Does your employer care about your mental health or should they.

Christy42

Patww79 wrote: »

Of course employees shouldn't care about companies apart from what they're paid to do, and of course they should jump if something better comes along too.

As for the society bit, I won't even bother as you can keep it. There's no 'society'. People are different and need to be responsible for themselves.

Yeah that just does not work. We are a pack animal. We succeeded because we worked together and largely continue to do so. We are all reliant or have been reliant on the good will of others. Some claim bull about self made without listing all those who have taught them so much. We are all reliant on society functioning well. Hence why most first world countries have stuff like healthcare and education built in. Given society most certainly exists I am not sure you can deny it's existence with quote marks btw.

Companies work far better without all employees working to rule and being incredibly demotivated btw. If they want to increase their bottom line that no one cares about anyone attitude will see them sink.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

McCrack

I thought as much

ToddyDoody

Many places have employee assistance programmes to satisfy the legal requirements surrounding work-related stress. I believe there''s quite a few successful law cases regarding work related stress and post traumatic stress disorder too. So legally, the answer is the employer should care.

Whether they care about you or the law is a different question.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Avatar MIA

McCrack wrote: »

I thought as much

Statistically you were far more likely to be right simply based on numbers.

To prove your clairvoyant skills who here do you think IS an employer.

Tick Tock...

touts

I've worked for both multinationals and Irish companies. I'd say there is little difference between them. Both play lip service to stress and mental health but you're basically expected to put in long hours and get the job done and if anyone who can't hack it is shown the door. Worked for one multinational that had a "help line" run by an external company that people could phone in confidence about all sorts of issues. What was discussed on the call was confidential and its main purpose was for an employee who was struggling in life to have someone to talk to. That's about the only programme I've ever seen implemented to help mental health of employees and really it was just outsourcing the problem.

The main difference I've seen is between the sexes. Women are treated far more leniently when it comes to stress. More effort will be made to accommodate the needs of a woman while a man is at best treated with tough love. Many managers try to be a friend to a struggling woman and a sports coach to a struggling man.

anewme

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can see your general point and overall I agree, except for the bits in bold there. It's not ok not to be ok because accepting that it's ok not to be ok makes you a delusional liability to yourself and everyone else around you, including your co-workers. You as an employee have a responsibility to care about yourself as much as an employer has a responsibility to care about you as an employee.

It's that kind of telling people it's ok not to be ok is actually what increases the stigma about ill mental health IMO, because it's lunacy. It's a nonsensical, worthless, simplistic platitude, and I certainly would look twice at someone who came out with that. Generally there's a stigma against mental health everywhere, in every country and every society in the world, and the reason should be bloody obvious - because it's bad! Nobody wants to experience ill mental health, and telling people it's ok not to be ok isn't reducing any stigma, it's treating people like idiots.
co

I disagree.

I was recently in a workshop and I sensed one person was tense. Im not his boss and I don't work with him but I know him for a long time.

After 3 days, I said you don't seem yourself. Is everything alright?

He said he was fine so we went back to work.

After lunch however, he asked could he talk to me.

He said he was struggling and was too ashamed to say that he felt like a fool.

He sent me a lovely mail after and said the starting point was was actually admitting no, everything is not ok and thanks for spotting it.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So employers shouldn't give a damn about their employees' mental wellbeing. OK.

There you go again Prof, putting words in my mouth.

You seem to have had largely positive experiences with employers, and I am genuinely happy to hear that.

However we seem to have different world views and posting styles, so I'm going to respectfully bow out.

Gmol

anewme wrote: »

it's saddening, some of the replies on here show that there is still a stigma attached to mental illness in Ireland.

So, people should just shoulder on with stress and pressure and not burden their employer, even though job pressures may be causing or adding that stress?

An employer has a responsibility towards their employees to provide mentally safe place to work.

"It's ok not to be ok"

In fairness
You've agreed to provide a service for a wage. They have a responsibility to provide a safe workplace. You've agreed to do a job. If this changesit needs to be looked at by both to see if it can continue

Christy42

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Everything will fall into place for the luckiest realistically. Those born with silver spoons or get the right circumstances. Do you really want an unmotivated doctor looking after you when you get sick? How much research funding for things like cancer is down to people's good will? What about even rarer diseases? You want to tell me how you will suddenly replicate all that research if someone in your family gets unlucky?

