multiple work issues, valium - citralopram - work stress - and tribunals.

ILW

Does seem that there is an attitude from some that by employing someone you are expected to take on the role of surrogate parent or social worker.

falko89

capeverde wrote: »

For instances like this, I totally understand the need for some time and or counseling. In the 90s, exactly the same thing happened to me. A woman crashed into a tree and I held her hand while she died. She was also 8 months pregnant and despite trying they lost the baby as well. It was quite horrific and the police couldnt deal with it so I stroked her hand while they directed trafffic until the ambulance turned up by which time it was too late. Personally I dealt with it, I went jet skiing and told myself I did all I could. However I can totally understand how it may impact other people and understandably so.

This is my point re stress in the workplace, how can things be measured when peoples thresholds are so different. You also find that many people will try and 'bury' things, so are we meant to be mind readers as well? It simply has to be the individuals responsibility to report any problems and seek help. The onus cannot be on the company to keep options open for an indefinite period.

Wow... But you make a good point. If I was in your situation I know I wouldn't be able to handle it, it's difficult to measure peoples threshold yet everyone gets tared with the same brush. I hope you are OK now? That must of been so difficult for you.

Savvy_Sue

I've worked for both 'good' and 'bad' employers as far as stress is concerned, and I know which has the lower rate of staff turnover ...

capeverde

Define stress though. Some people need it to actually be able to operate at their optimum and yet others will curl up and surrender at the smallest thing. A certain amount of stress in the working environment is a good thing in my opinion, yet others will disagree. I do have some background knowledge here as I suffered badly from stress and panic attacks about 7 years ago. Its hard to define cause and even harder to treat so how are SMEs meant to deal with it. Take myself. Ive lived a bit of a life, In the 80s I rode a motorbike down the east coast of africa from the UK, I had numerous challenges including guns pointed at my head from a short distance. Ive also sailed my yacht single handed around the Atlantic in 2002. Ive missed the Dizengoff bombing by a few minutes and run numerous companies of my own with upto 70 staff. Ive also lost over a million quid on the stock market in a fortnight. None of these things have made my heart rate raise more than a couple of notches.

However, I went through two years of hell because of a single comment bringing about a realisation. Every time I went through the front door I thought I was going to die. The florescent lights in supermarkets would bring on the shakes so much I could hardly put my pin number into a machine and driving my car was akin to pure terror. I honestly came close to admitting myself to hospital as despite calling on all of my mental strength, which I can assure you is up there with the best I couldnt seem to beat it. Eventually after some cognitive therapy I started to see the light. Im better now, but I still have to have a chat with myself in situations that may raise adrenalin.

Lets put this into practice, lets say I worked for a company with 4 staff and I was the lynchpin. The company is surviving and making a small profit. What do they do? Given I simply cannot put a time on my return and the doctor is signing me off without issue, where do they go? I need replacing but my job is quite specialised and will involve at least 6 months of ongoing training. Recruitment will also be difficult as we are in a rural area which may involve relocation costs. Do they hold the job open for me? Do they recruit on a temporary basis given the above? What if they cant?

meer53

Walstri - my post wasn't about how employers manage employees who are off with stress. My post was about how YOU come across in your posts.

The OP is a Newbie. I was going to say show a little sympathy, but i can quite obviously see this isn't one of your strengths. You have probably put the OP off coming back here, was that your intention ?

Capeverde has made more or less the same comments as you. But in a completely different way. Take note.

dickydonkin

capeverde wrote: »

Define stress though. Some people need it to actually be able to operate at their optimum and yet others will curl up and surrender at the smallest thing.

The HSE's definition or WORK RELATED stress is:

"The adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them at work."

I do agree that people can thrive in a stressful working environment and others just cannot - that is the beauty of the human being - we are all different.

I have noticed that there is a theme on this thread of personal stressful experiences outside of the workplace and I think it is important to add that in a workplace environment, affected persons have no control over the issues that are causing the problem which may have been going on over a prolonged period of time.

Managers who won't listen, heavy workloads, poor organisation, bullying etc. are just a few of the stressors that can result in an 'adverse effect' on an individual at work.

I don't know if this is a common trend, but in my experience, I have found that it is the most conscientious workers who seem to be affected by work related stress - which when you think about it, makes sense if they feel that they are not performing to the best of their ability (because they want to) due to circumstances beyond their control.

The worker who does not give a toss may just let it go over their head and let the company pay the price for being disfunctional.

ILW wrote: »

Does seem that there is an attitude from some that by employing someone you are expected to take on the role of surrogate parent or social worker.

Legislation aside, it makes sense for an employer to prevent their staff from becoming ill/injured in the first place so there would need for them to 'take on the role of surrogate parent or social worker'.

Surely you can see the economic and moral advantages of such a sensible method of operation. As Dogger69 alluded to, it does not require much finance, time and effort - just basic communication with your staff and acting on any concerns is all that is required in many situations.

For example..........

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I've worked for both 'good' and 'bad' employers as far as stress is concerned, and I know which has the lower rate of staff turnover ...

The cost of continuous training of new staff, absenteeism, morale and the image of the business must have affected all of the 'bad employers' Savvy_Sue worked for.

capeverde

dickydonkin wrote: »

The HSE's definition or WORK RELATED stress is:

"The adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them at work."

.

Thats a seriously loose definition though. How is excessive pressure measured and what do the mean by 'other types of demand placed on them'. Of course there will be demands placed on them, they are doing a job !! This just typifies everything that is wrong with health and safety. Its just another paper trail and form ticking exercise.

dickydonkin

capeverde wrote: »

Thats a seriously loose definition though. How is excessive pressure measured and what do the mean by 'other types of demand placed on them'. Of course there will be demands placed on them, they are doing a job !! This just typifies everything that is wrong with health and safety. Its just another paper trail and form ticking exercise.

Like most HSE guidance, advice and indeed H&S legislation in general, it is all down to interpretation as each workplace situation and individual is different, and it is important to ensure that implemented controls, policies and procedures, are workable, fit for purpose and legally compliant.

I disagree that it is 'just another paper trail and form ticking exercise' - although I am not quite sure what 'paper trails' and 'ticked forms' you refer to.

As zzzLazyDaisy alluded to in an earlier post, we don't make the laws, but certainly from a H&S point of view, I attempt to adapt/interpret them to a particular workplace situation - very much as I suspect an employment lawyer would do the very same from a much broader employment law perspective.

I agree that there is still a lot wrong with many elements of our H&S laws, and as with most aspects of our daily lives, we have to kowtow to EU interference and integrate their directives into our own legal system - many of which are/were already covered by our own H&S legislation.

I agree it's a difficult one - but cannot be ignored and that is why it is prudent for duty holders to employ (or have access to) a H&S professional (well I would say that wouldn't I ?:)) rather than passing on the poison chalice of health and safety to the HR assistant - many of which (not all) don't have a clue.

With the HSE now implementing the controversial Fee For Intervention Scheme (FFI), it can be a costly omission by not addressing physical AND psychological issues in the workplace.

Just because a legal obligation can be complicated to address or implement, that does not justify the consent to ignore it.