Good article. I also don't agree that Josh Hamilton is a risk to sign because of "addiction issues". My experience with others who were drug users is that if they've stopped for years, and moved away from the other users they once hung out with, there is an extremely low likelihood of remission. The fact that Josh had some alcohol during last season and didn't get in a bar fight, miss a game, get a DWI, or any other such mayhem, indicates that he is over his old problems.

i imagine some of this is generational but i have endured depression and the issues associated with it but unlike my oldest daughter and now many others i didn't spend a lot of time talking about and seeming to wallow in the diagnosis.

get the right help. see the right people. but why all the constant noise about it?

that's why greinke was my kind of guy. he kept it private. dealt with it on his own. as it should be.

others seem to want it as some kind of personal brand.

His age, relative to the length of contract he’s likely to receive, scares me. As do his declining defensive utility in center field, his reliance on contact skills rather than plate discipline and his troubling injury history

… are the things not to like about a Hamilton contract, according to TFA, not his drug-and-rehab history.

As to the drug-and-rehab point, I couldn't agree more. That's the main point of TFA's discussion of Hamilton, and it's an important and cogent point.

My one quibble (and what would a BBTF comment be without a quibble? :) is the worry about "his reliance on contact skills rather than plate discipline." True, Hamilton's strikeout rate was up last year (as was his walk rate, both being the highest he's posted since coming to Texas). That could be due to any number of physical problems, including eyesight and sinus issues that he complained of, which are part of the "troubling injury history" that I would also worry about. Or maybe he's just lost bat speed with age, and that's a worry, too.

But all else equal, his reliance on contact skills is a good thing about him. His lifetime batting average is .304. That's his game; he's more Vlad Guerrero than Jim Thome, and if you're good enough on the Guerrero side, the fact that you rely on contact instead of take-and-rake is simply a matter of style. I see no reason why a contact type would age badly or anything like that: Vlad himself was still hitting .300 and driving in 100 runs at the age of 35. Contact is a reason to sign Hamilton, not avoid him.

But all else equal, his reliance on contact skills is a good thing about him. His lifetime batting average is .304. That's his game; he's more Vlad Guerrero than Jim Thome, and if you're good enough on the Guerrero side, the fact that you rely on contact instead of take-and-rake is simply a matter of style. I see no reason why a contact type would age badly or anything like that: Vlad himself was still hitting .300 and driving in 100 runs at the age of 35. Contact is a reason to sign Hamilton, not avoid him.

Concur. Contact is a "young man's" skill. Players tend to add power and patience as they age, and lose contact ability.

Hamilton's in much better shape to age well than an equivalent hitter batting .240 with a ton of walks.

get the right help. see the right people. but why all the constant noise about it?

There are certainly ways of talking about mental health issues that are not good, that are perhaps preening or self-aggrandizing, and those aren't good.

The positive effect of talking publicly about mental illness, I think, has to do with getting rid of the stigma on mental illness. There have been a lot of people with mental illnesses who haven't gotten the help they needed in part because they couldn't acknowledge their problems out of shame, out of concern regarding how other people in their lives would treat them. People saying publicly that they have this problem, and that they're getting help, can play a part in enabling others to get help, too.

that's why greinke was my kind of guy. he kept it private. dealt with it on his own. as it should be.

Are there ways to change the culture of rub-some-dirt-on-it besides making it public?

(or what MCoA said)

matt/drew

i have no issue with someone responding to a question or perhaps mentioning it once or twice in a public forum. i roll my eyes at those who talk about it 'constantly'. why do we have all these rules about health privacy and then have folks yammering about this malady or that issue nonstop.

get the help you need and there you go. it's none of my business nor should it be.

i lump all of the viagra garbage into the same pile of nonsense.

i have no issue with someone responding to a question or perhaps mentioning it once or twice in a public forum. i roll my eyes at those who talk about it 'constantly'. why do we have all these rules about health privacy and then have folks yammering about this malady or that issue nonstop.

