Its your responsibility to look after yourself?

14-09-2011 04:18PM #1

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 · 14-09-2011 04:20PM

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

Snakeblood · 14-09-2011 04:21PM

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 · 14-09-2011 04:22PM

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

Snakeblood · 14-09-2011 04:22PM

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 · 14-09-2011 04:27PM

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 · 14-09-2011 04:28PM

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.

14-09-2011 04:28PM

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 · 14-09-2011 04:29PM

gargleblaster wrote: »

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

Set phasers to fun.

hondasam · 14-09-2011 04:30PM

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.

14-09-2011 04:31PM

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 · 14-09-2011 04:32PM

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 · 14-09-2011 04:33PM

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 · 14-09-2011 04:34PM

Snakeblood wrote: »

What's a scourer?

I thought she said scouser.

14-09-2011 04:36PM

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.

14-09-2011 04:38PM

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 · 14-09-2011 04:39PM

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 · 14-09-2011 04:40PM

mariaalice wrote: »

I was listing to Joe Duffy

Being drunk certainly helps.

14-09-2011 04:40PM

yes

hondasam · 14-09-2011 04:46PM

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.

14-09-2011 04:54PM

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 · 14-09-2011 04:56PM

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?

14-09-2011 05:22PM

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 · 14-09-2011 05:26PM

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

hondasam · 14-09-2011 05:26PM

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 · 14-09-2011 05:57PM

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 · 14-09-2011 06:17PM

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 · 14-09-2011 06:22PM

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 · 14-09-2011 06:24PM

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 · 14-09-2011 06:32PM

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

Wattle · 14-09-2011 06:43PM

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?

Its your responsibility to look after yourself?

Comments