Psychos in important work places

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:27 pm

it is difficult to reject Psycho applicants legally these days. And to deny promotions or assignment of duties - what with HiPPA and privacy laws(uits).

The US military does not hire people with Psycho background or those taking Psych meds.

So should these people be put in a separate "risk" group and barred from work/assignments that are likely to endanger live(s)? say bus drivers, security, Chemical truck drivers, Plane drivers, policemen, etc...

Why shouldn't they be barred?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:36 pm

.....here it starts...discussion about that big White Elephant.....

Mental illness is UNLIKE physical illness - no matter what the money-looting Peesichiatrists say.

by Guest Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:17 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

it is difficult to reject Psycho applicants legally these days. And to deny promotions or assignment of duties - what with HiPPA and privacy laws(uits).

The US military does not hire people with Psycho background or those taking Psych meds.

So should these people be put in a separate "risk" group and barred from work/assignments that are likely to endanger live(s)? say bus drivers, security, Chemical truck drivers, Plane drivers, policemen, etc...

Why shouldn't they be barred?

If they are barred, then mental illness becomes a taboo like it's in india. People will not seek treatment for mental illnesses.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:37 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

it is difficult to reject Psycho applicants legally these days. And to deny promotions or assignment of duties - what with HiPPA and privacy laws(uits).

The US military does not hire people with Psycho background or those taking Psych meds.

So should these people be put in a separate "risk" group and barred from work/assignments that are likely to endanger live(s)? say bus drivers, security, Chemical truck drivers, Plane drivers, policemen, etc...

Why shouldn't they be barred?
If they are barred, then mental illness becomes a taboo like it's in india. People will not seek treatment for mental illnesses.

Hey... it is better that they dont seek treatment than they forget to take meds and shoot people in offices, crash the plane, make planes disappear, and use this as an excuse after the crimes to escape punishment.

They should be barred from a list of critical jobs - like operating nuke plants, becoming surgeons, pilots, etc... Such "discrimination" occurs and even followed in many fields - including military, owning guns, etc..

what next... quadraplegics must not be barred from becoming pilots? U know those having high blood pressure or failing simple urine tests are denied truck driving licenses.... here we are talking about plane drivers.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:45 pm

Here is a link from HA's thread...

Read his medical history...from 2009...listed chronologically in the above news item.

by Kris Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:56 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

it is difficult to reject Psycho applicants legally these days. And to deny promotions or assignment of duties - what with HiPPA and privacy laws(uits).

The US military does not hire people with Psycho background or those taking Psych meds.

So should these people be put in a separate "risk" group and barred from work/assignments that are likely to endanger live(s)? say bus drivers, security, Chemical truck drivers, Plane drivers, policemen, etc...

Why shouldn't they be barred?

>>>For certain positions, they should. I am even in favor of key execs being checked out for sanity, but I doubt that will happen.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:07 pm

Kris wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

it is difficult to reject Psycho applicants legally these days. And to deny promotions or assignment of duties - what with HiPPA and privacy laws(uits).

The US military does not hire people with Psycho background or those taking Psych meds.

So should these people be put in a separate "risk" group and barred from work/assignments that are likely to endanger live(s)? say bus drivers, security, Chemical truck drivers, Plane drivers, policemen, etc...

Why shouldn't they be barred?
>>>For certain positions, they should. I am even in favor of key execs being checked out for sanity, but I doubt that will happen.

I am with your 102%. Dig up an old thread by me where I asked exactly the same thing.... bcz on of the looney bosses was harassing, abusing, threatening openly many employees and slowly killing the opponents professionally. I knew personally psycho drugs were involved and have heard office people say that the day meds are forgotten it was hell for everyone. Finally, the boss was "removed" after much damage to destruction to the work environment.

Since the 90s when the insurance and Congress approved that Psychos should be treated on par with other doctors and mental illness is like physical illness, the Psycho Docs have run amok.

