
Mental health is still an issue in the workplace - bcx
https://medium.com/@OlarkLiveChat/its-2017-and-mental-health-is-still-an-issue-in-the-workplace-61efbef092f
======
steven777400
Great article. A few years ago (at a previous job) I took a sick day for
"sanity", but told them I wasn't feeling well. I felt guilty about doing it. I
think part of it is the association of sick leave with externally visible
medical issues, and the corresponding "straightforward" medical verification.

In other words, if you have a temperature or are vomiting, that's obvious.
Many infections or physical injury can be trivially verified by a doctor. But
a "sanity day", as truthful and necessary as it might be, is neither of those.

Out of curiosity, I checked my current employment contract. It says sick leave
is for "A personal illness, injury or medical disability that prevents the
employee from performing his or her job, or personal medical or dental
appointments." or "Exposure of the employee to contagious disease when
attendance at work would jeopardize the health of others." There's a dozen or
so other cases listed in the contract, mostly about allowing sick leave to
care for sick family members/children. Our contract also allows for
verification, "If the Employer suspects abuse, the Employer may require a
written medical certificate for any sick leave absence."

I've never heard of anyone here being asked for a verification, but it would
tend to discourage people doing the "sanity day" sort of thing.

~~~
TallGuyShort
>> I've never heard of anyone here being asked for a verification, but it
would tend to discourage people doing the "sanity day" sort of thing.

I suspect that the lack of trust this indicates on the part of the company
(not to mention foster on the part of the employee) is probably a sign that
you're past the point of no return. I suspect a company that asked for
verification was not doing so to see if you were genuinely ill, they're doing
so because it's already a problem and they want a nice paper trail for when
they terminate you. Of course if you _are_ abusing it, I think that's totally
reasonable.

But I think most of my employers (except for one, where I quit for exactly
this kind of disrespect) would have had no problem with me saying, "hey I just
need a mental break day in order to keep doing this job - I'm taking one of my
sick days". If one significantly exceeds allocated sick days, then the reason
starts mattering more.

~~~
phil21
You're generally correct for the folks who have decent salaried careers. If I
got asked to justify a regular random day or two I took off as PTO I'd tell HR
to pound sand as anyone rightfully should.

Get into hourly low wage stuff and you are treated like children, many shops
require a doctor's note for any and all absences with 1 or 2 dermits until
you're fired.

This has reasons from both ends of course. When I was younger I saw the need
for this sort of policy or you'd get eaten alive by the low-wage masses
abusing it (and abuse it they did). But on the flip-side, these policies tend
to simply be abused by management once enacted - with no leeway for people to
be human.

In the white collar arena it's pretty damn trivial as a manager to tell who is
abusing a PTO policy and who isn't, so only the shittiest of companies enact
such policies. Managerial laziness is definitely creeping into this area of
life as well too though.

~~~
omegaworks
>by the low-wage masses abusing it (and abuse it they did).

This feeds directly into the popular narrative that the working poor somehow
lack moral fortitude. Do you have evidence to justify this claim?

~~~
bluGill
If his experience was anything like mine it isn't the working poor. It is the
young workers who are not poor. They are still living at home: they do not
need to pay for their room, meals eaten at home, health insurance. That is
every penny they earn is pure spending money and so despite making minimum
wage they are rich with no need to work as many hours as they do.

When I was working minimum wage there was also the working poor: they needed
every penny. If they called in sick you knew they were sick. If you asked them
to work overtime they did their best to take it because the extra money was
needed (they often couldn't find a sitter on short notice though). They didn't
stay in minimum wage for long, their efforts were noticed and they were
offered promotions to management (not all accepted because management often
meant moving away from family, but in that case they still got maximum raises
until they reached the top of the pay scale).

Note that many of the working poor got themselves into that position because
of their choices, generally they had a kid at 16 and dropped out of school as
a result (at best finished at the bottom of their class). They were failing to
dig themselves out of the hole of their bad life choices because that kid
takes the time needed to get a better education. In short they lack moral
fortitude in that they were (and are...) sleeping around, but not in that they
are not working hard for their employer.

~~~
eecc
So basically you're boiling it down to sex and laying down the guilt at the
feet of the healthy young adults whose behavior is all but unexpected.

Wouldn't you rather call it the failure of a community - a society - to
prepare its new members to the complexities of life?

Oh but it's easy to climb up the high horse, brandish the sword of Morals and
throw the erring off the tower (incidentally, it's the same ISIS does to its
own "deviants")

~~~
TallGuyShort
It's nothing to do with morals. Unsafe sex at an early age is just plain a
stupid dangerous decision, and there's plenty of people to tell you that. Sure
- I feel bad for the people who are now going to be paying for the
consequences for the rest of their lives, but it's not some arbitrary
religious code. It's not so different from experimenting with drugs in that
regard.

~~~
vizeroth
Kids make stupid and dangerous decisions because their brains aren't fully
developed, they don't have the same sense of perspective that they will
(hopefully) have as adults. Once upon a time, this was part of why we had a
separate judicial system for them, too.

Religion comes into play because the lobby against making birth control
available to teenagers is also the lobby against abortion clinics (and any
clinics that offer health services and birth control to teenagers) is also the
lobby to teach abstinence in schools (or not teach sex ed. at all), and that
lobby gets most of its funding from religious organizations.

So, the slightly awkward week in sixth grade where my teacher gave us anatomy
lessons and a birth video is something my daughter didn't get to experience,
even though I brought my family back to my hometown. Instead, she gets the
even more wonderfully awkward talk from her parents, which my wife likes to
paraphrase as "your mouth won't get pregnant" (thanks Bill Clinton).

Teen pregnancy is not currently a common issue (it has been declining since
1990), but that doesn't mean it won't start going back up if we continue
making it more difficult for young women (and men) to have access to birth
control and education about safe sex.

We even had some discussion in school about how to reduce the risks of
experimenting with drugs, though I don't think many people followed those
directions.

