Pressures on Employees at Work - Essay Example

PRESSURES ON EMPLOYEES AT WORK by Introduction Company managers and bosses are supposed to embark on a risk evaluation exercise for potential health risks in places of work, as well as stress, and are further required to take appropriate action to alleviate the associated risk. Nonetheless, for most individuals, stress is an immeasurable element, difficult to ascertain the level of severity. The Health Survey for England has in the past tried to address the issues related to stress by formulating management standards to assist managers assess their performance in evaluating the main causing reasons of stress at the workplace and recognize regions for development. The designed guidelines touch on the numerous and diverse demands made by staff workers and the degree of control that staff members have their duties and responsibilities. The guidelines additionally address the managerial support systems within a workplace, the degree of clarity of an individuals position and responsibilities attached to the position and staff relationships within the workplace. Analysis The guidelines provided by the Health Survey for England (HSE) are founded on broad studies. In the course of their formulation, HSE conferred with numerous stakeholders including employers, staff members, staff organizations and other interested parties. This approach was intended to improve the way organizations dealt with stress related issues at the workplace. Therefore, an individual may enquire what stress is. It is defined as an unfavourable reaction individuals have to intense demands or other forms of demands placed upon them. It is different from basic workplace pressure, which sometimes develops motivational tendencies. The unfavourable response can negatively affect the affected individuals mental health developing into extreme cases of anxiety and depression. Individual-environment fit theory states that the effects of stress may come about when intimidating workplace demands culminate into unevenness in the interrelation between a person and the environment of his or her workplace. Even though dominant, the framework is regarded by some scholars to have produced an unclear method to the analysis of work-related stress (Chemers et al. 1985) and it remains to be seen whether the confusion existing between the fit theory and its evaluation will end anytime soon. Another theory developed later known as the job strain theory has put emphasis on the interrelation between objective demands of the occupation environment and staff choice autonomy (Karasek & Theorell 1990). The focus is on the significance of the psychosocial job atmosphere instead of the personal. Notwithstanding its extensive use, the framework has come under criticism for its vagueness about conceptualization and the dynamics of the decision autonomy structure (Sauter & Hurrell 1989). The theory has also been criticised for the nature of the connection between stipulations and management and the applicability of the theoretical framework for various health and health-associated results (Cox 1993). In addition, the frameworks constructed focal point on just two, even though psychosocial dangers are regarded to control and manage their usefulness. A more notable and recent inclusion in this cluster of theoretical frameworks is the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) theory as construed by Siegrist (1996) that argues that stress builds up because of disproportions between exertion spent and returns received. Both attempt and returns are theoretical. Unevenness is restrained by individual elements. Situations of emotional suffering come up, attached to physiological stress responses when costs overshadow returns. The framework is confirmed to be able of forecasting strain-related health outcomes (Siegrist et al. 1997). Currently, it is a commonly accepted notion that transactional frameworks of stress have in one way or another displaced interactional framework models. These framework models define stress in relation to the different vibrant methods that correspond to the continuous and constantly shifting relationship between individuals and their working atmosphere (Lazarus, 1991). Transactional framework edge over interactional theory lies in its explanation of the strong connection between persons and their work environment, and strain experiences in the relationship as a mediator between health and psychosocial dangerous exposures. Most fundamentally, the transactional framework incorporates subjective practice in a method that structures, which regard working environment stress simply as an environmental risk do not. The transactional framework emphasizes on a personal, subjective assessment of the environment and in particular taking into consideration resources available for countering the situation. The transactional framework acknowledges the fact that stress can show itself in a number of ways. It can be visible on psychological, physiological, behavioural or in social terms. While openly acknowledging the mediating function of the experience of stress, the transactional model is in agreement with the definition of stress as applied in common law. It argues that stress is not an injury, rather a state of mind capable of causing harm (Buchan 2001) and as such can effect upon almost all the areas of health. The numerous theoretical frameworks of work-related stress do possess diverse inferences for measurement and the development of a case definition. Even though regarded as widely well matched, the disparities that are evident between the theoretical frameworks at the lower levels have resulted in arguments. It therefore becomes extremely hard to recognize which particular elements of the psychosocial work setting have been evaluated as risky, dangerous, and probable sources of stress and stressful reactions in relation to particular medical outcomes (Vagg & Spielberg 1998). Scholars suggest that the connection between psychological risks and health effects are reliant on numerous elements. The transactional theory gives provisions for the difficulty in this relationship. Extent of Work-related Stress Stress is an intricate element of contemporary work and household life for most individuals. It