DORSET ECHO INVESTIGATES: The true cost of stress

Dorset Echo: UNDER STRESS: Public services are paying the price for employees' stress UNDER STRESS: Public services are paying the price for employees' stress

STRESS is costing the county’s public services tens of thousands of lost working days and millions of pounds, according to shock figures.

The amount of sick time taken by those working in Dorset’s councils, police and fire services can be revealed by the Echo today.

Dorset’s Police and Crime Commissioner and campaigners are concerned over the numbers.

Figures obtained by the Echo show that Dorset Police have lost 11,980 working days to stress since 2008.

Dorset Fire and Rescue Service lost 2,143 days between 2011 and October 2013.

Dorset County Council lost 9,712 days between 2011 and June last year.

And the West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland Borough Council authorities have lost more than 1,885 working days since April 2012.

The organisations say it is not possible to calculate exactly how much illness equates to in monetary terms because of the huge difference in pay scales between those at the lower end of the ladder and those at the top.

But if the figures were calculated using the average wage in Dorset, which was £24,927 in 2012, the overall cost to public services would be almost £3million.

PCC Martyn Underhill said figures would be high across all public services for a number of reasons, such as stress due to cutbacks.

He said levels of sickness within Dorset Police have gone up in the last two years and it is something he is keen to change. He said there is a project being undertaken by human resources at the moment to try and address the issue.

He added: “This is a tough time – people are worried about their jobs.

“Certainly the police service has undergone a massive change – officers feel they’re being attacked on all sides. It’s worrying.”

He said that the issue comes under the remit of the Chief Constable but reducing levels of sickness is something he is keen to achieve. The figures are recorded differently by each authority, with Weymouth and Portland and West Dorset District stressing that their combined number is for ‘all absences under the category of ‘mind, psychological, stress, and depression’ and not just those related to stress.

Director of resources Jason Vaughan said: “The figures for staff sickness absence are broadly in line with other councils but we are working hard on trying to reduce these.

“As a responsible employer the Shared Services Partnership has appropriate support for staff who are feeling stressed at work.”

Dorset County Council’s figures include employees taking time off because of work-related and non-work related stress.

It has an ‘Employee Wellbeing Strategy’ which includes counselling and support to try and reduce sick days caused by stress.

 

Helping employees could save firms money

A MENTAL health charity says more needs to be done to help employees before their problem gets worse, saving ‘huge amounts of money in the long run’.

Emma Mamo, policy and campaigns manager at Mind, said: “We know that people who work within public services have demanding roles, so it’s vital that measures are in place to support them through difficult times, particularly in the current economic climate when many people are concerned about funding cuts, redundancies and increased workloads.

“Presenteeism – employees coming to work when they’re not very well and then not performing at their best – from mental ill health alone, costs the UK economy £15.1billion a year, more than absenteeism.

“Most jobs have an element of pressure, but when this stress is persistent it can negatively impact both physical and mental health, which is costly to businesses.

“That’s why it’s in the interests of all employers to invest in the mental wellbeing of all staff before things get worse.

“Small, inexpensive measures can make a big difference to staff mental health and save organisations a huge amount of money in the long run.”

 

Council has employee wellbeing strategy

A SPOKESMAN for Dorset County Council said: “The council’s employee wellbeing strategy describes how we aim to create a working environment that promotes health and wellbeing for the mutual benefit of the organisation and its employees.

“This is echoed in the council’s recently revised stress management policy which states the organisation’s commitment to reducing the incidence and impact of work related stress within the county council and providing an appropriate level of support to employees.

The support available to individual employees includes: Counselling Support from a specially trained colleague Access to occupational health services Signposting to specialist debt, drug and alcohol counselling and support The stress management procedure includes the use of a stress risk assessment tool developed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to identify causes of work-related stress and inform appropriate action to manage these.”

Sick days are recorded differently

A SPOKESMAN for Dorset Fire and Rescue Service said it had a different method of recording sick days.

For example, a retained firefighter is ‘on call’ all week but may only be due to work two hours. However, if they are sick for the seven days of a week, then that is recorded – rather than just the two-hour period they were due to work.

The spokesman added: “This distorts the figure from what you would expect to see from a normal office-based, 9am to 5pm role.”

A Dorset Police spokesman said: “The regular and reliable attendance of all staff at work is fundamental to the ability of Dorset Police to effectively deliver policing to the people of Dorset.

“In common with national trends Dorset Police is experiencing higher levels of sickness absence than in previous years. Of course, the wellbeing of our staff is immensely important as are appropriate methods of managing sickness absence.

“Dorset Police is reviewing its procedures and one of the changes made is the reduction of the Bradford Factor trigger level for management support.

“The Bradford Factor can provide a useful indicator that a pattern of absence needs further investigation in order to identify any possible underlying cause.”

Robert Oxley, campaign director for the Taxpayers’ Alliance said: “Some time off due to illness is unavoidable but the public sector should aim to reduce the levels to those commonly found in private sector – there’s no reason why there should be any difference between the two.

“Excessive time off costs taxpayers a small fortune and requires staff to cover those not at their posts.”

 

The true cost of stress

There are 104 weekend days in a year, 28 days’ paid holiday for the average worker and eight bank holidays.

So the average worker is getting paid for 261 days a year including their holiday allowance and bank holidays.

The South West Observatory calculates that the average wage in Dorset for 2012 was £24,972 This, divided by 261 is £95.67 a day. This average daily wage of £95.67 multiplied by 30,000 sick days equals £2,870,100 However, the average Dorset wage has risen by around 6.6 per cent since 2010 meaning the cost for sick days due to stress in 2008, 2009 and 2010 may be less.

The figures go up to October last year so there may have been more sick days due to stress taken since this time.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:08am Wed 5 Mar 14

pajero4x4 says...

