Rethink have published the results of a survey showing 87% of mental health service users had experienced the negative impact of stigma at some point in their lives. It's clear that this is still very much an issue in our society, and nowhere are the inequalities faced by people with mental illness more explicit than in the workplace.
The novelist Clare Allan has written a blog discussing the dilemmas of whether or not you should disclose your illness. Job interviews must be one of the most problematic situations - do you keep it hidden from potential employers in an attempt to get your foot in the door, and risk being fired if it later comes to light? Open up immediately, and you could fall at the first hurdle. The latter danger is borne out by research showing fewer than four in ten employers would consider taking on someone with mental ill health.
What would you do?
this is a tricky one as i have suffered from a mental illness in my past. now that i am a social work student we are told, and i agree, that there is too much stigma surrounding mental illness and that we as practitioners of the future should be open about things like this so to lessen the stigma.
however i am sure that if i went for an interveiw when i am qualified and disclosed this i would not get a job as i think that the potential employer may think i may not be able to work under pressure which actually i find myself coping well as i have learnt ways to keep well.
i guess it is something that will not change in the near future as there is too much fear of mental ill health
The Department for Work and Pensions has recently published some research on incapacity benefit claimants, which examines this issue, though unsurprisingly was spun as simply showing how a large proportion of claimants could actually be in work.
It shows that very few people with long-term mental health conditions mentioned these at the time of appointment or interview, though some brought it up later when it started affecting their work in some way - though others "struggled on".
However, it pointed out the negative impact of people's reluctance to disclose their conditions in terms of preventing reasonable adjustments being made - if needed - to help people stay in their jobs.
It calls for increased "mental health literacy" among the public and employers to give employees the courage to disclose - but easier said than done I suppose!
I suppose it's easy for me to say this, not having had a history of mental illness, but I think working in the field that I do (mental health) I think it would be an absolute positive to have had experience of the 'system' from the other side.
Saying that, one of the directors of our trust has a history of mental illness and is very open about it as a positive. I also studied on my ASW training with someone who had, in the past, been admitted to hospital under a section. I think it should be something that we can be not only open but actively positive about. It adds a great deal to the quality of service provision and acts as a role for other employers.
I would imagine that social care has unique position on this one. It would be very different telling an investment bank that you had a history of mental illness than when applying for a social work/social care position.
I agree that social care as an industry is hopefully more accepting than other of mental ill health in the workforce. Despite this I still don't feel that I would disclose at the interview stage unless asked, if you are offered a job then they usually complete all the occupational health stuff before you recieve a formal offer so it's likely to come up then. If you were refused a job at this stage due to mental ill health then would you have a legal case do you think?
One of my friends works for a major goverment department as an HR adviser redeploying staff into new roles. She really knows her onions (and the law) about how potentional employers, i.e. managers, should react to those with mental illness but, having asker her this question, her answer is a firm "no!". It's dreadful to admit but, from her experience, managers are prejudiced and do not want to take on staff who may be considered 'unreliable' because of any mental health issues they may have had. She says managers are worried that any past difficulties may reoccur and she tells candidates to think carefully about what they disclose in an interview.
It would be great if there were greater understanding in social care about this but if government departments can't get this right then who can?!
Senior writer, Community Care
Ruby Tuesday, yes, the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act covers people with any form of disability, including mental illness. (You do not have to be registered disabled to be covered by the Act.) This means that any employer found to be discriminating against a person with mental health problems while recruiting for employment is breaking the law.
As for what the government are doing about the problem, SHIFT, the five-year, Department of Health-sponsored drive to end stigma around mental ill health, has laid down six principles to ensure discrimination is a thing of the past in the workplace. This includes No.4, which asks employers to demonstrate that that no one is refused employment on the grounds of mental health or disability.
Whether this will ever be adhered to by all employers in all corners of the UK is another matter. Anabel's somewhat gloomy insight into an employer's perspective, and a recent survey showing 15% of people think those with mental health problems should be denied any positions of responsibility, and 21% that they should be excluded from public office, suggest these aspirations will remain just that for a long time to come.