I challenge anyone. Have you ever noticed ONE person walking into a PsychO office coming out empty handed and told the person did not suffer from any illness. Psychos are the next worst professionals to the used car salesmen and Dentists.

by Guest Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:20 pm

Uppili, I think pilots ARE screened for psychological disorders. Looks like the guy somehow hid his medical condition. I believe he even took off for a few months (for his treatment) and was back. i don't know how the airlines missed that.

Yes, I do agree that be allowed in jobs where they can put other ppl's lives at risk and should not be given licenses to possess guns or have them anywhere near them. It would be nice if they don't bear children either, but that would be too much of a stretch.

That said, it is a good thing to propogate that psychological illnesses should be treated on with physical illnesses. That takes the taboo off of psychological illnesses and helps ppl to seek treatment.

by pravalika nanda Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:17 pm

Kinnera wrote:
That said, it is a good thing to propagate that psychological illnesses should be treated on with physical illnesses. That takes the taboo off psychological illnesses and helps ppl to seek treatment.

agreed.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:27 am

pravalika nanda wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
That said, it is a good thing to propagate that psychological illnesses should be treated on with physical illnesses. That takes the taboo off psychological illnesses and helps ppl to seek treatment.
agreed.

right marry one diagnosed with Schizo and on meds... Razz

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:07 am

If you are worried about suicidal tendencies among patients suffering from depression and psychosis, you should be more scared of psychopaths.

I think there should be a proper screening for politicians, IAS officers, CEOs and others in leadership positions, to ensure that psychopaths don't slip into prominent positions.

Coming back to depression and psychosis - the treatment options for these ailments are not that good. The drugs that are used have so many side effects and may even be responsible for enhanced suicidal tendencies among some patients! This is one area that needs a lot of research to develop better drugs.

by FluteHolder Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:38 am

So what about those who spent time in re-hab for prescription drug use/abuse? Will that be a serious no no?

by Kris Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:27 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:If you are worried about suicidal tendencies among patients suffering from depression and psychosis, you should be more scared of psychopaths.

I think there should be a proper screening for politicians, IAS officers, CEOs and others in leadership positions, to ensure that psychopaths don't slip into prominent positions.

Coming back to depression and psychosis - the treatment options for these ailments are not that good. The drugs that are used have so many side effects and may even be responsible for enhanced suicidal tendencies among some patients! This is one area that needs a lot of research to develop better drugs.

>>>That is what I was referring to, not so much treatable depression. Mental illness is obviously a very broad term.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:56 pm

Kris wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:If you are worried about suicidal tendencies among patients suffering from depression and psychosis, you should be more scared of psychopaths.

I think there should be a proper screening for politicians, IAS officers, CEOs and others in leadership positions, to ensure that psychopaths don't slip into prominent positions.

Coming back to depression and psychosis - the treatment options for these ailments are not that good. The drugs that are used have so many side effects and may even be responsible for enhanced suicidal tendencies among some patients! This is one area that needs a lot of research to develop better drugs.
>>>That is what I was referring to, not so much treatable depression. Mental illness is obviously a very broad term.

Oops. Didn't see. Psychopaths are a huge problem in organizations. Psychopathy should be recognized as a disease. I'm sure there is a biochemical basis to it. If so, a proper screening test can be developed and used to weed out the "bastards".

by Kris Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:34 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Kris wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:If you are worried about suicidal tendencies among patients suffering from depression and psychosis, you should be more scared of psychopaths.

I think there should be a proper screening for politicians, IAS officers, CEOs and others in leadership positions, to ensure that psychopaths don't slip into prominent positions.

Coming back to depression and psychosis - the treatment options for these ailments are not that good. The drugs that are used have so many side effects and may even be responsible for enhanced suicidal tendencies among some patients! This is one area that needs a lot of research to develop better drugs.
>>>That is what I was referring to, not so much treatable depression. Mental illness is obviously a very broad term.