I think it's a function of the social media era we live in. There are things I would tell my brother or my best friend because I trust them and rely on them. At the same time I would prefer to keep those issues generally private. However, between internet commenting, Twitter and Facebook and other social media we have a culture where everyone feels compelled to disclose information. I'm not sure what direction the cause/effect goes on that one but I think more and more everyone feels like they should share their opinions on everything.

this has struck a nerve because in several of the companies owned by my firm i am now being made aware that the various human resources departments are telling management we need to accomodate workers with the various mental health issues being away from work and not showing up to work and that is all part of the package

look, if you need a ramp to get to work i have no issue becuase you are getting to work. and if you need a special reader on your computer because your eyes are shot that's ok too because again, you are working

but i need to keep your spot because you need to sit home because your head is elsewhere? got a developer who has missed over a month in 2012 because of this stuff and allegedly we cannot do anything about it.

i have a problem with that

and if that makes me an 8sshole so be it

but i need to keep your spot because you need to sit home because your head is elsewhere? got a developer who has missed over a month in 2012 because of this stuff and allegedly we cannot do anything about it.

i have a problem with that

and if that makes me an 8sshole so be it

Would you feel the same if they had an obvious physical malady that kept them out of work for the same time?

Would you feel the same if they had an obvious physical malady that kept them out of work for the same time?

I'm sure he would. Damned gimps need to be out begging for their lives, surely.

randy

there is a process for that in human resources. apparently when it's a head issue need to take a tippy toe approach

Process for what?

I do totally understand the issue that with mental health problems it is much tougher to tell if the person is just faking it to get out of work.

randy

if you have a recognized physical health issue that is not mental health there ways for HR to work to see if this is a short-term disability path, long-term disability path or what have you. there is way for the company and the employee to reach an understanding so that the employee is not on the street but work still gets done

I do totally understand the issue that with mental health problems it is much tougher to tell if the person is just faking it to get out of work.

Which is, I suspect, a big reason why the stigma exists. But if you have a doctor's diagnosis, that should be easy to verify. With a diagnosis, a workplace can also easily tell who needs to be treated as having a disability and who doesn't.

Unless workplaces can't ask for doctor's notes anymore?

It doesn't make you an ####### but I think it's worth identifying the legitimate problems from the not so legitimate. We've seen this with phyiscal maladies for many years with people claiming hard to prove/disprove injuries (back injuries especially). You're always going to have people gaming the system but there are legitimate mental/emotional issues that make it difficult if not impossible to work.

if you have a recognized physical health issue that is not mental health there ways for HR to work to see if this is a short-term disability path, long-term disability path or what have you. there is way for the company and the employee to reach an understanding so that the employee is not on the street but work still gets done

Why can't the same process be done with mental health issues?

Unless workplaces can't ask for doctor's notes anymore?

In my case, at least as of back in 2/01, they can basically ask you to take the doctor's note back & for all intents & purposes tear it up.

I would say a bit more, maybe, but John Wayne Wallbangers might be offended.

Harvey, the mental health "excuse" to get out of working is certainly more apt to be abused than a physical ailment, but I do think being put off work with a mental illness (of a severity that meets some kind of measurable standard) is very bit as valid as being put off work for back surgery, etc..

Edit: Cokes - that sure took off in a hurry.

gef

feel free. you don't offend me. i enjoy your posts

randy

got me. just sharing what i am hearing from hr

Thanks, Harveys. It's a subject I'm no doubt still sensitive about (not least, I'm sure, because my mother was so nuts she made me look like a textbook case of normality), so please forgive my snark.

For me, I wasn't seeking any sort of (un)paid time off or compensation or anything, just a different schedule. Oh, well -- by then I'd made my bed at the newspaper in Little Rock, & that gave them an excuse to make me lie in it. Or, rather, to throw me out of it.