Whilst it is important to complete any medical Disclosure Form honestly that should, when being considered for appointment, go confidentailly to the employer's Medcal Advisor. It would be unwise to give any employer reason to subsequently dismiss you.
Equally, when off sick due to stress then it is far better for your GP to complete the reason honestly - how else will employers obtain a fair reflection of the impact of stress on the workforce?
Having said the above I also accept the discriminatory / prejudice potentially involved - but would you wish to work for am Employer who is so discriminatory as to not want to genuinely help you? This is not an easy area at all to give advice on as mental illness remains a stigma - it needs positive statements from employers that they welcome such applications where the illness is unlikely to impact on the work.
Sadly with the current ideology of best value and emphasis on the monetary value of services, neither social care employers or mental health trusts go beyong lipservice on not discrimianting against people with menatl ill health. I have known mental health services cause depression in employees and treat them with no lesser stigma than any other employer. If we were to substitue age, or gender or race in teh places menatl illnesss is used in this thread there would be uproar but there is still licence to regard distress and mental ill health as a legitimate "concer". Thsi applies to employers and more disgracefully to teh GSCC too.
The difficulty with trying to use the DDA when refused employment, due to mental health issues or any other, is that it is very hard to prove. It is too easy for an employer to be able to justify not employing someone by alleging any number of other reasons, even simply personality- 'the candidate 'would not fit in with the office/organisation/team culture'- rather than the truth, which may be open them up to discrimination claims. Likewise, it is impossible for an applicant to prove that the real reason for not being offered employment is due to their mental health, as they are unlilely to be able to gain access to detail about other applicants, or the successful candidate's skills or experience, to judge their own suitability or application against.
The DDA may be useful once in employment, but not during the recruitment process. Recruitment is by it's very nature a discriminatory process, and it is impossible to legislate in this case- unless (possibly) all posts are subjected to external appointing comittees, independent of the organisation altogether....
queenb: The difficulty with trying to use the DDA when refused employment, due to mental health issues or any other, is that it is very hard to prove. It is too easy for an employer to be able to justify not employing someone by alleging any number of other reasons, even simply personality- 'the candidate 'would not fit in with the office/organisation/team culture'- rather than the truth, which may be open them up to discrimination claims. Likewise, it is impossible for an applicant to prove that the real reason for not being offered employment is due to their mental health, as they are unlilely to be able to gain access to detail about other applicants, or the successful candidate's skills or experience, to judge their own suitability or application against. The DDA may be useful once in employment, but not during the recruitment process. Recruitment is by it's very nature a discriminatory process, and it is impossible to legislate in this case- unless (possibly) all posts are subjected to external appointing comittees, independent of the organisation altogether....
queenb your answer precisely sums up the position my HR adviser friend (reluctantly) comes from. You've hit the nail on the head, sadly.
queenb, very good point about the difficulties of getting the law to work in people with mental health problems' favour. I personally don't know of any court cases, successful or otherwise, of this kind.
Nihat I guess the difference between implementing anti-discrimination law for ethnic minorities and people with disabilities is that employers could argue that someone's mental illness affects their ability to do the job. Having said that, their judgements may well be clouded by the enduring stigma, the underlying cause of so many problems which is at the heart of this debate.
We would be outraged if an employer claimed that someone with ‘dyslexia’ should not be trusted because they potentially could get written instructions wrong. My point is simple; we are very ready to make excuses for discrimination against someone with a mental illness while we would be outraged if these same arguments applied to other forms of prejudice. I find it really unpalatable that even in social care work and journalism there seems to be a hierarchy of prejudice with ageism and mental illness at the bottom
Nihat, I am certainly not making excuses for discrimination, but both sides of the argument need to be addressed. As I said in an earlier post, the government, through the Care Services Improvement Partnership, have launched the Shift campaign against stigma, which asks employers to abide by six key principles. One of these is for them to demonstrate that no one is discriminated against on the grounds of disability. How many are doing this, how meaningful those demonstrations might be, and how the government intend to ensure these recommendations are followed, remain to be seen. My point is that until the guidance on the responsibilities of employers is strengthened and clarified, people with mental health problems will continue to suffer. I have started looking into how employers' compliance with the DDA is measured, but one of the problems seems to be the vagueness of the legal requirement of providing "reasonable adjustments" for people with mental illness.