Allow me to outline my take on this subject.All of the support that employers say they have in place is a smokescreen.The Bradford Formula etc is just a tool in the managements drawer.It's all to do with recording your non attendance at work with the view to dismiss staff. A senior manager would typically be tasked with 6/7 projects,he or she can then cascade his workload down to the rank and file workforce,which in turn places the worker under pressure. There are a couple of things you can do for yourself, No.1, Learn how to say NO to extra workload,it's a tough strategy and scary,but once said you will see a difference. No.2, ( and i have done this with amaing results),if your manager puts an extra task on you,tell him/her that you are willing to help and ask him which element of your workload you should drop. In the workplace only you are responsible for your general health,please look after yourself.
Allow me to outline my take on this subject.All of the support that employers say they have in place is a smokescreen.The Bradford Formula etc is just a tool in the managements drawer.It's all to do with recording your non attendance at work with the view to dismiss staff. A senior manager would typically be tasked with 6/7 projects,he or she can then cascade his workload down to the rank and file workforce,which in turn places the worker under pressure. There are a couple of things you can do for yourself, No.1, Learn how to say NO to extra workload,it's a tough strategy and scary,but once said you will see a difference. No.2, ( and i have done this with amaing results),if your manager puts an extra task on you,tell him/her that you are willing to help and ask him which element of your workload you should drop. In the workplace only you are responsible for your general health,please look after yourself. pajero4x4
  • Score: 36

9:32am Wed 5 Mar 14

annotater says...

Everyone copes (or doesn't) with stress in different ways. I coped with stress some 40years ago by telling my employer to stick his job where the sun don't shine and became self employed doing a work load that I can handle. Not making my fortune but there is more to life than making cash.
If you tell your manager that a compromise will have to be met, any excuse will remove you from your post if the school of thought is that you cannot cope.
I agree that to say no is a good way of removing pressure but where time is money and projects have a time penalty, one is likely to be left out of future rewards.
A change of direction would be the answer if at all possible.
Everyone copes (or doesn't) with stress in different ways. I coped with stress some 40years ago by telling my employer to stick his job where the sun don't shine and became self employed doing a work load that I can handle. Not making my fortune but there is more to life than making cash. If you tell your manager that a compromise will have to be met, any excuse will remove you from your post if the school of thought is that you cannot cope. I agree that to say no is a good way of removing pressure but where time is money and projects have a time penalty, one is likely to be left out of future rewards. A change of direction would be the answer if at all possible. annotater
  • Score: 7

10:29am Wed 5 Mar 14

Legal Eyes says...

Genuine sufferers deserve all our sympathy and support. But, to put it bluntly, the public services have an institutional tolerance to sick leave that is not shared in the (often equally stressful) private sector. The fire service has been notorious for years, for long-term sickness absence. Stress is not easily measured/verifiable by GPs (themselves stressed, but less often absent) and they understandably give the benefit of the doubt.
Genuine sufferers deserve all our sympathy and support. But, to put it bluntly, the public services have an institutional tolerance to sick leave that is not shared in the (often equally stressful) private sector. The fire service has been notorious for years, for long-term sickness absence. Stress is not easily measured/verifiable by GPs (themselves stressed, but less often absent) and they understandably give the benefit of the doubt. Legal Eyes
  • Score: 4

11:18am Wed 5 Mar 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

I dont understand what is stressful. The fact that you are going to be able to pay all your bills? the fact that the bank will lend you money because you have a job? the fact that you can arrange to do stuff, like holiday and move about?
Why don't we ask some unemployed people how stressful it is being without a job? - and I don't mean someone that doesn't want to work, I mean someone thats actually looking for a job?
I dont understand what is stressful. The fact that you are going to be able to pay all your bills? the fact that the bank will lend you money because you have a job? the fact that you can arrange to do stuff, like holiday and move about? Why don't we ask some unemployed people how stressful it is being without a job? - and I don't mean someone that doesn't want to work, I mean someone thats actually looking for a job? Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -18

11:46am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorset & proud says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
I dont understand what is stressful. The fact that you are going to be able to pay all your bills? the fact that the bank will lend you money because you have a job? the fact that you can arrange to do stuff, like holiday and move about?
Why don't we ask some unemployed people how stressful it is being without a job? - and I don't mean someone that doesn't want to work, I mean someone thats actually looking for a job?
It's the fear of losing the ability to pay your bills, not being able to borrow money, not being able to keep your home etc, and if you lose your job, will you find another that will cover the outgoings - we all know that well paid work in this part of the world is hard to come by unless you're prepared to travel for it.

Fear management is rife these days, it's used as a tool to get things done and pressure you to do more. If you work in public sector or a large organisation, the chances are that you can go sick and still be paid - for quite some time, meanwhile in smaller, private companies you'll be lucky to get paid at all. The stress levels can be just as high, but they stay at work because not working = not earning.

Everyone reacts to stress differently. Some will go off with stress seemingly for very little reason, others will try to work through it for fear of being labelled as being unable to cope with the demands of your job. You don't want to draw attention to yourself, that just creates... stress.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: I dont understand what is stressful. The fact that you are going to be able to pay all your bills? the fact that the bank will lend you money because you have a job? the fact that you can arrange to do stuff, like holiday and move about? Why don't we ask some unemployed people how stressful it is being without a job? - and I don't mean someone that doesn't want to work, I mean someone thats actually looking for a job?[/p][/quote]It's the fear of losing the ability to pay your bills, not being able to borrow money, not being able to keep your home etc, and if you lose your job, will you find another that will cover the outgoings - we all know that well paid work in this part of the world is hard to come by unless you're prepared to travel for it. Fear management is rife these days, it's used as a tool to get things done and pressure you to do more. If you work in public sector or a large organisation, the chances are that you can go sick and still be paid - for quite some time, meanwhile in smaller, private companies you'll be lucky to get paid at all. The stress levels can be just as high, but they stay at work because not working = not earning. Everyone reacts to stress differently. Some will go off with stress seemingly for very little reason, others will try to work through it for fear of being labelled as being unable to cope with the demands of your job. You don't want to draw attention to yourself, that just creates... stress. dorset & proud
  • Score: 13

