Andrew Neil. Britain's sick note economy

[Brendan110_0]

12 hours ago, nothernsoul said:

My theory on this. In years past you had more powerful unions. Problems at work were dealt with in a collective way, whether that was pay, conditions, workplace stress, alleged victimisation or bullying. I also believe most white collar jobs have become more demanding and unpleasant. Now we don't have a collective view of work, those problems are individualised. And that manifests itself in the only way that is now socially acceptable, mental illness. This might be what  would always have been considered" real" mental illness( I know this is a terrible term but can't think of anything better), or people interpreting negative feelings that might have been called something different. 

Basically if someone feels overworked or overwhelmed, and the only recourse short of resigning is going to the doctor to get signed off with stress, that is what most will do.

Agree, without a Union you're isolated and it's a "You" problem, especially if the cause of stress is overworking or ridiculous KPI's to hit. 

[Casual-observer]

30 minutes ago, Innkeeper said:

Paradoxically, women are rightly asking the workplace for understanding, compassion etc when on maternity leave or in menopause but then ideologically refusing  to accept that their bodies are not built for a lifetimes work.

Women or men who choose to stay at home to look after children are now looked down on (not in the benefits culture obviously) as somehow ‘wasting’ their lives.  How sad that is and how children are changing as a result ( they are, no matter how much the parents protest that they aren’t).

If we had parents having children in late teens/ early twenties when child birth is much less traumatic, then they could start careers in their thirties.  Perhaps the benefits gang are on to something here.....

 

Yep and the media they hoover up alludes to this fantasy land dream that's not bearing fruit in reality. 

Fertility is down, child births are down, more women are single than ever and productivity is nose diving rapidly.

Going back to my original point, how do you unwind a 50 year fantasy that only half worked thanks to money being cheap.

The answer is you can't, it's a prelude to collapse.  

Edited July 17, 2023 by Casual-observer

[NoHPCinTheUK]

Meanwhile next week the whole underground and rail services in London will shutdown

Edited July 17, 2023 by NoHPCinTheUK

[regprentice]

On 15/07/2023 at 14:39, 70PC said:

"Ominously, more than 40 per cent of new claims involve mental-health issues. The system simply doesn’t know how to process or cope with such claims."

This is nonsense. Blind people have jobs as do those in wheelchairs. Many in work have mental health issues. If stress or depression is problem, this a case of finding the right job. Keep the benefits money for people in real dificulty. 

My grandfather drove a van delivering tyres. This paid a decent wage and bought a family home. interestingly if he finished his route early he went birdwatching for the afternoon. 

Today a delivery driver has no security of employment, holidays or sick pay, they need to buy their own van and find their own replacement if needed. They work at a pace decided as the "most efficient" by an algorithm and their customers can watch every stop and turn they make in their van live on the internet. They often have webcams in their cabs where head office watch them and are tracked by "black box" recorders that penalise them for things like pulling away from a junction too quickly. 

That's why people are dropping out of the workforce. in pursuit of "productivity" jobs are becoming so stressful a proportion of the population simply cant cope with the constant demands and pace of modern work. Better to stay on benefits than take a job, lose it, then have a sanction and put onto UC instead of a better benefit you previously qualified for but which cant be given to "new" claimants. 

Perhaps you work in an amazon warehouse where the lowest performing 5% of staff on any given day are fired no matter how good an employee they are overall. One bad day and you are out.

Perhaps you work in a primary school, like my wife, where youre supposed to be a teachers assistant reading thomas the tank engine to 5 year olds but you really spend most of your time feeding and changing disabled children with severe care needs.

Perhaps your employer decides you can do the work that used to be done by a team of 20 people. This happened to a friend of mine who was an analyst at a bank - they said "dont worry you now have 3 months to complete any requests so you can prioritise your own workload". her job went from an interesting job with some quiet periods to an extremely stressful job looking at a constant wall of 3 months work that needed to be done. 

As per your comment blind and deaf people can work, but they tend to have "disability" jobs at an organisation set up by a charity for their special need. I've worked in many large employers over 30 years in buildings with as many as 6000 people and ive never seen a blind or deaf person at work. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by regprentice

[70PC]

53 minutes ago, regprentice said:

My grandfather drove a van delivering tyres. This paid a decent wage and bought a family home. interestingly if he finished his route early he went birdwatching for the afternoon. 