~~~
mythrwy
Religion _was_ the birth control for a long time. It appears to have stopped
working sometime in the late 1960's though.

~~~
bluGill
In the old days they used to say "First babies can arrive whenever they want,
the second baby better take nine months". Which is to say they knew unmarried
people would have sex, but any girl that got herself pregnant was expected to
marry the father before the baby was born and stay married.

Religion never worked great, but it was all they had.

------
siliconc0w
There is a kinda secret code for OOO or WFH emails that managers should
respect. Definitely got to "Respect the code" (say in a pirate voice). As a
manager I'd write purposely vague emails to contribute to this, "Sorry will be
late, got jumped by a gang of ninjas" because I really don't like to set a
cultural tone that isn't trusting of employees. I basically need to know you
aren't going to be here but I don't need to know why.

There was an eng manager that would pester people about vaguer emails asking
for clarification. I really wanted to just sit him down and explain that he
isn't being clever and he was basically being a jackass for prying into
people's personal lives - vague email is vague for a reason.

~~~
lazyasciiart
I decided years ago to avoid detail in "I'm sick" emails, because I don't want
to one day think "do I need to say I have horrendous diarrhea, or can i just
say I'm sick?"

~~~
draw_down
Me too, I also used to say "I have an appointment on Thursdays" instead of
telling people I was going to the shrink. Though I'm guessing that code was
not exactly impenetrable.

~~~
Jaruzel
I did _exactly_ the same when I was in therapy the time before last. The only
person who knew where I actually was, was my Manager (and I guess HR as well)
- but my team (peers and subordinates) didn't know. I felt at the time this
was the correct way to handle it.

Third time around in therapy (last year), I decided to be very open about my
mental health, and the steps I was taking to help myself. So my emails became
'I can't do that then, I'm in therapy.'.

I found personally, that being honest and open to everyone about my problems
actually contributed in a small way to my recovery effort. Even now,
stabilised and medicated, I'm still honest and open about my [ongoing]
journey, and who I was as person then, and who I am now.

I am never going to lie about being crazy again, it's not healthy.

~~~
nf05papsjfVbc
Might I ask if the using the word 'crazy' at the end was a conscious choice? I
do not wish to pry or pose a rhetorical question. I'm curious only because
from the rest of the email you seem to be speaking in a dispassionate manner
about the situation but that bit stood out as being different.

I could be way off the mark of course. I intend no disrespect or ill-will of
any kind. I understand if you just say "None of your business" or something
like that.

~~~
Jaruzel
Nah, it's fine :)

'Crazy' is how I view myself. It helps me accept my broken brain, and more
importantly, makes it easier to stay on the meds. Without the meds, I'm into
serious depression and anxiety territory. It's no fun being there, so better
to call myself Crazy. It is what it is. Also, I use self depreciating humour
as defence mechanism. People I know personally don't like it when I call
myself Crazy though, not sure why.

One day I do intend to get an 'I AM crazy, the doctor had me tested.' t-shirt.
(see what I did there?)

~~~
brookside
IMHO defining yourself as "having" or even "being" __some mental health label
__can be reinforcing and self defeating.

And if I had a friend who defined themselves as crazy that would honestly
strike me as obnoxious. (I'd give a pass for schizophrenia or the like. Then
your brain truly would be _broken_ ).

I say this having struggled in my own way (as, many, many - probably the
majority - of people do at some point) with forms of anxiety and depression.

Everybody is trying to focus. Everybody is trying to be happy and stable.
Everybody is trying to get by.

~~~
mekkz
Just to dispell some common misunderstanding in this area: People with
anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder can act in ways that make people
think they're just as "crazy" as people with schizophrenia. There isn't a hard
dividing line between schizophrenia and other "less severe" psychiatric
conditions. The definitions of them are fuzzy and it's better to think of the
whole thing along the lines of a spectrum of affectedness.

My point is that anyone can be "broken"... Not just people with schizophrenia.
And sometimes, for both schizophrenia and other conditions, accepting that
you're somewhat broken in a way can be very helpful. It allows you to accept
help more easily and relieve yourself of personal blame for the ways you may
have acted or continue to act due to the condition.

Source: I have a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder.

------
curun1r
My only issue with this is how he seems to lump in the "mental health" days
that people without diagnosed mental health disorders face with the
stigmatization that the other group feels. I fully support people who need to
deal with mental fatigue in these ways, but if just taking time off "cures"
your mental health issues, it's a different class of problem from what others
are dealing with.

The "still" is incredibly premature when it comes to mental health in the
workplace. We're just scratching the surface when it comes to acknowledging,
accepting and understanding those with mental health disorders. Depression,
ADHD and even Autism Spectrum and OCD are all on the leading edge of disorders
that are receiving less stigmatization and more acceptance over time. But
there's a lot more in the DSM-V that are completely misunderstood or
completely unpublicized. And our workplaces are completely unprepared to deal
with them.

I saw this first hand at my previous employer. We had a coworker who had a
number of personal disagreements with other coworkers. In discussing it with
my mother, a psychologist, she mentioned that much of his behavior sounded, to
her, like someone with Borderline Personality Disorder. He was everyone's best
friend up until they did anything he interpreted as being against him at which
point he'd flip and try to sabotage them at every opportunity, including
filing numerous baseless claims with HR. The organization was completely
unprepared to deal with an individual like him. Each HR claim he filed was
treated seriously, but there was never encouragement or a requirement that he
talk to a trained mental health professional who could have been helped guide
the company to a productive outcome. Instead, his conflicts with other
employees caused at least 3 of them to quit before he was eventually forced
out of the company for taking on someone who had too much pull with upper
management. I can only imagine the carnage that would have been caused if he
had been a she and had been able to abuse the sexual harassment policies.

HR is only trained to help the company avoid getting sued. But there's damage
to both the employee and the company that can happen without the lawyers
getting involved. The company's HR failed him and the rest of us that had to
work with him by not knowing how to deal with that sort of psychological
disorder.

Rather than "it's 2017 and mental health is still an issue," I'd say, "it's
2017 and we're finally starting to acknowledge the long road ahead of us."

~~~
aaron-lebo
You are very very right.

When people have disorders like you list they are disabling. That's expensive
for the worker and the employer and ultimately our social systems but it's
just kind of expected that those people are forgotten with no resources but
their own to cope. That's a horrible broken system.

What scares me is the undiagnosed (as you pointed out). There's way too many
people in public perception that when analyzed closely have some kind of
personality disorder. Not to play psychobabble but way too often these
disorders are recognized for the success they provide but the destructive
aspects are ignored. Some of these people have been so successful that they'll
die untreated and it's a loss for them and everyone else.

Jobs had something wrong with him that he appears to have recognized and
mitigated over time. Trump has something wrong with him, he'll never get
treated. There are some other popular figures that are less controversial but
in the same boat. Straight up sociopathic behavior that is applauded until
enough people get hurt.

Then you've got the unsuccessful delusional people who end up committing mass
murder. How many shootings and terrorist attacks could have been prevented
through relatively cheap mental healthcare?

It seems like an obvious weak point in society that we don't really address.
Worse, you gotta wonder if social media is exacerbating it in some people.
It's easy to become a delusional narcissist these days. Maybe it always has
been?

