Job applicants should not be forced to do blood tests for HIV: Rights body

[webfact]

Job applicants should not be forced to do blood tests for HIV: Rights body
Thiranat Sucharikul
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The National Human Rights Commission has condemned businesses that require job applicants to be tested for HIV, saying the move is a "clear violation of human rights".

The NHRC said requiring people to take a blood test could adversely affect people who do this, plus their families, both economically and socially.

The agency was responding to complaints from the many people who say they were asked to undergo a test for HIV before they could be hired.

The problem is people found to be HIV-positive are often stigmatised and discriminated against, the office said.

It has called on relevant agencies to stop the practice.

Tairjing Siriphanich, a National Human Rights Commissioner, said there was no reason for businesses to test prospective employees for HIV, as the virus had no affect on how someone performed professionally.

"HIV is not a scary thing because it can be treated and controlled through medication, almost like someone who has diabetes," he said.

"Sometimes those with HIV are not even sick but once they are known to possess the virus they will be stigmatised and rejected by society."

Tairjing said blood tests for HIV at workplaces could be categorised into two groups.

Firstly, some businesses require blood results prior to hiring job applicants and people found to be HIV-positive tend to be rejected.

Secondly, there are employees who are asked to undergo a blood test. In at least one case, an employee was fired after testing positive for HIV.

Tairjing said even employees who fight back and win reinstatement are usually transferred because of the stigma.

He said people with HIV even face discrimination from family members, such as being told to eat at a separate table or being kicked out of the house.

He questioned the need for HIV blood tests given other viruses such as hepatitis B were "more deadly".

The blood-test requirement can also cause an unnecessary financial burden on job applicants.

"One of the many reasons why people refuse to take blood tests is the cost," he said. "Why is it the job applicant's responsibility to pay for the blood test."

Job applicants asked to be tested for HIV can file a complaint with the NHRC by calling its 1377 hotline or via [email protected].

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Job-applicants-should-not-be-forced-to-do-blood-te-30239977.html

[thenation]2014-08-01[/thenation]

[nottocus]

I would want my potential employees having a test before I'd let them work for me

Edited August 1, 2014 by nottocus

[BSJ]

What about the rights of the business owner?  Why the hell should business owners be expected to carry workers who have sickness or disability.  When you spell Business it isn't spelt 'C-h-a-r-i-t-y'!

[iancnx]

Ouch.... This one is gonna have legs!

[Bluespunk]

What about the rights of the business owner?  Why the hell should business owners be expected to carry workers who have sickness or disability.  When you spell Business it isn't spelt 'C-h-a-r-i-t-y'!

Starts with HIV, then do you smoke? Do you drink? How often do you exercise? What do you eat? How many fizzy, sugary drinks do you consume each day? How much sleep do you get?

All of these contribute to sickness or effectiveness at work. If someone can do the job and do it well, then it is no ones business what their private life consists of or what treatments they are receiving (though if they have health insurance at work this would be an issue).

Discrimination in all its forms is wrong. If someone can do the job then give them the job, no matter what they suffer from. Edited August 1, 2014 by Bluespunk

[laurentbkk]

I would want my potential employees having a test before I'd let them work for me

 

And for what reason ?????????????????????

[thhMan]

I would want my potential employees having a test before I'd let them work for me

 

Im assuming that you will be having sex with them? Why else would you make a statement like that!

[jonclark]

 

I would want my potential employees having a test before I'd let them work for me

 

And for what reason ?????????????????????

 

 

Perhaps he sleeps with them? 

[nottocus]

 

I would want my potential employees having a test before I'd let them work for me

 

And for what reason ?????????????????????

 

 

Wouldn't want my employees HIVing over everything at work.

Edited August 1, 2014 by nottocus

[GAZZPA]

What about the rights of the business owner?  Why the hell should business owners be expected to carry workers who have sickness or disability.  When you spell Business it isn't spelt 'C-h-a-r-i-t-y'!

You are showing your complete ignorance of HIV and what disability means.

 

A short education for you. HIV medication is now so effective that a person can live a FULL and ACTIVE life. HIV cannot be cured YET but the medication is now so effective at reducing the virus that the "viral load" (the term for the measurement of the virus in the body) can be undetectable. 

 

Also, as for disability people with HIV can now have a fully functioning immune system as the Viral Load is suppressed. So the CD4 count (that is the measurement of immune system in the blood that determines how well you fight infection) can be as high as a normal healthy person.

 

In short, it is almost impossible for you to catch it and they are not in any way disabled.

 

The days when people got HIV and over a few years the virus got so rampant that the immune system broke down (this used to be called AIDS) are log gone,,

 

So, no need for a test, no need for anyone to know if the person does not want them to know.

 

Do some research, cure your ignorance before you look stupid, medical science is winning that war.

 

[GuestHouse]

Having witnessed individuals health test results being discussed across an office within an hour or so of the the results coming in I'm inclined to agree with the rights issue here. 