Actually no that system is more likely to lead to everything falling into place for the few smart enough to work together.

Society has always existed for as long as humans have, denying its existence is silly. Companies abuse this frequently. They should also have to put back into this (to try and bring this back on topic).

anewme

Gmol wrote: »

In fairness
You've agreed to provide a service for a wage. They have a responsibility to provide a safe workplace. You've agreed to do a job. If this changesit needs to be looked at by both to see if it can continue

Putting undue stress on employees such as mentioned in the opening post is not providing a safe workplace.

fergiesfolly

I'd say on the whole, most employers don't care about the mental and emotional state of its workforce.
Some will have box ticking exercises that look good to an external audience, but there is rarely anything concrete behind these efforts.
What they don't seem to realise is that their staff know this and react accordingly. Morale drops, and productivity follows suit. Management will come down hard because of lost revenue, crack the whip, which predictably backfires because the staff resent being treated like battery hens. And so management stage another box ticking morale booster and the cycle continues.

There should be more to the employer/ employee relationship than a payslip and health benefits.
Happy employees work harder, for longer and will go the extra mile, if they think their boss gives a damn about them. This goes from shop floor to senior management, but few employers seem to get this.

Potential-Monke

When I was a Garda, no, definitely not. As much as they like to pretend, they really don't care. It's evident by the fact that there was no counselling services up until a couple of years ago, and even now it's capped to a certain amount per year. And this doesn't include support after a bad incident, where in a lot of other countries you have mandatory counselling after a bad incident.

Avatar MIA

fergiesfolly wrote: »

I'd say on the whole, most employers don't care about the mental and emotional state of its workforce.

When you say employers, you mean people don't you i.e. everybody or do you think for some reason non employees have more claim to empathy?

bucketybuck

Avatar MIA wrote: »

When you say employers, you mean people don't you i.e. everybody or do you think for some reason non employees have more claim to empathy?

It is such a strange mental block when you think about it. Like, who do they think employers are? Robots from the employer factory or something?

Employers are people too, they are you, me, him and her, and have exactly as much empathy and concern for others as everybody else in the general population does.

anewme

Bill Banks wrote: »

I look forward to police officers and bouncers complaining that they don't have a "safe space" to work. I reiterate, many people haven't made the transition from child to adult mentally. There are risks and costs in the real world which can't be avoided, the human resources department is not your mammy.

Do you not realise that staff such as Gardai, Ambulance crews, frontline responders are offered counselling and other support by their employers.

I know a girl working in a hospice and they are offered very strong and kind support from their emoloyer.

It s imperative they are in as best mental health as they can be.

I don't think their employers are trying to be their Mammy.

Alf Veedersane

bucketybuck wrote: »

Employers are people too, they are you, me, him and her, and have exactly as much empathy and concern for others as everybody else in the general population does.

I don't know about that. Plenty of employers see people as 'resources' and make decisions based on numbers. That's fine but when you base it purely on numbers then you remove empathy from the equation.

Sometimes the numbers don't give a true reflection.

Last place I worked in, a new person in charge made a decision that probably saved less than a fiver a week. But it also signalled a petty change in management. It has been one of a couple of similar decisions that says the company doesn't really give a monkeys. Rightly or wrongly, small numbers based decisions look right on paper bit are wrong in practice. People who have left since said that one change for small change was the straw that broke the camel's back. The benefit has been outweighed by the loss in knowledge.

It's not strictly mental health related and it's not necessarily that employers are robots but not all decisions made by numbers are the right ones.

Avatar MIA

^^^ Do employers [people] make mistakes? yes.

Do employees [people] make mistakes? Yes.

Oh, and I'll add an anecdote myself - more than once I've seen an employee leave a company saying they couldn't believe how they were treated or words to that effect, only to come back after a period of time asking if there were any opportunities going. never burn your bridges.

Alf Veedersane

Avatar MIA wrote: »

^^^ Do employers [people] make mistakes? yes.

Do employees [people] make mistakes? Yes.

