Anxiety and noise and work

theshoefairy

I agree. I know your situation is a little different to mine but people do not treat mental ilness in the same way as they treat other issues.

Comms69

theshoefairy wrote: »

I agree. I know your situation is a little different to mine but people do not treat mental ilness in the same way as they treat other issues.

Employers tend to treat it identically (obviously not universal rule, but in most cases)

BorisThomson

Comms69 wrote: »

Employers tend to treat it identically (obviously not universal rule, but in most cases)

Rubbish. I've published papers on mental health in the workplace, and there's no doubt it is treated differently. Some employers acknowledge that they don't even know how to speak to workers about mental health illness, yet none have the same problem with broken legs.

shoe fairy, I agree with the comments on the first two issues, you're overreacting, which is a common symptom of anxiety and depression. On the noise issue I would go back to occupational health, they can then back you up that it would be a reasonable adjustment (assuming they agree, I can't see why they would not).

Comms69

BorisThomson wrote: »

Rubbish. I've published papers on mental health in the workplace, and there's no doubt it is treated differently. - Cool, care to share a link? Or is this one of those claims that cant be backed up in any way?** Some employers acknowledge that they don't even know how to speak to workers about mental health illness, yet none have the same problem with broken legs. - Oh so this is all down to he said she said. An employer is typically a business and doesn't 'speak' to anyone. They have policies. You are talking about line managers lacking training?

shoe fairy, I agree with the comments on the first two issues, you're overreacting, which is a common symptom of anxiety and depression. On the noise issue I would go back to occupational health, they can then back you up that it would be a reasonable adjustment (assuming they agree, I can't see why they would not).

** I'd be amazed that you managed to analyse literally 100,000s of sickness polices.

TBagpuss

Comms69 wrote: »

Employers tend to treat it identically (obviously not universal rule, but in most cases)

I think that the formal policies employers have are unlikely to distinguish between physical and mental illness, but I think it is the case that in practice, the two are often not treated the same.Partly because physical illnesses tend to be much easier to identify and define.

Add in the fact that there is a lot of stigma about mental health, so sufferers are less likely to be comfortable talking about it, and you do have a very different culture.

Even if the employer wants and tries to treat them the same, it can be difficult.

TELLIT01

The OP clearly has issues with perceived unfairness within the company, which isn't the same as there actually being unfairness within the company.
Booking leave without first getting the dates agreed is just plain stupid, and the OP was actually lucky that the company was prepared to bend the rules in the OP's favour.
It is certainly nothing unusual for a company to take attendance history into account when filling vacancies. They could easily have wasted everybody's time by letting the OP go through the interview process and simply then saying that the OP had been unsuccessful.
Office desking - probably the cause of more argument than almost anything else. Almost everybody wants to sit at the quiet, draught free desk in the corner away from the hustle and bustle, but if everybody did it wouldn't be quiet! Managers have the right / need to move people around at times for any number of different reasons and no staff member has a divine right to sit where they want to, although most decent managers will try to accommodate requests when they can. Requests from staff are just that - requests - and not all can be successful.

Undervalued

Comms69 wrote: »

Employers tend to treat it identically (obviously not universal rule, but in most cases)

Really? On what evidence do you base that statement?

Replace "tend to" with should and I would agree with you. Plus, with any illness or disability, in may have more effect on your ability to work in some jobs rather than others. Just as you may be able to do an office job but not manual labour with a slipped disk a moderate mental illness may prevent you from working in a busy office environment but have far less effect if you are a gardener.

lush_walrus

So you think you should be considered preferentially in terms of holiday dates, promotion and seating? If you put yourself outside of your own situations and imagine you had an employee whose attendance record was approximately half of their employment spent off sick would you reward them over staff who were at their desks for the entirety of their employment. It may sound unfair to you but the fact you have been retained employed is very fair.

If you were employed with us we would have terminated your employment during the first bout of sickness - it may be harsh to hear but you would not be a viable employee with that record of attendance.

Comms69

Undervalued wrote: »

Really? On what evidence do you base that statement?

Replace "tend to" with should and I would agree with you. Plus, with any illness or disability, in may have more effect on your ability to work in some jobs rather than others. Just as you may be able to do an office job but not manual labour with a slipped disk a moderate mental illness may prevent you from working in a busy office environment but have far less effect if you are a gardener.

I meant, and it wasn't clear so fair enough, that employers have a single sickness policy, they don't have a mental health sickness and a physical health sickness.


Adjustments and the amount of time off obviously is a case by case basis.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

It just beggars belief to me that anyone would take a year off sick - for whatever reason, mental or physical - and then expect to apply for a promotion a couple of months after returning. That's just an absurd level of entitlement.