this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
125 points (97.0% liked)

Academia

970 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] th3dogcow@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Thank you for the long and courteous reply. This is why I love it here.

Sorry I conflated who I was replying to.

What you said made sense. I guess it could be likened to lying on a travel insurance application form. Declaring that you're medically well, but then requiring treatment abroad. You wouldn't be covered.

As for my strange word choice, I meant deported (I was tired).

The ten day thing (which after researching is actually 14 days) is a requirement of the visa holder, but I thought companies were obligated to do it. Maybe they don't have to? I know for a fact the company which I work for does. 

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Thank you for the long and courteous reply. This is why I love it here.

The same. I learned a lot and am grateful to have had the chance to discuss this topic with someone clearly knowledgable on it.

As for my strange word choice, I meant deported (I was tired).
Sorry I conflated who I was replying to.

No worries. All cleared up now.

The ten day thing (which after researching is actually 14 days) is a requirement of the visa holder,

Ahh yes, that matches with the sources above that I found then.

but I thought companies were obligated to do it. Maybe they don’t have to? I know for a fact the company which I work for does. 

Yeah, that makes sense. I certainly didn't see anything suggesting that companies were forbidden from reporting this, or that Japan Immigration was not allowed to act on such reports (as would be the case in Canada, for example).

What you said made sense. I guess it could be likened to lying on a travel insurance application form. Declaring that you’re medically well, but then requiring treatment abroad. You wouldn’t be covered.

Yep, exactly this.

[–] th3dogcow@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Going back to an earlier point you mentioned about the yearly medical exam required by companies. Companies are required by law to have their employees take a yearly medical exam. The employee is not technically required to (but if too few employees attend it will get the company in hot water). Also, you can refuse any part of the exam if you so wish.

Anyway, my point is that there is no mental health exam in this yearly checkup. They are the most basic of basic things (you can opt for more extensive testing at your own expense). Apart from the questionnaire which has some questions like "how well do you sleep" etc.

It's no wonder mental health is a huge problem in this country, which is still mostly being swept under the carpet. Health insurance doesn't cover the cost of therapy, only the cost of a diagnosis and drugs.

Sorry to get off topic but this is a big annoyance I have as I know people affected by these issues, too.

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sorry to get off topic but this is a big annoyance I have as I know people affected by these issues, too.

Happy to take part in discussions like these. I think everyone knows someone who's been affected by the issues at hand. Also, I think the comments are deep enough now that others wouldn't necessarily see any off topic discussion here..

Going back to an earlier point you mentioned about the yearly medical exam required by companies. Companies are required by law to have their employees take a yearly medical exam.

Hmm, is this all employees now (including Japanese nationals and special permanent residents)? Or just the foreign nationals working for the Japanese company in Japan?

The employee is not technically required to

If it was for all employees, then I'd still wonder if the foreign national could get in trouble with Immigration for taking the exam.

(but if too few employees attend it will get the company in hot water).

So the employees are fine to refuse the exam, but the company would be incentivised to get them to take it. I hope that they're only allowed to use the carrot (using positive incentives like gift giving or granting benefits) and not the stick (negative incentives like threatening termination for not taking the exam).

Also, you can refuse any part of the exam if you so wish.

But I wonder also how that ties into the above - if hypothetically every employee in the company takes the exam but every employee refuses the same part of the exam, is the company still in trouble? Or is the checkbox merely "N employees took the medical" with the finer details not mattering as much?

[–] th3dogcow@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

All employees no matter their nationality are to take yearly medicals. The results are shared only with a company appointed doctor. One reason is so that the company can implement changes if there is a pattern of bad health. Like if their workers are unfit, they might start a fitness program, or education program etc.

If a diagnosis from the examination comes back as needing more attention, you will be directed to do so (but you can ignore these, too if it is not severe).

If there is something majorly wrong that would affect your work, the company doctor would have to notify the company.