11:48am Wed 5 Mar 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Legal Eyes wrote:
Genuine sufferers deserve all our sympathy and support. But, to put it bluntly, the public services have an institutional tolerance to sick leave that is not shared in the (often equally stressful) private sector. The fire service has been notorious for years, for long-term sickness absence. Stress is not easily measured/verifiable by GPs (themselves stressed, but less often absent) and they understandably give the benefit of the doubt.
Nobody wants to think about not having a very good quality of emergency worker on hand to deal with whatever problem we have. Every day we are hearing stories about nightmares in the NHS, Cornish hospitals seem to be like something out of the Victorian era to me.
The hard truth is that all the money has to come from somewhere. For every fireman that takes a two year sabbatical because he's witnessed something traumatic, somebody will loose something much more important, a life, a limb, die of cancer - and it is Hobsons choice, no doubting.
Earning £30k pa or over locally is a huge amount of money and should carry a commensurately high level of responsibility and time required. If you have kids to look after and your primary carer - you cannot hold that job. Darting out the door at shift finish or taking a year on disability when you could be working in two months. Its just not sustainable.
Quite frankly - I really don't think the teachers are going to be able to stave off doing normal working hours hard as they might try. Its not practical to pay people not to be working. It doesn't happen in the private sector. Why should one group of people be allowed to do it because they have a government job. Get used to taking twenty days holiday like the rest of us - you will probably find you job is less stressful anyway.
[quote][p][bold]Legal Eyes[/bold] wrote: Genuine sufferers deserve all our sympathy and support. But, to put it bluntly, the public services have an institutional tolerance to sick leave that is not shared in the (often equally stressful) private sector. The fire service has been notorious for years, for long-term sickness absence. Stress is not easily measured/verifiable by GPs (themselves stressed, but less often absent) and they understandably give the benefit of the doubt.[/p][/quote]Nobody wants to think about not having a very good quality of emergency worker on hand to deal with whatever problem we have. Every day we are hearing stories about nightmares in the NHS, Cornish hospitals seem to be like something out of the Victorian era to me. The hard truth is that all the money has to come from somewhere. For every fireman that takes a two year sabbatical because he's witnessed something traumatic, somebody will loose something much more important, a life, a limb, die of cancer - and it is Hobsons choice, no doubting. Earning £30k pa or over locally is a huge amount of money and should carry a commensurately high level of responsibility and time required. If you have kids to look after and your primary carer - you cannot hold that job. Darting out the door at shift finish or taking a year on disability when you could be working in two months. Its just not sustainable. Quite frankly - I really don't think the teachers are going to be able to stave off doing normal working hours hard as they might try. Its not practical to pay people not to be working. It doesn't happen in the private sector. Why should one group of people be allowed to do it because they have a government job. Get used to taking twenty days holiday like the rest of us - you will probably find you job is less stressful anyway. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 2

1:06pm Wed 5 Mar 14

JamesYoung says...

Firstly, if sick pay was axed, or maybe only available after 10 days of sickness, this problem would go away.
Secondly, if an organisation has ongoing problem with people going off on sick leave, then it needs to look at its recruitment policies.
Thirdly, it is a joke that as soon as somebody is picked up on their performance, the law allows them to go off on sick leave claiming stress.
Fourthly, there is a noticeable link between every more liberal sick policies and the rise in stress related illness. Correlation or causation?
There is no good reason for stress leave in the public sector to be higher than in the private sector, other than (i) the public sector is not employing the right people or (ii) the Unions have negotiated an overly soft position for those that want to abuse it.
My sympathy is entirely with the 90%+ of public sector workers who do not abuse the system and are required to undertake their colleagues work while they watch breakfast television.
Lastly, if stress was genuinely a result of workload, then you expect to see, at least in some cases, a cascade effect. Employee 1 goes sick, meaning more load on employee 2, then number 2 goes sick and number 3 has three people's work and goes sick too. That this doesn't happen is further tribute to the 90% (or 95% or whatever) and a further indictment to the lazy few.
Firstly, if sick pay was axed, or maybe only available after 10 days of sickness, this problem would go away. Secondly, if an organisation has ongoing problem with people going off on sick leave, then it needs to look at its recruitment policies. Thirdly, it is a joke that as soon as somebody is picked up on their performance, the law allows them to go off on sick leave claiming stress. Fourthly, there is a noticeable link between every more liberal sick policies and the rise in stress related illness. Correlation or causation? There is no good reason for stress leave in the public sector to be higher than in the private sector, other than (i) the public sector is not employing the right people or (ii) the Unions have negotiated an overly soft position for those that want to abuse it. My sympathy is entirely with the 90%+ of public sector workers who do not abuse the system and are required to undertake their colleagues work while they watch breakfast television. Lastly, if stress was genuinely a result of workload, then you expect to see, at least in some cases, a cascade effect. Employee 1 goes sick, meaning more load on employee 2, then number 2 goes sick and number 3 has three people's work and goes sick too. That this doesn't happen is further tribute to the 90% (or 95% or whatever) and a further indictment to the lazy few. JamesYoung
  • Score: -2

1:09pm Wed 5 Mar 14

JamesYoung says...

pajero4x4 wrote:
Allow me to outline my take on this subject.All of the support that employers say they have in place is a smokescreen.The Bradford Formula etc is just a tool in the managements drawer.It's all to do with recording your non attendance at work with the view to dismiss staff. A senior manager would typically be tasked with 6/7 projects,he or she can then cascade his workload down to the rank and file workforce,which in turn places the worker under pressure. There are a couple of things you can do for yourself, No.1, Learn how to say NO to extra workload,it's a tough strategy and scary,but once said you will see a difference. No.2, ( and i have done this with amaing results),if your manager puts an extra task on you,tell him/her that you are willing to help and ask him which element of your workload you should drop. In the workplace only you are responsible for your general health,please look after yourself.
So do you think your manager is under any less pressure?
Or his manager?
Or his manager?
I manage a team and i've lost count of the number of extra days i've had to work to cover colleagues illness. As an employee, it's very easy to put your hands up, say "no" and walk away at 5pm. The work still needs to get done, though, doesn't it?
[quote][p][bold]pajero4x4[/bold] wrote: Allow me to outline my take on this subject.All of the support that employers say they have in place is a smokescreen.The Bradford Formula etc is just a tool in the managements drawer.It's all to do with recording your non attendance at work with the view to dismiss staff. A senior manager would typically be tasked with 6/7 projects,he or she can then cascade his workload down to the rank and file workforce,which in turn places the worker under pressure. There are a couple of things you can do for yourself, No.1, Learn how to say NO to extra workload,it's a tough strategy and scary,but once said you will see a difference. No.2, ( and i have done this with amaing results),if your manager puts an extra task on you,tell him/her that you are willing to help and ask him which element of your workload you should drop. In the workplace only you are responsible for your general health,please look after yourself.[/p][/quote]So do you think your manager is under any less pressure? Or his manager? Or his manager? I manage a team and i've lost count of the number of extra days i've had to work to cover colleagues illness. As an employee, it's very easy to put your hands up, say "no" and walk away at 5pm. The work still needs to get done, though, doesn't it? JamesYoung
  • Score: 2