But if you have a doctor's diagnosis, that should be easy to verify. With a diagnosis, a workplace can also easily tell who needs to be treated as having a disability and who doesn't.

Unless workplaces can't ask for doctor's notes anymore?

You can get a diagnosis of bubonic plague from a Dr., if you search for the right quack.

Someone who worked for me pulled a stunt like this. We had a layoff, and she wanted a severance package, but the company wanted to keep her. She complains about it loudly for days, then goes on vacation, calls in sick the first day back, and never shows up again.

Never tells us what's wrong with her, and we can't ask HR. Zero communication. We eliminate he job after the mandatory period, and as soon as the insurance co. kicks her off disability, she's back to work somewhere else.

i am not suggesting the guy in the example i provided is 'faking it'.

but i need to keep your spot because you need to sit home because your head is elsewhere? got a developer who has missed over a month in 2012 because of this stuff and allegedly we cannot do anything about it.

i have a problem with that

and if that makes me an 8sshole so be it

I disagree with those that let you off the hook here.

Mental disorders are every bit as legitimate as physical disorders. Making accomodations to help people that are suffering from either... that is something that needs to be done. Period. (and if you believe in the idea that mental disorders are often brought about by issues with brain chemistry, mental disorders ARE physical disorders.)

This was a GREAT article. Greinke is one of my favourite players because his admission got people talking about it, and that is very important.

I have experience with someone very close to me sufferering from fibro myalgia and depression and ANY inference that she should 'get over it' will not be taken well by me, and when you say that a person suffering should lose their job, that is exactly what you are saying.

rusty

well, i was sharing my frustration that because of the nature of the malady i am given no path for resolution.

i don't know why an employer should be kept in limbo. why is that ok? why is disability not an option? why am i just told, to use the vernacular of the day, 'deal'?

you read about 15 things into my post that weren't there. for one, not desperate to fire anybody. i just want to know the process.

Agree with Harveys that the process is a nightmare. Qualification that I don't really know what I'm saying but from my uneducated vantage point it seems that my HR department is going out of their way to avoid any type of lawsuit, even if it would be frivolous.

My situation is that I'm the only salaried employee in my department that manages 12 others. We provide service hours 17 hours a day, 7 days a week. The person who is scheduled to work until midnight Thursday - Monday has a doctor's note that indicates the person can have difficulties functioning at intermittent times and as such we need to make accommodations for this employee not showing to work (calling in) or leaving if the day ends up too rough. Because I can't ask anybody else in the department to work extra, I get to cover any hours my employee decides he can't work. In a typical week, that means I get to cover the midnight shift at least once because he decides he can no longer function and needs to go home and I normally cover at least one of the Saturday/Sunday shifts because he isn't able to come in. This has been going on for almost 2 years and HR has indicated that this will continue indefinitely. I've told my employer that I'm looking for another job because this situation has made it near impossible to have a life outside of work. They've essentially encouraged me in my job search.

I really don't know if he's faking it or not -- although I probably lean toward taking advantage simply how frequently it is the traditional weekend that requires him to take a full day off. But either way, I don't see how this is a sustainable situation for the employer.

I'm sure one's position in management / non-management clouds things but from my position it's very frustrating. Frustrating is an understatement.

machine

sorry about that situation. but yes, that is the message i am getting from hr

posters here can call us big fibbers or tell us that our human resources departments stink but this is our world.

and when we say anything we are the bad guys.

Depends on where one works -- not only the employer but the state -- but again drawing on my own place of longest employment, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, anyone who would fake anything for the purposes of drawing disability on the job would have to be insane ... at least, again, the way things were in the late '90s. When a reporter had a heart attack, he was put on paid disability (I can't think of the actual term) to the tune of something like $35 a week. Let's face it -- if that happens to you & you're your sole means of support, you'd be better off dying.

gef

interesting. most of the disability plans i have seen are a percentage of the person's standard pay. 50 or 60 percent give or take

That's what I would've assumed, Harv. Maybe back then in Arkansas, there was some sort of distinction between short-term & long-term disability for the purposes of compensation. No doubt Southern states' traditional lack of largesse toward labor played a factor; newspapers have traditionally been not-so-great employers as well, especially in non-Guild states (i.e., again, the South, pretty much), even back when times were pretty good for the industry.