Oops. Didn't see. Psychopaths are a huge problem in organizations. Psychopathy should be recognized as a disease. I'm sure there is a biochemical basis to it. If so, a proper screening test can be developed and used to weed out the "bastards".

>>>I had this with one of my first direct reports and my boss actually got ticked off at me because I didn't can her during the probation period. I also had a situation once with someone up the corporate ladder. There were all kinds of HR investigations, but there was a lot of hesitancy on HR's part due to legal vulnerability. I even pointed out there was some fear that this exec may go postal. Eventually the person left, but I think there was some "persuasion" and maybe even some incentive involved. The tipping point for the organization was of course that business was suffering. One of my direct reports had a dad who was a retired doctor who had specialized in mental health. Based on his son's input, the dad surmised there could be bi-polar issues, among other things. That was of course a diagnosis based on not seeing the person. He did say there was something definitely very off-kilter. Luckily, there were other Godfathers within the organization who knew what was happening and reached out to us privately and covered us.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:58 pm

Kris wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Kris wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:If you are worried about suicidal tendencies among patients suffering from depression and psychosis, you should be more scared of psychopaths.

I think there should be a proper screening for politicians, IAS officers, CEOs and others in leadership positions, to ensure that psychopaths don't slip into prominent positions.

Coming back to depression and psychosis - the treatment options for these ailments are not that good. The drugs that are used have so many side effects and may even be responsible for enhanced suicidal tendencies among some patients! This is one area that needs a lot of research to develop better drugs.
>>>That is what I was referring to, not so much treatable depression. Mental illness is obviously a very broad term.

Oops. Didn't see. Psychopaths are a huge problem in organizations. Psychopathy should be recognized as a disease. I'm sure there is a biochemical basis to it. If so, a proper screening test can be developed and used to weed out the "bastards".
>>>I had this with one of my first direct reports and my boss actually got ticked off at me because I didn't can her during the probation period. I also had a situation once with someone up the corporate ladder. There were all kinds of HR investigations, but there was a lot of hesitancy on HR's part due to legal vulnerability. I even pointed out there was some fear that this exec may go postal. Eventually the person left, but I think there was some "persuasion" and maybe even some incentive involved. The tipping point for the organization was of course that business was suffering. One of my direct reports had a dad who was a retired doctor who had specialized in mental health. Based on his son's input, the dad surmised there could be bi-polar issues, among other things. That was of course a diagnosis based on not seeing the person. He did say there was something definitely very off-kilter. Luckily, there were other Godfathers within the organization who knew what was happening and reached out to us privately and covered us.

A few years ago, we hired a fellow to head our unit. He was given 4 positions and some seed money. We filled all 4 positions with decent people. The new head had a good size research outfit and was well funded. Soon people working under him started complaining of stress, harassment, etc. He was doing funny stuff with an associate in his group and she decided to make it public. He was at the same time seeing another woman (a colleague) and she became pregnant. He apparently had her write a statement that she won't ask for child support, etc. She left our unit. His other associates (men) complained that he was quite ruthless and unethical and they couldn't handle the stress. He was finally caught with misappropriation of funds and once he was caught, he was asked to step down as the head. Interestingly, we all thought that he was a charming fellow before we hired him. Shows how stupid we were!

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:51 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>I had this with one of my first direct reports and my boss actually got ticked off at me because I didn't can her during the probation period. I also had a situation once with someone up the corporate ladder. There were all kinds of HR investigations, but there was a lot of hesitancy on HR's part due to legal vulnerability. I even pointed out there was some fear that this exec may go postal. Eventually the person left, but I think there was some "persuasion" and maybe even some incentive involved. The tipping point for the organization was of course that business was suffering. One of my direct reports had a dad who was a retired doctor who had specialized in mental health. Based on his son's input, the dad surmised there could be bi-polar issues, among other things. That was of course a diagnosis based on not seeing the person. He did say there was something definitely very off-kilter. Luckily, there were other Godfathers within the organization who knew what was happening and reached out to us privately and covered us.

