Signed off work with stress

Undervalued

bargainbetty wrote: »

If you work for a place that issues disciplinary notes and warning for being off work when you have been formally diagnosed by a doctor as unfit for work, I'd be very tempted to spend the time looking for a job elsewhere.

It is not acceptable for an employer to coerce or emotionally blackmail employees into working when they are unfit or punish them for doing so.

It may not be acceptable to you but, providing they do it properly, it is perfectly acceptable in law!

Ultimately a company employs people to work. If they cannot work it costs the company money. At the very least SSP (the cost of which is not recoverable from the government) plus the job still needs doing. Because of this companies increasingly have strict sickness management policies. Obviously some are stricter than others but it is a growing trend.

elsien

You do not have to isolate yourself in your house because you are signed off sick.
Getting out, going for a walk, meeting up with friends can all be beneficial to your mental health.

sangie595

With a President like they have, I'm not surprised they are super stressed. It's driven some of them to spamming....

dickydonkin

Undervalued wrote: »

It may not be acceptable to you but, providing they do it properly, it is perfectly acceptable in law!

Ultimately a company employs people to work. If they cannot work it costs the company money. At the very least SSP (the cost of which is not recoverable from the government) plus the job still needs doing. Because of this companies increasingly have strict sickness management policies. Obviously some are stricter than others but it is a growing trend.

Nobody is disputing the legal element, however, many may see such methodology as counter productive where stress (a mental illness) is concerned - or any illness for that matter.

What is the point of disciplining a member of staff after an absence for illnesses that are totally out of their control?

No only does this place fear in workers who feel unwell but will come into work regardless - potentially placing themselves at risk and their colleagues, but you are hardly going to get the best out of a worker who is ill - nor are you improving the morale of staff working for a perceived oppressive employer.

Certainly with work related stress (a subject that MANY employers will bury their heads in the sand), this has to be managed effectively, in particular, identifying the stressors in the workplace - again, something that MANY employers fail to do.

Persecuting someone with a mental illness (disciplining and threats of losing their job) is sadly too commonplace nowadays.

With respect to the comment of 'if you cannot work, it costs the company money', my answer to that would be if you threaten your workforce with disciplinary action following an illness or fail to identify your own shortcomings with respect to the mental welfare of your workforce, I can assure you that low morale, failing to adhere to HEALTH & safety requirements with respect to assessing the stress risks in the workplace is more of a threat to controlling costs.

I always find you get a more receptive workforce with a carrot than you do with a stick.

I accept the OP' s situation is not work related, but can you not see that potentially it will be exacerbated by the stance taken by the employer.

SandC

sangie595 wrote: »

With a President like they have, I'm not surprised they are super stressed. It's driven some of them to spamming....

That's made me chuckle. :rotfl:

[Deleted User]

dickydonkin wrote: »

Nobody is disputing the legal element, however, many may see such methodology as counter productive where stress (a mental illness) is concerned - or any illness for that matter.

What is the point of disciplining a member of staff after an absence for illnesses that are totally out of their control?

No only does this place fear in workers who feel unwell but will come into work regardless - potentially placing themselves at risk and their colleagues, but you are hardly going to get the best out of a worker who is ill - nor are you improving the morale of staff working for a perceived oppressive employer.

Certainly with work related stress (a subject that MANY employers will bury their heads in the sand), this has to be managed effectively, in particular, identifying the stressors in the workplace - again, something that MANY employers fail to do.

Persecuting someone with a mental illness (disciplining and threats of losing their job) is sadly too commonplace nowadays.

With respect to the comment of 'if you cannot work, it costs the company money', my answer to that would be if you threaten your workforce with disciplinary action following an illness or fail to identify your own shortcomings with respect to the mental welfare of your workforce, I can assure you that low morale, failing to adhere to HEALTH & safety requirements with respect to assessing the stress risks in the workplace is more of a threat to controlling costs.

I always find you get a more receptive workforce with a carrot than you do with a stick.

