Anxiety and Stress at work

Zazen999

dpassmore wrote: »

Sorry for going on a bit, but people getting illnesses and injuries at work just gets to me.

Me too.

Most people have stress at work; but deal with it enough to keep going in every day.

The OP said that there were 'a few problems at work relating to her job and certain changes that have taken place pertaining to her actual job'.

Well, isn't that the case in every job?

Some people can't cope if you move 'their' stapler; whereas some can cope with high levels of change on an hour by hour basis.

I think until the extent of the 'problems' and 'changes' are known, nobody can really comment on whether this 'stress' is justified [surely, changes HAVE to happen in the workplace in a recession in order to survive?].

jdturk

As you say the problem with Mental Health is that there is no outward signals until its to late and more often than not a company will not realise until it is to late.

As far as I can see a company can only really do risk assessments but even those could be easily fallable because as you say one person's risk is differant to anothers in terms of mental health whereas a dodgy ladder is a dodgy ladder whoever is using it.

Businesses are onto a loser from the start on this one and if I was a business I would be very very reluctant from hiring anyone who has shown mental health problems in the past as there is a higher chance of these coming back than someone who hasn't.

There should also be an onus on the employee to come forward and state there are problems, maybe every 1/4 employees should fill out a health sheet or something to state how they are feeling about their workload, environment etc....at least then if they are doing things to show there is a problem it is easier for the company to solve and ultimately if they don't do anything to help makes the company look worse (but then that is their own fault!)

dickydonkin

jdturk wrote: »

As you say the problem with Mental Health is that there is no outward signals until its to late and more often than not a company will not realise until it is to late.

As far as I can see a company can only really do risk assessments but even those could be easily fallable because as you say one person's risk is differant to anothers in terms of mental health whereas a dodgy ladder is a dodgy ladder whoever is using it.

Businesses are onto a loser from the start on this one and if I was a business I would be very very reluctant from hiring anyone who has shown mental health problems in the past as there is a higher chance of these coming back than someone who hasn't.

There should also be an onus on the employee to come forward and state there are problems, maybe every 1/4 employees should fill out a health sheet or something to state how they are feeling about their workload, environment etc....at least then if they are doing things to show there is a problem it is easier for the company to solve and ultimately if they don't do anything to help makes the company look worse (but then that is their own fault!)

Stress is a difficult one. Perversely, some people even perform better when under stress - daft though it may sound.

jdturk you are also correct in stating that the employee should also help themselves, but I also think it is very important that awareness of the causes, symptoms and prevention of stress is provided to staff to help them to help themselves if you like.

Some years ago - before stress was as topical as it is now, I asked the HR manager how she felt about developing a stress at work policy and handing out questionnaires so a risk assessment could be formatted from the results.

The reply was 'well we don't have too many incidents of stress so I wouldn't bother' :mad:.
That is akin to suggesting we don't need guards on the machines because nobody has been killed! :mad:

The company knew there were 'issues' with one manager in particular (as I mentioned in a previous posting on this thread), but they were quite happy to bury their heads in the sand.

I had all of the questionnaires and a programme ready to do the survey, but that had to be scrapped. I just cannot find the the actual document in any of my folders, but this is another excellent document that gives some indication on what I was attempting to achieve. - particularly the questionnaire towards the end.

http://www.csp.org.uk/uploads/documents/csp_briefing_erus_hs01.pdf

Of course doing such a survey and undertaking a subsequent risk assessment and policy will not eradicate stress in the workplace completely, however, a little time spent on awareness training, improved communication and a SMART policy would go some way to showing the company is serious about stress and is also compliant with the relevant legal requirements.

Businesses are onto a loser from the start on this one and if I was a business I would be very very reluctant from hiring anyone who has shown mental health problems in the past as there is a higher chance of these coming back than someone who hasn't.

Harsh - but a very valid point, however, the requirements of the DDA may create issues. Even when someone who has been seemingly 'cured' from a disability, they could still potentially be covered under the DDA umbrella -again, another difficult one which needs to be handled with caution.

jdturk

dpassmore wrote: »

Harsh - but a very valid point, however, the requirements of the DDA may create issues. Even when someone who has been seemingly 'cured' from a disability, they could still potentially be covered under the DDA umbrella -again, another difficult one which needs to be handled with caution.

Obviously it could come under the DDA, but in the eyes of an employer and whether rightly or wrongly I would have thought that once someone has gone of work for stress related reasons there is a higher chance they will go off again as to me it shows they are less resiliant to the pressures of work.

I have read some of that link you sent and a couple of things that stand out to me are 1) the large numbers that are used as a scare tactic for employees and 2) trade unions (really information should be ignored from these places and should come from a neutral base that is neither for or against the employer.

My reasoning is that if you asked for a list of problems that could cause stress you would get a short list by employers and a long list by Unions that will pick and choose anything (ie inadequate Childcare facilities....businesses are not responsible for an employees personal life IMO), there should be a list that when it comes down to it is realistic stress causing problems.

