Its your responsibility to look after yourself?

I was listing to Joe Duffy, I know I shouldn't, anyway if you suffer from depression do you think your employer has any responsibility to take that in to account as regards your work, do you think employers have a responsibility to work round you, put you on less stressful work etc or do you think no if you have depression and cant work to your full ability or need support to do your job then you should be on sick leave till you are better?

gargleblaster

However it's dealt with on Star Trek, that's what we should do.

Snakeblood

mariaalice wrote: »

I was listing to Joe Duffy, I know I shouldn't, anyway if you suffer from depression do you think your employer has any responsibility to take that in to account as regards your work, do you think employers have a responsibility to work round you, put you on less stressful work etc or do you think no if you have depression and cant work to your full ability or need support to do your job then you should be on sick leave till you are better?

Both situations the employers is taking care of you though. It' sjust one, you are in the office and the other you are at home, either way you are getting paid.

Probably what should happen though is that the employer reduces hours or whatever to make what you are doing more manageable, if the job is part of the problem.

kfallon

If you suffer from depression I don't think you should/would/could be in work!

Snakeblood

gargleblaster wrote: »

However it's dealt with on Star Trek, that's what we should do.

4 hours on the holodeck with that weird kid learning about the magic of the world.

I'd fire myself out into space.

stupidusername

It's a tough one.i dont know that any employer really has that responsibility. My boss is good enough,but probably only because I can work from home sometimes.as a result I tend not to take advantage

gargleblaster

kfallon wrote: »

If you suffer from depression I don't think you should/would/could be in work!

Ah no, mild depression can linger for decades. Not all cases are full-blown and debilitating. Many sufferers have episodes that come and go, and manage to be able to mask their symptoms when they're depressed, so that most around them would never know.

I love star track although I wasn't mad on the series with the ferengi in it my partner reckons that the ferengi were in fact scoucers ( apologies to any scoucers on here.)

mikom

gargleblaster wrote: »

However it's dealt with on Star Trek, that's what we should do.

Set phasers to fun.

hondasam

mariaalice wrote: »

I was listing to Joe Duffy, I know I shouldn't, anyway if you suffer from depression do you think your employer has any responsibility to take that in to account as regards your work, do you think employers have a responsibility to work round you, put you on less stressful work etc or do you think no if you have depression and cant work to your full ability or need support to do your job then you should be on sick leave till you are better?

Depends on when the depression started, if the employer knew and agreed it would be taken into consideration.
I would not expect any employer to agree to long term sickness.

If you had a broken leg and you were able to do some of your job but not all of it. Do you think it should be taken into consideration? If there was work you could do with your broken leg, would it be fair of your employer not to allow you to do that work?

There are lots of different circumstances that can't possibly all be accounted for but in general, I think that if you can accommodate someone who is ill then why not.

EverEvolving

Surely each situation would be different and dependent on the type of job. If someone suffered anxiety and could do something non customer facing but could still work then isn't this the solution for the interim period anyway?

If an employee had diabetes wouldn't the employer have to make allowances for meal times etc?

Snakeblood

mariaalice wrote: »

I love star track although I wasn't mad on the series with the ferengi in it my partner reckons that the ferengi were in fact scourers ( apologies to any scourers on here.)

What's a scourer?

I thought they were caricatures of intergalactic space jews, based off them being obsessed with gold\whatever they called it and resembling Nosferatu in the 1922 movie, which was based off a jewish stereotype, apparently.

Look here's a thing on wikipedia:
In the book Religions of Star Trek, Ross S. Kraemer wrote that "Ferengi religion seems almost a parody of traditional Judaism... Critics have pointed out a disturbing correlation between Ferengi attributes (love of profit that overrides communal decency; the large, sexualized head feature, in this case ears) and negative Jewish stereotypes."[12] Commentator Jonah Goldberg wrote that Ferengi were portrayed in The Next Generation as "runaway capitalists with bullwhips who looked like a mix between Nazi caricatures of Jews and the original Nosferatu."[13] Four of the most notable Ferengi characters, Quark, Nog, Rom and Zek, are played by Jewish actors Armin Shimerman, Aron Eisenberg, Max Grodénchik and Wallace Shawn.[

Although I wouldn't recommend reading the book because it's by or about startrek

gargleblaster

Snakeblood wrote: »

What's a scourer?

I thought she said scouser.

I think as long as it wasn't impacting in any big way on my business or if it wasn't causing resentment among the other people that worked there then yes employers should be supportive.

I cant spell anyone who follows my threads must know that by now:) I like to think I make sense most of the time but maybe I don't.

Snakeblood

mariaalice wrote: »

I cant spell anyone who follows my threads must know that by now:) I like to think I make sense most of the time but maybe I don't.