I accept the OP' s situation is not work related, but can you not see that potentially it will be exacerbated by the stance taken by the employer.

Imagine, for a moment, that you own a company and there is an employee similar to the OP.

You are a "nice" employer, so you don't have a sickness policy that gives warnings to people who are sick. However, every day that person is there, you are paying them and they are not working.

At what point do you say something? Is it ok for them to be off for weeks, months, years?

I absolutely agree that some employers are bad, but some are great and all of them should have a policy to review people being off. Workplace stress doesn't necessarily mean there is something you can do to fix it, other than letting someone not come to work but pay them to stay at home!

It's also not for an employer to diagnose someone's stress without the employee being open and honest about what is going on. I have direct experience of people claiming work related stress when in fact it's home related and nothing to do with work.

Anyway, I hope the OP gets better - don't bury your head in the sand. Speak to your GP and your employer.

Undervalued

camelot1971 wrote: »

It's also not for an employer to diagnose someone's stress without the employee being open and honest about what is going on.

Well, to an extent it is for the employer to monitor, just as they would / should for other workplace health risks.

I have direct experience of people claiming work related stress when in fact it's home related and nothing to do with work.

Quite. That ties in with the advice that several of us regularly offer on here that a doctor citing "work related stress" means very little. The doctor can say, in his expert opinion, that the patient is unwell and is presenting recognised signs of stress. What he cannot say is what has caused it. The patient may have told him that all of the issues are work related but, for all the doctor knows, they may actually have an excellent working environment and are choosing to hide a nightmare situation at home.

System

dickydonkin wrote: »

Nobody is disputing the legal element, however, many may see such methodology as counter productive where stress (a mental illness) is concerned - or any illness for that matter.

What is the point of disciplining a member of staff after an absence for illnesses that are totally out of their control?

No only does this place fear in workers who feel unwell but will come into work regardless - potentially placing themselves at risk and their colleagues, but you are hardly going to get the best out of a worker who is ill - nor are you improving the morale of staff working for a perceived oppressive employer.

Certainly with work related stress (a subject that MANY employers will bury their heads in the sand), this has to be managed effectively, in particular, identifying the stressors in the workplace - again, something that MANY employers fail to do.

Persecuting someone with a mental illness (disciplining and threats of losing their job) is sadly too commonplace nowadays.

With respect to the comment of 'if you cannot work, it costs the company money', my answer to that would be if you threaten your workforce with disciplinary action following an illness or fail to identify your own shortcomings with respect to the mental welfare of your workforce, I can assure you that low morale, failing to adhere to HEALTH & safety requirements with respect to assessing the stress risks in the workplace is more of a threat to controlling costs.

I always find you get a more receptive workforce with a carrot than you do with a stick.

I accept the OP' s situation is not work related, but can you not see that potentially it will be exacerbated by the stance taken by the employer.

I've been given a disciplinary for being off sick, and i can say it certainly didn;t help matters, in fact on a few occasions after that i came into work despite being too unwell too, which then resulted in me being sent home and them being short staffed. I have bipolar and unfortunetly try as i best to control it with medication its inevitable that i will have periods when either i can;t do all parts of the job or can;t work at all. That said i try my hardest to work through it, i;ve recently been in a depressive episode for the past 2 months and i stayed working bar a few days absence when my medication was increased and the side effects knocked me for 6. It does put me at a disadvantage because i have an unpredictable illness which can be triggered by stress, but im also human and not immune to normal illneesses such as flu8 or stomach bugs. So i seem to have the choice between suffering mentally or physically.

Thankfully my work have been pretty understanding (well bar that one disciplinary but i understood their hands were tied), they;ve made adjustments such as working later to avoid the drowsiness from my meds and not working more than 6 hours a shift, and having fixed days which has been a massive help in dealing with this illness and working with it.

Not all employers are like that, and i understand they have a business to run. but treating mental illness with a bit more empathy wouldn;t hurt. I've always been open about the bipolar and because of that they were able to help me. If id kept quiet and tried to cope on my own i doubt i'd still be here 5 years later