999 Discrimination Emergency! (NHS)

Member Name: Ashes2ashez

Product:	NHS
Date:	11/09/09 (57 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: for this particular branch of the organisation, none.

Disadvantages: ignorant, discriminatory, patronising and humiliating for me.

I will say right from the start that the events I'm writing about here do provoke my anger. Baring this in mind, I am making a particular effort to be completely neutral and factual. I trust that you will all draw your own conclusions. Also, this is not a reflection on the NHS as a whole as i think the standard of service generally very good indeed.
I have been unemployed for some time because I find it difficult to track down jobs that are suitable. This is mainly because I am registered blind and need certain assistive technology in order to work effectively. There are previsions to have this put in place but many small private employers find the disruption to be unreasonable.
"So? Work for the big companies" I hear you say....read on!

Recently I applied for a job as an emergency call operator with the local ambulance service. I was delighted because they had just passed their equal opps review from the job centre with flying colours and are proud holders of the two tick symbol.
For anyone who is not familiar with the symbol, it is awarded to employers who actively encourage disabled applicants and offer great support to disabled employees. They must observe the Disability Discrimination Act which includes making reasonable adjustments. Also, they have an agreement with DWP that they will run a guaranteed interview scheme. This agreement states that an interview will always be given to a disabled applicant who meets the minimum criteria of the advertised position.
So, hunky-dory! I had far more than the minimum criteria and relevant experience. I was pretty sure that if I could get through the door for that interview I'd stand a good chance.

I was short listed and invited to a psychometric assessment. To be on the safe side, I telephoned the morning before just to check that they had read all the information I'd included with my application about the speech software I use and the fact that any paper based tests would have to be read to me. I'd even offered to bring my own reader. Either they hadn't read the information or hadn't decided how to handle it just yet. I was met with panic. It seems the fact that I have no vision was something they were quite unprepared for. I imagine that they simply thought they could give me a larger font size and be done. As I said, HR really should read the info applicants provide them with.
I was told that the adjustments would be made and another date set for my assessment.

So, do you think I got that assessment?
What I got was a call two days later informing me that I was being cut from the recruitment process because I was clearly unable to fill the position without causing a substantial clinical risk to patients using the emergency services.
I will just take a moment to briefly explain the software that I use. It is a screen reading program called JAWS. JAWS converts whatever is on the screen to speech, allowing me to do almost anything I wish with a computer using the keyboard rather than the mouse. Let me add that not only have I used it in a call centre environment myself, but that there are many people using it for similar things all over the world. I personally know someone who used JAWS while call handling for the police.

Naturally, I tried to explain this to the manager of HR. I was repeatedly told that I couldn't possibly talk to a patient and use my computer at the same time and that also, I wouldn't be able to work at the speed required.
I will resist explaining exactly how I felt about this in the interests of both decent language and neutrality. I will say though that in my experience, assessments are generally to determine if someone is suited to a position. I had no idea that in order to be assessed you must prove yourself.
I was invited by the ambulance service to attend a meeting some three weeks later to discuss all the issues involved. I accepted readily. I had many things I wanted to say and many questions I wanted answered.
The moment I walked into the room I knew I was wasting my time. There were five or six of them and they had clearly had a pre-meeting meeting to decide who would say what and how they would deal with me.
They took it in turns to talk, telling me what a visual system they used, Patient safety was the most important consideration, they thought I was over qualified anyway and I should apply for more appropriate vacancies...maybe something that relied on hearing, as mine must be superb!

After more of this drivel, which to my credit, I sat through with a straight face and in silence, I had my chance to speak. I explained that using JAWS I am able to do things that people may perceive as impossible. I used the example of PowerPoint. Having just completed my advanced ECDL, I had to do a PowerPoint module which many of you will know is just about the most visual application there is but it was doable.
I followed this by making the point that surely, brand new operators were not connected to the live 999 switchboard right away. There must be training programs and test scenarios. If I proved suitable for the position in every other way, why could we not try some of these scenarios to find out if their concerns were founded or not?
Finally, i asked what they felt the guaranteed interview scheme obliged them to do. They told me that it obliged them to offer an interview to any disabled applicant with the minimum criteria......unless they felt that the person was unsuited to the position because of their disability.
I couldn't believe my ears! It reminded me strongly of Animal Farm; "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

All in all, a total waste of time. They made assumptions based on the fact that I am blind. Long before this meeting all the vacancies were filled anyway so there was no pretence that they were attempting resolution.
They have judged me without any kind of assessment of my skills, and as said, the decision was made without even meeting me. They are in violation of both the DDA and the two tick requirements.

My main object in writing this review is to warn other disabled applicants to be cautious, even of those who hold the two tick symbol.
As for my own situation, I am of course taking appropriate action.

Summary: all i want to do is work! very nasty degrading experience.