Also this is more of a bug bear but it annoys me when employers have to pay for an employee whose of on the stress due to their personal life, again the employee should be the one taking the responsibility here and not costing the company money for stress most likely brought on by their own means.

Uncertain

jdturk wrote: »

Also this is more of a bug bear but it annoys me when employers have to pay for an employee whose of on the stress due to their personal life, again the employee should be the one taking the responsibility here and not costing the company money for stress most likely brought on by their own means.

This is no different from company sick pay for an employee who breaks a leg on a skiing holiday.

jdturk

Uncertain wrote: »

This is no different from company sick pay for an employee who breaks a leg on a skiing holiday.

Yeah true, Still don't agree with it, if you are dumb enough to go skiing and break your leg then you should pay the consequences (insurance would be a good idea!)

dickydonkin

jdturk wrote: »

Obviously it could come under the DDA, but in the eyes of an employer and whether rightly or wrongly I would have thought that once someone has gone of work for stress related reasons there is a higher chance they will go off again as to me it shows they are less resiliant to the pressures of work.

I have read some of that link you sent and a couple of things that stand out to me are 1) the large numbers that are used as a scare tactic for employees and 2) trade unions (really information should be ignored from these places and should come from a neutral base that is neither for or against the employer.

My reasoning is that if you asked for a list of problems that could cause stress you would get a short list by employers and a long list by Unions that will pick and choose anything (ie inadequate Childcare facilities....businesses are not responsible for an employees personal life IMO), there should be a list that when it comes down to it is realistic stress causing problems.

Also this is more of a bug bear but it annoys me when employers have to pay for an employee whose of on the stress due to their personal life, again the employee should be the one taking the responsibility here and not costing the company money for stress most likely brought on by their own means.

Actually, the document was issued by The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy - not any union - and shows a very balanced perspective not only from the Unions, but The Health & Safety Executive (who give actual figures of occurrences of stress which can hardly be described as scaremongering), the NHS, the CSP and also offers advice from all of those organisations and how to address the problem.

The causes of stress listed are based on fact and many years of research and investigation and I would take the figures seriously.

The "Large Numbers" of sufferers are a clear indication on how serious the problem is and will get worse for the reasons I indicated in my previous post.

Also this is more of a bug bear but it annoys me when employers have to pay for an employee whose of on the stress due to their personal life, again the employee should be the one taking the responsibility here and not costing the company money for stress most likely brought on by their own means

Would you feel the same if an employee driving their car on a family outing had an accident that killed their kids and resulted in him/her being off work not only for any physical injury but also the stress caused by to a non work related activity?

Hope not.

jdturk

dpassmore wrote: »

Would you feel the same if an employee driving their car on a family outing had an accident that killed their kids and resulted in him/her being off work not only for any physical injury but also the stress caused by to a non work related activity?

Hope not.

'Up to 5 million people in the UK feel ’very’ or extremely’ stressed by their work'

Its comments like that that are scaremongering, so basically there could be 0 people 'very' or 'extremely' stressed by their work and you and I know this is untrue but it is however very unlikely it is 5 million either, 0-5 million is a stupidly large variance which is just not needed.

'About half a million people in the UK experience work-related stress at a level they believe is making them ill'

The above comment IMO is far more realistic and I would agree far to high obviously but at least it is realistic and not scaremongering

'twelve-fold increase'

Again whilst true when you actually look at the figures it has gone for 500 odd to 6000, as a percentage of the workforce it is negligiable....so when people see twelve fold its there to be of shock value but in realistic terms its a minor amount

As for the quote I have highlighted you know this is an extreme example and unrealistic to the situation as this would be a tragic accident and any time of work is understandable however an accident brought on my pursuing trill seeking activities is not understandable if it is costing the company money.

Basically as I have said I agree that stress/anxiety/depression are becoming more and more a part of working life, however I feel that Businesses are getting from all sides (government, trade unions, compensation culture) for something that is incredibly hard to account for and when you get lists that include things such as 'boring repetitive work' as a factor for causing stress well your stuffed as a business, imagine you are a factory and you employ someone to do one specific job......do you move them because they become 'stressed' about doing the same job (if they can't hack it they need to be moved on).....its ridiculous IMO.

Rant Over

dickydonkin

jdturk wrote: »

'Up to 5 million people in the UK feel ’very’ or extremely’ stressed by their work'

Its comments like that that are scaremongering, so basically there could be 0 people 'very' or 'extremely' stressed by their work and you and I know this is untrue but it is however very unlikely it is 5 million either, 0-5 million is a stupidly large variance which is just not needed.

