Stress Leave??

[DoubleD]

We're an American based company and I've never been to Europe so I don't honestly know the work climate their. I'm hoping some of you with international work experience can give me some insight.

I'm sitting in a meeting yesterday, and I hear that one of our European associates is out on Stress Leave. I think to myself, that's funny, I've never heard of Stress Leave. How do you get that? Is it common in Europe? Do you have to have a nervous breakdown? How stressed do I have to be before I can go on leave for it?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated to help me understand where this is coming from.

Pain is stress leaving the body.

DoubleD

 

[rosieb]

In the UK stress is recognised as a medical illness.

Therefore if your doctor signs a certificate which says you are suffering from stress, you are sick, and are entitled to all sickness benefits.

This is right and equitable, if someone is ill, they should get the appropriate benefits.

suck it up and get back to work

is not helpful. People have crises, if you've never had one you're lucky, but you may have one in the future.

Yes, some people milk the system, 'twas ever thus, any system - someone will take advantage. But that doesn't detract from the rightness of the system.

Rosie
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think" (Niels Bohr)

 

[sha76]

... suck it up and get back to work.

Yes, great idea, my dad went with that theory, he now has ME & had to take early retirement because of it. He's one of the lucky ones in that he is now able to manage the condition, although he does have to plan his whole life round it (a busy day means the next 2 days laid up in bed), others have ended up in wheelchairs.
That's just one condition, there are many more and as stress has a detrimental effect on the immune system then any illness is made worse by stress.

Celeron, I hope you change your attitude before you drop dead of a heart attack.

"Your rock is eroding wrong." -Dogbert

 

[Onyxpurr]

I think the big question is "Why the heck are we all so stressed out?!"

Given there are extenuating circumstances such as the death of a loved one, but here (US) we have funeral leave or I can take sick, vacation, or personal leave.

Other than that, if someone is stressed on a regular basis, I agree in that they really need to start evaluating their life. Is the stress job-related? Well then maybe making a lot of money isn't that great of a benefit. Is it your personality? Try to take things slower, enjoy life.

Why is it we so frequently place emphasis on our work life, but disregard our personal life?

 

[willir]

jsteph -- Jim

I think we are on the same page. A business must survive, and if everyone was on stress leave, then a business is not going to survive. To survive, the business model demands a desired product be produced at a competitive price. The Pacific rim off-shore resource sure complicates this problem.

I guess where we may disagree, slightly, is the amount of tolerance, and the influence of unions and local legeslation. I would be interested in your opinion of draconian businesses where employees are treated as disposable fodder.

I think the big question is "Why the heck are we all so stressed out?!"

A number of things of course - personal levels of tolerances, compassion of the manager and company, high work load, low income and financial difficulties, low job satisfaction, people interaction, etc.

Some of these factors are controlable by our self, or the business, while maintaining a working business model. And some are not. Ever work for a company that goes belly-up after two or three years of bad luck or bad management? Not fun, and plenty of stress.

Stress affects our health. A bit of stress is great for for the productivity boost -- some of us get off on a bit of stress -- some of us can handle more stress than others. But too much stress, will affect our health - proven fact.

What can be done about too much stress? Hmmm....
- Some of us have the option to move on elsewhere.
- Some of us just need time to re-charge our batteries.
- Some of us need a radical change - a buddy of mine moved from senior IT support to woodworking -- he is happy now, but I have to wonder for how long.
- Some of us need some hand-holding (councilling, spouse, family)
- Some of us just do not have the skills to cope with anything but a very light, unstressful work load.
- some of us are not stressed but use it as an excuse to escape.

Will stress leave resolve the problem? For whom?
I think if one needs to re-charge their batteries, or need some hand-holding, stress leave may be just what the doctor ordered (some times literally). In this case, the employee can return to work refreshed and re-energised. I have seen this work.

If the associate decides to move on, then the stress leave will benefit the person, but not the comapny. You still have a productive employee, and for many situations, the tab for the stress leave is picked up by the government (via taxes), or insurence. So in most situations, I suspect the business does not pay a sabstanial amount.

The problem, Jim is that what do you do if a person can not handle the work load, or is just lazy.

I feel the lazy / selfesh person will loose out in the end -- they will become unemployable. Their own darn fault. These are guys / gals are the parasites of society.

So what do you do with the person who can not work, can not handle stress, etc? Stress / Sick leave will not help resolve this problem. Are they parasites too?

What are the re-precusions of not having stress leave?

Well, the lazy person, and the person unable to work will not be able to draw on these resources. Definitely a good thing for the lazy person -- a definite grey / no right answer for the person who can not work.

What about the others -- need to re-charge, need hand holding, need a change? As a challenge, I suggest to you that they will become less productive, less resourceful, and maybe end up in a downward spiral, or they may recover.

What about the person who becomes so stressed out, they become very angry, may loose perspective on reality, and may become very dangerous? Toss them out on their ear - they may leave disgrunted, or as is sadly all too true, they make the head lines.

Anyway, I guess I personally feel we need to rule out the cheaters, but provide a safety net for others that need it. I feel, if we do not provide the safety net, we may sweep the dirt under the carpet, but the dirt will still be their, and may come back to haunt us eslewhere.

 

[BradCollins]

In Australia we also have 'Stress Leave', personally I think it is a load of rubbish...

..... Stress is only the inability to cope.....