I would refute the suggestion that I or my colleagues don't see this form of discrimination as a priority. If that were true I would not have arranged a meeting with a policy adviser from Rethink, which I am attending tomorrow, to discuss possible stories around discrimination in the workplace, nor would I have started this CareSpace thread.
Nihat Erol:Would we consider that “both sides of the argument need to be addressed “if the issue was, for example, homophobia? That we deem merit in such a proposition seems to me at least to give some credence to discriminatory attitudes. It’s great that you are meeting with Rethink and it’s great that this debate is taking place. What is not so great is the tone of some of the comments in the different threads. Those of us who have a professional and a personal experience of mental illness make no excuses for seeing the subtle manipulation of language to justify ‘concerns’ about mental illness and the nuances that underscore debates on this issues
Nihat while I agree with some of your points - mainly that some people (regardless of the profession they work in, and I'm not referring to here at CC) sadly do think there is a hierarchy of discrimination - I don't agree that we, in this forum, should not mention it.
All discrimination is wrong, it doesn't matter what sort it is. However, it is safe to say that there are some employers - in all industries - who do have concerns about staff with personal experience of mental ill health and it influences their decision whether to hire them. If this wasn't the case then the Department of Health wouldn't have launced its SHIFT programme.
Nihat, Ihope you do nto think I am guilty of using language to reinforce the stigma faced by people with mental health problems within the workforce....or reinforcing any type of herarchy within discrimination.
I am simply realistic, having been on the recieving end of this discrimination against people with mental health difficulties by employers, and every other section of society, for almost every day of my adult life..
I am also slightly cynical about the motivations and timing of this new campaign by the government, to encourage employers to reduce any stigma within employment, given the fact that the majority of those that will be affected negatively by their new 'employment allowance' will be those with mental illness, rather than physical disability. That coupled with the usual portaryal of the mentally ill by the same governemnt as a danger to the public, who need to be protected from them.
Currnet legislation to prevent discrimination against those with physical or mental difficulties in recruitment does not work. How do I know this? Even within the last month, I applied for a basic clerical post, far beyond my experience and capabilities, and ticked the box requesting a gauranteed interview due to disability. I ensured that the form demonstrated clearly that I fulfilled every one of the esential criteria and all but one (experience with a partiular software pacage for which it was stated that training would be given) of the other criteria specified in the person requirements. Then I sat back and waited for the intervew date to arrive...and waited...and waited. Eventually I rang up, to be told that I had not been shortlisted for interview. This is a combined mental health and socil care trust, with the three ticks symbol to state they are an equal opportunities employer. So what am I to think???? That maybe my handwriting was not suitable? oh no, I typed the form... well maybe they didn't like my name? oh no, the personal details were detached for the shortlisting process... or maybe they wanted someone who specifically didn;t have all the required sills and experience for the job?? Or just maybe, that in actual fact they are not so keen on employing people, with mental health probems. But I cannot confirm that, as they 'could give no information about how the shortlisting process was carried out'.
I am going into social work as a career partly because I feel so strongly about fighting dicrimination- in all it's forms- and especially mental health discrimination. But I am very aware that it ocurrs, even within the registering body, the GSCC, and most certainly within staff and employers in the field. It shouldn't..but it does. I don't know what the solution is- I wish I did. All I am saying is it is not as easy as just asking employers to- voluntarily- abide by a code of practice, without any form of statutory checking and penalties for those who do not abide by it.
Perhaps a significant problem here is that of even defining the term 'mental illness' - it covers a huge range of conditions and certainly some of them would render people as unsuitable to carry out certain forms of work. I think that very few are incapable of doing any form of work though.
Within social work / social care we need to be careful to ensure that staff are able to carry out the tasks required and so a detailed evaluation of the exact impact of the condition would need to be carried out.
