Diabetic night shift worker

HRCathy · April 2005

I have a night shift employee with a doctor's note requiring that he work day shift. I don't have any openings on day shift. What is my best course of action?

POPEYE · April 2005

I would be curious as to the reasons why. Does one's sugar elevate more in the night-time?

Don D · April 2005

I would ignore the note. Whatever an office visit costs in your area, that's what the employee paid for the note. This helps to illustrate the arrogance of the profession.

HRCathy · April 2005

I thought the same thing. I have some experience with diabetes, and I know if it is uncontrolled, it doesn't matter what time you start work. I don't have anything available, and I know that I don't have to create a position for him. So, we will see what he says when I talk to him later. I think that he thinks we will just roll over. Not gonna happen! Thanks for your help.

lmccoy · April 2005

I have a diabetic who also brought notes from the doctor saying she could not work the night shifts. I clarified this with our company physician who indicated that in extreme cases this type of accomodation is necessary. It has something to do with the quality of sleep needed for the patient, and night sleep is best. Our physician did say that usually this is not an issue unless the patient is not taking medication or eating properly. We accomodated this employee and moved to a middle shift. BEWARE after about 6 months she brought a note recommended that she work only mornings. When the doctor was asked for a medical reason for this, she replied it was the patient's request, not a medical necessity.

Don D · April 2005

Both her physician and the company's should be politicians. "Night sleep is best". I'll tell that to all my third shift guys who'd rather fight than switch.

HRCathy · April 2005

I didn't accomodate, because I had no positions open. As luck would have it, another employee asked to be transferred to nights, so I was able to switch them. He would have lost his job had that not happened. I am very careful about setting any precedents. We can't even offer to help lift a box because then I will have 120 employees that won't lift a box. It is crazy.

SMace · April 2005

EE's can help each other lift a box. Just as long as it isn't removed from their responsibilities. Helping each other out is what makes the world go round.

Don D · April 2005

SM: Don't take this as harsh disagreement; but, in an environment like our manufacturing business, where we have 'standard work' written for every job, specific ISO-driven work instruction, ergonomics calculations throughout our work cells and a variety of metrics that help calculate productivity and meeting rate, it is not possible to go along with a notion that workers can, at will, dispense with job tasks and decide to help others do theirs.

It simply takes engineering staff and lean managers too long coming up with standards to allow production workers to make those independent decisions. I am afraid we are attempting to 'robotocize' our workforce in a lean environment. x:-)

SMace · April 2005

The only time I consider it to be harsh is when I get called names.
>
>It simply takes engineering staff and lean
>managers too long coming up with standards to
>allow production workers to make those
>independent decisions. I am afraid we are
>attempting to 'robotocize' our workforce in a
>lean environment. x:-)

I understand what you are saying, but what I hear is, "Joe, I know helping Fred with that box kept things running, but you can't do that again otherwise we will have to re-write hundreds of pages of documents. And do you know how hard it is to takes sheets of paper out of those little plastic holders?"

HRCathy · April 2005

I don't think paperwork is the point here. The problem is if you accomodate an employee that has been released to full duty, that employee is "perceived" to have a disability, and then you are on the hook for disability.

Also, if you help that employee, I guarantee you that the guy next to him is going to ask why he can't get the same treatment.

Employees are like children. The rules have to be crystal clear and you can't ever bend them. You end up in trouble.

SMace · April 2005

You are wrong. An accomodation does not automatically regard a person as disabled.

Anyway I'm talking about two ee's helping each other out when they need it. I'm not talking about a supervisor requiring one ee to lift all the boxes for another.

The way I interpreted you post is that you do not allow anyone to help anyone. Don followed it up with a business reason to support that theory. That's fine, I just don't know if I agree with it.

Don D · April 2005

Well, I don't know your industry. Perhaps you would have to experience the structure and metrics employed in today's modern lean environment and the rigid assumptions of the Toyota System, which we try to emulate. I've never seen a manufacturing environment where employees are at liberty to make their own decisions as to which duties/tasks they can help others with or can assume others will help THEM with. You must have never experienced a rigid ISO audit or a LEAN audit or an internal audit of standard work. Your theory would not pass any one of them.

