes.

In my current post, I've been promoted four times in three years ... so I doubt my diabetes has been a barrier in any way!

[pokie]

My company DID fire me because of my diabetes; I was missing too much work according to them and I "needed to file for disability" that is what the company owner's wife told me over the phone when she fired me. Do I have a case against these people?

[BrianSCohen]

Robbie,

I can't give you advice on this one. I would suggest you see if there is a lawyer around that specializes in ADA who might give you a free consultation. Did you ask for accomodations because of your D? Were you denied them? Were you treated differently with missing work than others? If you answered any of these yes, you might want to think about talking to a bottom dweller.

As others have pointed out, simply having legal protections does not mean that you will be treated legally or in a way that is morally or ethically right.

[jerryn]

Depends on the job I think. Like a truck driver with a CDL license. You need to get physicals every 4 months. I'm an engineer myself, in that line of work I'd use the "Don't askl Don't tell" policy. If it's under control then why bother. Just don't eat the pizza on pizza day, or the free bagels and donuts.

I do go for walks durning lunch, and they do know it's to keep
my glucose in check.

[pegasus]

My company DID fire me because of my diabetes; I was missing too much work according to them and I "needed to file for disability" that is what the company owner's wife told me over the phone when she fired me. Do I have a case against these people?

As Brian says, you may. Where are you located? I work with disability-rights groups and I might be able to give you some leads on groups and/or lawyers you can talk to. But it should be a lawyer who specializes in disability rights primarily; employment or labor rights lawyers might know something, but in general few lawyers know much about ADA.

[mob]

I will not disclose my Type2 at my job, unless HR pulls me in and asks me. In my experience, telling co-workers/boss anything about your personal life, current life, med history = grounds for it to bite you in the *** later down the road.

I'm a supervisior for onsite techs for a large law firm in new york city. I know my BS levels will not effect my job, unless i make it to be. And if i'm missing work due to my poor controlled BS levels, i deserve to be fired.