~~~
curun1r
> Trump has something wrong with him, he'll never get treated

A bit off-topic, but in case you're interested in that 'something', here's one
analysis from a psychologist that made the rounds of liberal psychologists
that my mother associates with: [http://www.nationalmemo.com/psychoanalyzing-
donald-trump/](http://www.nationalmemo.com/psychoanalyzing-donald-trump/)

~~~
pdeuchler
Please stop sharing that tripe.

The author himself admits it's horribly unethical and overwhelmingly likely to
be entirely wrong in the very first paragraph, but somehow justifies his
continued speculation because a random group of peers (as if these peers being
located within the grounds of Yale for a conference gives them some sort of
authority) decided it was okay this one time because they don't like the
subject in question.

If you truly care about creating political change and/or defeating Trump
you'll focus on policies that the majority of the electorate are willing to
vote for instead of sharing feel good tabloid pablum to justify your
superiority complex.

~~~
qb45
Not only that, they are basically turning this whole mental health thing into
a farce.

------
throwaway2928
Not that long ago, I was considering joining a startup where an old manager of
mine was the head of eng. They seemed to be doing some cool stuff, another
friend had recently joined and spoke well of it, and I thought I'd give it a
go. As part of that process, my old manager took me out for coffee to talk
about the company, etc.

When we chatted, he basically laid down that he was concerned- when I had
worked for him, I'd been depressed. He wanted to protect his startup from that
kind of attitude. So there I was jumping through hoops to assure him that I
had gotten therapy, that I was keeping an eye on it, on and on... only
afterwards did I realize how fucked up that was.

Yes, he's got a right to try to protect a fragile young startup. But on the
other hand, he's doing it via discrimination due to health issues.

In the end, I also realized something else that mattered: I was always feeling
like shit those days that I worked for him in large part because of how he ran
things. After he left, we got a much better manager who honestly seemed to
work hard to make me happy. Why the hell would I want to go work for that guy
again in the first place?

~~~
phil21
This is where it gets tricky.

Is your negative attitude due to a medical condition or you just being an
asshole who has an attitude problem?

And is that even material to the decision to hire you or not? No one really
cares _why_ you act like that, they simply care that you do.

I'm going to say it's entirely on you to present yourself in a positive light
at work, and I honestly think your ex-manager was doing you a solid there. The
typical way this plays out is your mental condition (or possibility of one)
gets discussed by management behind closed doors and you never know why you
didn't receive that offer or promotion. And yes, based on my limited
experience with larger companies this is exceedingly common at the executive
level. The one thing you don't want on your "record" is a history of mental
health issues - there is no recovery to your (management) career once that is
known.

In your case I think you simply had the curtain pulled back a little, out of
consideration from your past manager.

Your other points stand though.

~~~
throwaway2928
> Is your negative attitude due to a medical condition or you just being an
> asshole who has an attitude problem?

I'm always unsure. These days, I'm generally a pretty positive guy but I know
I've struggled in the past.

On this particular team I was definitely not the biggest asshole. In fact,
after this manager left, the biggest asshole was fired pretty much based on
the fact that the new managers weren't willing to tolerate his attitude. The
bro culture of the team was curtailed (which is why I was so much happier on
it afterwards).

It's very hard to be a manager, a people leader. I don't think he was _wrong_
to bring up the fact - he was doing it because he wanted to protect his
company - but it certainly danced around a line of legality. After I withdrew
my application he made sure to tell friends of mine that he had rejected me
because of my depression. Really mature, that guy is.

~~~
phil21
> Really mature, that guy is.

This is really the only issue I have. Maybe your manager sucked, I don't know.
But this specific story is absolutely the opposite. He put himself out on the
line (as you say) and was honest with you. Typical folks would simply not talk
to you whatsoever, but have the same reasoning.

Maybe I'm strange, but I'd far prefer the latter.

Story time. My best hire I've made was an employee with a speech impediment.
This job was for a night shift as a sysadmin/support role, and that required
answering the phones at 2am when customers called. Customers don't call at 2am
to have a friendly chat - so those calls typically were high stress, and it
really caused his speech to falter quite a bit.

I could have easily simply bounced him on the phone interview, since we were a
tiny startup at the time and one wrong hire had the potential to sink us. I
had other livelihoods to think of - not just the "legal" situation.

So what I did was I asked the guy back for a second informal interview and
laid my cards out on the table. He could have gotten up right then, left, and
immediately sued me. But he didn't - we had a productive talk about it, and
due to that talk (and other self-starting qualities he had shown) he got the
job.

I've now worked with him for over 10 years, through thick and thin and
switching companies.

If I had followed your advice here - as the hiring manager I would have simply
round-filed the resume due to the potential issues, and went on with my day. I
took the risk, and it worked out. I don't believe what I did should have been
punishable by death of my company - but it absolutely was if that potential
hire had been ethically challenged. I also started the career of someone who
was having challenges finding work elsewhere due to "unknown reasons" \- aka
people seeing his impairment and silently crossing him off the candidate list.
Due to the insane legal framework around this stuff, very few companies will
take risks like I did any longer.

~~~
tobz
Since we're playing the "here's an issue I have with what you just said"
game...

You "laid your cards out on the table" \-- which, as you note, is likely
grounds for some sort of legal proceedings -- and it turned out.. I don't know
even know. You got lucky that you weren't sued, as you willfully trampled
through anti-discrimination laws. Why did it take some sort of put-it-on-the-
line moment for you to consider the candidate beyond their physical
disability?

You even go on to say that if the candidate was "ethically challenged", your
company might suffer. You admit here that you were considering not hiring them
because of a disability. How is it ethically challenged to possibly fight back
over a dismissal based on being in a protected class? Do you view people with
disabilities as simply a liability to companies?

