Or is this not ageist

[daisyinthemeadow]

Watching wanted a very personal assistant, disabled people looking for carers.

They all say they want someone young.

Aibu in thinking this is ageist?

To take him to brothels in Amsterdam.

They've just said on the programme that she has to.

YABU

When it comes to choosing a personal assistant, the needs and comfort of the disabled come first. Always. I won't have male assistants, am I being sexist?

My daughter is seventeen and severely disabled and the only person who should decide who she wants to provide her care is her. She has chosen a young, all female team.
If it is someone to assist with her personal care it definately shouldn't be a male of any age and if she is employing someone to accompany and assist her when socialising it definately should be someone nearer her own age otherwise she might as well just go out with me.
Care packages are tailored to meet the individual needs of the client and to enable them to live as near normal life as possible. If a care company is commisioned to provide the care it is then down to that company to make sure the employees in the team have the relevent training and support and are competent and confident in meeting those needs whatever their age.
If this upsets some people's idea of what is politically correct I suggest they put themselves in the disabled persons shoes and think about wether they would settle for less so as not to appear sexist or ageist etc.

I understand what you're saying mummy but I think what in trying to explain is that if you're looking for a young person who loves going out and drinking and clubs great yet a lot is being asked of those people in terms of responsibility.

If it's working it is great though of course.

daisy she has the choice of resigning if that is a deal-breaker for her. The employer may find that they cannot retain a PA who is willing to do that for them, and that is their risk.

I think most young people like going out drinking and clubbing, and many of them also hold down responsible jobs. These out mutually exclusive things, in my experience.

Grr typos again! outshould be aren't!

I don't agree that being responsible only comes with age, I think its more to do with the right attitude, confidence and being armed with the right tools in the way of training and support.
I wouldn't expect my daughters carers to do anything they weren't comfortable with whatever their age.
If any issues were to arise they would then be discussed with myself, my daughter and the company case manager and a mutually acceptable solution would be sought.

I'm not saying that it does mummy.

But what I'm saying is that the individuals were looking for a particular person and they had to be young. They had to enjoy pubs and clubs and music and festivals and drinking.

But the same person also had to be responsible for quite complex personal needs involving catheters and colostomy bags, hoists and showering and bathing,

They had to be a cook and a cleaner to very high standards (impossibly so in one case) and they had to be a friend, shoulder to cry on. 'Normal' workplace legislation regarding smoking, breaks and the like don't apply.

That's a lot to ask of anyone especially someone still in their teens.

So what do you think should happen then?

Should a young disabled person not go out and do the things other teenagers enjoy with the person of their choice just because people like you think its too much to ask for support?
Being a carer may not be the best paid job but as far as I know its not like national service. Carers have a choice too. Nobody is forcing them to do anything.

I'm quite shocked. Glad you linked to the Community Care article. What happens to a carer who refuses to support a client in using prostitutes? I would think it's certainly the carer's right to refuse, but I bet agencies and employers aren't going to see it that way. What if she needs to sign on - is she going to be deemed to have made herself unemployed?

The lack of training & support referred to in the article was beyond depressing.

So what do you think should happen then? Should a young disabled person not go out and do the things other teenagers enjoy ...?

The rest of us (I'm old and disabled) have to muddle along as best we can. There should be more suitable group availability for those of us who want social lives, whatever our ages.

I agree with OP that asking one person to deliver the entire package is unreasonable & unhealthy. In normally-able life, we accept that anyone expecting another person to be their 'everything' is unreasonably demanding, and that this will hurt the other person. Same here.

What I'm saying mummy is I think compromise might be needed.

If you're expecting someone to drink heavily with you and then change a catheter I think there is a safety issue, or at least potentially one - and they were clear they wanted someone to be a friend as well as carer.

Carers obviously have a choice, but with the girl and Amsterdam, it wasn't made clear to her when she accepted the job that she might have to accompany him to a brothel (she didn't by the way) but she was obviously uncomfortable walking round a red light district with him. Yet she had no sympathy whatsoever from anyone.

