Be honest -you wouldn't employ a person with certain mental health issues, would you?

[sportmax]

That's ludicrous- if they're competent and fit for the job - of course I would. That's what I imagine most people would say.
But I don't think people are really being honest with themselves.

What if the person had a mental health issue like social anxiety, would you still want to hire them? Probably not.

I've worked in offices who absolutely hire people with MH difficulties. I now work in a school however, and I know they are more selective about who they hire. A school cannot hire someone who has social anxiety and dozens of days off over a year, it's not feasible and wouldn't be fair on the students or the candidate itself

It's really about the extent and what exactly the MH difficulties are, and the position they are applying to as to whether they would actually be successful long term, and not make their mental health worse

Whilst it is not discrimination to hire someone because they've had a lot of days of absence, its the reason behind those days that can become discrimination. If someone is just a lazy sod then fair enough, if it's because of illness/disability then it is discrimination

I don't think most companies would. no. I still see it as very much on employers market. it's very hard for people to even get a job, and anyone with any sort of medical condition or mental health problems..... most employers would just find a way not to hire them if they possibly could. it sounds very harsh but I honestly believe that's the truth! Employers just don't care, don't want the hassle and just want an easy ride.

If i thought my existing staff would be unfairly penalised by having to cover for someone who required a lot of absence or couldn't do parts of the job due to social anxiety which meant someone else having to take it on, then i wouldn't hire them, no.

Only a few weeks ago a friend was discussing her search for a new assistant. She had declined to hire the best candidate who (according to Facebook) had some very strong beliefs and was a fairly militant activist. She didn’t want to hire someone who might cause friction or express unpopular opinions at work and offend someone. No disability, no MH issues, just not wanting the hassle. Which is what it all comes down to in the end.

If i thought my existing staff would be unfairly penalised by having to cover for someone who required a lot of absence or couldn't do parts of the job due to social anxiety which meant someone else having to take it on, then i wouldn't hire them, no.

So you wouldn't hire a woman of child bearing age just in case she got pregnant and needed time off for ante natals then maternity leave and then probably wanted to go part time whilst her children were growing up? It's exactly the same - the other staff would have to cover!

Franny I have raging anxiety but wtf has that got to do with hassling employees at home?!

@Kazzyhoward - well said!

So you wouldn't hire a woman of child bearing age just in case she got pregnant and needed time off for ante natals then maternity leave and then probably wanted to go part time whilst her children were growing up? It's exactly the same - the other staff would have to cover!

No, if she was on maternity leave it would be for a set time and i could hire someone to cover her. Ditto if she went part time. Time off for drs appts is fine.

I have had many work babies!

Some people with social anxiety can thrive in customer-facing roles, or performing roles. With the right kind of work there may be a script, a routine, a behaviour to copy. Outside work may be far less predictable and anxiety-inducing. Obviously it depends on individual circumstances but "anxious therefore cannot work" definitely doesn't always apply.

Maternity leave, time for prayers etc can be managed but a small business who has an employee go off sick suddenly or for an extended period may struggle so as someone who has employed people who I really need to be there then I would prefer not to pick someone who is likely to go off sick. Obviously there is no way of knowing if an employee will get ill but if that have a condition that makes it more likely I would prefer not to risk it

how does time for prayers get managed - just by doing extra time to cover it?

To all the posters saying "it's the same as hiring a woman of childbearing age who will have babies!" - you do realise women are massively discriminated against for this don't you?! So not a great example.

At final interview in a big co I was interviewed by a female senior director who asked how I'd cope if I had kids - the other candidate was a male of the same age and was ultimately offered the job...

At my next job the head of HR openly said she didn't think the industry we worked in was compatible with having kids or working part time.

Thousands of women every year lose their jobs because of maternity discrimination.

I agree that employers will discriminate against poor health too, whether physical or mental.

Because it’s known about in advance so you can work around it.

hopping sorry to keep on, but I'm really interested to know more how it's managed. Is it that you know which times the employee wouldn't be around and they do extra to cover it?