Of course, when I started in the biz back in '81, I'm almost tempted to say that $35 a week would've been "50 or 60 percent give or take" ... Twice that would definitely have fit that bill. (Which explains why I happily snapped up the university fellowship Arizona State offered me that summer to go to grad school in history. Being tax-free, the stipend paid more.)

There have been a lot of people with mental illnesses who haven't gotten the help they needed in part because they couldn't acknowledge their problems out of shame

I recently read an interview with Terry Bradshaw on this subject. Some of it's pretty tough reading.

"This time I just could not get out of the hole. The anxiety attacks were frequent and extensive. I had weight loss, which I'd never had before. I couldn't stop crying. And if I wasn't crying, I was angry, bitter, hateful and mean-spirited. I couldn't sleep – couldn't concentrate. It just got crazy."

"I was drinking a lot, and I didn't like the path I was on. I was frightened by what might happen. I wasn't sure if I was going to drink myself to death."

Took him a long time to get help even though he knew there was a family history of clinical depression.

Oh yeah. Turns out he was dyslexic (and successfully hid it). It really did take him forever to learn his reads, etc.

interesting. most of the disability plans i have seen are a percentage of the person's standard pay. 50 or 60 percent give or take

Yes, I've usually seen 100% pay for 4-6 weeks (Short-term disability), then 50-60% beyond that (Long-term disability).

Note: it's a good idea to pay for LTD yourself, rather than letting the employer pay. It's generally cheap, and then your benefits are tax-free.

Agree with Harveys that the process is a nightmare. Qualification that I don't really know what I'm saying but from my uneducated vantage point it seems that my HR department is going out of their way to avoid any type of lawsuit, even if it would be frivolous.


posters here can call us big fibbers or tell us that our human resources departments stink but this is our world.

No doubt. It's the same with terminating incompetent employees. You can lay-off 100 excellent employees faster than you can fire one loser.

You can get a diagnosis of bubonic plague from a Dr., if you search for the right quack.

Yes, because "quack" encompasses the vast majority of doctors, right?

You can lay-off 100 excellent employees faster than you can fire one loser.

You can also fire an employee for cause, who doesn't have a documented illness, than one who does. Whether this should be the case, I don't know, but I object to the notion that such people are "losers".

Yes, because "quack" encompasses the vast majority of doctors, right?

No, not at all. But there are unscrupulous Drs., and you can find one it you need to.

You can also fire an employee for cause, who doesn't have a documented illness, than one who does. Whether this should be the case, I don't know, but I object to the notion that such people are "losers".

I wasn't talking about people who have physical or mental illness, I'm talking about lazy people who don't show up for work on time (if at all), and don't do their jobs.

My experience with others who were drug users is that if they've stopped for years, and moved away from the other users they once hung out with, there is an extremely low likelihood of remission..

]

If you've ever been to AA that's not the majority view or even the view of a significant minority. The conventional wisdom is that we (people in AA) are only one drink, or one bad moment away from going off the deep end. I dont know what the statistics are on that; but in general, w/o a solid period of sobriety, the odds seem to be way against you. Even with long periods of sobriety, we've seen seemingly stable people go off the deep end quite a few times.

It also helps with sobriety to remind yourself of this danger, even if the danger is not so great. So this attitude might be distorting things, perhaps. But I tend to agree that most people in AA really need to be vigilant and there's still quite a danger.

I'm talking about lazy people who don't show up for work on time (if at all), and don't do their jobs.

As often as not, I'm sorry to say, these people are also known as "management" ... at least where I've worked (during which time I've been middle management more than 50 percent of the time).