Oh, and I'll add an anecdote myself - more than once I've seen an employee leave a company saying they couldn't believe how they were treated or words to that effect, only to come back after a period of time asking if there were any opportunities going. never burn your bridges.

I don't disagree. Like I said, I don't ever really expect for them to actually care, per se. But you can certainly make employees feel like you care as easily as you can make them feel like you don't. The results are very different.

The very perception that your boss would care enough if you needed them to is a massive positive for a company.

Richard Hillman

Depends on how valuable you are to the company. If Cristiano Ronaldo or Bill Belichick had mental health issues it would be imperative to the organization that they helped resolve their issues. Otherwise, your issues, your problem. If work places started giving time off willy-nilly to people with stress or personal issues, the cost of living would be obscene, leading to a domino effect into more stress and depression.

fergiesfolly

bucketybuck wrote: »

It is such a strange mental block when you think about it. Like, who do they think employers are? Robots from the employer factory or something?

Employers are people too, they are you, me, him and her, and have exactly as much empathy and concern for others as everybody else in the general population does.

I can imagine employers and people in management positions making a conscious decision to create a gap between themselves and floor staff, so as to keep the relationship on a purely professional standing. Which I can understand because there are times where you'll have to make unpleasant, unpopular decisions and it's harder to do when there's a pally environment.
However, I've come across so many people in management positions that look at their staff as a resource, no more than part of a process, that they cannot/ will not see human inside the uniform. This only acts to alienate the people they work with and create a poor working environment.
I wouldn't expect my employer or manager to be my best mate or a shoulder to cry on. But respect and appreciation for the work done and a realisation that their workforce has as life outside of the workplace should be a minimum.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I think they don't but I think they should. Employees that are pushed too far will break and perform below their peak. That's bad for the company and for staff.

Avatar MIA

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I don't disagree. Like I said, I don't ever really expect for them to actually care, per se. But you can certainly make employees feel like you care as easily as you can make them feel like you don't. The results are very different.

The very perception that your boss would care enough if you needed them to is a massive positive for a company.

Agree with the above as well.

It can be a hard struggle though, sometimes improvements are made and it reinforces a negative attitude. So, it can be very tricky.

Avatar MIA

fergiesfolly wrote: »

However, I've come across so many people in management positions that look at their staff as a resource, no more than part of a process, that they cannot/ will not see human inside the uniform. This only acts to alienate the people they work with and create a poor working environment.

I think you're right about the first part, it's unfortunately necessary AND can be lonely (cue violins).

Don't think the latter point is as prevalent though. Although, I've heard the worst can be those that get promoted from the ranks. I'm not familiar with it much myself, but believe the teaching profession may suffer from this - again, anecdotes.

Alf Veedersane

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Agree with the above as well.

It can be a hard struggle though, sometimes improvements are made and it reinforces a negative attitude. So, it can be very tricky.

I'm speaking from a personal experience...well, not directly, so I can only give those examples. A new member of management started to make changes that really didn't sit well with staff and saved the square root of f**k all.

Early in my career, I came back from leave after my mother had died and the boss called me in. He could have walked by me in the street a week previously and not recognised me. But he told me not to log the time as annual leave and said if I ever needed to get out of the office for my own sake, to just say to my line manager and it would be cool. I never did. But it's the kind of thing that made me give that extra bit any time it might have helped.

I don't think employers are bad people devoid of empathy. Far from it. I've met more good than bad in my career. But I think there are a lot that would be well served by being a bit more conscious of how decisions are received, in some cases, or just to manage things a bit better especially where there isn't really a cost.

The value of making people think you care is underestimated.

Maybe sometimes the right decision has no other way to spin it and it is what it is.

The Rape of Lucretia

They do in so far as it suits them that I remain productive. `Replacing staff is a cost they prefer to avoid. But for me as a person, no. Which is as it should be.

Employers have no, and should have no expectation of having any, responsibility for for your general physical or mental health : other than risks obviously and specifically linked to dangers in a small proportion of jobs - working at heights, firemen, bomb disposal guys, etc.
Life is unhealthy - mentally and physically. There is far to high a tendency these days to want to hold others responsible for anything that is less than perfect in life - particularly if they are corporate or state bodies. Stop expecting others to look after you - your life will be the better for it. (the whole mental health kick itself is getting seriously out of control anyway. Stressed ? Welcome to life).

