4 ms·

That's horribly off-topic, but I'll continue being horribly off-topic, only because I had a very strong realization about this today. My boss has been bugging

by pen2l 11y ago

That's horribly off-topic, but I'll continue being horribly off-topic, only because I had a very strong realization about this today. My boss has been bugging me to get stuff done since there are some crazy deadlines coming up for us. I realized a few days ago that were it not for the craziness at work, I would be very lonely... I have nothing to do. And it's precisely when I have nothing to do that I start having negative or suicidal thoughts. So having a job really is a blessing for me, it gives me something to keep my mind preoccupied, and gives me an easy opportunity to socialize (walking up to someone and starting a conversation with someone is a lot easier.. when... well, you have to, because work requires that you have to :)).

brobdingnagian 11y ago
Thanks for sharing. I don't think it's off topic. "It’s terribly difficult to manage unmotivated people. Make your job easier and don’t." It's just a really really mean thing to say, especially coming from someone who is a manager / mentor.
- pen2l 11y ago
  I agree that's a shitty thing. Also, sadly, it is a norm to think in this bleakly capitalistic way. By and large, you will not see normal people viewing the providing job/no job thing as something moral.
- jordigh 11y ago
  I understand trying to be humane to everyone, but you cannot just decide to not fire anyone, ever. If someone does not want to be at a job, it is not an act of charity to keep them at that job. If they really do not want to be there, they can cause a lot more grief to themselves or others. It's cruel to be kind. You're not Schindler. Firing people is not a death sentence. If you fear for their mental health, fire them and direct them to services that can help. Hell, companies even do this routinely in a fashion: it's called outplacement.
  - smacktoward 11y ago
    > If you fear for their mental health, fire them and direct them to services that can help. If we're talking about Americans, their health insurance is almost certainly tied to their job. So firing them will force them to choose to either pay out the nose for COBRA or individual health insurance -- which means more stress, on top of the stress of losing their job -- or to give up access to the vast majority of those "services that can help" altogether.
    - jordigh 11y ago
      > If we're talking about Americans, Oops, sorry, I forgot. I'm in Canada. I guess it is inhumane to fire people in the US, then.
  - nether 11y ago
    I wonder if it's illegal to fire someone for being depressed per the American Disabilities Act, since it protects those with "mental impairments": http://www2.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4862 http://www2.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&template...
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      It's a complex topic, but the way you phrase it, the answer is "yes". You cannot fire someone because they have depression (assuming a real diagnosis, etc) The real question is can you fire someone who performs poorly because of their depression
      - DanBC 11y ago
        The real question is not "can you?" but "should you?" For most people with a mental illness, even one that interferes with their work, the answer is probably no. You've invested in that person and you lose that if you fire them. You also have the costs of the new hire. You have no guarantee that the new hire isn't going to have a mental illness. (The ageist culture of hiring in SF tech firms selects strongly for people who are at about the right age to have their first episode of psychosis - 14 to 35.) Firing that one person for their mental illness related performance is very visible. The effect is to make other people with mental illness hide it from you. As a manager which do you prefer - Ann who has a predictable 2 hours for therapy per week over a 14 week period, arranged in advance; or Bob who just takes ad-hoc days off sick? And, really, the role of a manager is to help workers perform better. This includes people whose performance has dropped as a result of a mental illness. Since work-related strss is very common any manager that doesn't understand mental health is just an unprepared - probably bad - manager.

by pen2l 11y ago

brobdingnagian 11y ago

Thanks for sharing. I don't think it's off topic. "It’s terribly difficult to manage unmotivated people. Make your job easier and don’t." It's just a really really mean thing to say, especially coming from someone who is a manager / mentor.

pen2l 11y ago
I agree that's a shitty thing. Also, sadly, it is a norm to think in this bleakly capitalistic way. By and large, you will not see normal people viewing the providing job/no job thing as something moral.
jordigh 11y ago
I understand trying to be humane to everyone, but you cannot just decide to not fire anyone, ever. If someone does not want to be at a job, it is not an act of charity to keep them at that job. If they really do not want to be there, they can cause a lot more grief to themselves or others. It's cruel to be kind. You're not Schindler. Firing people is not a death sentence. If you fear for their mental health, fire them and direct them to services that can help. Hell, companies even do this routinely in a fashion: it's called outplacement.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  > If you fear for their mental health, fire them and direct them to services that can help. If we're talking about Americans, their health insurance is almost certainly tied to their job. So firing them will force them to choose to either pay out the nose for COBRA or individual health insurance -- which means more stress, on top of the stress of losing their job -- or to give up access to the vast majority of those "services that can help" altogether.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    > If we're talking about Americans, Oops, sorry, I forgot. I'm in Canada. I guess it is inhumane to fire people in the US, then.
- nether 11y ago
  I wonder if it's illegal to fire someone for being depressed per the American Disabilities Act, since it protects those with "mental impairments": http://www2.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4862 http://www2.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&template...
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    It's a complex topic, but the way you phrase it, the answer is "yes". You cannot fire someone because they have depression (assuming a real diagnosis, etc) The real question is can you fire someone who performs poorly because of their depression
    - DanBC 11y ago
      The real question is not "can you?" but "should you?" For most people with a mental illness, even one that interferes with their work, the answer is probably no. You've invested in that person and you lose that if you fire them. You also have the costs of the new hire. You have no guarantee that the new hire isn't going to have a mental illness. (The ageist culture of hiring in SF tech firms selects strongly for people who are at about the right age to have their first episode of psychosis - 14 to 35.) Firing that one person for their mental illness related performance is very visible. The effect is to make other people with mental illness hide it from you. As a manager which do you prefer - Ann who has a predictable 2 hours for therapy per week over a 14 week period, arranged in advance; or Bob who just takes ad-hoc days off sick? And, really, the role of a manager is to help workers perform better. This includes people whose performance has dropped as a result of a mental illness. Since work-related strss is very common any manager that doesn't understand mental health is just an unprepared - probably bad - manager.