I agree wth you Rupert. Also the severity/ impact of the condition on the actual person is important too- not just the label. For example, my bipolar disorder disables me far less than a 'simple' case of depression or stress does with some other people. This is because I am successfully stabilised on meds, and also have learned to self-manage and to identify my triggers and warning signs of impending problems, so I usually now only get one 'blip' maybe every year or 18 months, and it is caught well before it ever gets to crisis stage. Therefore, I am able to work in any field I choose more or less, without my health being a problem. This is not the case with many people with diagnoses that are considered less serious, because they are not stable.
However, in the case of many employers, they see the label, and immeidately many preconceptions and assocations jump to mind- and before they have met me, they all ready expect me to be bouncing off the ceiling on day or slitting my wrists the next! That is the sad reality of the poblem- and is why I for one woul never inform an employer now that I have a condition, until I had ben offered the job and was in post- and then only on a need to know basis. I would obviously inform the occ health dept, during the screening process, but not the interviewer, or colleagues, unless really needed. Not any more.
Sadly this also has repurcussions for many of the other peopole with mental health probems however, which I am also aware, as it does not provide a positive role model or example to the people who need it, by showing employers that mental health need not necessarily be a liablity, and therefore plays a part in reinforcing the stigma...but is ncessary for personal protection. So it is a very vicous cycle, with no easy answer.
queenb: I agree wth you Rupert. Also the severity/ impact of the condition on the actual person is important too- not just the label. For example, my bipolar disorder disables me far less than a 'simple' case of depression or stress does with some other people. This is because I am successfully stabilised on meds, and also have learned to self-manage and to identify my triggers and warning signs of impending problems, so I usually now only get one 'blip' maybe every year or 18 months, and it is caught well before it ever gets to crisis stage. Therefore, I am able to work in any field I choose more or less, without my health being a problem. This is not the case with many people with diagnoses that are considered less serious, because they are not stable. However, in the case of many employers, they see the label, and immeidately many preconceptions and assocations jump to mind- and before they have met me, they all ready expect me to be bouncing off the ceiling on day or slitting my wrists the next! That is the sad reality of the poblem- and is why I for one woul never inform an employer now that I have a condition, until I had ben offered the job and was in post- and then only on a need to know basis. I would obviously inform the occ health dept, during the screening process, but not the interviewer, or colleagues, unless really needed. Not any more. Sadly this also has repurcussions for many of the other peopole with mental health probems however, which I am also aware, as it does not provide a positive role model or example to the people who need it, by showing employers that mental health need not necessarily be a liablity, and therefore plays a part in reinforcing the stigma...but is ncessary for personal protection. So it is a very vicous cycle, with no easy answer.
Thanks for being so frank in your answer queenb, I've really learnt from your post about how difficult it can be for someone with mental ill health to try and work (this post and your last one about not even being short listed for a role you were more than capable of). Yes, we all know how managers and employers should respond and not discriminate but what you've written perfectly explains the problems of such honesty.
The DH is obviously committed to addressing stigma around mental health with its SHIFT programme, do you think it's wasting its time? How else can this be addressed and the "very vicous cycle" broken? I think one way would be for all managers and employers to read your posts in this thread. An open dialogue has to be started if this is going to stop.
I've experienced this myself. In fact, I've had problems with placements at uni because of my mental health. One jumped to major conclusions about me and made me leave after only two days (after also asking me very inappropriate questions) and part of the reason I was removed from my last placement was because of things they assumed about me - some very untrue and offensive.
I always disclose my condition, I have no choice really because the university are aware of it and because of experience I know that it is better to be honest and not get a job than lying and being found out later.
I'm not comfortable with disclosing things though. I don't see myself as having a disability and it is hard how to characterise it on forms that don't have a section for mental illness.
Every time I do such a form I hope that it won't affect my application, despite the regulations etc, but I've had too many bad experiences to really belive it.
~ The race goes not always to the swift, but to those who keep on running ~
mandy: I've experienced this myself. In fact, I've had problems with placements at uni because of my mental health. One jumped to major conclusions about me and made me leave after only two days (after also asking me very inappropriate questions) and part of the reason I was removed from my last placement was because of things they assumed about me - some very untrue and offensive.
This is dreadful Mandy, and shouldn't have happened. Did you take it up with anyone at your university?