Tell me how

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

They do in so far as it suits them that I remain productive. `Replacing staff is a cost they prefer to avoid. But for me as a person, no. Which is as it should be.

Employers have no, and should have no expectation of having any, responsibility for for your general physical or mental health : other than risks obviously and specifically linked to dangers in a small proportion of jobs - working at heights, firemen, bomb disposal guys, etc.
Life is unhealthy - mentally and physically. There is far to high a tendency these days to want to hold others responsible for anything that is less than perfect in life - particularly if they are corporate or state bodies. Stop expecting others to look after you - your life will be the better for it. (the whole mental health kick itself is getting seriously out of control anyway. Stressed ? Welcome to life).

Yes. Life is tough. Why make it tougher than it needs to be?

As stated, nobody is stating it should be a responsibility that the employer holds for the mental health of their staff but A, it makes good business sense and B maybe some day they may be the one who benefits from an environment where mental health wellness is supported.

We are all going to die anyway, doesn't mean we don't try to make our time on earth as pleasant as we can while we are here though does it?

Your statement on the whole mental health "kick". Good for you, you've never had to deal with that illness. Hopefully your loved ones haven't either because I don't suspect you'd be much support to them if they did.

Dakota Dan

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Everyone nowadays want to blame someone else for their problems, the world is gone mad or I should say the people in it. Personal responsibility doesn't seem to exist anymore. If someone can't handle their job they should get a different one.

Tell me how

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Everyone nowadays want to blame someone else for their problems, the world is gone mad or I should say the people in it. Personal responsibility doesn't seem to exist anymore. If someone can't handle their job they should get a different one.

Do you believe mental health illness does not exist?

Bambi985

I've a decent insurance plan that covers mental health services, that's as much as I can expect from any employer as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't expect or want my employer to play the part of "compassionate shoulder to lean on" when it comes to my mental health, that's what my friends and family are for.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Dakota Dan

wakka12 wrote: »

A company should at the very least care about the welfare of a person who is spending their life to make that money for them
Happy workers are harder working workers, i think it works both way and benefits everyone.

You left out the part where they get paid for their work.

The Rape of Lucretia

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you believe mental health illness does not exist?

It sure does. But it has become too fashionable, in a too wide definition of what mental health illness is, for the the good of far too many people. Even a discussion on whether you employer cares, or should care, shows how far the thing has gone off the rails over the last 20 years.
Much more , and you wont be considered mental healthy unless you have a coping programme for your mental illness.

Tell me how

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That doesn't answer my question. And once again, Patww79. You keep including the word responsibility here. That was not the original question.

Are you going to persist with knocking down that strawman?

Wanderer2010

People here have a skewed view of "its ok not to be ok". Its a very powerful message and it means that if you feel stressed, depressed, anxious or unable to cope with life, that's ok to admit it and to take some time out for yourself, reach out for help, accept it and take time to make yourself better, whatever that may be or however long it may take. A brilliant mantra.

It does NOT mean to stay in a state of depression or misery forever and use it as an excuse to be a complete liability at home or at work just because some poster told you.

Big difference.

Tell me how

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It sure does. But it has become too fashionable, in a too wide definition of what mental health illness is, for the the good of far too many people. Even a discussion on whether you employer cares, or should care, shows how far the thing has gone off the rails over the last 20 years.
Much more , and you wont be considered mental healthy unless you have a coping programme for your mental illness.

Ireland has above average suicide rates when compared internationally.

Do you think it is because that is fashionable?

Ohmeha

I've another large employer who makes the usual counselling, yoga sessions etc. available to staff who require them because they supposedly care so much about our welfare

Yet on the other hand all I see is younger lower paid staff on the more stressful roles worked like utter dogs, constructive dismissals rampant and talented staff jumping ship to save their sanity

The counselling, yoga nonsense as far as I'm concerned is to cover their backsides in the event someone does top themselves due to the institutionalised company culture

The Rape of Lucretia

Tell me how wrote: »

Ireland has above average suicide rates when compared internationally.

Do you think it is because that is fashionable?