Your closing sentences really smack of backdoor bragging. Good thing he found
you, how lucky of him, someone that would tell him flat out to his face that
they were worried he couldn't perform his job... and then decided to grace him
with employment.

As the OP said, really mature. :/

~~~
phil21
> Your closing sentences really smack of backdoor bragging. Good thing he
> found you, how lucky of him, someone that would tell him flat out to his
> face that they were worried he couldn't perform his job... and then decided
> to grace him with employment.

Fair enough, could be seen that way. I only mentioned it because he's made
that specific point himself to me many times. No one was willing to give him a
shot for over a year due to his disability, yet in pop culture (as you have so
clearly pointed out) I'm the evil one. I suppose that was an ill-advised
addition, and should have been kept personal.

> Why did it take some sort of put-it-on-the-line moment for you to consider
> the candidate beyond their physical disability?

I really don't get this point. Why would I have taken the actions I did if I
did not consider the candidate beyond their physical ability? I loved
everything about him, but his disability put into severe question if he could
perform the job. I had three choices at that point.

1) Round-bin the candidate. The vast majority of all employers do this at this
stage.

2) Hire him blindly and hope for the best. In a 5 person startup this likely
isn't a great plan for success. Plus if you make a hire like this and have to
fire due to the disability not allowing him to perform the job I'm in a much
stickier legal situation. Most likely I now get to hire another person to also
do his job, and as a 5 man startup that just ended the company.

3) Talk with the candidate about my concerns, and see if we can come up with
some reasonable accommodation. This is hugely risky as an employer if we end
up not being able to come up with anything that works for us both. I took this
option as I consider #1 absolutely immoral, and #2 had financial realities
attached to it all the wishful thinking in the world wouldn't make go away.

And I do think you missed my point. The vast majority of employers completely
ignore candidates like this because of posts like yours (e.g. the social
climate) and legal liability if they say the wrong thing. In your estimation,
I'm required to hire someone with a disability that cannot do the job. That is
not true.

It took that moment because there were serious and legitimate concerns about
his ability to do the job. Since he was a reasonable person he discussed those
concerns with me like an adult, and we found a solution that worked for both
of us. Hired. Had we not been able to find a workable solution, I shouldn't
have had to open myself up to a potential frivolous lawsuit due to that fact.

And yes, you can say I trampled through anti-discrimination laws I suppose.
But doing so got him hired, when before it would have been an open question if
he could legitimately perform the job duties required. In this case, following
the letter of the law would have hurt him since I could not have even broached
the subject.

> Do you view people with disabilities as simply a liability to companies?

Again, I think you are having severe problems separating what reality actually
is, to what the law says. I never said this in any way - I specifically noted
how there were legitimate concerns over the employee's disability to do the
job required. There are no reasonable accommodations to be made if the job is
talk on the phone and you are incapable of doing so, and I would have had zero
way to know if this problem was able to be mitigated in any fashion until I
asked. Which I legally cannot do.

My point was if I had followed the law, that guy's resume would have been
trashed like it was for the 50+ companies he got into and interviewed with to
that point. Magically zero companies were interested the second he had to
speak in person or on the phone and his disability revealed itself. He was
otherwise solid, and me taking the time and liability to actually engage him
in discussion about my concerns allowed me to feel comfortable hiring him and
got his career started. My secondary point is good managers will absolutely
color outside the lines with you and work with you to be successful in your
career. OPs manager took him aside and outlined his concerns - in my opinion
(as someone who has suffered the same condition) that's extremely respectful.
The typical manager would have simply never even talked to the guy again, as
it wasn't worth the risk.

I guess I simply will refuse to feel bad about this, even though you'd like
that outcome. I'm absolutely proud I stuck my neck out and did the right thing
- very few companies will these days. There are entire classes of untouchables
I could talk your ear off about that everyone has utterly forgotten where the
laws supposedly "protect" them but do the exact opposite. I put my money where
my mouth is, where most simply ignore the problem exists due to perceived
liability while simultaneously patting themselves on the back over how
progressive they are being. It's sickening to me.

Edit: cleaned up some prose, less confrontational.

------
makecheck
One of the big problems with mental health is that it’s aggravated by bruising
that you can’t see. If someone came up to you and gave you a paper cut every
day for the next 3 years, you’d show some major scars and there would
certainly be enough evidence to gain some sympathy. All the interactions you
have in your day can also have a cumulative effect on the mind.

We can have laws or corporate rules or whatever but at the end of the day
people just have to stop being so _lousy_ to one another. Obviously this means
there shouldn’t be people screaming at each other but it’s a lot more than
that. It’s also the little things: don’t cut in lines, don’t be a jerk in
traffic, don’t eat stinky meals in the middle of crowds, don’t get in peoples’
way or be generally oblivious to what’s around you, etc. These are all the
“paper cuts” of the mind, gradually aggravating people day after day until
they just can’t handle it anymore.

~~~
johnfn
I say this with as much compassion as possible (though it's going to be hard
to sound that way over the Internet). A lot of those aggravations are more
perceived than actual, thanks to the mental illness itself. You could say
"how's it going, buddy" to a depressed and a non-depressed person, and the
non-depressed person could see it as a genuine and caring remark and the
depressed person could see it as sarcastic or uncaring or whatever. A
depressed person could see someone cutting lanes as a jerk, a non-depressed
person may see them as in a rush and busy.

Depression is something that colors the entire world dark and gray. It turns a
bunch of normal remarks into thousands of little papercuts. No one is right or
wrong here, but for a depressed person, understanding how depression colors
the world can be useful.

------
goodroot
My partner works at Olark. It truly is a human-focused business. I love that
she is there. The intention that their team and leadership have applied into
creating a safe environment is deeply rooted and honest.

As someone who struggled with depression for two decades, while ultimately
thwarted, it was a hopeless, numbing plague. As a coping mechanism, I
developed my career working remotely. I was unable to function within a
typical office environment. At home I could steal away to my bedroom and hide
from the black under cover of blanket, when I needed to.

It's encouraging to see the silent struggle find words and champions. May
others who are going through the darkness find supportive and loving
environments; any change to find them is worth it. You are the author of your
journey and the hero: write a happy story.

~~~
DrScump

      My partner works at Olark. It truly is a human-focused business.
    

Perhaps that explains the lack of openings on their jobs page?

------
zitterbewegung
I applaud the author for destigmatizing mental health issues. More companies
need to be like this. Its really hard for people to understand mental health
issues because you have to take many optional classes to even get an idea of
what they are. Also, many people throw around terms like psychopath /
ADD(ADHD) and either diagnose themselves or others and that can lead to more
stigma or even misunderstandings. I think better education of mental health
would help solve this.

