Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Strafin Jun 14 2012, 04:56 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/rise-in-stress-related-absence-at-west-berkshire-council

I have just read this story and a couple of things sprung to my mind. If you're stressed out about losing your job, is it wise to be taking time off? I accept stress can be difficult and cause genuine problems but we all suffer and some need a day off sometimes but that's what holiday time is for.

Do these employees get sick pay? It strikes me that it is one of those things that is difficult to disprove so if you get paid no matter what, an easy way to get some free time off. Does this set of figures only refer to the council itself or it's services as well, schools for example? Only we are all under pressure and it would be interesting to know if the stress was reflected across other council workers. If it is there may be something in this, but I wonder if it could also be a culture that has manifested through more people seeing easy time off as acceptable. And finally how are these absences covered and what is the cost?

Posted by: Timbo Jun 14 2012, 05:08 PM

Must be all the lying and having to deal with complaints.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 14 2012, 05:29 PM

Strees, a fairly modern malaise which costs the country and by default the taxpayers millions to keep them warm and tucked up nicely. The old saying "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitcken"might apply.
There may be something in oppresive management structures which push people to and over the edge. If you spend your entire working life having to make sure that an innocent remark doesn't bring an accusation of a racist comment or an accusation of sexist conduct then perhaps the structure should be examined. I have to suggest that the whole problem is made worse by the human resources department who should be protecting employees rather than looking for every minor mistake that staff might make. These jobsworths have created the environment where people are terribly hurt and baying for action, compensation or the blood of their co workers everytime they feel they have been marginalised.
Just look at the television adverts where the solicitors are advertising for people who fall over, or fall off a ladder to get in touch to sue the butt off their employer when half the time, the accident is a result of their own stupidity. Remember the last snowfall when we were advised we could be sued if we cleared the footpath and some idiot slipped up on the cleared area despite the fact that it is a well known fact that snow is inherrently slippery.

Posted by: Strafin Jun 14 2012, 05:41 PM

I think it's more modern urban myths that make people think this way, and to be honest if you are stressed out about snowy paths for example, then you are probably in the wrong job. I agree with your sentiment of "If you can't stand the heat"...

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 14 2012, 06:30 PM

With the cost of rent and mortgages these days, it is no-wonder people from all ranges of employment are stressed. And beware, the Tories are eager to make it easier to fire you, so stay awake.

Posted by: badger Jun 15 2012, 07:37 PM

Stress can also come from when you are consistently (over several years) told/expected to achieve certain results in a service area whilst at the same time funding is withdrawn. It can also come from seeing services withdrawn from the most vulnerable in society after so called consultations. I doubt people wake up and think 'oh I'll take today off as a stress day' it creeps up on you, gradually, slowly, until suddenly you find yourself having a panic attack or unable to make a decision as simple as to what to put in your sandwich. Then before you can make any big decisions such as if this is the right job for you anymore or the right organisation for you - you are feeling very very ill.

Posted by: Strafin Jun 15 2012, 08:00 PM

That is true, but would that really be happening to that many people at WBC? I am not convinced..

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 15 2012, 08:06 PM

Overall, too simplistic (cynical, maybe?) by half. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Stress/Pages/Introduction.aspx
Non-visible problems are often dismissed as lead swinging under various terms of phrase. Truly ill people, or those on the verge, have their situation made worse by worrying about being branded a skiver.
I am sure, as an ex-Councillor, you did everything to ensure your staff were not so stereotyped.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 15 2012, 08:52 PM

Sorry, but this is simply a sales pitch for a Trades Union. The public sector being the last bastion of these outdated and wholly unnecessary institutions. Of course people are worried about jobs and employment - we are in the middle of a severe and eep recession. Can't remember any great sympathy when other local employers went actually went under and the staff did actually loose their jobs. Frankly, if I was working at the Council Offices, in any capacity, I'd be pretty angry that some one perporting to represent my interests, was going round saying I can't cope! With friends like that you don't need tough managers!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 15 2012, 09:03 PM

I don't disagree with that. The Union presents a very narrow view of the issue

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 15 2012, 09:47 PM

Nationally time lost because of mental ill-health of one kind or another accounts for around 40% of all lost time, so the question isn't why is WBC's proportion so high, but why is it so low? Mental ill-health can be debilitating, and life-threatening, and its stigmatisation makes it all the more difficult for people to seek help and recognise that they are ill. Stress can be a trigger and it's good that Unison have brought this up, good for the health of the employees, and good for the productivity of the employer.

Posted by: badger Jun 15 2012, 10:05 PM

well said Simon.

Posted by: Penelope Jun 15 2012, 10:06 PM

Times 2.