 

The tern 'Confidential' has no real meaning in Thailand, it is sensible for the law to take this into account when considering what confidential information employees need to provide to their employers. 

 

[GuestHouse]

 

 

I would want my potential employees having a test before I'd let them work for me

 

And for what reason ?????????????????????

 

 

Wouldn't want my employees HIVing over everything at work.

 

 

While you yourself maintain the right to sprinkle your blind ignorance wherever you wish.

 

HIV has been in the mainstream health discussion for over thirty years, how you can still exhibit such crass ignorance of the disease  is beyond compreshension 

[h90]

 

What about the rights of the business owner?  Why the hell should business owners be expected to carry workers who have sickness or disability.  When you spell Business it isn't spelt 'C-h-a-r-i-t-y'!

Starts with HIV, then do you smoke? Do you drink? How often do you exercise? What do you eat? How many fizzy, sugary drinks do you consume each day? How much sleep do you get?

All of these contribute to sickness or effectiveness at work. If someone can do the job and do it well, then it is no ones business what their private life consists of or what treatments they are receiving (though if they have health insurance at work this would be an issue).

Discrimination in all its forms is wrong. If someone can do the job then give them the job, no matter what they suffer from.

 

 

We actually almost did a drug test on our staff, at the end we didn't as these who I suspected resigned before. Alcohol tests are common in many companies

[chainarong]

The employer in most cases is quiet entitled to ask reasonable demands from prospective employee's , that can include asking for HIV tests, as long as that person is fully a-where that they are being tested for HIV or any other tests that maybe required by an employer, it is entirely up to the applicant whether they want to continue with the employment application, to say that blood tests are being forced is possibly misleading as the application information should indicate this test, where an employer however doesn't indicate or state that you are going to be tested for HIV,  in a general blood test, then this is another matter for the department of labour , unions and employers to sort out. Job applicants should be fully informed of the employment requirements before applying.

[h90]

 

What about the rights of the business owner?  Why the hell should business owners be expected to carry workers who have sickness or disability.  When you spell Business it isn't spelt 'C-h-a-r-i-t-y'!

You are showing your complete ignorance of HIV and what disability means.

 

A short education for you. HIV medication is now so effective that a person can live a FULL and ACTIVE life. HIV cannot be cured YET but the medication is now so effective at reducing the virus that the "viral load" (the term for the measurement of the virus in the body) can be undetectable. 

 

Also, as for disability people with HIV can now have a fully functioning immune system as the Viral Load is suppressed. So the CD4 count (that is the measurement of immune system in the blood that determines how well you fight infection) can be as high as a normal healthy person.

 

In short, it is almost impossible for you to catch it and they are not in any way disabled.

 

The days when people got HIV and over a few years the virus got so rampant that the immune system broke down (this used to be called AIDS) are log gone,,

 

So, no need for a test, no need for anyone to know if the person does not want them to know.

 

Do some research, cure your ignorance before you look stupid, medical science is winning that war.

 

 

 

I think the bigger problem are people who have HIV and don't know it, or don't care.
 

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

 

 

What about the rights of the business owner?  Why the hell should business owners be expected to carry workers who have sickness or disability.  When you spell Business it isn't spelt 'C-h-a-r-i-t-y'!

Starts with HIV, then do you smoke? Do you drink? How often do you exercise? What do you eat? How many fizzy, sugary drinks do you consume each day? How much sleep do you get?

All of these contribute to sickness or effectiveness at work. If someone can do the job and do it well, then it is no ones business what their private life consists of or what treatments they are receiving (though if they have health insurance at work this would be an issue).

Discrimination in all its forms is wrong. If someone can do the job then give them the job, no matter what they suffer from.

 

 

We actually almost did a drug test on our staff, at the end we didn't as these who I suspected resigned before. Alcohol tests are common in many companies

 

 

D & A tests are carried out at the start of every shift at most mines in Oz.

[luk AJ]

I am renewing my work permit, you will not believe this, but they require a recent blood analysis for blood type and syphillis! No HIV or anything else. This is a new requirement not some century old left over.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[GuestHouse]

I am renewing my work permit, you will not believe this, but they require a recent blood analysis for blood type and syphillis! No HIV or anything else. This is a new requirement not some century old left over.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

It was the requirement in the last century. 

[luk AJ]

No I can show you the document which I received last week, why would I lie about such thing?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[GuestHouse]

I didn't say you lied, I said it was a requirement in the last century.

 

In response to your comment:

 

"This is a new requirement not some century old left over."

[macka17]

Look at it from the "rights" side of others (NON HIV) as well. 

It goes both ways.

 

In Aust you have drug testing and alcahol at most workplaces. As it should be.

there's too much irresponsibilty in the world nowadays. Time to clamp down.

 

If I was working and employing. all my blokes would be subject to tests. and Me along with them to keep on level ground.

They can't refuse then.

 

The only people that would balk at it, any of them. Would be the ones doing wrong.

and them you don't want in your workforce.

[Bluespunk]

Look at it from the "rights" side of others (NON HIV) as well. 
It goes both ways.
 