1:36pm Wed 5 Mar 14

pajero4x4 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
pajero4x4 wrote:
Allow me to outline my take on this subject.All of the support that employers say they have in place is a smokescreen.The Bradford Formula etc is just a tool in the managements drawer.It's all to do with recording your non attendance at work with the view to dismiss staff. A senior manager would typically be tasked with 6/7 projects,he or she can then cascade his workload down to the rank and file workforce,which in turn places the worker under pressure. There are a couple of things you can do for yourself, No.1, Learn how to say NO to extra workload,it's a tough strategy and scary,but once said you will see a difference. No.2, ( and i have done this with amaing results),if your manager puts an extra task on you,tell him/her that you are willing to help and ask him which element of your workload you should drop. In the workplace only you are responsible for your general health,please look after yourself.
So do you think your manager is under any less pressure?
Or his manager?
Or his manager?
I manage a team and i've lost count of the number of extra days i've had to work to cover colleagues illness. As an employee, it's very easy to put your hands up, say "no" and walk away at 5pm. The work still needs to get done, though, doesn't it?
James,I understand your view,but you as a manager yourself choose to manage this extra workload yourself then I believe you may be heading to a dark place.Asking your manager what he/she proposes to do with the extra tasks that absent workers have left is the way forward.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pajero4x4[/bold] wrote: Allow me to outline my take on this subject.All of the support that employers say they have in place is a smokescreen.The Bradford Formula etc is just a tool in the managements drawer.It's all to do with recording your non attendance at work with the view to dismiss staff. A senior manager would typically be tasked with 6/7 projects,he or she can then cascade his workload down to the rank and file workforce,which in turn places the worker under pressure. There are a couple of things you can do for yourself, No.1, Learn how to say NO to extra workload,it's a tough strategy and scary,but once said you will see a difference. No.2, ( and i have done this with amaing results),if your manager puts an extra task on you,tell him/her that you are willing to help and ask him which element of your workload you should drop. In the workplace only you are responsible for your general health,please look after yourself.[/p][/quote]So do you think your manager is under any less pressure? Or his manager? Or his manager? I manage a team and i've lost count of the number of extra days i've had to work to cover colleagues illness. As an employee, it's very easy to put your hands up, say "no" and walk away at 5pm. The work still needs to get done, though, doesn't it?[/p][/quote]James,I understand your view,but you as a manager yourself choose to manage this extra workload yourself then I believe you may be heading to a dark place.Asking your manager what he/she proposes to do with the extra tasks that absent workers have left is the way forward. pajero4x4
  • Score: 6

2:51pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Preston North End says...

A tax payer funded, no-job haven for the irredeemably unemployable.
A tax payer funded, no-job haven for the irredeemably unemployable. Preston North End
  • Score: -11

3:19pm Wed 5 Mar 14

elloello1980 says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Legal Eyes wrote: Genuine sufferers deserve all our sympathy and support. But, to put it bluntly, the public services have an institutional tolerance to sick leave that is not shared in the (often equally stressful) private sector. The fire service has been notorious for years, for long-term sickness absence. Stress is not easily measured/verifiable by GPs (themselves stressed, but less often absent) and they understandably give the benefit of the doubt.
Nobody wants to think about not having a very good quality of emergency worker on hand to deal with whatever problem we have. Every day we are hearing stories about nightmares in the NHS, Cornish hospitals seem to be like something out of the Victorian era to me. The hard truth is that all the money has to come from somewhere. For every fireman that takes a two year sabbatical because he's witnessed something traumatic, somebody will loose something much more important, a life, a limb, die of cancer - and it is Hobsons choice, no doubting. Earning £30k pa or over locally is a huge amount of money and should carry a commensurately high level of responsibility and time required. If you have kids to look after and your primary carer - you cannot hold that job. Darting out the door at shift finish or taking a year on disability when you could be working in two months. Its just not sustainable. Quite frankly - I really don't think the teachers are going to be able to stave off doing normal working hours hard as they might try. Its not practical to pay people not to be working. It doesn't happen in the private sector. Why should one group of people be allowed to do it because they have a government job. Get used to taking twenty days holiday like the rest of us - you will probably find you job is less stressful anyway.
30K is not a huge salary in todays world. no such thing as a penny sweet no more, grandpa ;)
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legal Eyes[/bold] wrote: Genuine sufferers deserve all our sympathy and support. But, to put it bluntly, the public services have an institutional tolerance to sick leave that is not shared in the (often equally stressful) private sector. The fire service has been notorious for years, for long-term sickness absence. Stress is not easily measured/verifiable by GPs (themselves stressed, but less often absent) and they understandably give the benefit of the doubt.[/p][/quote]Nobody wants to think about not having a very good quality of emergency worker on hand to deal with whatever problem we have. Every day we are hearing stories about nightmares in the NHS, Cornish hospitals seem to be like something out of the Victorian era to me. The hard truth is that all the money has to come from somewhere. For every fireman that takes a two year sabbatical because he's witnessed something traumatic, somebody will loose something much more important, a life, a limb, die of cancer - and it is Hobsons choice, no doubting. Earning £30k pa or over locally is a huge amount of money and should carry a commensurately high level of responsibility and time required. If you have kids to look after and your primary carer - you cannot hold that job. Darting out the door at shift finish or taking a year on disability when you could be working in two months. Its just not sustainable. Quite frankly - I really don't think the teachers are going to be able to stave off doing normal working hours hard as they might try. Its not practical to pay people not to be working. It doesn't happen in the private sector. Why should one group of people be allowed to do it because they have a government job. Get used to taking twenty days holiday like the rest of us - you will probably find you job is less stressful anyway.[/p][/quote]30K is not a huge salary in todays world. no such thing as a penny sweet no more, grandpa ;) elloello1980
  • Score: 4

3:26pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

dorset & proud wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
I dont understand what is stressful. The fact that you are going to be able to pay all your bills? the fact that the bank will lend you money because you have a job? the fact that you can arrange to do stuff, like holiday and move about?
Why don't we ask some unemployed people how stressful it is being without a job? - and I don't mean someone that doesn't want to work, I mean someone thats actually looking for a job?
It's the fear of losing the ability to pay your bills, not being able to borrow money, not being able to keep your home etc, and if you lose your job, will you find another that will cover the outgoings - we all know that well paid work in this part of the world is hard to come by unless you're prepared to travel for it.

