Fair hireing tests or screens.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:04 am

It bites but it's the standard. He was able to do all but one lift. So we hire him? The next guy does all but one lift, but can't do the one foot thing. Aw, he practically made it, let's hire him too. You see where I'm going.

If the standard's not fair change the standard. If it is fair ... it's fair.

We're having the Olympics now. That figure skater may have the highest, most beautiful triple lutz (or double-backflip sowcow in a pike position), but if she lands on two feet rather than one, even just a touch, she doesn't get the credit. Nor should she.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:07 am

Far, I have the feeling that if it were a woman, and she had gotten the job. This thread would have been complaining that she didn't meet the standard.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:39 am

I know I could not do the lifts!

My son was required to lift so much weight in order to qualify for his job-and several young women also work there, so they must be very strong!

*varely lifting up a red pen in the mornings at school*

Lil~Basco · Post by **Lil~Basco** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:14 am

Far Rider wrote:

They withdrew the offer because all those lifts and tests match the hardest and most difficult tasks in order to perform the essential functions of the job, and he demonstrated he was not in the proper condition to perfom the job tasks.

Does that seem fair to you? Put yourself in his shoes?

Yes, I do believe this was fair. The job requires a person to lift. If he cannot do it, who would be behind him taking up the slack? It would be the other employees picking up where he left off. That wouldn't be fair to the other employees to do his job while he takes the salary for it.

I owned and operated a feed store several years ago. Lifting 50 and 100# feed and seed bags on a daily basis and unloading several tons of feed deliveries from three tractor trailers a week. All manual labor. No fork lift. I would try to hire someone to just unload a tractor trailer which usually took me half an hour and paid $50 for 30 minutes of work. After the person did it the first time, they never came back. Reason given was it's too much work lifting.

Certain jobs have different requirements. If they can not be met, I would say they shouldn't be hired.

minks · Post by **minks** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:06 am

Far Rider wrote: I think this is fair also. Agreed with everyone.

No one said, your a woman or your fat or you cant land a triple cow on a sow with a pike so you can't have the job.

Nuff said.

Now...

Advance to the next level... a person that passes all the requirments and works for the company doing his job for 5 years, gets called off work because he broke his arm waterskiing, hes out for 6 weeks, the company has him retake the original test to make sure hes strong enough to return to his work, his doctor has told him to go to work. Now lets say he cannot lift the required amount, should the company be obligated to return him to work? How would that differ if he got hurt on the job instead of waterskiing?

Does policy state after short term disability he has to be taken back at the same capacity, then you bet the company has to take him back. If he can't perform now can they fire him, you bet they can, he can't perform plain and simple. A darn catch 22 isn't it.

If he got hurt during work, you can bet they would investigate training, work conditions, and regulations..... Pity really Cause there is no cut and dry answer. Loads of grey area. Hurt on the job means a lot more folks are accountable..... and that is when the company has to watch it's back and that is when the company has to follow rules weather they like em or not.

Funny how the 2 dont match huh. Double standards.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:31 pm

Well.. it would be too bad that he or she didn't get the job. .but there must be a reason for the requirements.. and besides if they can't do the job correctly.. it could also put their co-workers in danger..

I work parttime driving picker forklifts in a warehouse.. and you have to be able to lift 50# off the shelves.. and believe me.. 50# at arms length coming off a shelf 40 feet in the air is not as simple as it sounds.. and you have to be able to do it safely...

minks · Post by **minks** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:33 pm

greydeadhead wrote: Well.. it would be too bad that he or she didn't get the job. .but there must be a reason for the requirements.. and besides if they can't do the job correctly.. it could also put their co-workers in danger..

I work parttime driving picker forklifts in a warehouse.. and you have to be able to lift 50# off the shelves.. and believe me.. 50# at arms length coming off a shelf 40 feet in the air is not as simple as it sounds.. and you have to be able to do it safely...

Argh I dunno if I even weight 50lbs ahahaha oooo never mind....

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:37 pm

minks.....ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.. no.. no.. I won't say it.. hehehehehehehe

But..

I can think it.. bwhahahahahahahahahaha.....

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:43 pm

Far Rider wrote: I recently read of a stuation where a worker who was offered a job in a factory contingent on wether he passed a lifting test. He went to the lifting test and could not pass the preliminary test to take the lifting test because his blood pressure was too high. He went and got that problem cleared up and returned for the test. They made him balance on one foot, work bent over some screws and nuts for 4 minutes, had him lift 50 pounds from the floor to his waist height, then from his waidst to his chin and set it on a shelf 5 times each. They made him pull a bar and pull as hard as 85 pounds and then carry the 50 pounds for 75 feet and back and they made him grip above 50 pounds.

OK he met all the requirements but he could perform one of the 50 pound lifts and failed the test and was not hired. Actually I think they withdrew the offer.

They withdrew the offer because all those lifts and tests match the hardest and most difficult tasks in order to perform the essential functions of the job, and he demonstrated he was not in the proper condition to perfom the job tasks.

Does that seem fair to you? Put yourself in his shoes?

Tests are there for a reason. They are letting you know up front this job isn't any picnic and weeding out the slackers at the beginning. If you can pass the worse of what is expected, you surely should be able to keep up with the normal flow. It's fair to the employee and it is fair to the company. What would NOT be fair would be to hire someone saying 'some lifting required'............

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:24 pm

The second part comes into woulda shoulda coulda. The company ought to show some flippin' loyalty to them that's shown loyalty. To turn a proven employee away - completely away - without, say, giving lighter-duty stuff until he's back in shape or something, is going to ruin it for everybody. Nobody will be able to trust their job will be there tomorrow, so why try to do more than the minimum?

It's bad business, even though it may be legal, to do that.