~~~
acuozzo
> Also, many people throw around terms like psychopath / ADD(ADHD)

I can't stand this because I suffer from a double whammy: true diagnosed
comorbid ADHD and OCD which people assume means that I'm just really hyper and
picky. Also, people nowadays tend to assume that I was self-diagnosed (I
wasn't) which I find to be a rather disrespectful and demeaning assumption.

Living with ADHD and OCD as a computer programmer is a daily struggle. I have
to constantly stop myself from getting hyper-focused on problems unrelated to
my job and stop myself from needlessly spending hours getting meaningless
details just right. These distractions negatively impact my productivity, so
I'm thankful everyday that I've accumulated enough smarts over the years to
make up for it with what I produce.

It sucks having to fight yourself everyday in order to live some semblance of
a normal life and it really sucks when people minimize your problems by
adopting them as monikers for quirky personality traits.

~~~
danellis
> Living with ADHD and OCD as a computer programmer is a daily struggle.

I've struggled with this for as long as I remember, but I didn't really
understand what was wrong with me until I was diagnosed a couple of years ago
after having a particularly difficult time.

I was as open with my manager about it as I felt I could be, and they gave the
impression of being supportive. When I got a new manager, I laid it all out
(which my therapist encouraged me to do), and explained how I was trying new
medications and that some of them had negatively affected me. He said he
understood and that he'd make sure I got the support I needed. When review
time came, he said things hadn't been perfect, but he considered that to be
because I hadn't received the appropriate support from my previous manager.
Things improved: he made sure I was assigned longer-term work that didn't
involve having to switch between tasks too often. Unfortunately, everything
I'd done suddenly became irrelevant when they decided to reboot a project,
invalidating nine months of work.

Then one day, out of the blue, just as I was getting into the restarted
project, I was called into a Hangout and told that that would be my last day,
with no formal explanation given, other than that they were suddenly no longer
happy with the quality of my work. I was devastated. My son had just started
at a private school (because of his own problems with ADHD), and I was due to
lease a new car later that day. We ended up homeschooling him for the rest of
the year.

What really gets to me, though, is that there was no process. The VP of People
had given a talk not longer before about "How to get fired from <company>",
and one of the key takeaways was that no one should be fired without knowing
it was coming, but for some reason I was treated differently. And all this
from a company that preaches "love" as a core value. I'm not naive: I
understand that it's all about the bottom line, not caring about people, but
this was a company that wanted us to believe it cared about things like mental
health.

I've learned my lesson, though. In future, I'll keep personal things to
myself, and just try to do my best. I've learned not to think of colleagues as
friends, and I will never again fill out a self-assessment except in the
blandest, most generic of terms.

------
BadassFractal
First hand experience. As a founder it's terrifying to let people know that
you are experiencing debilitating levels of burnout, anxiety and moderate
depression that prevent you from being effective at your job. There are days
when you're just sitting there staring at your screen for 10 hours hoping
nobody can tell you're checked out.

You put on a smile, try to follow the usual routine as a robot, and secretly
go to your therapist to try to fix it before someone catches on. I was lucky
therapy got me out of it, or at least mostly smoothed it out, in under 6
months.

~~~
intheletter1
Uhg, I am in that exact situation right now. I've done the therapy thing in
the past, didn't help. Meds in the past seemed to help but hard to isolate
them as THE factor that helped me out of a rut. So now I feel out of options.

I am so burned out. So much on my plate, so much work to do, and literally not
one neuron fires to get me going. My memory and mental function, at an all
time low.

I gotta believe this just goes away, otherwise I lose my job for sure.

~~~
vorpalhex
Ask for a sabbatical.

Take a month (or better yet, three). It will benefit both you and the company.
Discuss options here, and whether or not it's paid (or paid partially).

It's a hard ask and a really hard conversation to start, but it sounds like
you need the time.

~~~
Clubber
I've just started my 3rd month of sabbatical. It's wonderful. Best money I've
spent.

------
alexashka
It's not controversial, there's even a term for it - airing dirty laundry.

People don't talk about it because they don't want to all of a sudden be
treated differently because 'mental health', and now people around you are
walking on egg-shells or being fake supportive.

Why can't it just be a personality thing - some people need time alone more
than others, for whatever reason that is. When you start labelling it mental
health, all you're doing is self-diagnosing yourself into a hole that's hard
to get out of. Unless you have debilitating problems of course, in which case
the employer should know from day 1.

~~~
tetrep
> Why can't it just be a personality thing...

For the same reason a cold isn't "just my body." Just like a virus can put
your body in a bad state, so too can various stimuli to your mind. You don't
just chalk it up to "how things are", you attempt to resolve it. For a cold,
your body does that on it's own and you mostly just wait it out. Mental health
issues can be similar (I'm just feeling off today), or they might require some
effort on the part of the sick person to resolve. Either way, you don't treat
it as a personality quirk, as that undermines the severity of the issue (it
really is a health issue) and implicitly shifts the blame to the person who is
sick[0].

> When you start labelling it mental health, all you're doing is self-
> diagnosing yourself...

I don't see it as any different than self-diagnosing your cold as a physical
ailment. Sometimes people are not capable to doing meaningful work due to
their mental state, and people should feel comfortable saying that they need a
sick day for their mental health.

[0]: Which, it could be their fault. But ideally we want to describe issues
without implying blame. But just like you could unable to work due to a
hangover, you could knowingly put yourself into a scenario that you know (or
should know) will put you in a bad mental state.

Edit: Forgot the dirty laundry quote. I want to comment on that too.

> It's not controversial, there's even a term for it - airing dirty laundry.

Airing dirty laundry is providing "too much information", saying "I need a
sick day for mental health" doesn't strike me as an inappropriate amount of
detail anymore than "I need a sick day for physical health". I suppose you
could shorten it to "I need a sick day" if knowing any more information is too
much.