Fear management is rife these days, it's used as a tool to get things done and pressure you to do more. If you work in public sector or a large organisation, the chances are that you can go sick and still be paid - for quite some time, meanwhile in smaller, private companies you'll be lucky to get paid at all. The stress levels can be just as high, but they stay at work because not working = not earning.

Everyone reacts to stress differently. Some will go off with stress seemingly for very little reason, others will try to work through it for fear of being labelled as being unable to cope with the demands of your job. You don't want to draw attention to yourself, that just creates... stress.
I guess my point is that you are better to have work stress than no work stress.
[quote][p][bold]dorset & proud[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: I dont understand what is stressful. The fact that you are going to be able to pay all your bills? the fact that the bank will lend you money because you have a job? the fact that you can arrange to do stuff, like holiday and move about? Why don't we ask some unemployed people how stressful it is being without a job? - and I don't mean someone that doesn't want to work, I mean someone thats actually looking for a job?[/p][/quote]It's the fear of losing the ability to pay your bills, not being able to borrow money, not being able to keep your home etc, and if you lose your job, will you find another that will cover the outgoings - we all know that well paid work in this part of the world is hard to come by unless you're prepared to travel for it. Fear management is rife these days, it's used as a tool to get things done and pressure you to do more. If you work in public sector or a large organisation, the chances are that you can go sick and still be paid - for quite some time, meanwhile in smaller, private companies you'll be lucky to get paid at all. The stress levels can be just as high, but they stay at work because not working = not earning. Everyone reacts to stress differently. Some will go off with stress seemingly for very little reason, others will try to work through it for fear of being labelled as being unable to cope with the demands of your job. You don't want to draw attention to yourself, that just creates... stress.[/p][/quote]I guess my point is that you are better to have work stress than no work stress. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 2

3:33pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

elloello1980 wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Legal Eyes wrote: Genuine sufferers deserve all our sympathy and support. But, to put it bluntly, the public services have an institutional tolerance to sick leave that is not shared in the (often equally stressful) private sector. The fire service has been notorious for years, for long-term sickness absence. Stress is not easily measured/verifiable by GPs (themselves stressed, but less often absent) and they understandably give the benefit of the doubt.
Nobody wants to think about not having a very good quality of emergency worker on hand to deal with whatever problem we have. Every day we are hearing stories about nightmares in the NHS, Cornish hospitals seem to be like something out of the Victorian era to me. The hard truth is that all the money has to come from somewhere. For every fireman that takes a two year sabbatical because he's witnessed something traumatic, somebody will loose something much more important, a life, a limb, die of cancer - and it is Hobsons choice, no doubting. Earning £30k pa or over locally is a huge amount of money and should carry a commensurately high level of responsibility and time required. If you have kids to look after and your primary carer - you cannot hold that job. Darting out the door at shift finish or taking a year on disability when you could be working in two months. Its just not sustainable. Quite frankly - I really don't think the teachers are going to be able to stave off doing normal working hours hard as they might try. Its not practical to pay people not to be working. It doesn't happen in the private sector. Why should one group of people be allowed to do it because they have a government job. Get used to taking twenty days holiday like the rest of us - you will probably find you job is less stressful anyway.
30K is not a huge salary in todays world. no such thing as a penny sweet no more, grandpa ;)
Are you a doctor? or a lawyer? in which case you might be right.
If not you need to know that the average salary is maybe as high as £26k for a working man, maybe with the wind behind him. I think the figure locally is more likely to be £22K PA. If you mean to say that the average wage should be £30k Id agree. However most local private employers will want you to walk on water for that kind of money.
£30k is a lot of money nipper, a lot of money.
[quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legal Eyes[/bold] wrote: Genuine sufferers deserve all our sympathy and support. But, to put it bluntly, the public services have an institutional tolerance to sick leave that is not shared in the (often equally stressful) private sector. The fire service has been notorious for years, for long-term sickness absence. Stress is not easily measured/verifiable by GPs (themselves stressed, but less often absent) and they understandably give the benefit of the doubt.[/p][/quote]Nobody wants to think about not having a very good quality of emergency worker on hand to deal with whatever problem we have. Every day we are hearing stories about nightmares in the NHS, Cornish hospitals seem to be like something out of the Victorian era to me. The hard truth is that all the money has to come from somewhere. For every fireman that takes a two year sabbatical because he's witnessed something traumatic, somebody will loose something much more important, a life, a limb, die of cancer - and it is Hobsons choice, no doubting. Earning £30k pa or over locally is a huge amount of money and should carry a commensurately high level of responsibility and time required. If you have kids to look after and your primary carer - you cannot hold that job. Darting out the door at shift finish or taking a year on disability when you could be working in two months. Its just not sustainable. Quite frankly - I really don't think the teachers are going to be able to stave off doing normal working hours hard as they might try. Its not practical to pay people not to be working. It doesn't happen in the private sector. Why should one group of people be allowed to do it because they have a government job. Get used to taking twenty days holiday like the rest of us - you will probably find you job is less stressful anyway.[/p][/quote]30K is not a huge salary in todays world. no such thing as a penny sweet no more, grandpa ;)[/p][/quote]Are you a doctor? or a lawyer? in which case you might be right. If not you need to know that the average salary is maybe as high as £26k for a working man, maybe with the wind behind him. I think the figure locally is more likely to be £22K PA. If you mean to say that the average wage should be £30k Id agree. However most local private employers will want you to walk on water for that kind of money. £30k is a lot of money nipper, a lot of money. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 5

4:23pm Wed 5 Mar 14

February1948 says...