Posted by: user23 Jun 16 2012, 01:05 PM

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/stress/index.htm but is a lot lower than 10 years ago.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 16 2012, 02:25 PM

Thanks for that User. 34% of all sick incidences is stress-related, but the average time lost to each stress-related incidence is almost 30 days, very much longer than the 5-10 days lost to the more typical colds and flu, so mental ill health accounts for a disproportionately large fraction of all days lost, maybe more than 40%.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 16 2012, 02:29 PM

Interesting that the industries that reported the highest rates of work-related stress in the last three years were health, social work, education and public administration.

I'm not sure what that suggests and why that particular group should have a high sickness rate due to stress. Are they employing the wrong people, is the work culture such that the employees strees themselves into stress related illness or is it that the unions need to keep stress to the forefront as a factor so that pressure of work can be a the path to higher pay claims.

Whatever the reasons, I'm not sure that being a teacher or working at the council offices can really be that stressful and I would take a bet that the health workers who report stress related illness are not the patient care section, the nurses and doctors, but are the employees in the administration department.

Posted by: Cognosco Jun 16 2012, 03:42 PM

I would put all this stress down to all these vexatious taxpayers wanting to know too much information in regards to trying to find out just what the council are doing?

Posted by: On the edge Jun 16 2012, 03:52 PM

If, and it may well be, this is a national problem - then why aren't we seeing it debated via the pulic health channels and indeed in the national arena. The Trades Union involvement in just one narrow area seems to me unnecessary and inappropriate, All its done is serve to suggest local government employees are even more overblown than a big percentage of the population already believe. in the context of the stuggle over pensions and local government 'waste' - not at all helpful. And to think, many trades union officials are still on the public payroll!!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 16 2012, 04:12 PM

One constant stressor for those working in public service is knowing what is 'right', what is a priority, what the community needs, but being required to do other things because of political pressures, Stress is not so much caused by having lots to do; much more likely the inability to do the real job because of irrelevant impositions from central Govt/local point scoring....

IMHO, of course....

Posted by: user23 Jun 16 2012, 04:22 PM

I would guess comments like the one below must add to the stress too.

I'm sure your average hard working teacher or social worker would not like being called a liar.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 16 2012, 04:43 PM

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.

Posted by: badger Jun 16 2012, 07:41 PM

spot on (IMHO)

Posted by: On the edge Jun 16 2012, 10:08 PM

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.

Posted by: spartacus Jun 16 2012, 10:11 PM

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....

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2012, 07:29 AM

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....

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 17 2012, 09:22 AM

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....

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2012, 10:02 AM

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

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 17 2012, 03:59 PM

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.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2012, 04:27 PM

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.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 17 2012, 09:26 PM

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.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 18 2012, 05:45 PM

In the Times today (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9337853/Mental-illness-accounts-for-nearly-half-of-all-ill-health-as-report-claims-NHS-fails-to-meet-needs-of-sufferers.html) 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.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 18 2012, 07:45 PM

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?

Posted by: Strafin Jun 18 2012, 08:01 PM

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.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 18 2012, 08:38 PM

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?

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 18 2012, 09:23 PM

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….

Posted by: Bloggo Jun 19 2012, 09:30 AM

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.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2012, 09:49 AM

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.

Posted by: Bloggo Jun 19 2012, 10:02 AM

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.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2012, 10:35 AM

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2012, 10:57 AM

Simple: motivated staff make the company more profit.

Posted by: Bloggo Jun 19 2012, 11:21 AM

Of course and I understand that. My point is that there should be an element of self-motivation that doesn't require continual input and stroking from management to ensure that a job is done well.

Posted by: Mark NWN Jun 19 2012, 11:26 AM

Interesting points made in this thread... having sat in the council chamber where the issue was discussed on Thursday I have written a follow on article for Thursday's Newbury Weekly News.

If you would like to look at the report in more detail and get some further background and see some of the other trends the document is here:

http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/documents/s17753/Annual%20Employment%20Report%202011-2012.pdf

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2012, 12:11 PM

There should, but it is ultimately the employer's loss if they ignore the effectiveness of good man management.

Posted by: Bloggo Jun 19 2012, 12:56 PM

Quite so. However we drift from the point and in my opinion some employees will use the term "stressed" to avoid making difficult decisions and turning up for work.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 19 2012, 12:58 PM

Facinating! Data overload, so suspect we'll all need time to think what this mass of numbers actually mean...Great post, thanks for the extract.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 19 2012, 03:31 PM

Some use flu, some use bad backs and many use children. Having to double up your work load due to a parent having to stay at home for a child's runny nose, sports day, the annual play is stressful. Due to cost cutting employers now tend to share the workload of a maternity leave parent among the rest of the staff rather than employ cover.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 19 2012, 05:26 PM

Just as some employees soldier on at work when they really should be at home. I have done both - sent people home and hauled them back to work....... Always when appropriate, and nearly always appreciated by the recipient.
I have no problem with the genuinely unfit to work being off for the time it takes for them to get back to fitness. I have a real problem with those who jump on the bandwagon. It used to be 'bad back'..... All the lead swingers make it hard for the genuine cases, whatever the ailment...