~~~
alexashka
I agree with everything you're saying. I think you summarized it very well
with

> I suppose you could shorten it to "I need a sick day" if knowing any more
> information is too much

It's not at all unreasonable to say you need a couple of days off and say it's
for personal reasons, and leave it at that. By providing personal information
that's going to make other people see you in a lesser light, you're shooting
yourself in the foot.

You can muse all you want about society being more accepting of this that and
the other - the time and place you do and say things matters. A lot! When
you're in a position of power - go ahead and make people under you feel safe
to talk about mental health etc. Don't assume other people are interested in
accommodating your needs when you're a relatively replaceable employee.

------
DonbunEf7
I couldn't afford to do this.

My mental illness is sufficiently severe that I need months, not days, to
unpack and unwind, and I haven't felt not-burnt-out in about half a decade. I
only get to do this between jobs.

I'm glad that this situation worked out alright for the employee, but there
often isn't enough sick leave available.

~~~
macspoofing
That's a good point. It's trivial for almost any company to accommodate a
'mental health' sick day here or there - in fact nobody cares what you take a
sick day for. So the situation in the blog post is a bit contrived and the
boss pats himself a bit too much on the back for his response.

I would think true mental health accommodation would involve long periods of
leave, or limited hours, or limited days (e.g. 3 day work-weeks) or all of the
above. Not many businesses are setup for that.

~~~
foxfaction
In the Netherlands, it's a legal requirement that businesses must accommodate
any employee requests for reduced hours, at proportionally reduced pay.

The average person in the Netherlands works 25 hours a week, yet they still
have a higher GDP per capita. Not per hour, just overall. They work less, yet
generate more.

~~~
macspoofing
Small point of contention. Netherlands have lower GDP per capita than USA.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PP...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(PPP\)_per_capita)

Generally small and/or resource rich countries tend to have a high GDP per
capita, so comparisons usually aren't very fair.

------
losteverything
Here is what i learned from my now blue collar career and my old white collar
career

Take sick days. Plan sick days.

My corp job had unlimited sick Time - after 5 days required disability. I felt
i had to go every day; no breaks. No way to get a health day. Wanted to be
that (very stupid) employee that never took a sick day. Didnt realize it
benefited company. I chose my company over my family by not calling out. I
wasnt "sick" i thought.

My Blue collar jobs i have to show sick dr note, but that is quite legit and
easy. No stress. Dont feel well; tired? Back hurts? Spouse ill? I call out. NO
GUILT.

Avoid the mental health or stress words. Use stomach or lyme or back injury or
vision.

Looking back all my "i dont call in sick" didnt do me one iota of good

Now, i take off if and when i want. How i wish i was blue collar first before
white collar

------
logicalmind
One of the hardest things to explain to anyone is burnout and the after
effects. I've experienced it myself, along with plenty of people around me.
But I also know many friends and family members who are committing themselves
to their jobs beyond their ability to healthily sustain their lives. This
includes working very long hours, essentially never turning work "off". It
impacts their health, their relationships and their mental well-being.

Trying to warn people who have yet to deal with it seems impossible. I've had
sit-down heart-to-heart conversations with people I love about commitment to
work, expectation setting, work/life balances, etc. and I've never had a good
outcome. I've watched people go through the inevitable physical sickness that
never seems to go away, and then have that turn into emotional and mental
sickness which also never seems to go away. In the end, I always wish there
was something more I could do to help them head this off. But no matter how
hard I've tried it still happens.

------
gerbilly
While it's great that we are discussing this topic, my first reaction is: why
does a worker even need an excuse?

Isn't it a bit odd that companies who otherwise trust employees with business
critical matters, sometimes matters of life and death even, won't trust them
to be mature enough to decide when they need to take time off?

When I was in grade 7, me and this girl Elissa were seated at the back of the
class. We had the kind of desks where you had to lift up the top to get at
your books.

We were lifting the tops up to hide behind them while 'secretly' telling each
other stupid jokes and giggling.

In retrospect, the teacher definitely knew what we were doing but he probably
figured since we were generally good kids he'd just let us get away with it
and have a bit of fun.

------
neap24
I don't understand. Why isn't it standard practice to just issue a set of
"personal days" without regard to "sickness", "leisure", or "mental sanity"?
My company switched to this a couple of years ago and doesn't require an
explanation. They are your days off, take them as you see fit.

~~~
djhworld
It's strange to have that allowance laid out as a fixed number up front.

Most of my jobs in my career have offered 25-30 days paid holiday, plus the 8
or so days of public holidays, and paid sick leave.

That way you don't fall into a trap of debating whether you should use your
last allotted "personal day" on something you might thing isn't worth taking
it for as you might need it later.

------
whiddershins
I find it strange any employee would need to be specific about a sick day.

In general, we as a culture tend towards confidentiality about medical
conditions.

I have rarely used sick days when in a salaried position, and take a bit of
pride in that. But when I do, I expect to not need to explain myself. And I
have no problem on a personal ethics level using a sick day for pretty much
anything that feels beyond my control, unavoidable, unexpected, and would
prevent me from doing a good job.

Maybe that's not the exact letter of what a sick day is for in my employment
agreement, but I've never been questioned about a sick day.

I am under the impression the stipulations about what a sick day can be used
for are protection against abuse by employees who will game the system. Since
that's not me, I don't give it much thought.

------
nvahalik
I don't get this whole thing. Whatever happened to talking to your superiors
about this kinda stuff? I've taken plenty of "sick" (of this job) days over
the years and often times would proactively tell people to stay home if they
were killing themselves (even locking out their accounts, if they went home
and tried to work).

This had nothing to do with "mental health" it was just part of keeping people
happy and not letting their work dictate their lives.

~~~
rifung
I'm bipolar and personally I would be afraid to tell my manager about it
because there's still a great amount of social stigma.

------
sgt
"1 in 6 americans are medicated for mental health." \- that is very high.
What's causing Americans to have so many mental health issues? I don't have
the stats, but I cannot easily believe that this would the case in let's say
Europe.

