Sir Keir Starmer has vowed to press ahead with savage welfare cuts, describing the current system as “unsustainable, indefensible and unfair”.

I don't mean this to sound unsympathetic, as I'm really not; but how much of being unable to cope is because there is an alternative? If people didn't get paid not to work, would they be more likely to find ways to cope? I've said on another thread that even young children seem to be able to opt out of things that push them out of their comfort zone, and that definitely goes on in universities.

I have very limited patience when people are supposed to be assessed on things that are essential to their careers but can insist (legally) on other means of assessment being found so they are not stressed by something like a presentation. They get the same marks as someone who has pushed through, and IMO it's just not fair, particularly when a few years down the line the people who opt out manage to find the ability to give a presentation when it means promotion and extra money. They can do it, but are allowed by the system to opt out.

I've also seen this happen in the workplace, when people go off sick because they find their job (for which they are taking a salary) too stressful. Someone else gets to pick up their slack, which adds to their own stress, and so it goes on. If people didn't have the option to opt out on full pay, would they find other ways to cope, too? I would much rather see support systems in place, so that people could access cheaper therapy (or whatever is appropriate) than simply not turning up and getting paid. Adults need to take responsibility for their own lives, and we should be (gently) training up children to learn how to do it.

I hope it goes without saying that I didn't mention physical illness because that that is a different matter.

I agree with doodledog, not in any way because of money or where 'my taxes are spent' or even the impact on others within the workplace/society (although that resentment tends to manifest itself at the ballot box so might be worth thinking about) but mostly because the 'opting out' is generally a disaster for those who do opt out .

It can also be a disaster for those who have to carry them. Not to mention people trying to manage the situation where a job needs to be done but some will not pull their weight and the others resent having to pull it for them.

Also, it is about money, as I am fairly sure that if there were no sick pay (not a situation I would ever advocate for) at least people who go off sick with stress would not do so.

The situation is similar with students refusing to do presentations (or whatever). They can do them when it means getting a job, or moving up at work and there is a financial incentive.

Resentment is not an unreasonable response either. Not everyone works for personal fulfilment. Many only do it to pay the bills, so why should they do someone else's work as well as their own?

I wholeheartedly agree with you Doodledog . If there were no alternative, those you mention would just have to get on with it like everyone else.

Oh no I dont think resentment is unreasonable at all. But for me personally that's not the issue.

Another one in support of Doodledog’s posts
We had good terms and conditions. I’ve posted previously that we could have run a book on when X would go off sick and remain off for 6 months, at which date full pay would become half pay,
The ‘managing sickness absence’ policy was ineffective with X and others but used like a steam roller with more reliable members of staff who eg had 2 weeks off with flu and its recovery,

Or in my case Iam, two weeks off after my mum died. On my return to work my new manager explained that the new sickness policy was in place to look at the causes of absence and tackle the problem of recurrent absences. I asked her if she was aware of the reason I’d been off sick. She said she was. I told her I didn’t think my mum would die again so it shouldn’t be an issue

Aah how I miss the kindness shown in our ‘caring profession’.

Indeed nightowl. I had a return to work interview after RA stopped me driving and left me totally exhausted
Like they’d no idea how serious RA and its associated auto immune conditions are
And yet - ‘some people’ seemed to not have the expectations others subjected to

Yes, I had a colleague who had three separate periods of long-term sick for stress - all of them timed so that she came back on a phased return over the summer when there were no students around and she could work from home most of the time. Each time she took six full months off, whilst she was on full pay, and then took leave that had accumulated during her absence.

I got pleurisy, and came back too soon, partly because there were real problems covering my role as we were already stretched because of colleague's absence. I ended up becoming really ill and had to go off sick again, which triggered an HR interview because not enough time had elapsed between the two instances. That sort of thing was not uncommon.

Of course there have to be 'systems', but they do seem to be skewed in favour of MH absenteeism. I think a review is long overdue.

Doodledog

Yes, I had a colleague who had three separate periods of long-term sick for stress - all of them timed so that she came back on a phased return over the summer when there were no students around and she could work from home most of the time. Each time she took six full months off, whilst she was on full pay, and then took leave that had accumulated during her absence.

I got pleurisy, and came back too soon, partly because there were real problems covering my role as we were already stretched because of colleague's absence. I ended up becoming really ill and had to go off sick again, which triggered an HR interview because not enough time had elapsed between the two instances. That sort of thing was not uncommon.

Of course there have to be 'systems', but they do seem to be skewed in favour of MH absenteeism. I think a review is long overdue.

