darebear Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 got a question for those of you who employ people. and be totally honest please. if someone had been off for 10 months for stress and anxiety, would that make you think twice about employing them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tam Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 Got to say yes - cause they would be in for more if sucessfull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorfolkBoy Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 'fraid so..... That length of time suggests more of the same to come.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 I would need to speak to them to ascertain what caused it. If they were stressed by hard work - no, I would not employ them. I know of two female workers who were persecuted by their manager. Went off with stress. They were not weak, but got no support. Each case on it's merits. If they could explain and I was sure it wasn't going to affect their current job, if would give them the same chance as anyone else. It's just the same as a broken leg - you can be unfit for work with stress. It's a not a criminal offence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkshire Pudding Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 They would not be working for me . If i as an employer can handle the stress of running a business , and handle the stress of listening to employee's moaning , an still manage to turn up every day . Sorry Dbear you wont have a job with me . all the best yis yp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the last engineer Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 got a question for those of you who employ people. and be totally honest please. if someone had been off for 10 months for stress and anxiety, would that make you think twice about employing them? very cagey question to which there are equaly cagey answers girl. my personal feelings as said are no, i would steer clear of any problems i fear may rear their ugly head later, that being said, i would hear out the story/explanation and make a decision, i fear my gut feelings would goad me to air on the side of caution, these days its a fine line we walk between lawsuits and human rights, having been on the receiveing end of a few, it make it harder for me to give the benefit of the dought to anyone with a "problem" be it substance alcohol mental or physical, if you feel thats not fair im sorry blame the thoughless S.O.B.s who abuse the system. Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 got a question for those of you who employ people. and be totally honest please. if someone had been off for 10 months for stress and anxiety, would that make you think twice about employing them? Absolutely no chance. You can dress it up with lots of words making out that there is some thoughtful and considered process (to avoid disability discrimination legislation) but the answer (if you run a small business of 50 staff or less) would always be no. It's not a problem in large organisations however where individuals rarely make a difference and the direct cost of keeping a job open, hiring temp / contract workers, doing the whole occupational health thing can get absorbed into various budgets. There is also a wider litigation risk - if an employer knows that a member of staff suffers from a stress related illness but doesn't deal with it propertly whereby the individual is exposed to more (or the same levels of stress) then there is a claim in the making. There have been a couple of big number claims where an employee has a break down due to stress, goes off sick, returns to work (but with no changes to the working environment) and has another breakdown = jackpot. From an employer's perspective you have to have regard to the individual employee and what is stressful for employee A may not be for employee B. This means lots of aggro, lots of management time, lots of dead time and with no dedicated HR department = lots of cost. Who are we talking about anyway - is it you or someone you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 I would be extremely cautious. webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlander Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Stress, stress they (mostly) have no idea what stress is. Ask any soldier patrolling the streets of Iraq (used to be NI and other places) not knowing if he's gonna reach the end of his shift and still be in one piece/alive. That's stress! If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Guess you know my answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Stress, stress they (mostly) have no idea what stress is. Ask any soldier patrolling the streets of Iraq (used to be NI and other places) not knowing if he's gonna reach the end of his shift and still be in one piece/alive. That's stress! well said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosspot Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 in my book reliability comes above workrate no good having even the hardest workers if you can't count on them being there so in answer to your question Darebear unless there were exceptional circumstances no i would not employ them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gully Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 I'm afraid that I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole unless there was a good reason. Same thing with a criminal record no matter how 'spent' the conviction is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul in North Lincs. Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Unfortunately it seems that the 'Stress card' is percieved as a green light to unlimited time off work nowadays especially by those who either can't be assed to got to work, or those who are fed up with their employment, and used the time off on pay to search for alternative employment................'playing the system' It would be unfare to say this this is allways the case, but for me the reasons that caused the stress in the first place would have to be severe enough to warrant all of that time off........... Alot of employers are afraid of stress related illness and absence, especially when work related, due to potential punative action which could taken agianst them by empoyees...................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 As an ex employer of two, there are some people who see employers as prey, for a free meal ticket for a very long time. No way Jose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 It would need further investigation as to the nature of the stress and anxiety. It would very much depend on the nature of the business the candidate was coming from, and that in which they were being considered for a position. As has been pointed out bullying is a massive problem in the UK and goes unreported for the most part, there are also other reasons why this person might not prove to be problematic. Since this information would only usually come to light at interview and the person would be fully aware of the situation, so long as they had good reason for the absence(s) and some form of proof that help had been sought then I would expect a good manager to give them a fair go. Sadly this world is full of halfwit idiot managers, so they probably won't get a fair go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 As an ex employer of two, there are some people who see employers as prey, for a free meal ticket for a very long time. No way Jose same here I couldn't afford to employ them on the chance they did it to me. I'd advise them looking for a job with a local council as they don't mind paying people to stay at home worrying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNAKEBITE Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Of the people who replied to this thread how many are employers and how many are giving an opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gully Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 I employ about 20 and I'd run a mile. Who needs the hassle of hiring someone then have them disappear. You can obviously sack them if they've been with you under a year but it just causes bad feeling all round and is a bad example to the other staff. Sorry to sound brutal but I just want my staff to turn up, do the job well and take their pay at the end of the month. I don't want to get involved in their home life, medical problems or anything and if they don't like me, the job, the hours, the wallpaper or anything else about it they know where to go. No-one owes them a living and all this stuff about employers rights makes my blood boil. Employment is a simple 2 way transaction, nothing more, nothing less. We're not in the 1800's now where there's only one employer in every town. I don't offer my staff perks or benefits, I just pay them well and let them go home at 5 on the dot. I have a very low turnover of staff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavman Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 got a question for those of you who employ people. and be totally honest please. if someone had been off for 10 months for stress and anxiety, would that make you think twice about employing them? Abby, I manage around 30 guys directly and another 50 or so indirectly, am hiring and firing all the time mostly I use contractors, the last thing you want is a stressed out gent on an oil rig (ask scaff) even if he is better it means he prob cant cut it when the chips are down (if the stress was work related) the exception is stress due to family concerns (divorce, bereavement) that’s a totally different ball game and all and I mean ALL of us can face that at any time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorfolkBoy Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 I employ 22 people, another 15 indirectly. Small business's, as Mungler stated, don't have the resources to absorb long periods of absenteeism - mine certainly doesn't. Certainly people deserve second chances, I employ three people who are on probation with convictions for non-violent crimes and they are some of the hardest workers I've seen.....but I digress.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Employ 14 and if the firm doesn't earn they don't get paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verminer Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 got a question for those of you who employ people. and be totally honest please. if someone had been off for 10 months for stress and anxiety, would that make you think twice about employing them? i have to say yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Am I the only one who finds it a bit worrying that you would all pre-judge without wanting to know more about the circumstances? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Errmmm are you personally responsible for a wage bill and the performance of a business? I am with Gully. Don't get me wrong though, we have two members of staff who have been here for 30+ years and we (the partners) personally paid £6k for private BUPA treatment for one of the staff. You are talking about a new job applicant. Someone who has "put in" to a business gets to take it out and gets the benefit of the doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Wage bill, yes. Personally responsible for the performance of the business, not the whole business, no. My point is most have said "no" without any further information. Personally I think that's terribly judgemental and horribly discriminatory. I have no idea what the circumstances are, but you'd need to know. I don't know what your discipline or speciality is Mungler but employment law in the UK is rather strict regarding this kind of discrimination. To have it right, unless this was due to provable workplace bullying I probably wouldn't employ this person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.