…it can be related, since a lot of people develop type 2 diabetes in their later years (40+). I came across a Facebook link about diabetic harassment and discrimination in the workplace. I found the posts enlightening, because the one time I had interactions with a diabetic, the team we worked on were all understanding and supportive. Example: we were in a three hour meeting, this person took out their insulin pen and did their shot (discretely as possible). Everybody saw it. Nobody blinked an eye. The person could have been spinning a pen in the table.

So. Facts. People get old. Old people get illnesses, some more serious than others. Illness takes people out of the workforce / workplace. The workplace is there to make a profit. Profit is lost (potentially) when the workforce is not optimized. An optimized workforce is a requirement for the workplace.

Or is it?

Even if that last sentence is true, it’s not possible to continually fulfill that requirement. Young people get ill. The workplace adjusts, temporarily, to the missing link. The question being, at what point does management (the optimizer control) decide to replace the worker? Or, according to some of the Facebook posts, not hire a suspected problem (ill) worker?

Worse, how can the worker challenge this stacked deck? Yes, there’s protections in law that might help if you get laid off or fired. What about not getting a chance at all? If you’re not the TV ideal picture of health, the HR wank passes on you before you’ve filled out the application form.

The only way that I can think of providing an applicant protection during the recruitment / hiring process, is to bring in your own recording device (antagonizing all hiring companies in the process). Any other ideas to level the recruiter-recruitee paradigm?

Advertisements