'About half a million people in the UK experience work-related stress at a level they believe is making them ill'

The above comment IMO is far more realistic and I would agree far to high obviously but at least it is realistic and not scaremongering

'twelve-fold increase'

Again whilst true when you actually look at the figures it has gone for 500 odd to 6000, as a percentage of the workforce it is negligiable....so when people see twelve fold its there to be of shock value but in realistic terms its a minor amount

As for the quote I have highlighted you know this is an extreme example and unrealistic to the situation as this would be a tragic accident and any time of work is understandable however an accident brought on my pursuing trill seeking activities is not understandable if it is costing the company money.

Basically as I have said I agree that stress/anxiety/depression are becoming more and more a part of working life, however I feel that Businesses are getting from all sides (government, trade unions, compensation culture) for something that is incredibly hard to account for and when you get lists that include things such as 'boring repetitive work' as a factor for causing stress well your stuffed as a business, imagine you are a factory and you employ someone to do one specific job......do you move them because they become 'stressed' about doing the same job (if they can't hack it they need to be moved on).....its ridiculous IMO.

Rant Over

jdturk I have never stated on this thread that this topic is an easy subject to deal with. I know from your other posts that you are sensible and I always respect your views and comments.

I have based my posts on personal experiences and official statistics. The HSE's statistics are to be respected and trusted, however, I do concede however that many - yes many people use stress as an excuse for absence and indeed claims for compensation, but this should not detract from the problem that many employers underestimate, although I can understand the frustration of HR Managers who have to deal with such occurrences.

By implementing a stress policy, stress awareness training and risk assessment may just prevent malicious claims for stress, or at least would give a company a fighting chance of defending a claim. By making no effort to address the likelihood of stress in the workplace leave a company very vulnerable to litigation.

I don't think I am wrong in assuming you represent the interests of the employer, whereas I think it is common knowledge from my previous postings, I have always spoke up for the employee, but I have also represented both factions in my previous positions as a company Health & Safety Officer and union branch official-which I can assure you, did conflict on many occasions.

As for being injured by "pursuing thrill seeking activities" out of work, where do you draw the line on that?

You just cannot expect an employee to simply stop 'pursuing' activities out of work that may or may not cause injuries that could result in absenteeism.

These 'thrill seeking activities' may just be the release of tension and which may prevent absenteeism due to stress in the long term - indeed, many companies send their staff on team building courses that involve adventure pursuits that involve an element of risk.

I would suggest we both have valid views on comments and I think we have a difference of opinions on some aspects, however, the subject of stress in the workplace is a complicated issue which minds immeasurably superior to ours, find difficult to address and resolve.

dickydonkin

jdturk wrote: »

'Up to 5 million people in the UK feel ’very’ or extremely’ stressed by their work'

Its comments like that that are scaremongering, so basically there could be 0 people 'very' or 'extremely' stressed by their work and you and I know this is untrue but it is however very unlikely it is 5 million either, 0-5 million is a stupidly large variance which is just not needed.

'About half a million people in the UK experience work-related stress at a level they believe is making them ill'

The above comment IMO is far more realistic and I would agree far to high obviously but at least it is realistic and not scaremongering

'twelve-fold increase'

Again whilst true when you actually look at the figures it has gone for 500 odd to 6000, as a percentage of the workforce it is negligiable....so when people see twelve fold its there to be of shock value but in realistic terms its a minor amount

As for the quote I have highlighted you know this is an extreme example and unrealistic to the situation as this would be a tragic accident and any time of work is understandable however an accident brought on my pursuing trill seeking activities is not understandable if it is costing the company money.

Basically as I have said I agree that stress/anxiety/depression are becoming more and more a part of working life, however I feel that Businesses are getting from all sides (government, trade unions, compensation culture) for something that is incredibly hard to account for and when you get lists that include things such as 'boring repetitive work' as a factor for causing stress well your stuffed as a business, imagine you are a factory and you employ someone to do one specific job......do you move them because they become 'stressed' about doing the same job (if they can't hack it they need to be moved on).....its ridiculous IMO.

Rant Over

jdturk I have never stated on this thread that this topic is an easy subject to deal with. I know from your other posts that you are sensible and I always respect your views and comments.

I have based my posts on personal experiences and official statistics. The HSE's statistics are to be respected and trusted, however, I do concede that many - yes many people use stress as an excuse for absence and indeed claims for compensation, but this should not detract from the problem that many employers underestimate, although I can understand the frustration of HR Managers who have to deal with such occurrences.

I don't think I am wrong in assuming you represent the interests of the employer, whereas I think it is common knowledge from my previous postings, I have always spoke up for the employee, but I have also represented both factions in my previous positions as a company Health & Safety Officer and union branch official-which I can assure you, did conflict on many occasions.

As for being injured by "pursuing thrill seeking activities" out of work, where do you draw the line on that?

You just cannot expect an employee to simply stop 'pursuing' activities out of work that may or may not cause injuries that could result in absenteeism.

These 'thrill seeking activities' may just be the release of tension and which may prevent absenteeism due to stress in the long term.
There is more to life than work!