It's ok, but did you mean scouser?

Wertz

mariaalice wrote: »

I was listing to Joe Duffy

Being drunk certainly helps.

yes

hondasam

mariaalice wrote: »

I think as long as it wasn't impacting in any big way on my business or if it wasn't causing resentment among the other people that worked there then yes employers should be supportive.

What do you mean by supportive, pay them while they are of sick or working part time. This would cause resentment and rightly so.

Well they would get what ever the sick pay policy was then they would be on sick benefit because I don't think an employer would be able to pay some one indefinitely, another thing I would be looking for was that they were having treatment and engaging with the treatment.

hondasam

mariaalice wrote: »

Well they would get what ever the sick pay policy was then they would be on sick benefit because I don't think an employer would be able to pay some one indefinitely, another thing I would be looking for was that they were having treatment and engaging with the treatment.

Who would do their job while this was going on ?
how long could it go on for?

A I don't know its very difficult question to answer I suppose you cant endless support people.


Someone has written a book about the religions of star track:eek:!!!

Temptamperu

As someone with depression myself, I think we should kill all the people with depression.

hondasam

mariaalice wrote: »

A I don't know its very difficult question to answer I suppose you cant endless support people.


Someone has written a book about the religions of star track:eek:!!!

What was the feedback on Joe Duffy, did most callers feel workers should be supported, what was Joe's take on it?

stupidusername

Temptamperu wrote: »

As someone with depression myself, I think we should kill all the people with depression.

Interesting.

If I stay at home due to low mood, I do my best to get work done, though it is very hard to concentrate most of the time.

Wattle

I really don't see why depression should be treated any different from other illnesses. At it's worst it is a very disabling condition. I agree with a previous poster that the person who is ill should be engaged in an active treatment program. Medication and counselling have a part to play but mostly people recover in time through their own efforts.

discus

mariaalice wrote: »

I was listing to Joe Duffy, I know I shouldn't, anyway if you suffer from depression do you think your employer has any responsibility to take that in to account as regards your work, do you think employers have a responsibility to work round you, put you on less stressful work etc or do you think no if you have depression and cant work to your full ability or need support to do your job then you should be on sick leave till you are better?

I was listening to todays programme.

I wasn't impressed with the caller who's story you are describing. She was quite evasive about her experience in the workplace, and was contradictory in places.

She said:
(a)Her colleagues didn't know that she had depression/any illness yet
(b)she claimed that her line manager would know that she had depression, and aluded that being placed on office work is indication that someone has an illness. Surely that would mean that
(c) there are a proportion of staff there who are all have some sort of need to be taken off the beat, for medical/psychological reasons.

Fact is, her management did their best for her. They took her off the beat and put her on a 9-5 office position. How much further could they go? Get a locum garda to cover her office position, and another for the beat position she left unoccupied?

bucketybuck

An employer is giving you money to carry out tasks for them. Why on earth should an employer also have to give you money when you are not carrying out tasks for them?

Society has decided to help people suffering sickness with certain payments and social welfare, fair enough, but why on earth is it the employers problem if you cannot keep up your end of the contract?

It annoys my head people wanting employers to work around their personal problems. "Oh, I should get time off, or be allowed to change my schedules...". What a load of crap. The employer is prepared to give you money to do a job, if you cannot do it thats your lookout.

stupidusername

That's fair enough bucketybuck, but that leads us to the problem of how people with illnesses are to support themselves?

Wattle

bucketybuck wrote: »

An employer is giving you money to carry out tasks for them. Why on earth should an employer also have to give you money when you are not carrying out tasks for them?

Society has decided to help people suffering sickness with certain payments and social welfare, fair enough, but why on earth is it the employers problem if you cannot keep up your end of the contract?

It annoys my head people wanting employers to work around their personal problems. "Oh, I should get time off, or be allowed to change my schedules...". What a load of crap. The employer is prepared to give you money to do a job, if you cannot do it thats your lookout.

Fair enough we do need to sort out the malingerers from the genuine cases.

Would you say that maternity leave should be unpaid?

Novella

mariaalice wrote: »

I was listing to Joe Duffy, I know I shouldn't, anyway if you suffer from depression do you think your employer has any responsibility to take that in to account as regards your work, do you think employers have a responsibility to work round you, put you on less stressful work etc or do you think no if you have depression and cant work to your full ability or need support to do your job then you should be on sick leave till you are better?

What if there's a possibility you won't ever get 'better'? Some people are simply more prone to being depressed than others and will go through periods of it throughout their lifetime, so while they might function perfectly well at one stage, a time could come when they can't.