is so big that, even though not regarded as the main causing factor, is associated with much human mortality (Quick 1998). Nevertheless, stakeholders have attempted to assess the extent to which stress affects individuals in a workplace with little success. In the UK, for instance, the main source of information on stress-related cases is mainly retrieved from Self-reported Work-related sicknesses (SWI) research and analysis that commenced in the year 1990 (Jones et al. 2003). Additionally, the government together with a number of private institutions have conducted separate research to further increase the need to address this issue in length. The SWI research gives a vital standard for evaluating stress related incidences in places of work. Defining a Case of Work-related Stress in Personal Injury Litigation In the United Kingdom, there exists no legislation intended solely for controlling work-related stress ailments. Legislations managing the probable hazards to psychological health are also non-existent (Pilkington et al. 2001). In the larger European community, no nation has managed to introduce such regulations. Even though no such regulation exists, all employers in the UK are repeatedly reminded of their duty of care contained in Section 2 of the Health and Safety Act (1974). The Health and Safety Act (1974) was created to safeguard the psychological and physical health of all working individuals in a workplace. Part of the regulations entails the duty of the management to ensure that they conduct constant health and safety risk assessments in the workplace. This is inclusive of all risks associated with stressful events and situations in the workplace. European Models There is no other country in the Eurozone that has incorporated occupational-related stress into its business-injury related compensation systems. A number of countries operate systems that are regarded as mixed, usually allowing settlements to be done on a case-by-case mode. Countries such as Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Belgium and France allow dispensations of compensations where an individual can prove that the psychological injury is occupation-related. Denmark precisely has seen a considerable increase in the level of damages claims in relation to psychological disorders from 3% of claims in the year 1996 to approximately 10% in the year 2002 (Eurogip 2004). In Sweden, a multifaceted structure functions in which damages may be sought after for mental stress related disorders that are occupational-related where the person endures from an everlasting work inability and income-earning opportunity loss. If an individual is found to contravene the regulations as provided for in the health and safety laws is subject to criminal charges and subsequent criminal proceedings. The government through its institutions such as HSE can handle criminal cases where employers are prosecuted in various courts, depending on the location and the dynamics that lead to the case. Individuals found guilty of contravening the law are issued with fines. Consequently, violation of common law duty of care may give rise to civil liability whereby employers are sued for damages for failure to mitigate stress-related illnesses. The civil courts handle these cases under private injury claims. The establishment of particular work-related governing laws would need an accurate explanation of a case of stress and the process through which such cases would be assessed, all endorsed by all the involved parties. According to research studies, most individuals involved in personal legal action claims alleged some capacity for laws specific to occupational stress, a view approved in research of individual injury seekers (Earnshaw & Morrison 2001). A 1999 Health and Safety Commissions document titled "Management of Stress at Work" (HSC 1999) wanted to arouse an argument in relation to the level to which occupational stress should be managed through legislation. In the study conducted prior to publishing of the document, over 90% of the respondents harmoniously concurred that since stress can have adverse effects on health, it ought to have been considered as a health and safety problem and addressed within legislation. An average of 70% of the respondents regarded a method based on a fresh Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) to be the best. Eventually, it was agreed that the best way forward and the most efficient method would engage the formulation of a chain of management guiding standards for directing the employers in the application of the overall risk management method (Cousins et al. 2004). Correspondingly, the Commission for law thought of incorporating laws governing negligence in connection with psychiatric injury culminating from extreme exposure to terrifying and stressful events in the workplace. The Law Commission (1998) however, argued that adopting that roadmap would halt the law while psychiatric knowledge in relation to psychological sickness was not yet fully developed. Common Law Personal Injury Actions in England The management of occupational stress reactions in the civil courts is a fast changing area and actions related to personal injury-related actions under common law is an area, which there is broad thought over the form of a case meaning as it is connected to occupational stress. After the highly publicised litigation of Dulieu vs. White and Sons, financial claims for mental sicknesses caused by negligence at workstations have been achievable inside UK and in particular within English law. Even though the systems for using civil action have been present for a long time, the last couple of years has seen litigation in relation to civil claims for mental injuries become a somewhat frequent reason for action. In the recent past, a case description has transformed through case law that endeavours to recognize the existence of stress-related poor health and set up the work-relatedness of sickness with the intention of giving damages for personal hurt. This case description is founded on the conventional analysis for actionable neglect. The process of establishing the occurrence of an occupational-related personal injury is quite a challenge because it is dependent on a series of assessments and