A few years ago, we hired a fellow to head our unit. He was given 4 positions and some seed money. We filled all 4 positions with decent people. The new head had a good size research outfit and was well funded. Soon people working under him started complaining of stress, harassment, etc. He was doing funny stuff with an associate in his group and she decided to make it public. He was at the same time seeing another woman (a colleague) and she became pregnant. He apparently had her write a statement that she won't ask for child support, etc. She left our unit. His other associates (men) complained that he was quite ruthless and unethical and they couldn't handle the stress. He was finally caught with misappropriation of funds and once he was caught, he was asked to step down as the head. Interestingly, we all thought that he was a charming fellow before we hired him. Shows how stupid we were!

Hahahah... we had a similar boss... All smiley and cooperative. after a year or two...the shit hit the fan. reorganization and reorganization and people were jittery that they could lose their job any time - including myself. In fact I was a special target. The damage was widespread the boss was asked to get out. From what I hear the damage has not been fixed and it will take years to repair the situation.

by Kris Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:41 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Kris wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Kris wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:If you are worried about suicidal tendencies among patients suffering from depression and psychosis, you should be more scared of psychopaths.

I think there should be a proper screening for politicians, IAS officers, CEOs and others in leadership positions, to ensure that psychopaths don't slip into prominent positions.

Coming back to depression and psychosis - the treatment options for these ailments are not that good. The drugs that are used have so many side effects and may even be responsible for enhanced suicidal tendencies among some patients! This is one area that needs a lot of research to develop better drugs.
>>>That is what I was referring to, not so much treatable depression. Mental illness is obviously a very broad term.

Oops. Didn't see. Psychopaths are a huge problem in organizations. Psychopathy should be recognized as a disease. I'm sure there is a biochemical basis to it. If so, a proper screening test can be developed and used to weed out the "bastards".
>>>I had this with one of my first direct reports and my boss actually got ticked off at me because I didn't can her during the probation period. I also had a situation once with someone up the corporate ladder. There were all kinds of HR investigations, but there was a lot of hesitancy on HR's part due to legal vulnerability. I even pointed out there was some fear that this exec may go postal. Eventually the person left, but I think there was some "persuasion" and maybe even some incentive involved. The tipping point for the organization was of course that business was suffering. One of my direct reports had a dad who was a retired doctor who had specialized in mental health. Based on his son's input, the dad surmised there could be bi-polar issues, among other things. That was of course a diagnosis based on not seeing the person. He did say there was something definitely very off-kilter. Luckily, there were other Godfathers within the organization who knew what was happening and reached out to us privately and covered us.

A few years ago, we hired a fellow to head our unit. He was given 4 positions and some seed money. We filled all 4 positions with decent people. The new head had a good size research outfit and was well funded. Soon people working under him started complaining of stress, harassment, etc. He was doing funny stuff with an associate in his group and she decided to make it public. He was at the same time seeing another woman (a colleague) and she became pregnant. He apparently had her write a statement that she won't ask for child support, etc. She left our unit. His other associates (men) complained that he was quite ruthless and unethical and they couldn't handle the stress. He was finally caught with misappropriation of funds and once he was caught, he was asked to step down as the head. Interestingly, we all thought that he was a charming fellow before we hired him. Shows how stupid we were!

>>>I am surprised you guys didn't have a couple of lawsuits on your hands with all the hanky panky. The situation I described was limited to anger management issues and incompetence, although it was pure hell. After one of the outbursts, when one of the admin assistants started crying, I decided to go get one of the exec VPs to see this nonsense first hand. It so happened he was out of the office at that time. I did let him know later and opened the channels of communication with him. HR called me to de-brief me and I was very factual about everything.

by Sponsored content

Psychos in important work places

Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places

Re: Psychos in important work places