Today a delivery driver has no security of employment, holidays or sick pay, they need to buy their own van and find their own replacement if needed. They work at a pace decided as the "most efficient" by an algorithm and their customers can watch every stop and turn they make in their van live on the internet. They often have webcams in their cabs where head office watch them and are tracked by "black box" recorders that penalise them for things like pulling away from a junction too quickly. 

That's why people are dropping out of the workforce. in pursuit of "productivity" jobs are becoming so stressful a proportion of the population simply cant cope with the constant demands and pace of modern work. Better to stay on benefits than take a job, lose it, then have a sanction and put onto UC instead of a better benefit you previously qualified for but which cant be given to "new" claimants. 

Perhaps you work in an amazon warehouse where the lowest performing 5% of staff on any given day are fired no matter how good an employee they are overall. One bad day and you are out.

Perhaps you work in a primary school, like my wife, where youre supposed to be a teachers assistant reading thomas the tank engine to 5 year olds but you really spend most of your time feeding and changing disabled children with severe care needs.

Perhaps your employer decides you can do the work that used to be done by a team of 20 people. This happened to a friend of mine who was an analyst at a bank - they said "dont worry you now have 3 months to complete any requests so you can prioritise your own workload". her job went from an interesting job with some quiet periods to an extremely stressful job looking at a constant wall of 3 months work that needed to be done. 

As per your comment blind and deaf people can work, but they tend to have "disability" jobs at an organisation set up by a charity for their special need. I've worked in many large employers over 30 years in buildings with as many as 6000 people and ive never seen a blind or deaf person at work. 

Can't argue with that. Good comment!  

[msi]

59 minutes ago, regprentice said:

My grandfather drove a van delivering tyres. This paid a decent wage and bought a family home. interestingly if he finished his route early he went birdwatching for the afternoon. 

Today a delivery driver has no security of employment, holidays or sick pay, they need to buy their own van and find their own replacement if needed. They work at a pace decided as the "most efficient" by an algorithm and their customers can watch every stop and turn they make in their van live on the internet. They often have webcams in their cabs where head office watch them and are tracked by "black box" recorders that penalise them for things like pulling away from a junction too quickly. 

That's why people are dropping out of the workforce. in pursuit of "productivity" jobs are becoming so stressful a proportion of the population simply cant cope with the constant demands and pace of modern work. Better to stay on benefits than take a job, lose it, then have a sanction and put onto UC instead of a better benefit you previously qualified for but which cant be given to "new" claimants. 

Perhaps you work in an amazon warehouse where the lowest performing 5% of staff on any given day are fired no matter how good an employee they are overall. One bad day and you are out.

Perhaps you work in a primary school, like my wife, where youre supposed to be a teachers assistant reading thomas the tank engine to 5 year olds but you really spend most of your time feeding and changing disabled children with severe care needs.

Perhaps your employer decides you can do the work that used to be done by a team of 20 people. This happened to a friend of mine who was an analyst at a bank - they said "dont worry you now have 3 months to complete any requests so you can prioritise your own workload". her job went from an interesting job with some quiet periods to an extremely stressful job looking at a constant wall of 3 months work that needed to be done. 

As per your comment blind and deaf people can work, but they tend to have "disability" jobs at an organisation set up by a charity for their special need. I've worked in many large employers over 30 years in buildings with as many as 6000 people and ive never seen a blind or deaf person at work. 

Post of the Day!

[scottbeard]

12 hours ago, Insane said:

Funny thing is I have met quite a number of women who have said 

" those women in the 60's who burnt their bras really have not done us women any favours"

They have swopped the kitchen sink for the office desk. One of them was a solicitor and another one of the first female editors of a national newspaper. They would love to have had children then stayed at home with them but they could not afford to. They feel they were conned into the must have a career mantra. 

Women were told they can have it all a top career , a family and independence, they were told to have children then return to the work force. If they did not do this then they were missing out. The Banks offered joint mortgages of 4 and 5 X salary's the rest is history , now most women don't have a choice whether to stay at home or work they have to work.  

