At what point are employers asking TMI?

Nurses General Nursing

Published

I know this has been touched on in a few threads, but I think this offers a different perspective..

I just got a new job. (DREAM JOB, so excited!) I've been doing my new hire paper work, doing the drug screen, nicotine test (which is a TOTALLY different thread), and next week I'm scheduled for a pre-employment physical.

I've had these done for jobs before.... even had to do this physical therapy session one time where you lift up to 50 pounds with proper body mechanics and such, but I thought the "physical" was going to be like, check ROM, BP, BMI, ect.. just make sure I am healthy enough to work.

I get this packet via email that I have to fill out before I go, and HOLY COW! It's more in depth than my PCP paperwork. Wants to know my medical history, if I have any pain or injuries that are untreated, what medications I am taking, when I have been in the hospital and what for, IF I HAVE GENTIAL HERPES!, I mean, the list goes on and on and on. EIGHT pages of medical history I have to fill out.

I have no problem filling it out. That's not the point. I just want to know.... at what point is it too much information?! Why do I have to disclose my entire medical history to my employer? What do you think about it?!

Do you all think this type of invasive questioning has anything to do with them trying to weasle out of covering any pre-existing condition? Just a thought!!

They certainly want to take care of their corporate bottom line now don't they?

Specializes in Emergency & Trauma/Adult ICU.
They certainly want to take care of their corporate bottom line now don't they?

Yes, I'm sure they do ... as they are accountable for their financial performance.

Specializes in MDS/ UR.

They are going to want genetic screening next if you are in the reproductive years?

Sounds like Nazi rumblings to me in the new age.

I can just imagine the lecture one gets the first time one calls off sick, provided you ever make it past the Inquisition.

Specializes in Med-Surg, Cardiac.

As has been stated, it's all very legal. If we don't like it there's a way to change it, which is to VOTE. Are the current legislators helping the situation of the working folk. If so vote in more of them. If not vote them out.

I have yet to have an employer take care of any financial responsibility associated with my health so that I could return to or stay on the job. Therefore I see no reason why they should be privy to any information about my health, that they have no concern about. And I was given the introduction to reality the first time I hurt myself on the job and my employer refused to allow me to proceed with a worker's disability claim. I was able to put two and two together back then and left the job soon after paying my medical bills.

Specializes in Med/Surg, Academics.
The cost of this coverage has increased 8% or more annually for the last two decades. Can you really fault businesses for aggressively trying to manage these costs?

And from this perspective, do you think that it is indeed time to get these costs off of the backs of businesses?

I understand what you are saying because businesses are myopic. Consider this:

If it is taken off the backs of businesses, that cost goes somewhere, right?

An unemployed population is far more costly to a society than an employed population. Unemployment=no discretionary spending=businesses make less money. It will eventually come back to them, depending on how far they go to disqualify otherwise qualified employees.

When the middle class becomes unemployed in great numbers, the **** hits the fan. There is not enough spending to sustain social programs for poor people nor enough money to funnel into the businesses of the upper class nor enough money for the middle class to sustain their own Ma and Pa businesses. Less money is invested in middle-class 401ks because more cash flow is needed for necessities, and even Wall Street is affected.

I agree with the above posters who touched on Hitler, genetic and the super employee population. I too feel that this is where this is going. I am following what the poster who stated the business's bottom line and the poster who stated that these business exects haven't thought their dysfunctional foolishness through their own business circle of supply and demand

I have an objection to unemployment. I have an objection to people loosing their homes. I have an objection to people loosing their abilty to access and seek healthcare. I see the potential for violence in this corporate behavior. I hope these corporate fools have good security systems on their homes- because I can't see a nation of unemployed people putting upwith this too much longer. I think their only slvation is letting the federal governemnt get to them first before some angry unemployed mob does. This I also have an objection to- putting people in this vulnerablea position that would otherwise never think of doing something unlawful and it seems that this is what these corporate greed mongers have done. The position of unemployment strips people of their dignity, self worth, ruins their family and marrages. And then it's called in the name of HEALTHCARE.Very unhealthy and uncaring to human life. Just to throw this out there- unemployed,??drug addition what ever- graves are being robbed for the metal markers especially the metal markers off the vets graves and home invasioners are cutting the copper plumbing pipes out of peoples homes to sell as scrap- copper at scrap yards is going for over $4.00/lb!! Unemployment breeds higher crime rates. I hope it's the feds that get ahold of these corporate morons- just for the satisfaction of seeing them held accountable in a court of law, punnished, stripped of their wealth and their families and dragged off in humiliation for thier actions- pee poor business decisions

Specializes in ER/Trauma.

*wry smile*

Now how many of you folks answering this thread had a similar reaction to your "census forms" ??

Heck, how many folks on this thread even considered those forms "invasive" and/or "offensive" given their extensive, private questioning?

Food for thought...

cheers,

Roy

Specializes in Med Surg - Renal.
This is outrageous! And I'm sorry to say, but I think that anyone who consents to this is just feeding the fire. I understand people need jobs, but honestly if people don't stand up for what is right then it will just become the norm like every other thing designed to screw over the little guy while Corp execs are riding around in their bentleys.

So we want them to cover our health care expenses, but we don't want to tell them about our health history?

Can't have it both ways.

Specializes in Med/Surg, Academics.
So we want them to cover our health care expenses, but we don't want to tell them about our health history?

Can't have it both ways.

The insurance company is covering our healthcare expenses. The employer is providing a group policy for which the employer picks up part of the cost. This makes a big difference.

I fully expect my insurance company to be interested in my health history and to know what's wrong with me. They're the ones with the highly-paid actuaries that have to determine the rates for the group policy my family is a part of.

There is no need at all for the HR person and the nurse recruiter and the nurse manager and the HR secretary--everyone handling the form and hiring decisions--to know about my last yeast infection.

My husband's company provides a variety of health insurance plans for employees to enroll in and a flat amount (rather than a percentage) for each employee toward the health insurance benefit based on family structure at enrollment, and the employee picks up the rest. That way, the company's cost is controlled, it is not variable based on an individual employee's enrollment selections, and it can be projected for any fiscal year. In addition, there is no temptation on the part of hiring people to disqualify you because of your health history that bears no impact on your ability to do the job...and then secretly call it something else.

If health insurance costs rise because the "group" has incurred additional costs, the company always has the option of increasing the flat amount or not. (This past enrollment period, my husband's company decided not to increase the flat amount for the family structure we have. Our family's cost per paycheck increased.) Therefore, the employer has no incentive to disqualify individuals based on their health status.

Many, many hospitals are part of a larger healthcare system with literally thousands of employees. They are big enough to negotiate rates if their HR execs are worth their salaries.

+ Add a Comment