Anabel Unity:The DH is obviously committed to addressing stigma around mental health with its SHIFT programme, do you think it's wasting its time? How else can this be addressed and the "very vicous cycle" broken? I think one way would be for all managers and employers to read your posts in this thread. An open dialogue has to be started if this is going to stop.
I have been thinking about the questions you raise here a lot, Annabel. To the first, my answer is no. We should never give up on trying to remove the stigma that surrounds mental health difficulties. If we ever give up, we are accepting it, condoning it and, essentially, agreeing that it is basically correct and deserved... So no, I do not think the governement is wasting its time.
However, I do think that the SHIFT campaign is not achiving its full potential or its aims. For instance, despite being somebody who is up to date with the news daily, reading two major broadsheets, and tracking the online news too, I had not, until this thread, even heard of this campaign- so maybe it is not quite as influential as the government would like to think?? Or as it needs to be...
I think it is not enough just to focus on targeting the managers and employers about this; the campaign needs to be targeted at the whole of society, through the entire media- there is evidence that suggests that many people form the majority of their attitudes towards people, and issues, through what they see, hear or read in the media daily. But positive reinforcement is also more effective than negative reinforcement- so featuring examples of people suffering mental health crisis, but recovering, or who have all ready recovered and are living productive lives (as the backstory not the 'main event'), would be more effective in reducing stigma than showing stories about people attempting suicide or embarking on a psychotic killing spree.
However, it is necessary to be realistic. Mental health stigma has existed for centuries, and so it will not be eradicted within a few years.
I hadn't heard of the "Shift" programme either - it's about time and whilst it may only be a small step, at least it is one! Every effective challenge to any sort of discrimination takes us one step closer to eradicating it.
I suffered severe depression 15 years ago, caused by a combination of post natal and work related isues. When I came back into the workplace 2 years later, I had to make a decision - explain why I had been away truthfully or not? My doctor recommended I not go back into my previous social work team, so I had to think hard. When it says on the application form "how many days sick leave have you had in the last 2 years" and you write "all of them" it doesn't go down well with employers. I decided to be honest - post natal depression is seen as one of the "less severe" forms of mental illness (in that you're expected to recover when your babies become toddlers - hah how little do they know!) and as I was still on anti-depressants and having psychotherapy it might well affect me in work, as I would need time of for medical appointments. I was lucky enough to be employed by a charity who saw my impending recovery as a therapeutic tool I could use with clients - showing them that their disabilities could be overcome with positive support. I did have periods of depression and illness while I worked there, particularly when my medication was changed, but took sick leave like anyone else would. I have since always approached it in that way, and although some people may have made their own decisions about whether I should disclose and whether I am now sane, I've been in work ever since and for the past 3 years have been a county manager for a national charity, and their national champion for workplace disability issues - I disclosed my health record at interview but also explained when asked my coping mechanisms for noticing and dealing with stress, and how I could use that to improve the organisations own stress management and disability policies. (I also have a physical disability which is invisible day to day but has led to some extended periods of ill health).
Change doesn't just happen - we have to work at it and champion our cause. And if social workers won't do that for their own colleages, how can we expect it of the wider populace!
queenb: Anabel Unity: The DH is obviously committed to addressing stigma around mental health with its SHIFT programme, do you think it's wasting its time? How else can this be addressed and the "very vicous cycle" broken? I think one way would be for all managers and employers to read your posts in this thread. An open dialogue has to be started if this is going to stop. I have been thinking about the questions you raise here a lot, Annabel. To the first, my answer is no. We should never give up on trying to remove the stigma that surrounds mental health difficulties. If we ever give up, we are accepting it, condoning it and, essentially, agreeing that it is basically correct and deserved... So no, I do not think the governement is wasting its time. However, I do think that the SHIFT campaign is not achiving its full potential or its aims. For instance, despite being somebody who is up to date with the news daily, reading two major broadsheets, and tracking the online news too, I had not, until this thread, even heard of this campaign- so maybe it is not quite as influential as the government would like to think?? Or as it needs to be... I think it is not enough just to focus on targeting the managers and employers about this; the campaign needs to be targeted at the whole of society, through the entire media- there is evidence that suggests that many people form the majority of their attitudes towards people, and issues, through what they see, hear or read in the media daily. But positive reinforcement is also more effective than negative reinforcement- so featuring examples of people suffering mental health crisis, but recovering, or who have all ready recovered and are living productive lives (as the backstory not the 'main event'), would be more effective in reducing stigma than showing stories about people attempting suicide or embarking on a psychotic killing spree. However, it is necessary to be realistic. Mental health stigma has existed for centuries, and so it will not be eradicted within a few years.