That's not entirely fair, of course. Cluelessness & abject stupidity are frequently factors as well, & those aren't the sorts of things one can necessarily help suffering from, I suppose.

You can lay-off 100 excellent employees faster than you can fire one loser.

If you're objective is to do it quickly that's probably true but firing someone properly is easy enough and does not need to take a long time at all. As long as you properly document what the employee is doing and communicate appropriately the day comes pretty quickly.

jose

i want to hire your human resources department. barring the employee engaging in threatening or dangerous behavior most terminations have a 90 day runway approximately. that's 3 months of detailing what isn't being done, improvement plans and the whole shebang

that does not sound 'quick' to me

If you're objective is to do it quickly that's probably true but firing someone properly is easy enough and does not need to take a long time at all. As long as you properly document what the employee is doing and communicate appropriately the day comes pretty quickly.

That's not what I've seen. It always seems to take at least 6 months.

As often as not, I'm sorry to say, these people are also known as "management" ... at least where I've worked (during which time I've been middle management more than 50 percent of the time).

That's not entirely fair, of course. Cluelessness & abject stupidity are frequently factors as well, & those aren't the sorts of things one can necessarily help suffering from, I suppose.

Management or not, these people should be gone, quickly.

it is true that firing someone in a management role can be quicker than the rank and file

Management or not, these people should be gone, quickly.

Well, of course. Too often, though, they seem to have the one truly indispensable employment skill -- keeping their job.

I fully admit that "malcontent" is my middle name (my silly parents!) but offhand I can't think of a single workplace of mine with more than a handful of employees in which management didn't include at least one person who had no more business being employed, much less in charge, than a houseplant. I could curl your hair with accounts of utter incompetence by higher-ups. So, probably, could just about anyone else here ... you, I'm sure, very much included.

After some 30 years of employment, I guess that's just the way things (don't) work.

it is true that firing someone in a management role can be quicker than the rank and file

In my experience, managers really dread being fired for cause, so you can reach a severance deal quickly.

jose

i want to hire your human resources department.

I accept! (I am the HR department).

Seriously we work on a 30 day action plan but frankly that 90 day plan doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Three months is pretty quick and if someone commits some form of gross misconduct they are gone right then and there. I think what happens is HR professionals get too worried about lawsuits. Yeah, it sucks but if you document properly then you should prevail. If you have communicated throughout the process with the offender and then deal with them in a respectful manner the day it happens I find it goes pretty smoothly.

All due respect, HW, but I'm with Rusty; I think you're getting off the hook here.

but i have endured depression and the issues associated with it

"Rubbing dirt on it worked for me, so ..."

[Greinke] kept it private. dealt with it on his own. as it should be.

"... that's how you should handle it. And if you're not as strong as I am, well, no problem, just ..."

get the right help. see the right people.

get the help you need and there you go.

"I mean, really, what's the problem, anyway?"

you need to sit home because your head is elsewhere?

I understand and share your frustration with the complicated workplace administration issues that arise around mental health concerns, but I feel that your understanding of the difficulties of dealing with the problems of depression and social anxiety is archaic.

For some people, the barriers to getting the "right" help (if such a thing should even exist for them) are insurmountable. I promise.

To be unaware of this doesn't make you an 8sshole, I don't think, just hopelessly out of step. Part of the point of publicizing these struggles is to change your mind.

Hmmm. I recognize Rusty from Comic Book Resources (&/or Comics Should be Good). Take everything he says with a cellar of salt.

;-)

Cluelessness & abject stupidity are frequently factors as well

A favorite novel of mine is Rob Grant's "Incompetence". It's a moderately interesting murder mystery set in the near future in a federated Europe that has a rule that nobody can be "prejudiced from employment for reason of age, race, creed or incompitence[sic]"

The joys of trying to book a trip with a clerk that suffers from ADD or dealing with police officers with anger management issues or ...

The heart of the book is trying to cope with day to day interactions with people manifestly unsuited for their job.