Posted by: badger Jun 19 2012, 08:10 PM

sounds easy doesn't it... until you find your job has little resemblance to the Job Spec!! And as for motivation it just makes sense to want to motivate your staff as motivated staff will equal a better, more efficient, happier workforce. Salary is actually not the main motivator for most people. It might be WHY they need to work but as to motivation other factors come into play.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 19 2012, 08:15 PM

Well established research evidences that salary is not a motivator (Herzberg's Hygeine Factors). That was why the strikes of the 60's and on got the employees no-where. The work was unrewarding and the pay didn't make it so....

Posted by: Newbelly Jun 19 2012, 08:20 PM

Indeed, Maslow's hierarchy of needs..

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 19 2012, 08:44 PM

As well.......

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2012, 09:02 PM

With an absence rate of around 8.5 days WBC is actually doing better than the national average of 10.7 days for the public sector. See http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/4926%20Absence%20SR%20%28WEB%29.pdf. I find it frustrating that the WBC report didn't put many of its figures in context. Knowing how the statistics have changed since last year is a start but it needs a longer timebase than that to see trends, and without refernce to national trends the numbers are really pretty meaningless.

If WBC suspect that work-place stress is a problem then they need some objective evidence, so they really need to do a baseline attitudes survey and then repeat it every couple of years to see if they're making any improvement or just making things worse, and if they use an industry standard survey they can compare themselves to other industries. Without that they're driving blind.

Posted by: Bloggo Jun 20 2012, 07:46 AM

Well it sounds like you are taking control of your staff and actually managing them.
I have worked both in the private sector and laterly in the public sector and have worked at WBC for a period.
My experience was that I saw no reason for anyone to be stressed in the area of the council I was employed in. In fact there was a very casual atmosphere regarding work rate and very little manager participation. By contrast my experience in the private sector, where public money was not at risk, the work level was high and the stress level just tolerable.

Posted by: JeffG Jun 20 2012, 09:00 AM

Just to be clear (and definitely not being pedantic) do you mean "where the money at risk was not public money"? Maybe I am cynical, but I would have thought that in the public sector public money being at risk would not be a high priority, if the phrase has any meaning at all.

Posted by: Bloggo Jun 20 2012, 09:17 AM

Sorry, you are right, it is not clear.
In my opinion and experience the way that money is spent in the private sector is so much more accountable than the public sector. In particular purchasing and procurement seems to be less controlled when the expense is from the public purse.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 20 2012, 09:41 AM

If I could just steer this round to the OP again: WBC's sickness statistics appear to show that it is doing 20% better than the national sector average overall, and stress-related sickness is only half of the sector average. Just saying.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 20 2012, 08:01 PM

Agree - this seems to be true. It also supports Bloggo's contention about working conditions at WBC. Interesting then, the stats say there isn't a problem, given how this was originally announced, is there a different problem if you see what I mean?!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 21 2012, 06:30 PM

There may well be a morale problem which Unison were trying to highlight, and the statistics as prsented suggest that conclusion, but the briefing-paper was poor because it didn't place the statistics in context - so this is one problem; our elected representatives are not being provided with the information they need to make properly informed decisions.

Another problem is that there is no particular reason why our elected representatives should have the personal experience or even the mental capacity to make properly informed decisions about many of the things our system of local democracy asks them about, and I see this as a much more significant problem. I think much of what WBC do should be done by professional public institutions with only limited oversight, much like the police service, Environment Agency, and Health and Safety Executive - certainly true for public health, trading standards, leisure, housing, social care, town planning, and if there's anything left that truely needs local democratic involvement then it probably belongs with the parish council. Sort that lot out and a lot of the man-management issues disappear.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 22 2012, 10:41 AM

Reading the report in the hared copy NWN, this certainly seems to be the case. There appears to be a people management issue in Children's services. Seeing the raw numbers without any context rhyme or reeason doesn't highlight this at all. From observations and comments I've had from elected councillors - the dissillusionment sets in with the mountain of unfocussed reports / stats and other bureacratic bilge they are expected to wade through. Particularly when its pretty clear that those producing this are simply trying to fog the issue.

Your suggested solution is right - ironically how it was supposed to work when the Local Govt. Act was intriduced in 1888!