Anabel Unity: The DH is obviously committed to addressing stigma around mental health with its SHIFT programme, do you think it's wasting its time? How else can this be addressed and the "very vicous cycle" broken? I think one way would be for all managers and employers to read your posts in this thread. An open dialogue has to be started if this is going to stop.
You make some excellent points queenb. I don't think the government, or any organisation that does the same, is wasting its time in trying to removed the stigma surrounding mental ill health.
If someone like you, who likes keeping themselves informed, doesn't know about the SHIFT programme - and you work in social care, as well as having dealt with the issue yourself - then the government clearly needs to be doing more. And quickly.
In principle I agree that mental ill health awareness campaigns should target everyone but I think the SHIFT campaign, as my colleague Daniel Lombard initially pointed out at the start of this thread, is for employers and managers. If this part of the workforce isn't addressed then how can the government expect to get the message across? How will the message filter down to the ordinary person, sitting at their desk and working?
Some parts of the media could well do with bucking up their reporting of events and crimes where mental illness plays a part but, to be honest, I don't think it's going to happen. All journalists know that a good news story is one that contains 'bad' news, and for the red tops they like nothing more than to run with a story where the offender is 'mad'. They are never going to be convinced to report such cases responsibily until people stop buying their papers.
Hi,
I am a service user, and for years I felt I had to tick that box at the bottom of forms, to declare that I had medical problems. It was not true. I only suffer[ed] from depression, which is being treated, monitor and assessed regularly.
And, recently I applied for a post [at a well known organisation] to come on board as a street rescue worker. On filling in the application form, I [did go into detail, having to describe also the medication that I am taking]. I told them that I was 'able' to proceed with any training, shadowing or supervision if and when necessary and discuss risk assessments at lengths. Their reply came back and sadly, I couldn't deal with this - the first of the rejections I now await to see - and the organisation said that, ' ... After serious consideration ...,' they thought that I was not suitable for the job. I did also state that it would help me to get through my NVQ 2; therefore, I know of lucidity and clarity. The advert was advertised for service users as well as the general public to volunteer and get involved.
I've just spent the last sixteen months slogging my guts out in health and social care [enjoying every single second of getting out of bed each morning.] I would really like to become a support/advocate worker. My college was 'kinda' sympathetic about me be an SU, and assured me, that it would not be a problem. Re: "When, what to, and what not to Disclose ..."
I also had a voluntary job in a resource centre, who I thought were supporting me, and the nature of my studies, but, unfortunately, an incident happened and an incident form had to be written out. Though, I am not ashamed of being a service user. Why the hell should I be? I was horrified when on recording the incident, I was addressed as "...service user has cut hand on glass. ..." My name, nor the fact 'volunteer' was suggested, but just categorised as a service user, made me shrink so small inside, I lost all confidence and faith in me as a student ..... The health and social care and voluntary work was integral to my self-awareness and personal, professional and practical development. No one being happier than me. I have achieved my goal through motivation, determination, realisation and self-belief.
I am confident enough, in myself; excelling through one set of criteria, knowing that I did excellent in the NVQ theory and would have committed my practice to the best of my knowledge and more.
I also thought that the organisation for whom I was volunteering for, would acknowledge the importance of what I was doing in their centre, which included; communications, recording [handover] and report keeping, promoting the rights of service users, health and safety and my own underpinning knowledge of my practice; but, alas, when it came to being assessed for my NVQ 2, in the subject [HSC] I saw the true colours of the organisation, and felt totally let down by their attitude towards supporting my education, and to my dismay, the external assessor from the college/city&guilds observed and concluded that my 'practice' were merely tasks that a 'service user' would do! What did she mean, I wonder ?