I was a senior HR manager. I dreaded the martyr who dragged themself into work when they should have been resting. They inevitably ended up having more time off than if they'd done the right thing initially. In my workplace they also caused more problems than anyone with stress did but maybe that was because we didn't encourage martyrs and supported people.

I've been trying to find out what plans are for Universal Credit since we've been mainly talking about PIP as regards benefits. Far more people on UC than PIP.

Best I could find in brief:

"The plans - will see the basic rate of Universal Credit (UC) raised to try to incentivise people to stay in the work-search group.

But the highest level of UC - for the most disabled or ill who have been judged unable to work - will go down. (Maybe thats because of PIP?) PIP has been cut inasmuch there is no increase this year, its frozen.

Just a word of support for Doodledog - not a martyr, a responsible employee

Thanks, Iam.

theworriedwell, in my workplace people dreaded passive aggressive HR managers who paid lip service to fair practice, yet made it clear that jobs were on the line if we couldn't deliver what students were promised, then called people 'martyrs' when they did what they could to make that happen.

The same people may have been in senior positions but the most dreaded ones had no idea how to manage employees who took time off and passed their workloads on to others.

Martyrdom was never encouraged, but incompetent managers were.

That’s such a familiar description Doodledog. We had managers who were poor practitioners, got into management to get away from front line pressures. Poor practitioners make very poor managers

Thank you

Sorry please ignore, wrong thread

Doodledog

Thanks, Iam.

theworriedwell, in my workplace people dreaded passive aggressive HR managers who paid lip service to fair practice, yet made it clear that jobs were on the line if we couldn't deliver what students were promised, then called people 'martyrs' when they did what they could to make that happen.

The same people may have been in senior positions but the most dreaded ones had no idea how to manage employees who took time off and passed their workloads on to others.

Martyrdom was never encouraged, but incompetent managers were.

Sorry but going into work when you are ill and making yourself worse is martyrdom and it is useless as people end up being off work for longer. If your HR were useless it doesn't change the facts.

Iam64

Just a word of support for Doodledog - not a martyr, a responsible employee

Honestly the intention might be good but the reality is if you aren't well enough you won't be effective and then if you get worse you are off for longer. It is a really poor way to work.

Iam64

Just a word of support for Doodledog - not a martyr, a responsible employee

Exactly my thoughts too! There is often a subtle or not so subtle atmosphere that makes responsible employees aware that their absence is putting a strain on other team members. In my experience HR were about as much use as a chocolate teapot in these situations.

"I don't mean this to sound unsympathetic, as I'm really not; but how much of being unable to cope is because there is an alternative? If people didn't get paid not to work, would they be more likely to find ways to cope?"

"If people didn't have the option to opt out on full pay, would they find other ways to cope, too?"

Just because one person feels working kept them going through depression (I'm very glad you have found a way that works for you that poster - depression is a hard hill to climb) it doesn't mean it works that way for others. Mental ill health, like physical ill health is on a sliding scale and impacts everyone differently.

My husband and I ran our own business.
Stress did for him. He battled on for years and then his symptoms became so severe he was unable to work. He physically and mentally collapsed to the extent that on two occasions ambulances were called for him in the street and for fear he'd had a heart attack.

To suggest he could have battled on if there was no alternative is nonsense.

In fact, there was no alternative. He had no pay. It was just he and I running our business. I had to pick up the slack and we had to live on what money I could make whilst caring from him. Really, it was a terrible situation that lasted a year or so. We made no claims because we could just about manage and had faith things would come good.

Time off, counselling (that we paid for) and a staged return helped him heal, come back to work and lead a normal life.

With the greatest of respect there are so many assumptions on this thread based on the poster's personal experience or no experience whatsover.

Yes, some people swing the lead. But stoicism isn't the only way and as a society I want my taxes to pay to scoop people up when they really need it.

It should be on cards that are just for certain things. Like one only for food, another for energy, another for care etc Rent and council tax paid direct not to claimant. This would drive people back to work

That's his opinion and I'm not sure he's entirely right or wrong but why does he have to target disabled people. It should be the unemployed first.

Galaxy

I agree with doodledog, not in any way because of money or where 'my taxes are spent' or even the impact on others within the workplace/society (although that resentment tends to manifest itself at the ballot box so might be worth thinking about) but mostly because the 'opting out' is generally a disaster for those who do opt out .

I couldn’t agree more!

Our youth need to learn resilience, both in school and at home.

Sometimes, just getting on with it, is the right thing to do!