Possibly, yes. Have the rates risen with the rise in the prominence of mental health 'issues' ? Its possible that people were happier and had better mental health when they didnt know what 'mental health' was or ruminate on whether they were mentally health or not. Or wondering whether their employer should be concerned about the state of their mental health for them as well.

Stacksofwacks

ironically the biggest cause of stress and mental health problems in the workplace is bosses who set unrealistic targets and deadlines on their employees and who overwork their employees to make themselves to look good.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Alf Veedersane

So...how do employers show they care?

There's lots of yes/no but is everyone saying yes/no to the same thing?

Tell me how

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a ....?

Come on, you can do it.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

JupiterKid

Yes, of course they should. But many small firms would struggle to provide help. The govt should offer a grant to assist employers.

Tell me how

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So...how do employers show they care?

There's lots of yes/no but is everyone saying yes/no to the same thing?

I can only speak from my experience.

I managed a dept of 20 for several years. One key thing I found very beneficial was allowing individuals the opportunity to say something, this might be during 1:1 with me or their line manager or at least letting them know the door was open should they wish to have a word. They didn't have to avail of this but if they wanted to, it was there. If I noticed someone behaving quieter than normal over a number of days, I would chat to them in a lighthearted manner about the job, I'd make a point of saying, don't worry about that, it'll be there tomorrow.

If it persisted, I'd tell them I noticed they seemed low and asked them if there was anything I could do to make things easier for them. If they said no, I didn't push it. 9 times out of 10, they'd mention something that was on their mind and I'd tell them if they thought I could help, I would be willing to have a chat. I always told them that it would be the company helping them, and not just me.

I never asked outright if there was something outside of work that was bringing them down, I let them bring it up. In a couple of cases, people did tell me they were dealing with mental health issues and I told them that if there was some way I could make their job easier, to let me know and I would see if we could do it.

Interestingly, nobody ever asked for a change in their duties, time off without a sick cert or anything unreasonable. A number of them came back to me weeks/months later, told me they were over that difficult patch and thanked me for the company support.

And there were some who I approached in the way above who did not want to engage with me at all. I did not push them and thankfully never had any issue of someone telling me they felt I was intruding.

Alf Veedersane

Tell me how wrote: »

I can only speak from my experience.

I managed a dept of 20 for several years. One key thing I found very beneficial was allowing individuals the opportunity to say something, this might be during 1:1 with me or their line manager or at least letting them know the door was open should they wish to have a word. They didn't have to avail of this but if they wanted to, it was there. If I noticed someone behaving quieter than normal over a number of days, I would chat to them in a lighthearted manner about the job, I'd make a point of saying, don't worry about that, it'll be there tomorrow.

If it persisted, I'd tell them I noticed they seemed low and asked them if there was anything I could do to make things easier for them. If they said no, I didn't push it. 9 times out of 10, they'd mention something that was on their mind and I'd tell them if they thought I could help, I would be willing to have a chat. I always told them that it would be the company helping them, and not just me.

I never asked outright if there was something outside of work that was bringing them down, I let them bring it up. In a couple of cases, people did tell me they were dealing with mental health issues and I told them that if there was some way I could make their job easier, to let me know and I would see if we could do it.

Interestingly, nobody ever asked for a change in their duties, time off without a sick cert or anything unreasonable. A number of them came back to me weeks/months later, told me they were over that difficult patch and thanked me for the company support.

And there were some who I approached in the way above who did not want to engage with me at all. I did not push them and thankfully never had any issue of someone telling me they felt I was intruding.

I was just curious really. What you've described is something I've experienced and the staff worked hard and we're loyal.

It doesn't cost anything.

But I was just curious whether people might expect more or less.

Ulysses Gaze

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Exactly the same type of scenario where I work.
There has now been a bigger push to educate staff on stress, burnout and general wellbeing.

Tell me how

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I was just curious really. What you've described is something I've experienced and the staff worked hard and we're loyal.

It doesn't cost anything.

But I was just curious whether people might expect more or less.

Agree, it doesn't cost anything and the benefit to the company is huge. Also, it would not be difficult to introduce this in to companies but it does have to happen at all levels.

What I found overwhelmingly to be the case was that offering the support was often enough to help the individual in to an improved frame of mind.