I have to agree with that statement but working in industry that stressor was known as the left hand not knowing what the right was doing but because, in my experience, the path to profit was much more clearly defined, then employees knew where they were going (usually).

I believe the health industry has cases of post traumatic stress caused by beligerent patients, usually alchohol fuelled. This gets bundled into the general area of stress and may distort health service figures. I guess there is the odd stroppy customer that the local government officers have to deal with but very unlikely to fall into the PTS field and my dealings with council tend to make me believe that there are so many rules made by council jobsworths that the workers are always having to look over their shoulder to make sure that they have all the facts both before making even a minor decision or falling foul of the political correctness department. Industry tends to approve and encourage decision makers, sometimes called entrepreneurs, and work around the screw ups later.
As far as education goes, I would have thought that they get enough holidays per annum to get over any stress caused by the job but once again, there is the political correctness department and the alice in wonderland gurus who are ready to jump on and publicise every error of judgement, not helped by parents who have joined the "what can I sue them for" culture.
Until the workforce toughens up a bit and we get rid of the political correctness jobsworths, it will remain a problem.

spot on (IMHO)

This is very well reasoned, can more than undserstand the staff difficulties caused by beligerence - certainly some of what is faced in the health service has to be seen to be believed and is wholly unacceptable. The PC riddled hide bound strict proceedure approach is as suggested the biggest cause of stress, would simply suggest that the solution also demands more competent and adequate management.

ditto... ......ermm IMHO



Interference by 'well meaning' but ultimately bumbling clueless Councillors, keen to point score over opposition in delivering 'waste of money schemes' - against the advice of people who are qualified in the field and who are meant to be the experts - can be quite exasperating....

I wonder then why we don't see such 'tear jerkers' in the private sector - where greedy boards and bankers are simply selling jobs and productive capacity to line their own nests. Those at the end of the line, who work in places like shops, factories and call centres generally earn far less and have far less opportunity to comment. Looked at like that, Local Government iseems a plumb option - haven't heard that the Councils are having recruitment difficulties!

Have never been convinced by 'experts' - in generqal people only get labeled as such when they aren't! After all, in many cases, it was 'experts' who got us into this mess. i.e. we believed the 'educational experts' in the 1960s, and the 'experts in Nursing' in the 1970s....

There is a certain amount of 'vocation' for people working in public service. Maybe not to the same degree today as in the past, and government policy hardly encourages a lifetime of commitment. In the private sector that element is less important, I suggest. Proper public service is about delivering for communities, 'people'; private sector is about success. Nothing wrong with both, as both are needed.
Someone who wants to work for the betterment of 'people' can only deliver if they are allowed to by the system, policy, politics. Someone who is working for the betterment of their employer, or their skill can take their ambition elsewhere if it is not appreciated where they are.

I know too many people who have left state education because of the politics and bureaucracy to educate in the private sector.

In government the Civil Servants and Officers exist to provide 'expert' guidance to the elected Members on the way to deliver their policy. What happens so often now is that the 'Members' demand the 'impossible' - sometimes even the questionable - and create convoluted procedures to mask what is going on. That tends not to happen in private business.

I am not campaigning that the public sector is innocent, but there are real differences that matter. Also, the public sector is scrutinised in a way individual companies tend not to be....

Would that were true! Yes, if a few cases, people have a vocational calling. Its disinjenuos to suggest that this is primarily in the public sector. Certainly, there are engineers, medical people, and others I know who have similar vocational callings and are in the private sector. Going back, John Sainsbury set up his business to provide the populace with unadulterated fresh food, Lever, supplies of cheap soap, etc. etc.

The real test of the 'vocational calling' would be to see what happens when the individual concerned has a big lottery win, or is offered a big wadge to jump ship. In WBCs case - there have been a good few examples in the past, particularly in the higher executives and in fields where 'vocation' might be a factor. Those in paid employment are there for one key reason.

So, the vocational attribute sounds good, but the reality is different and it's far from being just public servants. Lets face it,in past times, it used to be the employers whoi used the 'vocational' excuse for keeping pay low in the public serctor - low pay / reasonable pensions. That isn't the case today.

I think you are right about people wanting to do a good job - and leaving the sector in sheer frustration. Similarly, I've known and interviewed rather too many. My assessment is that the frustration isn't down to policy - in most cases down to bad management and poor leadership.

Similarly, I've also known and worked with people who were employed by firms in liquidation - who have gone on to praise the efforts of the liquidator in saving ands turning the business round - and then appreciating the h e l l of what work was like during that period. Not many, agreed, but it is possible.