analysis. For any lawsuit to succeed in the courts, the claimant needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was existence of a duty of care owed to the employee by the employer; that injuries were anticipated; that a contractual breach took place in the duty of care; and that the resultant injuries were initiated by the breach. The duty of the employer to take responsibility for the duty of care of his or her staff members is a fact mostly overlooked. In most cases, the means of a victorious court case from the claimants viewpoint comes in setting up the future anticipation of injury. The moment an employer gets knowledge about an employees exposure to stress related to his line of work, he is in effect alerted for projected risk of ensuing sicknesses and has a responsibility to do something to thwart further illness. Lack of action on the employers part may set in motion any ensuing mental injury being regarded as foreseeable. Failure to act reasonably, within a realistic time given the state of affairs may lead to the company being regarded to be in breach of his duty of care. Duty of Care Breach In creating a legal court case, there is need to establish and demonstrate clearly negligence on the employers part in his responsibility of duty of care. This is needed to establish the employer as the sole causing factor of mental injury through negligence of his duty of care. It is required that employers become aware so that they take the necessary actions in the provision of a conducive working environment that is safe and risk-free. Employers should be able to deal with foreseeable psychiatric risks. Consequently, having identified that risks are present, the managements attention should indeed be directed towards fulfilling its duty of care by taking appropriate steps in deterrence of future harm. Failure to do that is interpreted as the companys choice to behave in an inappropriate way given the pre-existing weakness. The action of predictability law has proved repeatedly to be hard especially in claims related to occupational stress (Barrett 1998). In an attempt to evaluate whether the employer is in contravention of his duty of care, the magistrates must look at a scenario of a reasonable rejoinder to keep away from the risk of predictable harm. In so doing, reflection must be appropriated to a number of elements, together with the probability and seriousness of mental harm besides the expenses and viability of averting the risk (Earnshaw & Cooper, 1994). Conclusion There need to be clear guidelines on what make-up or constitutes a personal injury coming about because of occupational-related stress. These guidelines will assist both employers and employees in evaluating the merits and the demerits of engaging in a tedious damage claim. Such direction should as well deal with case definitions intrinsic in up-and-coming legal routes for looking for damages for occupation-related stress. These claims include disability compensation claims, unfairness, unfair and productive dismissal where occupation-related stress and hurt claims in neglect for contravention of disguised term of shared trust and self-belief. Finally, there needs to be a mental-legal study that looks to recognize and tackle the challenges and gray areas within the case-definition of occupation-related stress functional in individual injury lawsuits. The case description applied in individual injury court cases involves utilizing ordinary ideologies of a companys legal responsibility to stress. These doctrines have confirmed sufficient for most physical risks and damage; they are inadequately suitable to psychosocial dangers and stress-related dangers connected to the modern place of work. Numerous limitations are apparent that make it hard to foresee the result of claims and put off many wronged staff members from looking for compensation. Bibliography Barrett, B. (1998). When should there be liability for negligently causing psychiatric illness?. Work & Stress, 12(2), pp.101-111. Buchan, A. (2001). Stress cases: foreseeability and breach, Journal of Personal Injury Law, 1, 5- 25. Chemers, M., Hays, R., Rhodewalt, F. and Wysocki, J. (1985). A person-environment analysis of job stress: A contingency model explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), pp.628-635. Cousins , R., MacKay, C., Clarke, S., Kelly, C., Kelly, P. and McCaig, R. (2004). ‘Management Standards’ work-related stress in the UK: practical development. Work & Stress, 18(2), pp.113-136. Cox, T. (1993). Stress Research and Stress Management: Putting Theory to Work, Sudbury: HSE Books Earnshaw, J. and Cooper, C. (1994). Employee stress litigation: The UK experience. Work & Stress, 8(4), pp.287-295. Earnshaw, J. and Morrison, L. (2001). Should employers worry? ‐ Workplace stress claims following the John Walker decision. Personnel Review, 30(4), pp.468-487. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. London: HMSO. Jones, J.R., Huxtable, C.S., Hodgson, J.T. & Pryce, M.J. (2003), Self-reported Work Related Illness in 2001/2: Results from a Household Survey, Sudbury: HSE Books. Karasek, R. and Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work. New York: Basic Books. Law Commission. (1998). Liability for psychiatric illness. Law Com No 249, 1998. www.open.govt.uk/lawcomm/library/lc249/lc249.pdf Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. In P.L. Perrewe (Ed.), Handbook on Job Stress (pp.1-13), Corte Madera, CA: Select Press. Pilkington, A., Mulholland, R.E., Cowie, H.A., Graham, M.K. & Hutchinson, P.A. (2001). Baseline measurement for the evaluation of the work-related stress campaign, Health & Safety Executive, Sudbury: HSE Books. Sauter, S.L. & Hurrell, J.J.,Jr. (1989). Introduction. In S.L. Sauter, J.J. Hurrell, Jr. & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Job Control and Worker Health, Chichester, England: Wiley SIEGRIST, J., PETER, R., CREMER, P. and SEIDEL, D. (1997). Chronic work stress is associated with atherogenic lipids and elevated fibrinogen in middle-aged men. Journal of Internal Medicine, 242(2), pp.149-156. Vagg, P. and Spielberger, C. (1998). Occupational stress: Measuring job pressure and organizational support in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), pp.294-305. Read More