I guess I think an employer should be understanding of that, but only in so far as we all go through bad patches. It wouldn't be fair to consistently treat one employee differently. Realistically, if one person cannot do a certain job to the standard that is required, I don't think they should do it at all.

tan11ie

Joe Duffy causes depression:(

Temptamperu

tan11ie wrote: »

Joe Duffy causes depression:(

Listening to Joe gave me my first nervous breakdown

tan11ie

Temptamperu wrote: »

Listening to Joe gave me my first nervous breakdown

He should come with a mental health warning!

Princess Peach

I never told my employers. I know there are times when I couldn't work to my ful ability because of my depression and they probably would have gone easier on me if they knew why, but it still never entered my head to tell them.

Its not something I talk to many people about it, let alone my employers who aren't friends if you get me.

Its a tough one. I know in my mind I say I wouldn't want to be treated any easier because of my illness, but there are days when I just wish people would be a little more considerate. But people should be considerate of anyone having a hard time, let alone if they have a diagnosed illness.

I would be worried that if employers knew it might possibly threaten possible job development and promotion.

bucketybuck

Wattle wrote: »

Fair enough we do need to sort out the malingerers from the genuine cases.

Would you say that maternity leave should be unpaid?

I don't pretend to have all the answers, maternity is a vital part of society and should be protected. But yes, I do have a problem with maternity leave as it currently operates.

Currently businesses all over the world are having to basically double up on positions, and pay twice as much as they need to, simply because women decide to have a child. If I wanted to go traveling, I would not expect a company to keep my job, pay somebody else to do it for twelve months, then let me waltz back in while they figure out what to do with my erstwhile replacement. This is a very real problem for small businesses, who are struggling with expertise and local knowledge as well as the very real wage costs.

In my opinion, women on maternity leave should not have such a protected status. If you decide to have a baby, then in effect you are deciding to leave your job. That is your decision and businesses should not have to suffer for it.

If you want to have a baby, then quit your job. On the flip side, because I realise the importance of procreation, one suggestion would be to increase the level of support from the social welfare side, with better facilities for childcare, back to work training for young mothers, etc etc. This may be an increased cost for social welfare, but the overall benefit to the economy of releasing companies from the maternity handcuffs would compensate for this in the long term.

Wattle

You've got to be very very careful about who you tell. Some people will use it against you. Mental health problems really push some people's buttons.

iguana

Within reason. Depression is an illness and like all illnesses leeway must be given when possible. However if it becomes clear that long-term the depressed person can no longer function as an employee then the employer can only do so much and eventually they should be free to terminate the employment.

I had a colleague a few years back who had a guy on her team who suffered from depression for 7 years. He literally came into work just under half the time. Most of the time when he was out sick he didn't call in to let anyone know he was staying off. His managers never knew if he was just late or wasn't going to be in and he'd never answer his phone when called. They'd just have to work out by about 10.30 each morning that he wouldn't be in. They could never plan anything at work which depended on him. And his colleagues and boss all had to pick up the slack for him. It was a dreadful situation.

Initially they were sympathetic to him and the company provided counselling sessions for him. After 18 months of his attendance being like that they brought him in for a meeting and heavily suggested he job share so he could do 18 hours a week instead of 36. He refused because as long as he was officially full-time he was getting paid for all of the days he was off but if he job-shared his salary would half. He made a lot of hints about suing for discrimination if they tried to change his job to part-time. It took years of involvement of the legal team to eventually make it possible to refuse to pay him for a day's work if he didn't call in sick by 9.30am because he fought it as discrimination every step of the way.

Wattle

iguana wrote: »

Within reason. Depression is an illness and like all illnesses leeway must be given when possible. However if it becomes clear that long-term the depressed person can no longer function as an employee then the employer can only do so much and eventually they should be free to terminate the employment.

I had a colleague a few years back who had a guy on her team who suffered from depression for 7 years. He literally came into work just under half the time. Most of the time when he was out sick he didn't call in to let anyone know he was staying off. His managers never knew if he was just late or wasn't going to be in and he'd never answer his phone when called. They'd just have to work out by about 10.30 each morning that he wouldn't be in. They could never plan anything at work which depended on him. And his colleagues and boss all had to pick up the slack for him. It was a dreadful situation.

Initially they were sympathetic to him and the company provided counselling sessions for him. After 18 months of his attendance being like that they brought him in for a meeting and heavily suggested he job share so he could do 18 hours a week instead of 36. He refused because as long as he was officially full-time he was getting paid for all of the days he was off but if he job-shared his salary would half. He made a lot of hints about suing for discrimination if they tried to change his job to part-time. It took years of involvement of the legal team to eventually make it possible to refuse to pay him for a day's work if he didn't call in sick by 9.30am because he fought it as discrimination every step of the way.

I agree with you there. The guy obviously was not pulling his weight when it came to the responsibility of getting himself well.

But I also know people who are terrified to ever mention that they have issues with depression in the workplace. I think the culture needs to change in some areas.