I have no issue with the stress related issues the economic challenges we have today bring our workforce. Simply, its no worse or better in any sector and shouldn't be used as a lever to promote other agendas - particularly where that workforce is already thought to be comfortsble to say the least.

Ironically, we had a thread on this forum a short while back - where a privatre sector low level employee was being subjected to some draconian management focus - he was, as I remember, given very little sympathy. No employer paid trades union helping him!

Age and experience has made me very cynical - yes, politicians say they want to 'change things for the better' and 'help the people'. Those who really do are very few and leaving even less who actually can

There are probably as many 'tear jerkers' as you like to call them in the private sector. As a rule the private sector do not report figures the same way the public sector does.

I agree to some extent - its simply a matter of balance. In a perverse way, this may demonstrate that the cold winds of economic reality are actually hitting the public sector. For quite some time now it hasn't.

You are right in that the public sector used to be a job for life with a cushioned workplace, nice salaries, good guaranteed pension schemes and an aggresive union to make sure that its members were able to thumb their noses at senior management.
It's pretty much all gone now but the old bureaucracy is still hanging on and that adds to the current stress levels of what were a cosseted workforce. The internal departments still cling on to the old ways and, as far as I can see, make life a misery for people who make the slightest error of judgement.

I remember the manager of one council talking internally about the travellers said that it didn't matter what the council did, they would do as they likey. He was censured for that and I believe lost his job because someone in the human resources department made a big deal of it and it made the papers. Probably the Mail. What a nonsense.

In the Times today (and on the Telegraph's web site) a report is saying that mental ill helath accounts for around a half of all illness. I thin this puts the WBC statistics into perspective.

Yes it does. We therefore have a national issue - is there any answer? Most of the reason for WBC problem seemed to be aggressive management and perhaps more pertinent, a failure to listen - or at least take heed of staff input. If that also the root cause in the private sector - then our lift from recession will be long and delayed. Does this mean we should therefore be looking at management (in the widest sense) styles rather than the provision of capital?

I just think people are to ready to chuck the towel in and throw a hissy fit when things don't go their way. I think there's genuine cases, but when I was in my twenties, if you were sick you would be ridiculed for being a "pu55y" unless it was serious, so you just didn't do it. Of course there are genuine cases, I don't believe there are that many though.

Might be something in that - we have become rather narcissic. The cult of me; rather than we. I've recently been to a big office (private sector mind!) where there was a fabulous restaurant, staff showers, etc. etc. the chap I wanted - 'doesn't usually get in 'till past 9' and when he did, dressed in jeans and a casual shirt. Going back even further to when I started - well known 'food retailer' - Personnel Manager stood by time clock (who remembers them!), to make sure you clocked in after getting changed and making sure you had a tie. A year or so later, no taking jackets off until told - even on hottest days. Yes, we needed to relax some of the rules; but as usual, we've gone too far? Casual dress, casual attitude, casual concern for the business?

Here are some hse statistics which may have a bearing on stress in the workplace.

In 2010/11 (hse.gov.uk/statistics/)
Females have a statistically higher number of new cases in the period
For males, the 55+ age group has a statistically significantly lower incidence than for males as a whole.
The age group with the highest rate of new cases for females is the 45-54 and this is statistically significantly higher than for females as a whole.

Male workers took an estimated 4.9 million days off work for work related stress
Female workers took an estimated 5.9 million days off work

Make of this what you will….

It is impossible to generalise that real stress is a genuine factor for absence from work and you need to examine individual cases to get to the facts of each event.
Saying that I believe that the increase in the social content of workplace activity is leading employees, particularly where company profit is not the prime motivator, to forget what the focus of their attention should be and consequently when asked to perform to a required standard they struggle with the "pressure" and play the strees card which now is considered to be reasonable with little or no evidential support.

Look at it from the company's point of view: You have staff going off sick because for some reason or other they'd sooner not be working. Does the management of a successful company A. throw its arms up in the air and despair at the endless stream of feckless loosers it keeps hiring, or B. look for ways to motivate its staff better.

Why should firms have a requirement to "motivate" their staff? Salary has always been my motivation.
When you take on a job you agree to a job specification and a wage for doing it. If you don't want to do it then don't take the job. Too many want the money but shy away from the responsibility.

If you have 10 minutes spare, I'd recomend people watch this.

RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

Simple: motivated staff make the company more profit.