Has anyone ever done a survey amongst the self-employed about the amount of time they take off for stress?
Has anyone ever done a survey amongst the self-employed about the amount of time they take off for stress? February1948
  • Score: 16

5:12pm Wed 5 Mar 14

elloello1980 says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Legal Eyes wrote: Genuine sufferers deserve all our sympathy and support. But, to put it bluntly, the public services have an institutional tolerance to sick leave that is not shared in the (often equally stressful) private sector. The fire service has been notorious for years, for long-term sickness absence. Stress is not easily measured/verifiable by GPs (themselves stressed, but less often absent) and they understandably give the benefit of the doubt.
Nobody wants to think about not having a very good quality of emergency worker on hand to deal with whatever problem we have. Every day we are hearing stories about nightmares in the NHS, Cornish hospitals seem to be like something out of the Victorian era to me. The hard truth is that all the money has to come from somewhere. For every fireman that takes a two year sabbatical because he's witnessed something traumatic, somebody will loose something much more important, a life, a limb, die of cancer - and it is Hobsons choice, no doubting. Earning £30k pa or over locally is a huge amount of money and should carry a commensurately high level of responsibility and time required. If you have kids to look after and your primary carer - you cannot hold that job. Darting out the door at shift finish or taking a year on disability when you could be working in two months. Its just not sustainable. Quite frankly - I really don't think the teachers are going to be able to stave off doing normal working hours hard as they might try. Its not practical to pay people not to be working. It doesn't happen in the private sector. Why should one group of people be allowed to do it because they have a government job. Get used to taking twenty days holiday like the rest of us - you will probably find you job is less stressful anyway.
30K is not a huge salary in todays world. no such thing as a penny sweet no more, grandpa ;)
Are you a doctor? or a lawyer? in which case you might be right. If not you need to know that the average salary is maybe as high as £26k for a working man, maybe with the wind behind him. I think the figure locally is more likely to be £22K PA. If you mean to say that the average wage should be £30k Id agree. However most local private employers will want you to walk on water for that kind of money. £30k is a lot of money nipper, a lot of money.
No, I'm neither. I'd be expecting a lot more if i was ;)

If the average is 26K, then ~13% on top is not big money, surely?

I work with a few 100K+, and that's what inspires me to work harder (or smarter as the saying goes).

And I agree, 30K should be the average. but balanced in favor of the lower paid workers. Bring in the living wage!
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Legal Eyes[/bold] wrote: Genuine sufferers deserve all our sympathy and support. But, to put it bluntly, the public services have an institutional tolerance to sick leave that is not shared in the (often equally stressful) private sector. The fire service has been notorious for years, for long-term sickness absence. Stress is not easily measured/verifiable by GPs (themselves stressed, but less often absent) and they understandably give the benefit of the doubt.[/p][/quote]Nobody wants to think about not having a very good quality of emergency worker on hand to deal with whatever problem we have. Every day we are hearing stories about nightmares in the NHS, Cornish hospitals seem to be like something out of the Victorian era to me. The hard truth is that all the money has to come from somewhere. For every fireman that takes a two year sabbatical because he's witnessed something traumatic, somebody will loose something much more important, a life, a limb, die of cancer - and it is Hobsons choice, no doubting. Earning £30k pa or over locally is a huge amount of money and should carry a commensurately high level of responsibility and time required. If you have kids to look after and your primary carer - you cannot hold that job. Darting out the door at shift finish or taking a year on disability when you could be working in two months. Its just not sustainable. Quite frankly - I really don't think the teachers are going to be able to stave off doing normal working hours hard as they might try. Its not practical to pay people not to be working. It doesn't happen in the private sector. Why should one group of people be allowed to do it because they have a government job. Get used to taking twenty days holiday like the rest of us - you will probably find you job is less stressful anyway.[/p][/quote]30K is not a huge salary in todays world. no such thing as a penny sweet no more, grandpa ;)[/p][/quote]Are you a doctor? or a lawyer? in which case you might be right. If not you need to know that the average salary is maybe as high as £26k for a working man, maybe with the wind behind him. I think the figure locally is more likely to be £22K PA. If you mean to say that the average wage should be £30k Id agree. However most local private employers will want you to walk on water for that kind of money. £30k is a lot of money nipper, a lot of money.[/p][/quote]No, I'm neither. I'd be expecting a lot more if i was ;) If the average is 26K, then ~13% on top is not big money, surely? I work with a few 100K+, and that's what inspires me to work harder (or smarter as the saying goes). And I agree, 30K should be the average. but balanced in favor of the lower paid workers. Bring in the living wage! elloello1980
  • Score: 4

8:08pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Noidear says...

To get stress you need to work, so work- public sector, I think somebody got this wrong?
To get stress you need to work, so work- public sector, I think somebody got this wrong? Noidear
  • Score: -10

8:53pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

February1948 wrote:
Has anyone ever done a survey amongst the self-employed about the amount of time they take off for stress?
No need, I can answer that. It's none. Time off for sickness is not an option let alone something as abstract as stress.
[quote][p][bold]February1948[/bold] wrote: Has anyone ever done a survey amongst the self-employed about the amount of time they take off for stress?[/p][/quote]No need, I can answer that. It's none. Time off for sickness is not an option let alone something as abstract as stress. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 6

10:02pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Tinker2 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
pajero4x4 wrote: Allow me to outline my take on this subject.All of the support that employers say they have in place is a smokescreen.The Bradford Formula etc is just a tool in the managements drawer.It's all to do with recording your non attendance at work with the view to dismiss staff. A senior manager would typically be tasked with 6/7 projects,he or she can then cascade his workload down to the rank and file workforce,which in turn places the worker under pressure. There are a couple of things you can do for yourself, No.1, Learn how to say NO to extra workload,it's a tough strategy and scary,but once said you will see a difference. No.2, ( and i have done this with amaing results),if your manager puts an extra task on you,tell him/her that you are willing to help and ask him which element of your workload you should drop. In the workplace only you are responsible for your general health,please look after yourself.
So do you think your manager is under any less pressure? Or his manager? Or his manager? I manage a team and i've lost count of the number of extra days i've had to work to cover colleagues illness. As an employee, it's very easy to put your hands up, say "no" and walk away at 5pm. The work still needs to get done, though, doesn't it?
Been there, done that for years, but there is a personal cost to your own health and your family/social life balance.

P.S.
Pajero4x4; rarely have I read such well informed, thoughtful and elequently written comments on this site. Refreshing!
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pajero4x4[/bold] wrote: Allow me to outline my take on this subject.All of the support that employers say they have in place is a smokescreen.The Bradford Formula etc is just a tool in the managements drawer.It's all to do with recording your non attendance at work with the view to dismiss staff. A senior manager would typically be tasked with 6/7 projects,he or she can then cascade his workload down to the rank and file workforce,which in turn places the worker under pressure. There are a couple of things you can do for yourself, No.1, Learn how to say NO to extra workload,it's a tough strategy and scary,but once said you will see a difference. No.2, ( and i have done this with amaing results),if your manager puts an extra task on you,tell him/her that you are willing to help and ask him which element of your workload you should drop. In the workplace only you are responsible for your general health,please look after yourself.[/p][/quote]So do you think your manager is under any less pressure? Or his manager? Or his manager? I manage a team and i've lost count of the number of extra days i've had to work to cover colleagues illness. As an employee, it's very easy to put your hands up, say "no" and walk away at 5pm. The work still needs to get done, though, doesn't it?[/p][/quote]Been there, done that for years, but there is a personal cost to your own health and your family/social life balance. P.S. Pajero4x4; rarely have I read such well informed, thoughtful and elequently written comments on this site. Refreshing! Tinker2
  • Score: 1

12:59am Thu 6 Mar 14

mumsnuffkn says...