If you cant cope with your job, then leave and get another job that you can do

 

[KenCunningham]

...and no doubt it'll still be a load of rubbish when you're being sniped at from the office roof by a stressed-out employee with an AK47!

A slightly simplistic approach to a very complex problem methinks.

 

[jsteph]

...opinion of draconian businesses where employees are treated as disposable fodder.

Here of course, 'draconian' is subjective, one persons draconian may be another's 'Top 100 places to work'.

But I would suggest that a reasonable policy might be to allow one stress leave per employee, per, say, 5 years. This should filter out the abusers. And then if a person who truly can't cope finds themselves needing another leave, then that would be cause to 'have a little talk' with their supervisor about their career path. Because, as I'd said, not everyone is cut out to do the jobs they want to do, and it's not fair the company to be forced to do whatever it takes to accomodate that. Lot's of people are promoted into management because they showed some flashes of excellence, but they simply may not have the long term emotional stamina to do it for the long haul.

In that case, is it draconian for the company to say: "No stress leave, we're just going to demote you to a lower stress job"? I don't think so. Here, it's a business decision--they do the math and evaluate how he does when he is working, and they may decide that in fact it's worth giving him a stress leave because he makes up for it when he's 'on'. Or they may not.

Many may think that this is unfair--since maybe the last person was not given a stress leave and was demoted or fired. But now this gets into the endless morass of discrimination issues, and other legal/employment-fairness issues where a law or regulation directs the business decisions--many of these laws are good and needed, others not.

For example, businesses may well thrive if they didn't have to pay insurance for employees, didn't have to pay even a minimum wage, etc., they could make a business decision that any fallout from the public reaction to these practices would not affect their bottom line, and they would indeed increase profits. But they can't make those decisions, the government has made them for them, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, many of these regulations are beneficial to the country as a whole--they may indeed hurt the profitability of some individual businesses, but the net effect for the country may be positive.

So here I guess the question is: is this issue one that should be left to the individual businesses, ie, let them count the beans and decide on a person-by-person basis whether to allow stress leave, or do we need a new regulation forcing stress leave for anyone who want's it, or else face a discrimination suit or whatever. As with most of those types of questions, there is no single answer.

I keep going to my baseball example--remember, baseball is a business. I may have shown flashes of talent, but couldn't cut it for the long haul--not without 'stress leave' (in the form of resting my arm for 2-3 weeks after each game). What if it were a law to allow a person stress leave if they had a medically proveable job-related condition (I have xrays to show my condition wasn't faked and it was definitely job-related). Would that be fair for the business?
--Jim

 

[philote]

Personally, I don't think stress leave should be separate from other types of leave. It should fall under sick time, vacation, etc. Too much unmanaged stress usually manifests itself as some sort of physical malady so it should be easy to get some sort of leave. If someone is really suffering from too much stress, be it from personal or work matters, health insurance should cover some sort of stress management class or counseling for the person. That would probably save the insurance company money as they may not have to pay medical bills down the road. If it's work-related stress affecting someone, they should look for a new job. If it's from elsewhere, going to work daily and concentrating on work is sometimes a good way to escape from other worries. I just don't see why there should be such a thing as 'stress leave'.

 

[CasperTFG]

This type of decision can't be left as all businesses should have this policy. I think this is a very company environment oriented choice.

For instance if you're a call desk person, the company policy on stress leave might be nothing. 1) If you can't do it there are 50 others waiting in line, 2) The job comes down to numbers, they need a certain number on the phone and their expenses are based on that. 3) It may or may not be that stressful, but if you ahve a nervous breakdown at work will it really affect the company probably not.

Then if we look at an air traffic controler. They are allowed tons of stress leave, because it is a stressful job. 1) The industry is short on trained workers. 2) The job also comes down to numbers, 1 person in control of hundreds of lives at any one time. 3) If you loose it people die.

I think it comes down to the buisness and how much you are needed. If your a high priced negotiator you might only work a few days a month, but when you do work it's a 25 hour day. Or if you work the phones somewhere it's 9-5 7days a week, but the relative strain on you is low.

Casper

There is room for all of gods creatures, "Right Beside the Mashed Potatoes".

 

[celeron895]

Right on BradCollins...

..... Stress is only the inability to cope.....

People whine more and more these days. Back in the day there was no such thing as stress leave, and did we have the 'stressed out employee goes on a rampage problem'?? No, we didn't. Anyone that goes on a shooting rampage and then blames it on stress, is just plain crazy. People look for any excuse these days. My advice, as I said before:

Suck it up and get back to work!

And now, I will leave space for all the people to tell their sob story of death/sickness/whatever, that is causing them so much stress and forcing them to stay home from work.

 

[sha76]

celeron, no of course, nobody ever had a nervous breakdown, nobody ever killed themselves because they couldn't take it anymore "in the day". Personally I'm happier living in a time where stress is recognised & somewhat better understood, rather than one where you could be shut away in a mental asylum for stress related illnesses (& not that long ago either).

Yes, naturally there are people who will claim stress for the slightest reason, unfortunately you'll always get people trying to play any system though, if it wasn't stress they'd find something else.
Yes, it is a problem for companies, but surely as such it is something which needs to be addressed, not ignored?
I see jsteph's point with the baseball example, but sometimes stress is more like a broken bone, not a longterm problem. How would any of us expect to be treated at work if we badly broke both hands & couldn't work for a couple of months?



"Your rock is eroding wrong." -Dogbert