Mentally ill people sometimes just need a good 7-8 months to get off a bad manic episode. It doesn't fit with corporate next-quarter hustle culture, and it doesn't fit with our "the private sector must monetize your misery" healthcare system. Which means they slip through the cracks, onto the streets, and everyone says "well what are we supposed to do, we've got a business to run here!"
Until of course you're stepping over them sleeping on the sidewalk your way to the office. Then it's time to send in the national guard to "clean up the streets". Which is a travesty a national failure.
What people are suggesting is there should be another option. Things don't have to be so dire.
I agree that "Companies tout their mental health benefits and neurodiversity initiatives" really should not do this token performative crap without fully understanding what they are implying.
No, acceptance of mental illness doesn't work if you define away anything serious as not mental illness. That's precisely the trouble the author is having, when they have a mental illness that's not just the cute idealized Tiktok version.
People with well-managed schizophrenia can lead relatively normal lives. Or they can wake up from a three day psychosis, not remembering why they've been arrested. It's a spectrum, and it does sometimes get ugly.
Others trusted him, and he proved he cannot be trusted. It's that simple, as far as I'm concerned. He knew about his mental illness, and still put himself in the position of control there. All could have been avoided
But you also can't pretend it's not part of the package. It doesn't stop being mental illness when it becomes inconvenient.
You will sometimes see people write "mental illness doesn't cause people to do this, because I have it and I don't". The truth is that most mental illnesses are on a spectrum. That includes both people who have no problem in daily life, and people who have serious problems.
It's not mental illness because we don't want to support it is not the right conclusion. It's completely backwards.
You're not wrong. I thought it was a good read and some awesome honesty if not also leaving some things unmentioned or undescribed. Sometimes the details matter a lot.
Let's imagine another, non-existing, person so as to clearly differentiate from the author. Said imaginary person gets violent due to socialization and a anger issues. How should the company handle an episode that leaves another employee with a broken nose and bruises? Disclosure doesn't defend a company from it's duty to protect the bodily health of that person's coworkers does it?
Most people have some mental unwellness or at least experiences they struggle to navigate or understand. Their experiences can make the problem worse and some conditions lead to behaviors that add processing load and tax their capacity to remain well. At times that exceeds a capacity to navigate and injury occurs. While invisible that injury has impact and costs. Employees have a right to not be harmed by their coworkers and a right to demand employers protect that right. I'm making that argument on a basis of common decency but there are legal liabilities to consider as well. All of this sort of thing is a distraction from the work the employer needs done.
Our world is better off to the extent we help everyone be productive and contribute at their maximal capacity. While some of the affects we have on one another are very positive, today we are struggling with how to balance the negative hard affects.
I can report leaving a really wonderful job after being socially attacked by a coworker that lost reality and falsely convinced my team that I had harmed them. Despite sharing evidence from the third party involved that it was a departure from reality, my boss decided not to help correct the problem. This has very negative impacts on my mental health, finances, marriage, and it derailed my career for a while. I probably had good standing to sue for damages. I certainly was damaged. There had been many poor behaviors from that person prior.
It is complicated and messy. As much as I appreciated it, the essay reads to me as though it minimizes the negatives. Without discounting it and while being understanding and inclusive we still need to manage impacts and the distractions those negatives create.
I'm not sure how to resolve the interests of everyone involved - I just know that when I've had to work with a colleague who was volatile or prone to yelling at me it made my own life and mental health much worse.