“Conned” into being a solicitor?

Sorry but if you’re clever enough to be a solicitor you have to take responsibility for your choices.

My grandma and her sister were both intelligent women who could have had much more fulfilling lives in 2020 than in 1950.  They were essentially locked out of any meaningful careers.

But of course women can’t “have it all” just as men can’t.  We all need to make choices.

[Insane]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

“Conned” into being a solicitor?

Sorry but if you’re clever enough to be a solicitor you have to take responsibility for your choices.

Yes she did take responsibility for her choices. She saw the career con for what it was her and her husband scaled down ,she gave up working full time. Other women who are not at a high level cannot scale down and give up work they have to carry on just to survive.

3 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

My grandma and her sister were both intelligent women who could have had much more fulfilling lives in 2020 than in 1950.  They were essentially locked out of any meaningful careers.

How do you know they would have felt more fulfilled if they had had a career? 

Granted your Grandma and her sister never had the choice the find out as they were around in 1950, today the women of 2020 don't have the choice to see if they would rather stay at home as they have no choice but to stay in the workforce full time. As I said in a previous post the kitchen sink has been swopped for the office desk. 

6 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

But of course women can’t “have it all” just as men can’t.  We all need to make choices.

That is the big one yet Women have been told they could have it all that has been the con. 

[scottbeard]

11 hours ago, Insane said:

How do you know they would have felt more fulfilled if they had had a career? 

Granted your Grandma and her sister never had the choice the find out as they were around in 1950, today the women of 2020 don't have the choice to see if they would rather stay at home as they have no choice but to stay in the workforce full time. As I said in a previous post the kitchen sink has been swopped for the office desk. 

That is the big one yet Women have been told they could have it all that has been the con. 

Because for the rest of her life my Grandma talked with immense pride about the 2-3 years during the war in which she was able to be a shop manager.   Come 1945 and peace she was booted out again.  It's not hard to imagine she would have had a more fulfilled life as a shop manager than the cleaning lady she was forced to be by society.

Many women today absolutely have a choice.  Where I work lots of people - men and women - are part time.  I think when I noseyed around in the stats 15% of our workforce is part time, ranging from 2 days per week to 4.5 days.

Even if you're right and the kitchen sink has been swapped for an office desk, do you honestly think that most women are more fulfilled washing up and scrubbing the front doorstep than working?

[Insane]

10 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Because for the rest of her life my Grandma talked with immense pride about the 2-3 years during the war in which she was able to be a shop manager.   Come 1945 and peace she was booted out again.  It's not hard to imagine she would have had a more fulfilled life as a shop manager than the cleaning lady she was forced to be by society.

Well there were female shop managers back then not every Woman got booted out of jobs when the men came home from the War. 

12 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Many women today absolutely have a choice.  Where I work lots of people - men and women - are part time.  I think when I noseyed around in the stats 15% of our workforce is part time, ranging from 2 days per week to 4.5 days.

Well many have not got the choice especially those lower down the earnings bracket who have husbands or partners who are also lower down. Twice recently I have been served by a heavily pregnant Woman at the supermarket check out. I mentioned their exciting event and asked both if they were giving up work, both replied that NO they had to come back to work saying they wish they did not have too. These women won't be sending their babies to expensive nursery's , but relying on parents, in laws and other family help or will be working when their husbands will back from work to take over the child care.

Another Woman in my local Supermarket was almost falling asleep at the till recently having had a few conversations with her over the years I know that she has 3 primary school aged children. The conversation with her was that she was working until 11pm that night and that she sometimes felt she did not know how see carried on. 

I am sure all the above 3 women don't think they are living the 2020 DREAM. 

24 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Even if you're right and the kitchen sink has been swapped for an office desk, do you honestly think that most women are more fulfilled washing up and scrubbing the front doorstep than working?

You have hit the nail on the head there, the women who has to go out to work full time still has to come home and scrub the front doorstep , it is not an either or it is now both. 