Tinker2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
pajero4x4 wrote: Allow me to outline my take on this subject.All of the support that employers say they have in place is a smokescreen.The Bradford Formula etc is just a tool in the managements drawer.It's all to do with recording your non attendance at work with the view to dismiss staff. A senior manager would typically be tasked with 6/7 projects,he or she can then cascade his workload down to the rank and file workforce,which in turn places the worker under pressure. There are a couple of things you can do for yourself, No.1, Learn how to say NO to extra workload,it's a tough strategy and scary,but once said you will see a difference. No.2, ( and i have done this with amaing results),if your manager puts an extra task on you,tell him/her that you are willing to help and ask him which element of your workload you should drop. In the workplace only you are responsible for your general health,please look after yourself.
So do you think your manager is under any less pressure? Or his manager? Or his manager? I manage a team and i've lost count of the number of extra days i've had to work to cover colleagues illness. As an employee, it's very easy to put your hands up, say "no" and walk away at 5pm. The work still needs to get done, though, doesn't it?
Been there, done that for years, but there is a personal cost to your own health and your family/social life balance.

P.S.
Pajero4x4; rarely have I read such well informed, thoughtful and elequently written comments on this site. Refreshing!
Yes, work needs to be done but not at the cost to one's health which then leads on to effect the family of the sufferer. Work should not be all there is to life. Of course it is a major part of living & life but too much work is bound to lead to illness & neglect of one's family which in the end, is the most important thing of all......isn't it? I think we are all living in a material world craving more & more luxury, always wanting bigger & better.
I think the world would be a better place if we could all live a more simple, less selfish & closer to nature existence.
I can see so many of you now thinking me a fool for saying this but we are all being led on our own path of destruction by doing everything we are told to do because we think there is no other way.
Remember David Icke? Everyone thought him completely mad. Seems he wasn't such a 'looney' after all. If you haven't actually listened to him lately you are missing the point. We are not ants, please look him up on youtube but actually take the time to listen, Please do not even bother responding if you haven't given him the time or chance to talk (I don't mean the first wogan interview).
Just my penny worth. I genuinely care about every good & caring being on this earth & hate to see anyone suffering.
[quote][p][bold]Tinker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pajero4x4[/bold] wrote: Allow me to outline my take on this subject.All of the support that employers say they have in place is a smokescreen.The Bradford Formula etc is just a tool in the managements drawer.It's all to do with recording your non attendance at work with the view to dismiss staff. A senior manager would typically be tasked with 6/7 projects,he or she can then cascade his workload down to the rank and file workforce,which in turn places the worker under pressure. There are a couple of things you can do for yourself, No.1, Learn how to say NO to extra workload,it's a tough strategy and scary,but once said you will see a difference. No.2, ( and i have done this with amaing results),if your manager puts an extra task on you,tell him/her that you are willing to help and ask him which element of your workload you should drop. In the workplace only you are responsible for your general health,please look after yourself.[/p][/quote]So do you think your manager is under any less pressure? Or his manager? Or his manager? I manage a team and i've lost count of the number of extra days i've had to work to cover colleagues illness. As an employee, it's very easy to put your hands up, say "no" and walk away at 5pm. The work still needs to get done, though, doesn't it?[/p][/quote]Been there, done that for years, but there is a personal cost to your own health and your family/social life balance. P.S. Pajero4x4; rarely have I read such well informed, thoughtful and elequently written comments on this site. Refreshing![/p][/quote]Yes, work needs to be done but not at the cost to one's health which then leads on to effect the family of the sufferer. Work should not be all there is to life. Of course it is a major part of living & life but too much work is bound to lead to illness & neglect of one's family which in the end, is the most important thing of all......isn't it? I think we are all living in a material world craving more & more luxury, always wanting bigger & better. I think the world would be a better place if we could all live a more simple, less selfish & closer to nature existence. I can see so many of you now thinking me a fool for saying this but we are all being led on our own path of destruction by doing everything we are told to do because we think there is no other way. Remember David Icke? Everyone thought him completely mad. Seems he wasn't such a 'looney' after all. If you haven't actually listened to him lately you are missing the point. We are not ants, please look him up on youtube but actually take the time to listen, Please do not even bother responding if you haven't given him the time or chance to talk (I don't mean the first wogan interview). Just my penny worth. I genuinely care about every good & caring being on this earth & hate to see anyone suffering. mumsnuffkn
  • Score: 5

12:45pm Thu 6 Mar 14

wurzelbasher says...

Yes it must be really stressful for these people to have to do a full day's work - at long last!! Many probably wouldn't last a week in the private sector! Try withholding pay from unworked days and see how stressful that is!
Yes it must be really stressful for these people to have to do a full day's work - at long last!! Many probably wouldn't last a week in the private sector! Try withholding pay from unworked days and see how stressful that is! wurzelbasher
  • Score: 1

4:45pm Thu 6 Mar 14

pajero4x4 says...

It's been interesting reading everyone's view on this subject,and I totally respect all viewpoints. Whilst it seems the common denominator here is available funds etc we can all still make small changes that will improve our well being. I also fully endorse TINKER2's submission (yes I have delved into David Ikes theories). Yes I do have a laptop and I am not advocating that people live like hermits,the smallest of changes you can make will reap personal benefits and an understanding of what is realy happening around you will astound you. I will leave you with one last view I have,why do you think John Lennon was murdered in New York ? you can work that one out for yourselves !
Keep safe out there and may your god bless you all. (except for that god dam woman who blocked me in Morrisons car park for 1 hour the other day :) )
It's been interesting reading everyone's view on this subject,and I totally respect all viewpoints. Whilst it seems the common denominator here is available funds etc we can all still make small changes that will improve our well being. I also fully endorse TINKER2's submission (yes I have delved into David Ikes theories). Yes I do have a laptop and I am not advocating that people live like hermits,the smallest of changes you can make will reap personal benefits and an understanding of what is realy happening around you will astound you. I will leave you with one last view I have,why do you think John Lennon was murdered in New York ? you can work that one out for yourselves ! Keep safe out there and may your god bless you all. (except for that god dam woman who blocked me in Morrisons car park for 1 hour the other day :) ) pajero4x4
  • Score: 2

8:27pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Atilla says...