These are just a few of the experiences I have endured as a service user - even my counsellor, was pessimistic; thinking that I 'didn't', 'couldn't' and 'wouldn't' finish the course, because it might be too much.
Quite the opposite, I feel. I have proven them all wrong, and though, completing my NVQ 2, in theory, I was not accredited, due to the lack of practice and practical experience. In previous times I would have perpetuated myself as a complete failure. I would say that both the college and the organisation have failed to be more aware of their own ignorance on the matter of what constitutes mental health issues/problems. Its smells of stereotyping!!!!
I will be an invaluable contributor [not commodity] to this sector of work, having been involved in it, one way or another, and I know, that by empowering one individual [quality] would make my personal development an achievement. Who is anyone to judge anyone else, I ask? I think that those who choose to bury their head in the sand; should seek therapy themselves, admit that they are fallible to human conditions and errs, and that everyone deserves more than one chance to succeed in life.
I think on the next application form, I will add an additional note, saying that on request, the IMCA should be informed, and they will definitely act as my confidante, mentor, advocate and referee!!!!!
My friend, when one door closes, tell yourself that two more will open, and should that fail, any organisation that should decide that they do not need your services will only be demonstrating that they are in the dark ages; re-enforce your self-belief: THAT YOU ARE TOO GOOD FOR THEM. THEIR LOSS, NOT YOURS.
from the bohemian
Breaking news: the mental health charity Rethink are campaigning to ban employers from asking about a candidate's disability, including mental illness, until making a job offer. They want to bring the UK into line with the American system, and want the single Equalities Bill to reflect this. (The idea is floated on their Breaking Down the Wall campaign page, watch out for a full story on the website and in the magazine.)
Elwing, Mandy, queenb and Bohemia, thanks for your insights into your individual experiences; I am of course sorry to hear about the difficulties you have faced but thank you for sharing them, they have illustrated the issue superbly.
Do you think the Rethink idea will solve the problems?
I come from the US where it seems there is a greater emphasis on people's privacy esp. relating to employment issues. The first time I filled out a job application in the UK it asked pointed questions about my health. Even though I don't have a disability, I was unsettled by the intrusiveness. In fact, I think it is illegal to ask such questions there. We have the Americans with Disabilities Act which gives those with disabilities the option to disclose their disability at the time of a job offer. If a person chooses to disclose their disability, then they are entitled to certain protections under the Act. Employers also get certain tax credits and benefits. However, an employee has the right to withold that information. I'm not suggesting that the UK go the same way, but there just has to be a better way ...
I suffer from anxiety and had a break down with it back in 2003.I am thought the worst of it now and am trying my hardest to get back to work.I always cringe a little when I see that section on the application.I do not think you should have to declare if you have mental health problems unless it will effect your capabilty to do the job.
I do not have a history of mental health problems but if I did, I would not disclose it. I wouldn't lie but would be hopeful that once my employer realised that I could do the job and cope with the pressure - he/she would forgive me for omitting to mentioning it. However, bearing in mind that social work is very stressfull work - if I had doubts about my ability to cope, I would not put my health at risk. ....but thats me!
I work in disabilities and have clinical depression.I have been off work for long periods of time and I am now being discriminated by staff and managment as they seem to think I am playing the system. I have to explain myself everytime I go back to work and now facing disaplinary proceedure because of my health.Should I have told them? Yes Yes and yes.we have nothing to be ashamed off and have the right to work in any employment we choose.I am very very good at what I do when I am able to be in my work place so why should I have to justify my disability?I am adding to the work place and making a difference in the lives of clients with my life experience and the person I am.I am meant to work in the care sector but because I have a disability,clinical depression I am not capable to give to the work force in the eyes of employers?because I cannot be relyed upon to turn up for work every day? Who are they to say I am not good enough to add to the work force because I have a disability.They are the ones that should recognise the good work people are doing not just the statistics of how many sick days a person is taking. Lucy.Aberdeen.Scotland
You are absolutely right. Employers will alway look to demonstrate their authority by exploiting anything to discriminate against employees they decide are not productive enough. This is no different in the public sector. What appalls me is the attitude of our fellow workers who instead of looking at the slacking of managers, pick on their own peers to vent their frustrations on.