Do you honestly think that the women and men who are chasing their arses off juggling a full time job each when back in the 50's one job per couple would have done are fulfilled and enjoying the stress? 

 

[Bob8]

7 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Because for the rest of her life my Grandma talked with immense pride about the 2-3 years during the war in which she was able to be a shop manager.   Come 1945 and peace she was booted out again.  It's not hard to imagine she would have had a more fulfilled life as a shop manager than the cleaning lady she was forced to be by society.

Many women today absolutely have a choice.  Where I work lots of people - men and women - are part time.  I think when I noseyed around in the stats 15% of our workforce is part time, ranging from 2 days per week to 4.5 days.

Even if you're right and the kitchen sink has been swapped for an office desk, do you honestly think that most women are more fulfilled washing up and scrubbing the front doorstep than working?

Even the original story had a vibe of And Then The Whole Bus Clapped .

I agree wholeheartedly. If you push people into roles, rather than giving them any choice, some people will end up happier. But, on balance, most will not.

[winkie]

Very few men would welcome doing a full-time job and being a single parent paying a mortgage from the wages they earn no extra help given from anyone...... juggling childminding throughout the year and school holidays and paying for that childminding......all the bills and food, car costs, insurances, school uniforms etc

Many women do it without complaining, multitasking......far fewer men do it or could ever do it.

Edited July 18, 2023 by winkie

[Bob8]

7 minutes ago, winkie said:

Very few men would welcome doing a full-time job and being a single parent paying a mortgage from the wages they earn no extra help given from anyone...... juggling childminding throughout the year and school holidays and paying for that childminding......all the bills and food, car costs, insurances, school uniforms etc

Many women do it without complaining, multitasking......far fewer men do it or could ever do it.

Well meant, but perhaps nonsense if it implies that women are inherently better at it. It leads to the vulgar feminism of female superiority, or misogynistic sexual determinism that says women might as well do that.

[winkie]

22 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Well meant, but perhaps nonsense if it implies that women are inherently better at it. It leads to the vulgar feminism of female superiority, or misogynistic sexual determinism that says women might as well do that.

They are not generally or necessarily better 'at it', bringing children up.....it is down to what generally old fashioned men think their job should be, and what a women's job should be.....how they might look to their mates if they did what was traditionally 'woman's work'.......times have changed, no going back.....society and years of government policies has seen to that......get the max work and taxes out of the people there are available......if need two to buy a home, make homes that expensive that two wages are needed......the legacy is the children have got the short straw, they have suffered the most......why they don't vote so who needs them anyway?

[msi]

32 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Well meant, but perhaps nonsense if it implies that women are inherently better at it. It leads to the vulgar feminism of female superiority, or misogynistic sexual determinism that says women might as well do that.

Same sort of nonsense that men are naturally 'family providers' and inherently better at it.  Does that lead to vulgar masculinity and masculine superiority, or toxic masculinity that says men should put women 'in their place'....

[Bob8]

7 minutes ago, winkie said:

They are not generally or necessarily better 'at it', bringing children up.....it is down to what generally old fashioned men think their job should be, and what a women's job should be.....how they might look to their mates if they did what was traditionally 'woman's work'.......times have changed, no going back.....society and years of government policies has seen to that......get the max work and taxes out of the people there are available......if need two to buy a home, make homes that expensive that two wages are needed......the legacy is the children have got the short straw, they have suffered the most......why they don't vote so who needs them anyway?

Fair

3 minutes ago, msi said:

Same sort of nonsense that men are naturally 'family providers' and inherently better at it.  Does that lead to vulgar masculinity and masculine superiority, or toxic masculinity that says men should put women 'in their place'....

Frankly, I think much comes from people being infuriated with their partners (rightly or not) and preferring to balme their sex rather than the personally or themselves.

[anonguest]

23 hours ago, regprentice said:

If stress or depression is problem, this a case of finding the right job.

So, let me understand you correctly...

People get depressed because of their jobs and not their lives/personal/financial circumstances/etc.?

And the solution to depression is to just change to a different job? 

[anonguest]

8 hours ago, Insane said:

Well there were female shop managers back then not every Woman got booted out of jobs when the men came home from the War. 

