Bts Skytrain Hiv Checks

[RichardColeman]

Hey, stupid question. Does anyone know if BTS skytrain employees (ticket staff) would have an annual health check where they would be tested for HIV ? Is this common practice ? I can understand a health check each year, we do in the UK. But screening blood seems very extreme and unusual to me. Especially as the person that told me this said they would get the sack if they had it.

Thanks, Richard

[Kripe]

Unless you were together with one, why do you care?

[ravip]

Unless you were together with one, why do you care?

Maybe he is the 'caring type'! Should not bother anyone.

[beano2274]

My wife works for a British Company in the tourist business, all employees must have a complete health check once per year.

In most companies this is standard policy.

[lomatopo]

Maybe have the Thai person take a look at the various HIV-related websites and forums in Thai were they may be able to get an idea on what kinds of test may be made generally, and what actions may be taken by employers.

Also, you may be able to tell something from the number of samples taken? My best guess, nay hope, is that any blood or urine tests might be looking for drugs or alcohol.

This is a complex issue to address given that I suspect employee rights, privacy, etc. are all probably a bit different here than in our home countries. I can understand that some may have issues, rightly or wrongly, with having HIV-positive employees in customer-facing positions, without specific policies in place.

Bottom line, you should strongly advise this person to get tested, independently of work, so that they can address any treatment issues sooner rather than later.

[FBN]

HIV testing for these employees are totally irrelevant; moreover, HIV testing can only be done on a voluntary basis and can not be used to either decline or terminate employment.

Testing that is done in Middle Eastern countries and the way it is done, without consent, is unacceptable in most countries with individual legal rights and proper labour laws..

[impulse]

HIV testing for these employees are totally irrelevant; moreover, HIV testing can only be done on a voluntary basis and can not be used to either decline or terminate employment.

Testing that is done in Middle Eastern countries and the way it is done, without consent, is unacceptable in most countries with individual legal rights and proper labour laws..

It's interesting to me.

As an employer that's going to be adding the potential employee (at great cost) to my company's insurance pool, I think it's perfectly reasonable (though illegal in many countries) to ask if they have any factors that are going to affect my cost of hiring them. I've seen small companies in the USA go bankrupt because they hired people with HIV, cancer and MS. Their health insurance rates went through the roof, they couldn't fire the sick person, they didn't want to cancel everyone's insurance and they couldn't afford the new rates. I've also seen companies hire women who turned out to be pregnant, milked their insurance and maternity leave for all they could, then quit immediately after the baby was born.

And as a human being with feelings, I think even sick people should have the right to get a good job and work, drawing the line at contagious diseases that put fellow employees and the public at risk. I certainly don't want someone with hepatitis making my sandwich, regardless of human rights and dignity.

And of course, different countries have different rules based on their cultural beliefs, economic realities and the way they treat their citizens.

HIV testing is relevant- if only as a cost of providing insurance, but is it right? It's way too complicated for me to draw a single conclusion base on some universal "right and wrong".

Edited February 27, 2012 by impulse

[FBN]

From an employers view, all very valid points.

I am referencing ILO (International Labour Organisation), WHO practices and also labour laws from most "Western" or countries with functional and mature labour practices and laws..

In countries where there is a high prevalence of HIV, the management of positive cases (employees) are usually managed with the aid of other stakeholders such as local government and NGOs where available.

This factor had a huge impact on the South African mining industry in the days before HIV was a known and quantified entity; due to the lifelong comprehensive health cover provided by the mines, even workers recruited from Zambia, Zimbabwe etc had full coverage till death.

The impact of HIV on today's workplace though, is usually for the working life of the employee which, with today's antiretroviral therapy, usually amounts to a "normal" lifespan. The cost impact here is the continuous therapy but, in most countries, there are usually government health support. Not sure what the current state in the US is as far as that is concerned.

[AyG]

There was an opinion piece in the-newspaper-that-dare-not-speak-its-name about a week ago about an individual who, though well qualified, had passed a succession of job interviews, been HIV-tested in the first week or so with each company and then summarily dismissed. The reality appears to be that most Thai companies require an HIV test and will dismiss you if you test positive. And if you take the case to a tribunal the company will say that you were dismissed not because of your HIV status, but for some other, spurious reason.

[impulse]

Not sure what the current state in the US is as far as that (who pays for HIV treatment) is concerned.

I'm pretty sure the employers are still saddled with paying the inflated insurance premiums for anyone they add. It's crippling for a small employer where the increase in premiums for one sick employee can't be spread out over the many participants of a large company. Some states allow the insurance companies to decline payment for conditions that pre-existed the employment, other states require the insurance to cover it, but allow the insurance company to then raise the company's rates.

To be honest, I've been in Asia for quite a few years, but I doubt it's changed because of the entrenched powers that want to keep raking it in for health care.

One more humanitarian issue where the USA is so far behind the majority of developed nations with universal health care.

Edited February 27, 2012 by impulse

[Kripe]

The initial question was "Does sky train employees have a annual HIV check" - if the poster are afraid about contact with the staff, what about all the passenger traveling in the BTS, have they had a HIV test?

If the poster intend to apply for a job there it is a fair question...

While it is a fair question from someone who will apply for a job, it is not fair if the employer to ask for HIV test even if you are in contact with people trough your work - especially not when we talk about BTS or MRT where so many people travel shoulder to shoulder.

[lomatopo]

Sorry to veer off-topic, but could you list some these companies that "you've seen" that either went bankrupt, or suffered from hiring pregnant women?

I've seen small companies in the USA go bankrupt because they hired people with HIV, cancer and MS.

I've also seen companies hire women who turned out to be pregnant, milked their insurance and maternity leave for all they could, then quit immediately after the baby was born.

Why would they quit "immediately after the baby was born", rather than after their maternity leave expired?

Edited February 27, 2012 by lomatopo

[Kripe]

Sorry to veer off-topic, but could you list some these companies that "you've seen" that either went bankrupt, or suffered from hiring pregnant women?

I've seen small companies in the USA go bankrupt because they hired people with HIV, cancer and MS.

I've also seen companies hire women who turned out to be pregnant, milked their insurance and maternity leave for all they could, then quit immediately after the baby was born.

Why would they quit "immediately after the baby was born", rather than after their maternity leave expired?

I have had diabetes Type 1 for 30 years, maybe I should get turned down as well when applying fro jobs?

Out of job and having HIV - not very nice.

Being pregnant and out of job - not very nice either, unless she has a wealthy husband who support her and the comming baby.

Having diabetes and no job, who will pay for the needed medication? - the rest of the TAX payers, at least where I come from