Simply put, its all set out in the Equality Act 2010. Those saying they wouldn't are putting their employers at a far greater risk than a few sick days due to mental health. Shocked that these people are allowed to be hiring managers to be honest. I wonder if they would be happy to name their employer? Aside from your own privacy as a reason to not divulge (which i get), would you actually come out and say you didn't employ someone due to their mental health publicly? If you did would your employer be happy they employed you while fighting the discrimination cases/tribunals/Bad PR? Probably not...

Of course noone is going to name their employer! People are being honest as its an anonymous forum!

Basically employers don’t want any inconvenience so they reject anyone who might cause issues.

employers employ people they need - if I need a part-timer, I employ a part-timer. If I need someone full time, no, I won't employ someone who will have a lot of absence.

If an existing colleague needs work adjustments for whatever reason, we deal with it - anyone can get sick, injured or have severe family issues. What you don't do is starting with problems in the first place!

If someone needs to be clock-watching, like the single mother in your example, then that's fine for a lot of roles, not for others where overtime goes without saying.

Imagine a childminder who must close down at a very strict time and can't have your kids past a point. What you need is someone flexible enough to cover emergency and the time your train is late or you are stuck in traffic.
If your gardener has to adjust his hours whilst you are at work, you won't care a bit as long as the job is done.

Gamechange
there's a lot of things people do and don't do to keep things running smoothly - a lot of them are better on the quiet to avoid any drama. Works both ways!

No one will tell you some of the real reason why they don't employ a candidate, but ultimately, you will deal with this person for at least 40 hours a week. It's human and professional to chose the person who will fit best within the team.

If your anxiety presents itself in interviews, they may have concerns about your ability to communicate with others.

You wouldn't or shouldn't be asked any questions about your health at the interview stage, but if the interviewers find relating to you difficult or vice versa that can affect your chances.

I work in the public sector and sometimes after a person has been successful at interview and provisionally offered the job...then we find out they've had 300 days off sick in the last 2 years due to a mental health issue...it does give cause for concern...but it would not be an automatic reason to withdraw the job offer.

It depends, McDonald's hired dc despite asd and extreme anxiety (the repetitive nature made it ideal)

That's fine. All i am saying is its against the law to discriminate based on the EA.

It is anonymous here. It also a public forum accessed by the media. Best hope that people are as anonymous as they think.

OP, have you tried CBT? I did, it was an absolute life changer as far as social anxiety goes. I had it on the NHS. I also used the following book on its own afterwards. I’ve also linked to an Australian website run by a University which the NHS recommends. Personally I preferred the book to the website. You really have to want to try and work at it but the results can be amazing.

www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Over-Mood-Second-Changing/dp/1462520421/ref=asc_df_1462520421_nodl/?hvlocphy=1007064&linkCode=df0&hvptwo&psc=1&psc=1&hvnetw=g&hvadid=310973726618&hvpone&hvlocint&th=1&hvpos=1o1&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl&hvqmt&tag=mumsnetforu03-21&hvtargid=pla-404766177279&hvrand=3713496826603718238

moodgym.com.au/

Thing is with waving the Equality Act, an employer can give a defence which states how an individual's disability is likely to be detrimental to the wellbeing of other staff and/or the needs of the business - and win the case. As a PP said, some MH conditions may involve symptoms that inconvenience or distress other staff, particularly if it's a fluctuating condition. If you have the type of MH condition which can manifest in recklessness or outbursts of anger when you are ill, or getting ill, for example, that's a problem for your employer and your colleagues.
One of my jobs involves admin for schools: I do a bit of work with special schools and they require classroom staff who are mentally resilient and more-than-usually patient and even-tempered. If they take on someone who doesn't 'fit' then it's an expensive and time-consuming process to get rid of the person, and the other staff and students can suffer.

It is anonymous here. It also a public forum accessed by the media. Best hope that people are as anonymous as they think.

I don't think anyone has divulged any secret or ground-breaking info on this thread, or I've missed that bit!