Oh No!! The cost of stress going up..................
.I don't think I can stand much more!!!
Oh No!! The cost of stress going up.................. .I don't think I can stand much more!!! Atilla
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ksmain says...

JamesYoung wrote:
pajero4x4 wrote:
Allow me to outline my take on this subject.All of the support that employers say they have in place is a smokescreen.The Bradford Formula etc is just a tool in the managements drawer.It's all to do with recording your non attendance at work with the view to dismiss staff. A senior manager would typically be tasked with 6/7 projects,he or she can then cascade his workload down to the rank and file workforce,which in turn places the worker under pressure. There are a couple of things you can do for yourself, No.1, Learn how to say NO to extra workload,it's a tough strategy and scary,but once said you will see a difference. No.2, ( and i have done this with amaing results),if your manager puts an extra task on you,tell him/her that you are willing to help and ask him which element of your workload you should drop. In the workplace only you are responsible for your general health,please look after yourself.
So do you think your manager is under any less pressure?
Or his manager?
Or his manager?
I manage a team and i've lost count of the number of extra days i've had to work to cover colleagues illness. As an employee, it's very easy to put your hands up, say "no" and walk away at 5pm. The work still needs to get done, though, doesn't it?
I think that you both miss the point a little in your responses.

Stress can be caused by managers in various ways by bullying from them, lack of support, failure to make decisions. The problem is that you cannot manage people by reading it out of a textbook - it is an art and VERY FEW PEOPLE can do it properly. And that failure will cause stress IMO of those managed by these people.

As regards extra workload - it is not a right, it is something that is offered by the employee if they feel they want to do it (goodwill), and, in reality, constant extra work outside of normally expected working hours would indicate the problem of too much work with not enough resources, failure to manager or a failure of a manager to manage or allocate resources to tasks responsibly. And I include both the manager and members of staff in the above. Yes of course it is easy to walk away at 5pm, and many of us will work that bit extra.

As regards illness - I wonder how much of that is caused by people coming to work sick or not fully recovered and spreading the sickness to other, because there is an expectation that people come back to work when not fully recovered. Again that can cause stress and then illness of course in a self-perpetuating cycle.

As a final thought, managers are generally not paid all that extra money as they have far better knowledge than those they manage (as often their employees have the same level of knowledge). They are paid extra to manage resources to get a result - that is the difference.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pajero4x4[/bold] wrote: Allow me to outline my take on this subject.All of the support that employers say they have in place is a smokescreen.The Bradford Formula etc is just a tool in the managements drawer.It's all to do with recording your non attendance at work with the view to dismiss staff. A senior manager would typically be tasked with 6/7 projects,he or she can then cascade his workload down to the rank and file workforce,which in turn places the worker under pressure. There are a couple of things you can do for yourself, No.1, Learn how to say NO to extra workload,it's a tough strategy and scary,but once said you will see a difference. No.2, ( and i have done this with amaing results),if your manager puts an extra task on you,tell him/her that you are willing to help and ask him which element of your workload you should drop. In the workplace only you are responsible for your general health,please look after yourself.[/p][/quote]So do you think your manager is under any less pressure? Or his manager? Or his manager? I manage a team and i've lost count of the number of extra days i've had to work to cover colleagues illness. As an employee, it's very easy to put your hands up, say "no" and walk away at 5pm. The work still needs to get done, though, doesn't it?[/p][/quote]I think that you both miss the point a little in your responses. Stress can be caused by managers in various ways by bullying from them, lack of support, failure to make decisions. The problem is that you cannot manage people by reading it out of a textbook - it is an art and VERY FEW PEOPLE can do it properly. And that failure will cause stress IMO of those managed by these people. As regards extra workload - it is not a right, it is something that is offered by the employee if they feel they want to do it (goodwill), and, in reality, constant extra work outside of normally expected working hours would indicate the problem of too much work with not enough resources, failure to manager or a failure of a manager to manage or allocate resources to tasks responsibly. And I include both the manager and members of staff in the above. Yes of course it is easy to walk away at 5pm, and many of us will work that bit extra. As regards illness - I wonder how much of that is caused by people coming to work sick or not fully recovered and spreading the sickness to other, because there is an expectation that people come back to work when not fully recovered. Again that can cause stress and then illness of course in a self-perpetuating cycle. As a final thought, managers are generally not paid all that extra money as they have far better knowledge than those they manage (as often their employees have the same level of knowledge). They are paid extra to manage resources to get a result - that is the difference. ksmain
  • Score: 3

7:21am Fri 7 Mar 14

cj07589 says...

February1948 wrote:
Has anyone ever done a survey amongst the self-employed about the amount of time they take off for stress?
Exactly, if you can't handle the job parameters perhaps you need to find another job. I do have a lot of sympathy for the emergency services and the stress thoses jobs entail. I did laugh at the opening posts comment that you should say no to taking on more work my initial thought was this person wouldn't have a job for very long in the private sector with that attitude.
[quote][p][bold]February1948[/bold] wrote: Has anyone ever done a survey amongst the self-employed about the amount of time they take off for stress?[/p][/quote]Exactly, if you can't handle the job parameters perhaps you need to find another job. I do have a lot of sympathy for the emergency services and the stress thoses jobs entail. I did laugh at the opening posts comment that you should say no to taking on more work my initial thought was this person wouldn't have a job for very long in the private sector with that attitude. cj07589
  • Score: 2

8:01am Fri 7 Mar 14

woodsedge says...

Noidear wrote:
To get stress you need to work, so work- public sector, I think somebody got this wrong?
To**er
[quote][p][bold]Noidear[/bold] wrote: To get stress you need to work, so work- public sector, I think somebody got this wrong?[/p][/quote]To**er woodsedge
  • Score: -2

7:39pm Sun 9 Mar 14

westbaywonder says...

Stress LOL.
You wanted the job,you applied for the job ,now do the job without making poor excuses.Puffs!
Stress LOL. You wanted the job,you applied for the job ,now do the job without making poor excuses.Puffs! westbaywonder
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree