5 ms·

Screening employees/applicants for mental health conditions that may negatively impact their performance: Is required for airline pilots, DOD, police and simil

Screening employees/applicants for mental health conditions that may negatively impact their performance: Is required for airline pilots, DOD, police and similar. Is prohibited for nearly all other employers. I understand the distinction, but its a strawman. Society is in denial about the costs of mental health issues among its citizens. Given the growth & pervasiveness of mental illness the past couple of years, perhaps it's time we made research & treatment a priority? Cher should have resources available to deal with her challenges, and Apple shouldn't have to be a proxy for those services (or the object of the fallout from her issues).

voakbasda 5y ago
The implication being that wou think companies should be free to discriminate against those with a diagnosed issue? This kind of conversation makes it terrifying to have a mental illness, and it will discourage individuals from seeking diagnoses or treatment. This is how you get overdoses from self-medication.
- lowmagnet 5y ago
  The EEOC would like to know that because it's not only unethical, it carries fines.
  - voakbasda 5y ago
    You can’t be discriminated against if you are not diagnosed. And our current culture actively dissuaded individuals from seeking diagnosis, because that choice could have profoundly negative consequences to your fundamental human rights. Employment discrimination is the least of such problems. Involuntary confinement up to complete loss of individual agency are possible outcomes as well. There are countless ways that the mental ill are marginalized and oppressed. Why would I volunteer to wear the equivalent of a pink triangle or yellow star, when people keep trying to find a final solution for the mental health problem? Go ahead, call me crazy for drawing that parallel, but that is exactly how I view the status quo.
- howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
  Your take on what I wrote is incorrect and reflects your own bias. What I am advocating for is that we transcend the current state of mental illness & employment into something that permits people to get the help they need, and employers to manage their risks. I'm saying the existing system is broken.
  - SauciestGNU 5y ago
    I don't see why an employer should be entitled to know anything about an employee's health (mental or otherwise) outside of what a doctor might order as reasonable accommodation. Employers "managing risk" sounds like allowing them to exclude people with mental illness or other disabilities. Maybe that's not what you mean, but I believe that is what employers would do.
gorbachev 5y ago
> Apple shouldn't have to be a proxy for those services With health insurance being tied to your employment in the US (unless you're poor or elderly), how could Apple not? The system is designed that way.

voakbasda 5y ago

The implication being that wou think companies should be free to discriminate against those with a diagnosed issue? This kind of conversation makes it terrifying to have a mental illness, and it will discourage individuals from seeking diagnoses or treatment. This is how you get overdoses from self-medication.

lowmagnet 5y ago
The EEOC would like to know that because it's not only unethical, it carries fines.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  You can’t be discriminated against if you are not diagnosed. And our current culture actively dissuaded individuals from seeking diagnosis, because that choice could have profoundly negative consequences to your fundamental human rights. Employment discrimination is the least of such problems. Involuntary confinement up to complete loss of individual agency are possible outcomes as well. There are countless ways that the mental ill are marginalized and oppressed. Why would I volunteer to wear the equivalent of a pink triangle or yellow star, when people keep trying to find a final solution for the mental health problem? Go ahead, call me crazy for drawing that parallel, but that is exactly how I view the status quo.
howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
Your take on what I wrote is incorrect and reflects your own bias. What I am advocating for is that we transcend the current state of mental illness & employment into something that permits people to get the help they need, and employers to manage their risks. I'm saying the existing system is broken.
- SauciestGNU 5y ago
  I don't see why an employer should be entitled to know anything about an employee's health (mental or otherwise) outside of what a doctor might order as reasonable accommodation. Employers "managing risk" sounds like allowing them to exclude people with mental illness or other disabilities. Maybe that's not what you mean, but I believe that is what employers would do.

gorbachev 5y ago

> Apple shouldn't have to be a proxy for those services With health insurance being tied to your employment in the US (unless you're poor or elderly), how could Apple not? The system is designed that way.