And, as an aside, having sat through hundreds of UI hearings, I can imagine a claimant correcting me by telling the hearing officer, "No sir, that's not how I did my job. Lee always did that to help me out because my shoulder hurt, and I was written up for it because my packing number went on the box; but, I didn't do it and I was terminated for it."

I just see too many booger-bears in it. But, I'm sure you'll kindly correct my conclusions.

And, yes, an accomodation can cause more problems than it corrects. But, where the asylum is turned over to the residents, it probably won't matter in the long term.

SMace · April 2005

There is nothing to correct. You have your opinion and your wealth of experience and knowledge to back it up. That's great.

In an assembly line or work cell environment, I'm sure it works great. Our process is nearly all automated from raw material to finished product. We have machine techs that make sure the machines are running properly and make adjustments based on quality checks . Then the finished product is put in the wharehouse until it is shipped. The ee's are not confined to a small area and have a degree of flexibility. In that environment high performance work teams have proven to be successful. Not knowing your experience with this environment, I'll tell you that it gives the ee's some flexibilty to make independent judgements on what to do. We believe they can help with the process if we allow them to.

Now, they do have to follow rigid quality expectations. We have a system similar to ISO. We are a supplier and wholly-owned subsidiary of a Fortune 50 company. They have developed their own ISO process.

Now about the accomodation, I've said over and over that we do not allow the situation you described in your UI hearing. We do allow people to make independent judgements about helping others.

And lastly, of course an accomodation can cause problems. If one person gets one, every person wants one. But Cathy said that an accomodation will regard someone as disabled. Both you and I know that is not true.

HRCathy · April 2005

My words and my thoughts don't seem to be comminucated as I had hoped.

I don't mean that you automatically have a disability. Don expressed my thoughts much better than I did.

I meant that if one person gets it, they all want it. I can't make special arrangements or accomodations without documented medical necessity. It is easier to back up your decisions when you have the documentation.

If an employee asks for help and another says, sure no problem, that is fine. But I won't mandate it by the company without medical necessity.

SMace · April 2005

This is what you said:

The problem is if you accomodate an employee that has been released to full duty, that employee is "perceived" to have a disability, and then you are on the hook for disability.

IMHO, someone unaware of ADA laws would read that and say "If I accomodate someone they are disabled." That's not true and goes against the intent of the ADA law.

That aside, I totally agree with you and think you said it quite well. Have a great day.

Don D · April 2005

Even those very familiar with the ADA may judge someone to perhaps have a disability if they learn that the worker has been extended an accommodation.

If I were a guest in your staff meeting and the remark was made that "Effective Monday, Charles is being extended the following accommodation regarding his job duties...", it would be my humble assumption that Charles must be disabled. I would reach that conclusion since 'reasonable job accommodation' is a legal term imbedded in the ADA and no other federal law. And, as we know, if that assumption is made, then Charles has automatic ADA protection.

This may be an odd stretch, but I think that was the point made, or was my read on it.

I also agree that if we 'accommodate' one, we have a run on requests for similar treatment. We recently 'leaned out' most stools and chairs in the production and assembly facilities. If we bring ONE back in as an accommodation, I will be literally overrun with requests.

HRCathy · April 2005

Thank you Don. You put it much more eloquently than my attempt.

HRinFL · April 2005

I agree with The Don. In my former life, I was in Distribution. We required ees wear steel toed shoes due to the operation of industrial equipment and the number of ees working at any given time. We had one ee that brought a doctor's note stating he could not wear steel toed shoes (it was a long time ago, so I do not remember the reason, but we granted the request). Once other learned that this ee did not have to wear steel toes, we had a rash of ees that went to the same doctor and brought the same note. Luckily, it died down rather quickly and we did not have to try to decide how to determine who really needed the accommodation and who was just trying to jump on the wagon.

Diabetic night shift worker

Comments