Its your responsibility to look after yourself?

Novella · 14-09-2011 06:46PM

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 · 14-09-2011 06:47PM

Joe Duffy causes depression:(

Temptamperu · 14-09-2011 06:49PM

tan11ie wrote: »

Joe Duffy causes depression:(

Listening to Joe gave me my first nervous breakdown

tan11ie · 14-09-2011 06:52PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

Listening to Joe gave me my first nervous breakdown

He should come with a mental health warning!

Princess Peach · 14-09-2011 06:54PM

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 · 14-09-2011 07:00PM

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 · 14-09-2011 07:03PM

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 · 14-09-2011 07:09PM

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 · 15-09-2011 05:39AM

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.

15-09-2011 08:43AM

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 · 15-09-2011 11:30AM

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.

15-09-2011 11:45AM

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 · 15-09-2011 12:02PM

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.

15-09-2011 12:37PM

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 · 15-09-2011 12:37PM

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 · 15-09-2011 12:45PM

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?

15-09-2011 12:51PM

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 · 15-09-2011 01:01PM

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 · 15-09-2011 01:03PM

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 · 15-09-2011 01:14PM

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.

Pdfile · 15-09-2011 01:14PM

gargleblaster wrote: »

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.

until its too late.

AeoNGriM · 15-09-2011 01:23PM

Snakeblood wrote: »

4 hours on the holodeck with the females of your choice.

I'd fire myself out into space buy that for a dollar!.

FYP

Teyla Emmagan · 15-09-2011 02:08PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

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.

Well I have frick all sympathy for him right at the moment. If you have a problem, sort it out!!!

sheesh · 15-09-2011 04:52PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

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.

thanks alot for that. I truely hope you see the harsh side of the situation you have outlined above.

In ireland you will not get fired for being depressed you get fired for something else its very easy to get a hr record for someone and then set them up to be removed. and thats in the large companies with hr. In smaller companies you are just let go.

bucketybuck · 15-09-2011 05:02PM

sheesh wrote: »

thanks alot for that. I truely hope you see the harsh side of the situation you have outlined above.

In ireland you will not get fired for being depressed you get fired for something else its very easy to get a hr record for someone and then set them up to be removed. and thats in the large companies with hr. In smaller companies you are just let go.

I find that if you turn up and do your job as agreed in your contract of employment that you are at much less risk of being let go for any reason.

sheesh · 15-09-2011 05:47PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

I find that if you turn up and do your job as agreed in your contract of employment that you are at much less risk of being let go for any reason.

and what happens if you are sick?

bucketybuck · 15-09-2011 05:55PM

sheesh wrote: »

and what happens if you are sick?

And what happens if you just dont feel like it?

I have already stated more than once in this thread that I feel the burden should be shifted to the individual and the welfare state as opposed to the independent business, so please don't try for the gotchas.

sheesh · 15-09-2011 10:52PM

Its not a 'gotcha' A person works for a company, they get sick, how the company treats that person will be noted by the sick persons co-workers.

I hate to break it to you but when a co-worker becomes ill and is treated harshly by their employer it has an effect on the other workers this will have an effect on the business increased stress on the workers, possible loss of key personnel who no longer want to work for that kind of company. remember its the good ones that will leave first as they will be able to leave quicker.

Also have you ever heard of health insurance?

unfollowing thread.

Mike 1972 · 15-09-2011 10:58PM

mariaalice wrote: »

I was listing to Joe Duffy, I know I shouldn't, anyway if you suffer from depression

TBH If youre suffering from depression my first piece of advice would be to stop listening to Joe Duffy.

Kooki · 16-09-2011 12:47AM

I can’t believe some people saying they would feel resentment towards co-workers who had to take time off due to depression. Would you feel as resentful if they took time off for cancer?

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).

- After about two years suffering with crippling depression I was on the verge of suicide & was still determined to carry on working – go figure, I know theres no logic! My counsellor and doctor both said I just have to stop and go sick for a while – I couldn’t bear the thought of anyone in work knowing that I was depressed or how bad it was, part of what made it worse was the struggle to hide it all the time. I was signed off work with ‘stress’ – that little word gives absolutely no insight whatsoever to the depth of depression I was at. How many stories do you hear of suicides and they’re work colleagues saying they’d no idea they were battling depression.

Employers should absolutely have ‘some’ responsibility for all employees for all illnesses, to a reasonable extent. Same with maternity or compassionate leave etc. There needs to be the correct balance of protection for both the employer and employee. But that’s the problem with depression, it’s not visible or there are no medical tests so people who haven’t experienced it don’t understand it and think it’s the persons own fault and pull themselves together, and then again, it’s open to abuse if someone wants to take some time off all they need to say is suffering from stress.

bucketybuck wrote: »

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.

- That’s the reason there are laws in place, so that people like you don’t get to ‘decide’ if it suits you personally. A woman has a right to work and job security and the right alongside side that to choose if she wants a baby. Businesses don’t like what affects their profit margins and would prefer if their staff were robots rather than human beings. So when times are good and your making loads of money, does that get spread out amongst the workers? Doubt it.

Its your responsibility to look after yourself?

Comments