I don't mean this to be insulting to anyone and I am normally a mild mannered person, but the people who are equating mental health difficulties to a broken leg ect are talking rubbish imo, and are being patronizing to people with mental health issues. Its pc rubbish gone mad

A broken leg has a defined start, you broke your leg had treatment hobbled around for a while, the broken bone healed the end. Depression rarely presents and cures like that.

If you have mental health difficulties ( note I said difficulties/ issues not mental illness/ problems I can be pc too:D ) The treatment will be contested by a lot of people, there is a huge weight of history/sociological thought and research around mental health issues. There are self help and advocacy groups involves in mental health and so on.

Mental health difficulties are different form physical illness for employers to deal with.

bucketybuck

mariaalice wrote: »

Mental health difficulties are different form physical illness for employers to deal with.

Why should they have to deal with them at all? They are the employees problem, not the employers.

Because we live in a society that has decided that paying prsi and subsequently calming illness benefit when you need it is a good idea and is a social good.

bucketybuck

mariaalice wrote: »

Because we live in a society that has decided that paying prsi and subsequently calming illness benefit when you need it is a good idea and is a social good.

I asked about employers, not the state.

There are lot of laws that I don't agree with but I have to obey them because I live in Ireland, that's why employers have to obey the law as well.

Carter P Fly

Ive suffered with depression for years, It comes in waves but Ive always worked and done the job I was paid to do.

If you cannot work because of it you explain it to your boss and either work around it by reducing your hrs or whatnot or if that is not suitable you resign.

Expecting your boss to pay you for work not done is against my work ethics.

Depression sucks but its your personal issue which needs you to get treatment and sort out, its not anyone elses problem in my opinion.

bucketybuck

mariaalice wrote: »

There are lot of laws that I don't agree with but I have to obey them because I live in Ireland, that's why employers have to obey the law as well.

What exactly is your point here? I don't think anybody has advocated breaking the law?

your getting very pedantic! If the law says that someone who has a sick cert from a doctor and cant work is entitled not to be fired for being sick then an employers has to go along with that, that's all.

bucketybuck

mariaalice wrote: »

your getting very pedantic! If the law says that someone who has a sick cert from a doctor and cant work is entitled not to be fired for being sick then an employers has to go along with that, that's all.

I am not trying to be pedantic, I just prefer to stay very focused on what I am discussing, which was the area of employers responsibility towards non-productive employees.

Its quite obvious that I disagree with the law as it currently stands (though obviously it still must be adhered to). The country is full of people getting sick certificates for nebulous reasons while already stretched businesses have to struggle on carrying some dead weight. I would prefer the burden for non-productive workers to fall on the welfare state, which would allow the business sector to concentrate on surviving and expanding. Don't forget, it is the success of the commercial sector that will get us out of recession, not the success in helping a minority fight their own demons.

Teyla Emmagan

One of the guys on the project I'm working on is after calling in sick for 2 weeks. He took 6 weeks off earlier in the year (stress). And now the same again. Now that's all fine but I cannot even describe the situation it has put us in. The rest of us (understaffed, flat out already and in all hours) now have to take on his workload as well. And fine, if you suffer from stress, you suffer from it. I do myself, but have found a way to handle it so I don't leave my employer or my colleagues in the lurch when it's bad. We have a big go live this weekend so need all hands on deck. It can't be pushed out, and there's no time to bring anyone else on board. And this guy was already given the easiest jobs of all to accommodate his situation. I don't know the full details of his life etc, but from here it just looks like he's not taking responsibility for his problem.

bucketybuck

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

One of the guys on the project I'm working on is after calling in sick for 2 weeks. He took 6 weeks off earlier in the year (stress). And now the same again. Now that's all fine but I cannot even describe the situation it has put us in. The rest of us (understaffed, flat out already and in all hours) now have to take on his workload as well. And fine, if you suffer from stress, you suffer from it. I do myself, but have found a way to handle it so I don't leave my employer or my colleagues in the lurch when it's bad. We have a big go live this weekend so need all hands on deck. It can't be pushed out, and there's no time to bring anyone else on board. And this guy was already given the easiest jobs of all to accommodate his situation. I don't know the full details of his life etc, but from here it just looks like he's not taking responsibility for his problem.

I can never help but think that if we had the same system as many American states, that of a policy of "At-will", that situations like this would simply not happen. I suspect this person would soon suck it up and get back to work if he was at real risk of having his umbilical cord cut.

The fact is our current system encourages people like this to magnify any real or imagined problems, knowing all the while that they will have very few real consequences. Not enjoying your work? Claim stress and take a few weeks off, let others do your work for you. Ain't that nice.

Employers are held hostage to people as described above. and that should not be.