As for everyone attending and refusing all tests, I doubt that would happen. Some are very basic like height and weight, hearing and so on. But I doubt believe that attendance is what is counted, not what tests were or were not taken. Again, opinion only.

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

All employees no matter their nationality are to take yearly medicals. The results are shared only with a company appointed doctor. One reason is so that the company can implement changes if there is a pattern of bad health. Like if their workers are unfit, they might start a fitness program, or education program etc.

So far this sounds reasonable and makes a lot of sense.

If a diagnosis from the examination comes back as needing more attention, you will be directed to do so (but you can ignore these, too if it is not severe).

Ah, so basically the same as if just seeing my own personal family doctor.

If there is something majorly wrong that would affect your work, the company doctor would have to notify the company.

Ah, so the exact opposite of seeing my own personal family doctor. And I assume it's not an anonymous report (you have X people working for you who have Y disease which will affect your business) but an identifying one (abff08f4813c has Y disease which you need to know about). Which leads to why someone might attend but refuse one or a few specific tests...

Some are very basic like height and weight, hearing and so on.

Well, even this - if I have that job which requires me to be under a certain weight, and I know that I just recently gained a few above. So I refuse that part to avoid getting it reported to my company. Or if I know my hearing has gotten worse (say due to a checkup I had with an overseas doctor) where excellent and superior hearing is a requirement for the job, same deal.

As for everyone attending and refusing all tests, I doubt that would happen.

Agreed. I didn't mean all, but just some. Perhaps like the one specific test involving needles to check blood (maybe this would happen due to a fear of contaminated needles based on a hypothetical recent incident?). But you answered below - if it's just attendance that's being counted, then the specific nature of this kind of refusal wouldn't matter so much.

But I ...[doubly].. believe that attendance is what is counted, not what tests were or were not taken.

That makes sense. It's probably hard in practice to require a company get N number of employees to take a specific test (and prove it was done) while attendance is easier to count, so attendance is used as a proxy that enough employees are getting checked for the necessary things and being found in good health.

Again, opinion only.

Well, these are facts - meaning that they're fact-checkable. We might not be entirely sure of the answers to some of these and perhaps have to make guesses or speculate, but unlike opinions a fact like "(In Japan) attendance is what is counted" for example can in principle be checked and confirmed as right or wrong, which is not the case for a true opinion.

[–] th3dogcow@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ah, so basically the same as if just seeing my own personal family doctor.

Yep. But in Japan there is no such thing as a family doctor or GP. Closest is a doctor of internal medicine naika

Ah, so the exact opposite of seeing my own personal family doctor. And I assume it's not an anonymous report (you have X people working for you who have Y disease which will affect your business) but an identifying one (abff08f4813c has Y disease which you need to know about). Which leads to why someone might attend but refuse one or a few specific tests...

Were it so serious, you would be identified and put on leave or whatever was deemed appropriate for the circumstances. It would not be anonymous but compartmentalised.

As it so happens I just got the email from my company about the medical check. It needs to be conducted by the end of October. In more populous areas, mobile clinics (think RV buses) will be brought to offices to conduct the exams.

Yep. But in Japan there is no such thing as a family doctor or GP. Closest is a doctor of internal medicine naika

Interesting. In fact there's quite a bit of difference between the two, https://mana.md/whats-the-difference-between-a-general-practitioner-and-an-internist/

But there's also already concern that we're running out of GPs in other countries, e.g. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/oma-declining-number-medical-school-students-family-medicine-1.7182901 - so perhaps this is just a glimpse of the future.

Were it so serious, you would be identified and put on leave or whatever was deemed appropriate for the circumstances. It would not be anonymous but compartmentalised.

That's not as bad, but it's still a case of an employer knowing far more about my medical health than I'm used to.

In more populous areas, mobile clinics (think RV buses) will be brought to offices to conduct the exams.

Interesting idea. Would certainly make it easier to get it done when the clinic is brought to you.

As it so happens I just got the email from my company about the medical check. It needs to be conducted by the end of October.

Good luck!