I definitely think people should have free choice but I also feel some workplace legislation should apply. No one should be pressured to drink, or break the law in their line of work.

garlick a carer would have the right to refuse such things and if they are employed by an agency they would still be employed but not linked to that particular service user.
Lots of issues can arise between clients and carers which means they aren't compatable it doesn't automatically mean you are out of a job.
I'm not sure what would happen if you were employed directly by the disabled person but presumably you would have some protection from unfair dismissal under the conditions of direct payments.

I didn't watch the programme and am only speaking from my own experiences.
My daughters package is commissioned through continuing care and is closely managed and regularly assessed by a team of professionals.
One person doesn't provide the package, a team does on a shift rota. Some procedures require two carers according to the risk assessment. Some things don't. No one is overworked or treated unfairly.
I'm guessing that this programme, from what you have said was probably not about someone in our situation or possibly even exaggerated and hyped up for good TV so I won't comment further.

That isn't direct payments then, is it? :)

I said I wouldn't comment further but I am struggling to understand exactly what your argument is. Originally it was wether it was ageist to request someone young. Now your talking about safe working conditions and how carers are managed and paid. I have only ever once briefly looked into direct payments and what I understood is that I would be officially the employer and be responsible for the same things as a regular employer is (with advice and support from a specialist company if required) and would be monitored by the local authority to make sure the money was being used appropriately.
So if that is the case wouldn't the carer also be protected by the same employment laws as someone who worked elsewhere regarding working conditions, safety etc?
I think I maybe need to watch the programme to get it.

That's exactly what I'm asking mummy.

If it is direct payments and the carer is the employer, then I can understand they want a certain 'type' but to stipulate age, demand someone drinks alcoholic drinks with them, insist on supporting them partaking in activities which are dubious morally, that surely isn't right?

Yet the programme indicated it is.

Why is it dubious morally for a person age 18+ to be asked to enjoy a drinking atmosphere?

what is "young" anyway? I'm 47 & that wouldn't put me off applying if I wanted the job. If heavy drinking was required then I would look for employment elsewhere.

Sounds like good work experience for DD when she's 18.

I didn't say 'enjoy a drinking atmosphere' though - the expectation was very clear that the successful applicant would be expected to participate in drinking. One explicitly said 'I want (my carer) to get hammered with me.'

I don't doubt it was a bit of humour but nonetheless how safe would you be supporting them into bed after a night with a few drinks? Would it be a cause for dismissal if you became teetotal? What if your carer got pregnant?

And drinking isn't dubiously moral in this country but paying for sex is.

daisy I think you might be over-thinking this.

For the young disabled people they are at the start of acquiring the experience of living adult life with a PA. They will probably learn that some of the things they think now were not quite right in hindsight and alter their behaviour. Same as any other young person embarking on adult life. Mistakes will be made and hopefully learned from.

The young PAs will do the same.

I would imagine that the PA would not be expected to help the person to bed while they were both hammered. Assuming that this isn't something happening every night of the week, there would be lots of ways that could be achieved - having one of the other (sober) PAs do the assisting to bed that night, or perhaps a family member.

One of the main points of direct payments is that they do allow more flexibility for people to just get on with their lives, and to be the ones in control of the risks that they are taking, and making their own mistakes.

Paying for sex is legal in Amsterdam. We all have different morals, but the PA is not being asked to do something illegal.

I just don't think that's an appropriate thing to ask of anybody to be honest but putting a teenage girl in the position where she felt forced to walk round a red light district with someone can't be right.

I would think that was an unreasonable expectation if my employer asked me to do this.

OP what exactly is your question because your first post was wether it is legal to stipulate an age group when advertising a job?
Now your issue is wether its ok for an employer to expect you to visit a red light district.

I'm wondering whether employment laws and legislation covers direct payments and people employed by them.

yourself.

daisy of course direct payments and people employed by the, are covered by employment laws and legislation.

Try turning your implied question around from whether it is okay for an employer to expect you to visit a red light district to, is it okay for somebody whose role is to enable you to have equal access to all aspects of life to determine what you may or may not do?

You seem to be forgetting that there are lots of jobs that would not suit absolutely anybody. And that is okay.

You also seem to be ignoring the many jobs that many people would feel raised moral/ethical issues. How do you feel about people who work at pay day loan companies, for example?