Because not all the men came home. Such is the nature of war!

Edited July 18, 2023 by anonguest

[jevans]

From the people who ******ed the health service, why are all these people now says their sick, lazy bastards.

 

[msi]

21 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Frankly, I think much comes from people being infuriated with their partners (rightly or not) and preferring to balme their sex rather than the personally or themselves.

yes. There is an awful lot of transference going on especially with some here

[scottbeard]

8 hours ago, Insane said:

Well there were female shop managers back then not every Woman got booted out of jobs when the men came home from the War. 

Well many have not got the choice especially those lower down the earnings bracket who have husbands or partners who are also lower down. Twice recently I have been served by a heavily pregnant Woman at the supermarket check out. I mentioned their exciting event and asked both if they were giving up work, both replied that NO they had to come back to work saying they wish they did not have too. These women won't be sending their babies to expensive nursery's , but relying on parents, in laws and other family help or will be working when their husbands will back from work to take over the child care.

Another Woman in my local Supermarket was almost falling asleep at the till recently having had a few conversations with her over the years I know that she has 3 primary school aged children. The conversation with her was that she was working until 11pm that night and that she sometimes felt she did not know how see carried on. 

I am sure all the above 3 women don't think they are living the 2020 DREAM. 

You have hit the nail on the head there, the women who has to go out to work full time still has to come home and scrub the front doorstep , it is not an either or it is now both. 

Do you honestly think that the women and men who are chasing their arses off juggling a full time job each when back in the 50's one job per couple would have done are fulfilled and enjoying the stress? 

 

I was going to draft a long response along the lines:

- There are a lot more shop manager opportunities for women now, though

- Yes low paid women don't get a choice, but then neither do (or ever did) low paid men

- There aren't as many doorsteps to scrub as there were in 1950, thanks to technology (dishwashers, washing machines etc).  Plus, if the jobs are all falling to the women she needs to have words with her husband.  

But then @Bob8said this, and nailed the whole thing:

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

If you push people into roles, rather than giving them any choice, some people will end up happier. But, on balance, most will not.

 

[regprentice]

11 minutes ago, anonguest said:

So, let me understand you correctly...

People get depressed because of their jobs and not their lives/personal/financial circumstances/etc.?

And the solution to depression is to just change to a different job? 

i didnt make that quote, you've quoted a post by @70PC that was embedded in my post. 

However I would agree that some jobs can cause depression and many can cause stress, but would not argue they are the sole or even the main causes of depression or stress across the population .

The point i was trying to make was that many people have "low level" disabilities or conditions that, 20,30,40 years ago wouldnt have stopped them working, they might even have been seen as quirks of that persons personality. Today anyone not running at 100 % mental and physical capacity can be thrown under the bus by their employer and suddenly find themselves unemployable in the eyes of employers but also "fit for work" in the eyes of DWP.

The only long term path for these people is longterm sick. effectively treating chronic conditions and disabilities as "illness" instead of simply part of a person. what do i mean by chronic conditions -  i've worked with people with diabetes, Raynaud's , high blood pressure, recurring migraines, Addison syndrome, Bipolar etc which are all conditions where someone's running 100% most of the time but sometimes has rough patches where work isnt their priority but they cant afford to take leave or they have to take unexpected leave... these are the people finding it harder and harder to stay in a decent job.  

 

[Bob8]

42 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I was going to draft a long response along the lines:

- There are a lot more shop manager opportunities for women now, though

- Yes low paid women don't get a choice, but then neither do (or ever did) low paid men

- There aren't as many doorsteps to scrub as there were in 1950, thanks to technology (dishwashers, washing machines etc).  Plus, if the jobs are all falling to the women she needs to have words with her husband.  

But then @Bob8said this, and nailed the whole thing:

 

Thank you!

[anonguest]

56 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

But then @Bob8said this, and nailed the whole thing

Yes. He's very into nails and heads. Or at least used to be.

Edited July 18, 2023 by anonguest

[Insane]

2 hours ago, anonguest said:

Because not all the men came home. Such is the nature of war!

I am sure many women stayed in jobs not just because the men had been killed in the War but due to woman being able to be in the workforce like men were.