~~~
rf15
Remember that getting medication doesn't necessarily mean that there's
actually something wrong with you when prescribing medications has a positive
effect on your doctor's income.

~~~
usernam
Indeed, the number seems disproportionate. But it can be possible depending on
the definition of "medication".

I'd expect the number of mental health issues with an underlying [known]
physiological nature (say, bipolar, schizophrenia), and thus mediated with the
proper treatment to be _very_ low.

Mental health issues resulting from workspace, work, stress and in general
lifestyle issues can still be medicated to help recovery, though the proper
solution would obviously be a change in lifestyle.

I've witnessed many people with depression. I can only speak for relatives for
which I know the full story. When faced with the issue, at least here, you
have two choices. The psychologist will talk you into a lifestyle change
whenever possible.

Going to a psychologist is still considered medication here, and it's covered
by national health. When going to a psychiatrist instead, the medication
(chemical) is almost always guaranteed.

It's helpful to say though that no amount of medication fixes mental health
issues related to workplace issues if the underlying cause is not removed.
This is a very dramatic issue, as for some people with limited working
experience (and thus unable to have a leverage), it's often insurmountable. I
known relatives in this situation for 20+ years.

------
quickthrower
It's one thing taking a day off for mental health, but what if the job itself
is contributing to said mental health problem?

For example being bullied or having unreasonable expectations with some kind
of negative reinforcement loop.

Certainly doesn't sound like the case at the company in the article. But that
CEO sounds exceptional.

We also need to address treating employees as humans not workproduct producing
AWS instances.

------
profpandit
Well, mental health has always been and will continue to be an issue that
needs to be addressed in the workplace. This is because the workplace now is
at least half composed of programming related tasks. Programming is such a
mentally tasking task due to the need to get everything just right to get your
computer to do what you want with it, that the fallout from it could be
compared to a hangover. Your mental faculties do get tired by the process of
programming leaving you in the lurch when you step outside that mental zone,
and making you susceptible to attacks on issues unrelated to programming, that
many managers and other people that don't exercise their mental faculties
enough tend to indulge in. As a programmer, it's just as important to learn
what to do outside of your programming related tasks, specially ways to relax
and rejuvenate your mental faculties. If you don't do this, you'll burn
yourself out leaving you susceptible to mental disease.

~~~
id_rsa
I agree with what you are saying. I am having trouble finding tasks that
rejuvenate my mental facilities. What works for you?

~~~
profpandit
Exercise. Cooking. Sketching. Paying attention to grooming. Practicing
ignoring people as much as possbile in public. Reducing the amount of
information I process outside of programming. --> Not using a smartphone.
Using public transport. Minimizing internet use, no social media. Walking as
much as possible to help slow things down. Consciously taking breaks from
mental work, instead of just getting absorbed in a programming task. The
equivalent of interval training. its possible to strengthen your ability to
focus while you program through interval training. Observing nature, such as
bird-watching, wind conditions, cloud formations etc.

------
danpalmer
While I think most companies need to do better at making this acceptable, and
I'm in no way downplaying the importance of treating mental health like any
other health issue...

One of the things I like about our unlimited/flexible vacation policy is that
I don't have to justify time off and can take it at short notice. I think
there's quite a spectrum from "vacation for an event", through "vacation to
relax" to "time off for burnout" and finally to "sick days for mental health"
– I don't think there are clear cut lines between some of these. I tend to
take relatively short notice days off to relax and recharge after stressful
periods, and while I call it a vacation day, it's probably much closer to
this. Unlimited vacation policies get a lot of criticism, but I see this as a
big benefit.

------
timwaagh
Sure if people like you you can get away with even a month of being 'sick' but
its really depends on the person.

At a company i worked there was a guy who did that. He got away with it but he
was a very senior programmer.

If i tried this i would have to worry about them using it as grounds for a
firing.

------
sneak
My grandfather taught me well: one should never, _ever_ talk about their
health unless it's good.

~~~
mmagin
At least as long as we live in a society that is always pushing competition as
a primary virtue, you may be right.

------
cgoodmac
What do people do when they take a couple days off for mental health? I love
the idea, but have no idea what I'd do.

~~~
quickthrower
It'll depend on the issue. Maybe see a counselor, talk to a friend, get into
nature or hide in bed.

------
heisenbit
People who recognize they are having a mental health issue and are working on
getting better are often not really the problem. We all wish them better.

What is a problem are people mental issues creating trouble for others. It can
get compounded by bosses looking the other way as results are coming in so
there is no problem. Except the costs were externalized to the team around
them.

------
saghul
Very nice article, thanks for sharing! It reminded me of this one, written by
my coworker Tyler: [https://medium.com/smells-like-team-spirit/teamwork-and-
ment...](https://medium.com/smells-like-team-spirit/teamwork-and-mental-
illness-in-the-workplace-302014e0ba96)

------
luvandp3ace
I have trouble understanding this. You work in an organization, they have
goals, priorities. You have a role and responsibility. Since when was it a
company responsibility to take care of your mental well-being? If you need
some time off to work on it, shouldn't you just take some time off? Am I
missing something?

------
chris123
I don't think it's likely that a day will come, at least in our lifetimes,
where workplaces are free from mental health issues. Yes, that would be great,
but it's about as realistic as having colds and flus not be an issue in the
workplace. These things are not going away in our lifetimes.

~~~
catmanjan
Even people on the Enterprise had mental health issues, I think it's part of
being human.

------
pcarolan
My cousin worked at European owned bank that had "mental health days". I liked
that term because it sounded more proactive than reactive. They were viewed as
a way to take care of your mind and reduce stress. You could use them for
baseball games or just relaxing at home.

------
wu-ikkyu
>We are in a knowledge economy. Our jobs require us to execute at peak mental
performance. When an athlete is injured they sit on the bench and recover.
Let’s get rid of the idea that somehow the brain is different.

------
taurath
Heh. If you're a contractor in a lot of places you don't get sick time or days
off either - you get to put a direct dollar cost on "taking a day off".

------
jamiemac2005
I found it interesting that the article mentioned their product so much.

But, if this is genuinely how they treat mental health; they deserve all the
free marketing they may get.

------
ninjakeyboard
I think taking downtime is good. I sort of wonder if actually affect my mental
health by not working though.

------
Sevii
We have too many people with mental health issues in general. You would think
it should be a societal goal.

------
lists
Your mind is localized to your brain. Your brain is apart of your body.

------
Aa0535626251
Hnooch707

------
cryoshon
first off, good for madalyn, it takes too much courage to introduce specifics
regarding any kind of sick time and mental health is especially burdensome.

now, moving on to the rest of the post: of course it's still an issue. taking
sick time for any reason is still an issue. everyone feels the pressure to not
be sick, to not take sick time, and to work while sick. i have never worked
for any organization where this was not the case-- even in some good places
that were good to their workers-- and have only escaped it by working for
myself.