In Aust you have drug testing and alcahol at most workplaces. As it should be.
there's too much irresponsibilty in the world nowadays. Time to clamp down.
 
If I was working and employing. all my blokes would be subject to tests. and Me along with them to keep on level ground.
They can't refuse then.
 
The only people that would balk at it, any of them. Would be the ones doing wrong.
and them you don't want in your workforce.

Why is working alongside someone who is HIV positive in the workplace a "rights" issue? Edited August 1, 2014 by Bluespunk

[jonclark]

I think the very fact that this some jobs may have forced applicants to have HIV tests shows just far behind the modern world Thailand (sadly) is. The statements on the OP about discrimination from family members simply reinforces this idea. 

 

Clearly the advances in modern medicine and therapeutic care have made HIV a chronic disease with life expectancy now identical to that of a non-HIV infected person have been lost. 

 

Sadly by taking away ,(by stigmatising a person), the opportunity for employment, you indirectly limit access to the funds for that person to buy the medicines and treatments, to suppress the virus and remain healthy and a productive member of society. Thereby possibly increasing transmission rates and HIV prevalence in the population as a whole. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GuestHouse]

We need no better example of why we need human rights laws than the willingness exhibited here to expose other people's vulnerability in matters of their health. 

 

"Company Rights" - Companies are not people, their purpose is to make money, they have no moral obligations and no social pressures upon their behavior. 

 

Extending a companies rights over the rights of individuals will always result in abuse of individuals for profit.

 

 

If a company needs health information on its employees then it should be obliged to demonstrate precisely why it needs that information before it is allowed to gather the information, the presumption must always be that an individual has a right to privacy with the onus on the company to demonstrate their pressing need to break those rights.

 

Just like the company demands rights to privacy over its business plans, intellectual property and accounts. 

 

Edited August 1, 2014 by GuestHouse

[animatic]

 

I would want my potential employees having a test before I'd let them work for me

 
And for what reason ?????????????????????
 

 
Wouldn't want my employees HIVing over everything at work.

I suggest you read up on HIV and AIDS,
because your knowledge of what you are talking about is negligible.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[jonclark]

Look at it from the "rights" side of others (NON HIV) as well. 

It goes both ways.

 

In Aust you have drug testing and alcahol at most workplaces. As it should be.

there's too much irresponsibilty in the world nowadays. Time to clamp down.

 

If I was working and employing. all my blokes would be subject to tests. and Me along with them to keep on level ground.

They can't refuse then.

 

The only people that would balk at it, any of them. Would be the ones doing wrong.

and them you don't want in your workforce.

 

What do you mean "...the ones doing wrong" ? 

 

Please don't tell me that you think that people contract HIV because they did something wrong. Puritanical claptrap!

[Johnnie99]

I would want my potential employees having a test before I'd let them work for me

 

You should be ashamed, if that test is positive for any infection and you discriminate.

[Johnnie99]

 

 

I would want my potential employees having a test before I'd let them work for me

 

And for what reason ?????????????????????

 

 

Wouldn't want my employees HIVing over everything at work.

 

 

You seriously need help.

[animatic]

I think the very fact that this some jobs may have forced applicants to have HIV tests shows just far behind the modern world Thailand (sadly) is. The statements on the OP about discrimination from family members simply reinforces this idea. 
 
Clearly the advances in modern medicine and therapeutic care have made HIV a chronic disease with life expectancy now identical to that of a non-HIV infected person have been lost. 
 
Sadly by taking away ,(by stigmatising a person), the opportunity for employment, you indirectly limit access to the funds for that person to buy the medicines and treatments, to suppress the virus and remain healthy and a productive member of society. Thereby possibly increasing transmission rates and HIV prevalence in the population as a whole. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Worse still, lacking money for treatments because they are denied a job by the fearful,
The only recourse is the clandestine sex trade, and that is more likely to cause aids transmission
to the general public, because we know men go to prostitutes of all flavors,
and then go sleep with their wives or Mia nois.

Depriving a qualified HIV sufferer legitimate work, contradicts public health needs in a great way.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Johnnie99]

 

 

What about the rights of the business owner?  Why the hell should business owners be expected to carry workers who have sickness or disability.  When you spell Business it isn't spelt 'C-h-a-r-i-t-y'!

Starts with HIV, then do you smoke? Do you drink? How often do you exercise? What do you eat? How many fizzy, sugary drinks do you consume each day? How much sleep do you get?

All of these contribute to sickness or effectiveness at work. If someone can do the job and do it well, then it is no ones business what their private life consists of or what treatments they are receiving (though if they have health insurance at work this would be an issue).

Discrimination in all its forms is wrong. If someone can do the job then give them the job, no matter what they suffer from.

 

 

We actually almost did a drug test on our staff, at the end we didn't as these who I suspected resigned before. Alcohol tests are common in many companies

 

 

Your right to 'suspect' is one only of your own making and has no moral - or legal standing.

 

Except, perhaps in the mind of an uneducated fool.