i think they should...what would happen to an employee who didn't have AIDS who tried to help someone who did have AIDS, lets say they cut themselves and are bleeding the non-AIDS person gets a towels and help clean up the blood or put bandages on to help and contract AIDS themselves...it that fair? i think if the person knew the other person had AIDS they would have been able to help with proper precautions instead of putting other people at risk...AIDS is terminal...if you spread it you are spreading death...
2007-04-28 15:32:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by turntable 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think they should. It will better help the employer to understand if the employee has to be out on medical leave etc. It can be a double edged sword though, because the employer might discriminate against the employee and find some way to get rid of them but without mentioning that it was their medical condition as the reason for the firing.
2007-04-28 22:29:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by thequeenreigns 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
As an employer I wouldn't want to know unless the person posed a significant threat to customers or others. If I knew, then I would have to prove that any negative actions I took against this person weren't because he/she had AIDS.
2007-04-28 23:12:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Scotty 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tough question. Normal day-to-day contact with an infected person wouldn't put anyone at risk. If there was an accident anyone doing first aid should use gloves and other appropriate barriers. So I say No, it's not necessary to divulge that info.
2007-04-28 22:32:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
no
a direct invasion of privacy.
if the illness would have no bearing on the job then why wouldthey need to inform them.
Should employers know if their employees have a STD?
We seem to have this funny idea about 'AIDS' that it is a highly contagious disease that puts everyone around us at risk. There are so many other diseases that are more contagious that we should be worrying about.
2007-04-28 22:30:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Olivereindeer 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Not unless there is a real possibility of blood contact, and even then, all blood exposure should be treated as if it is infected, even if it is not.
BTW, outside of the body, bleach is great at killing HIV.
2007-04-28 22:31:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by Raina 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Why should they? That would open up doors for all sorts of discrimination.
If in a high risk field, one should practice universal procedures for protection.
2007-04-28 23:32:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Should they know, why, what type of business, is it a office worker, In the US workers have a right to privacy of thier medical records
2007-04-28 22:28:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes. Especially in business with contact with other people where possible contamination may happen, Dentist doctors surgeons.
2007-04-28 22:31:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Lord Inquisitor 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think it depends on the job. if there is a chance of exposure of blood to other people then yes , if not no
2007-04-28 22:31:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by april marie 4
·
0⤊
0⤋