>It’s 2017. I cannot believe that it is still controversial to speak about
mental health in the workplace when 1 in 6 americans are medicated for mental
health.

you see, mental health is more of a threat than "physical" health. you get
better from having a cold. you sniffle through a few days of work, maybe take
a day at home, then sniffle through another day or two, and the lost
productivity stops.

the spectre of mental health is that it is a long term sap on an employee's
productivity that will also have flare-ups which result in time taken off,
total work stoppage, malingering, unreliability, and bad morale. and it can't
really be "cured" just treated. it's the profit seeking organization's
nightmare. they'd never hire someone mentally ill, if they could reliably
avoid being sued for their discrimination.

>It’s 2017. I cannot believe that it is still controversial to offer paid sick
leave.

only in the blisteringly backwards and proudly ignorant USA is it
controversial. we are far behind the rest of the world when it comes to labor
rights and treating people like human beings.

elsewhere the issue is settled definitively. to be blunt the CEOs haven't done
their part in fighting for this basic right, nor has the government, nor have
the workers. everyone has too much to lose by being the one to push, so nobody
pushes.

>Our jobs require us to execute at peak mental performance. When an athlete is
injured they sit on the bench and recover. Let’s get rid of the idea that
somehow the brain is different.

the difference is that an athlete ages out of being competitive after a time,
and so their profit-driven self-infliction of injury ends earlier.

workers are stressed by work for most of their lives, for most of the hours of
their waking day. work is far more detrimental to people's brains than being
an athlete is to the body.

oh yeah, and workers can't choose when to stop, unless they want to choose to
stop eating too. to be blunt there's no way that american workers could
possibly operate at peak mental performance with their mental scaffolding so
occupied with maintaining job security. this causes mental illness too, of
course.

name a bigger stressor for people than their jobs / money.

>Take some time this week to express gratitude to individuals on your team.
You might be surprised at the positive impact.

this is a bare minimum, not part of any solution.

the real solution (which won't be implemented because it is expensive) is to
have an iron law in your corporation that your employees must take X paid sick
days per year or per month. it's that simple.

then it won't be an issue, because it'll be a policy that people are forced to
follow. there's no guilt about taking sick days for any health reason at that
point. nobody feels like they're being dead weight when they take a sick day.

>Take some time to reflect on how your company’s values help create a safe-
space for your teammates

this is more likely to be lip service or self-deception at most companies than
it is a reality. most companies value profit, and act accordingly when that
value contradicts the health of their employees because their employees are
replaceable.

>1 in 6 of whom is likely medicated for a mental health issue.

this should tell us that our society is violently unhealthy for our minds, as
is our work culture.

and they are.

~~~
altonzheng
Not sure why you're being downvoted, thought you had some great points.

As someone who has struggled with mental health myself in the past, I'm kind
of wary of the whole "let's reduce depression down to how we would treat a
broken arm." argument. While it's good intentioned, and I totally agree we
need to reduce its stigma in society, I wonder if it does more harm then good
in the long run.

Depression is a disease of the soul, and I think it is so deeply embedded in
the human experience that we can't just compare it to a physical ailment. I
agree you shouldn't define yourself by a mental illness, but it no doubt
deeply affects how you perceive and think about the world, sometimes for
worse, but also in my experience, for the better. Good employers take this
into account, although i think it happens more on a employee-manager
relationship level than through organizational rules. But culture helps a lot.

I think we should broach the topic of depression as a society with deep care,
empathy, and patience, recognizing how enormous and fundamental it is to the
human experience. To compare it to a physical ailment is restrictive and a bit
reductive. (If you can't tell, I think the biochemical causes of depression
are a bit overemphasized in today's society.) We will be less frustrated at
the lack of progress if we understand the enormity and complexity of the
problem.

~~~
msla
> Not sure why you're being downvoted

Probably because of the toxic tone.

~~~
altonzheng
Huh really, didn't get that vibe but okay.

------
nolepointer
While I agree with the author's argument, stating the current year does not
advance it. Seriously, it's even a meme.

~~~
urethrafranklin
[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/come-on-its-2015-current-
year](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/come-on-its-2015-current-year)

------
xname2
Can someone please explain to me what is special with 2017?

~~~
Dirlewanger
It's a meme that John Oliver popularized, and people like to use it as an
argument, when it's just a shitty strawman.

~~~
mistermann
Considering how effective it is in persuasion, "shitty" is probably not an
entirely accurate adjective.

~~~
Dirlewanger
Donald Trump memes were also very effective in persuasion for certain parts of
the Internet this past presidential election.

~~~
mistermann
You are correct.

------
j05huaNathaniel
Honestly, kind of sounds like the work she does may be the reason for the
mental health issues. Maybe find a job that doesn't depress the shit out of
you? I know, easier said than done.

------
BucketSort
Isn't it always the primary issue?

------
xname2
Shouldn't vacation days be used to help your mental health? If vacation days
are not enough, there might be a more serious problem ...

~~~
novia
If you're getting ready for work in the morning and you're suddenly hit with
an overwhelming panic attack and you feel afraid to leave your house, that
doesn't leave much time to request the day off to use for vacation.

Most people will judge you if you call in and say "I am experiencing extreme
anxiety this morning and I'm afraid of leaving the house, so I won't be coming
in today." So instead you shoot your coworkers/boss an email or a text that
says "Hey, I'm not feeling well today. I don't want to get you guys sick!"
Because that makes you seem caring and thoughtful instead of a weak coward who
can't handle the stress of real life.

Even people with "serious problems" have to pay the bills.

*Edit: I just realized that when you said there might be a more serious problem you might have meant that the employer is not offering enough vacation days. If that is what you meant, then I'm sorry for unfairly maligning you with my last line.

~~~
xname2
No. When I said "serious problem" I meant the patient. Yes, people need to pay
bills, but it is not your employer's responsibility.

------
nassir
I have started a remote work week business that allows office teams to work
together in a tranquil, nature-filled rural environment for a week and get
away from the hustle and bustle of urban cities. The response has been really
good. Reach out to me: topconsultant@gmail.com

~~~
086421357909764
So a remote work office that you rent? Also, that email alone screams
questionable to me.

