Perceptions that no preventive action was possible

A number of people felt that there was nothing that could reasonably have been done to help them to stay in their job. Some believed that they were simply not suited to the job or could not meet the basic requirements of the role. For example, some people described how the effects of depression meant that they were simply not able to ‘handle’ or ‘hack’ the particular type of work they were in (in some cases describing a mutually reinforcing relationship between mental ill health and struggling in work). Here, some people’s view was that it was ‘only fair’ to their employer to leave when they did. Moreover, some said that they would not have wanted any allowances or adjustments to be made for them. For these people, their personal work ‘ethic’ dictated that if they were not able to manage the job in front of them, then it was only right and fair that they leave:

The only fair thing was for me to get - me to get out because, you know, he couldn’t afford - he couldn’t afford a supernumerary, or somebody who wasn’t giving a hundred per cent value for money.

(Male, 60s)

I just couldn’t handle it. So I had to leave unfortunately ... I pretty much jumped because I have very high morals. I don’t like – if I can’t do a job, I won’t do it because it’s not fair on me or the people I’m doing the job for. (Male, 20s)

4.4

Conclusion

In this concluding section, we attempt to draw some general lessons from the accounts of people in our research sample who had experienced the end of a period of employment and employers who had experienced staff leaving as a result of mental ill health. Discussion of the policy implications of these lessons will be found in Chapter 7.

We should reiterate at this point however that the employers taking part in the study are likely to have more constructive attitudes towards mental health and have more developed policies and practices in place than a more representative sample of employers. The employers in this study generally reported that when they became aware that an employee had a mental health condition, they had addressed it as soon as possible, by trying to discuss it with the individual concerned, referring to and involving other parties to provide advice and support.

Among the people who had had their employment ended several common experiences emerged from their accounts, which we will discuss in turn:

• Decisions to leave work without a period of sick leave.

• Low levels of engagement with managers, colleagues, health service

professionals, occupational health departments over job retention.

• High level of ‘voluntary’ or ‘mutually agreed’ decisions to leave. • Lack of impact of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).

By definition, when a person leaves their job by resigning with immediate effect, then any opportunities for employers of discussing any type of response (for example adjustments, time off to improve, help with treatment) are effectively precluded. Typically, people only resigned in this way when some point of ‘crisis’, at work or in their personal lives, had been reached and work had become, from their perspective, untenable. For some people, the route to unemployment also involved a period off sick during which there was little contact with employers and little discussion with General Practitioners (GPs) and other health professionals about returning to work.

Some people in the study group explained that leaving work had been a constructive decision for them, but it is possible to suggest that individuals may be in a very vulnerable position at this time and that, rather than ending their connection with work (usually voluntarily or by mutual agreement), their long term interests might have been better served by a continuing, responsive and constructive connection to their employer.

Apart from the larger, ‘engaged’ employers, the evidence of this study is that many employers also feel vulnerable in dealing with people who have a mental health condition. They often feel ill-equipped, lacking in knowledge and isolated particularly when their experience is that their employee is either not aware of or ignoring their condition.

In Chapter 2, it was reported that many employers explained that mental health problems themselves were not their concern as much as performance, behaviour and attendance. This is an understandable approach but the evidence in this chapter suggests that this approach can quickly transform into remedial or disciplinary action that can be experienced very negatively by people with a mental health condition. It is also important to note the complex relationships between traumatic personal circumstances and mental health in that it may be the former of these aspects of mental ill health that is most salient to individuals – and most apparent to employers – at the time people leave or go off sick from work. Thus, there may be implications for the capacities or policies under which employers are able or inclined to respond.

The final lesson from the experiences of people leaving their employment is to reinforce findings from earlier chapters that the DDA had not had any relevance for many employees and employers. It is interesting to note that the attitudes to work expressed by many people in this study, that the onus is on them as individuals to take up work they can manage, rather than the employer accommodating to their needs or limitations, runs counter to the premise of the DDA and equality of opportunity policies more broadly that employers have responsibilities towards them and that they as employees have rights that can if necessary be enforced.

5 Mental health and