Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

making allowances for mental illness

Employment and Discrimination Law

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:58 pm

shootist wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:Do you recall Disney's Fantasia?
The bit where the broom floods the house because it was too stupid to stop: should the broom be disciplined?


Only if you would whip a robot. The broom wasn't sentient.

Are you sure the broom wasn't sentient? This was Disney, a land with dancing hippo's and talking wardrobes.
Do you know that the spell which animated the broom did not imbue it with sentience?
I can recommend "Feet of Clay" by Terry Pratchett. It has quite a good study on stupid workers.

But back to the point, imagine the broom is a very stupid person instead of a broom. I have met people that are not far off that stupid.
If they were too stupid to realise that they ought to stop, should they be disciplined for not stopping?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby shootist » Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:54 am

Hairyloon wrote:But back to the point, imagine the broom is a very stupid person instead of a broom. I have met people that are not far off that stupid.
If they were too stupid to realise that they ought to stop, should they be disciplined for not stopping?


It would seem logical that an employer / manager should not require someone to perform a task that is beyond their ability. It also seems logical that an employee should know his limitations. But I return to my point that someone who is too dim to know their limitations must be regarded as deficient. I believe there are some jobs where a disabled person requires a helper without whom they simply could not do that job. Does that mean a reasonable adjustment could be made for a blind bus driver to work at his chosen job? What we need is some sort of 'Thickometer'. I suspect that parliament may object.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3464
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby atticus » Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:29 am

In many situations, employing a second person to assist would not be a reasonable adjustment. Nor would it be correct to regard a blind person as "thick".
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:54 am

shootist wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:But back to the point, imagine the broom is a very stupid person instead of a broom. I have met people that are not far off that stupid.
If they were too stupid to realise that they ought to stop, should they be disciplined for not stopping?


It would seem logical that an employer / manager should not require someone to perform a task that is beyond their ability. It also seems logical that an employee should know his limitations.

I don't think most people do know their limitations: the only way to know is to exceed them and most people are usually too scared to try to do that.
In many situations, that fear is sensible because the results of failure can be catastrophic, but other times the failure can be predicted and allowed for.
Rock climbing is a good example: you have a safety line, and if you never fall off when practising then you are not trying hard enough.

But I return to my point that someone who is too dim to know their limitations must be regarded as deficient.

What do you mean by "deficient"? And what does regarding them so involve?

What we need is some sort of 'Thickometer'...

For what purpose?
Do you propose a line for which those on one side we treat reasonably and those on the other we don't?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby shootist » Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:10 pm

Hairyloon wrote:But I return to my point that someone who is too dim to know their limitations must be regarded as deficient.
What do you mean by "deficient"? And what does regarding them so involve?


You speak of mental illness in parallel with stupidity and it seems reasonable that the two must have a meeting point. At what point does a stupid person become so stupid that they may be considered as mentally ill?

What we need is some sort of 'Thickometer'...


Hairyloon wrote:For what purpose?


As an aid to diagnosis.

Hairyloon wrote:Do you propose a line for which those on one side we treat reasonably and those on the other we don't?


Of course not. All people should be treated reasonably. It may well be quite reasonable to treat a practical joker with a smack in the mouth to applaud their wit.

And why should some diagnostic tool for mental illness require a dividing line, or that people on one side of it may be treated reasonably while those on the other are not? Why have you asked such a question when it is obvious I proposed no such thing?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3464
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Nov 21, 2015 12:06 am

shootist wrote:You speak of mental illness in parallel with stupidity...

I think I have not: I have tried to avoid doing so. I have been speaking here of impairment, not illness.

At what point does a stupid person become so stupid that they may be considered as mentally ill?

My first answer was to say that calling it "illness" suggests that something has gone wrong: it is divergent from their normal state, but then I thought that if it is genetic, then that is their normal state... then I got confuised and decided that perhaps labels are not so useful here.

Hairyloon wrote:Do you propose a line for which those on one side we treat reasonably and those on the other we don't?


Of course not. All people should be treated reasonably. It may well be quite reasonable to treat a practical joker with a smack in the mouth to applaud their wit.

And why should some diagnostic tool for mental illness require a dividing line, or that people on one side of it may be treated reasonably while those on the other are not? Why have you asked such a question when it is obvious I proposed no such thing?

Because earlier you said this:
shootist wrote:At what point does stupidity become mental impairment?

But I agree, you did not at any point suggest that stupid people should not be treated reasonably. It was Atti' who appeared to be suggesting that.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby Michael » Sat Nov 21, 2015 12:22 am

You speak of mental illness in parallel with stupidity and it seems reasonable that the two must have a meeting point. At what point does a stupid person become so stupid that they may be considered as mentally ill?


At the point where the professionals working for the EHS report back and conclude that he or she has a disability and therefore is not simply stupid.

I have known a few stupid people who were under the disciplinary process and were facing possible dismissal refuse to meet with the EHS. Those people were to stupid to be helped .
Michael
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:48 pm

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Nov 21, 2015 12:56 am

Michael wrote:
You speak of mental illness in parallel with stupidity and it seems reasonable that the two must have a meeting point. At what point does a stupid person become so stupid that they may be considered as mentally ill?


At the point where the professionals working for the EHS report back and conclude that he or she has a disability and therefore is not simply stupid.

Disability is measured on a scale of impairment: it has nothing to do wwith illness.
I have known a few stupid people who were under the disciplinary process and were facing possible dismissal refuse to meet with the EHS. Those people were to stupid to be helped .

It is a rather sorry show of the state of our society that people would rather be sacked in this economic climate than be labelled as mentally ill.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby shootist » Sat Nov 21, 2015 8:15 am

Hairyloon wrote:It is a rather sorry show of the state of our society that people would rather be sacked in this economic climate than be labelled as mentally ill.


Perhaps more likely that they would rather be sacked than risk being labelled as mentally fit and therefore defined as stupid?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3464
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Nov 21, 2015 10:22 am

shootist wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:It is a rather sorry show of the state of our society that people would rather be sacked in this economic climate than be labelled as mentally ill.


Perhaps more likely that they would rather be sacked than risk being labelled as mentally fit and therefore defined as stupid?

Interesting choice of words. If you are not physically fit, then that is not the same as being physically ill. Why should it be so for mental fitness?
I think I don't agree with you: assuming they were sacked for being stupid, then they have already been given the stupid label, they will not avoid that label by avoiding the assessment.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to Employment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests