For one, this is something existing employees are being told to sign. So they've been working at a job liable to give them PTSD for quite some time, and only now is the company acknowledging it... via a legal disclaimer they're forcing employees to sign.

> It also seeks to make employees responsible for monitoring changes in their mental health and orders them to disclose negative changes to their supervisor or HR representative.

Absolute abdication of responsibility. Doesn't exactly scream "fair treatment" to me.

It's a responsibility that should be abdicated. Would it be better if Google could force people to attend therapy because the company decided they're unwell?

If employment at Google were the direct cause of mental health issues, then, yes, Google should take responsibility. That responsibility should include providing mental health care, not forcing it upon anyone. Don't strawman the issue.

It would be better if every employee had a regular check in with a mental health professional. Google don’t need to decide anything. “Forced” makes it sound very authoritarian, but yes, requiring such checkups as a condition of employment would be a good thing.

I respect the consistency of your viewpoint, but mandating that all employees undergo a specific regimen of prophylactic mental health treatment would be incredibly unpopular and probably illegal.

How so? I believe that police officers need to do this after particularly bad encounters, for example. (In fact if you search for "police psychological interview" you'll find hundreds of pages and even YouTube videos showing "how to pass your police psychological exam.") So it's definitely not illegal, at least not across the board.

I admit I had not thought about that. It does go against my case quite a bit.

Unpopular with who? Also more unpopular than offering no help to the moderators?

It is very much the nature of mental health that by the time you notice the deterioration you have already been possibly permanently harmed. What exactly will happen to someone who reports themselves as such to HR?

Let me repeat again for anyone who hasn’t figured it out yet: HR is not your friend.

Having been around the corporate block a few times. I agree and say as much to my younger coworkers.

You have a problem. You think, "I'll ask HR for help."

Now you have 2 problems.

Exactly why these employees should all be provided regular therapy sessions as part of their employment, regardless of whether they've noticed any issues.

> Employment law experts contacted by The Verge said Accenture’s requirement that employees tell their supervisor about negative changes to their mental health could be viewed as an illegal requirement to disclose a disability or medical condition to an employer.

> The Verge’s investigation last month into Accenture’s Austin site described hundreds of low-paid immigrants toiling in what the company calls its violent extremism queue, removing videos flagged for extreme violence and terrorist content. Working for $18.50 an hour, or about $37,000 a year, employees said they struggled to afford rent and were dealing with severe mental health struggles. The moment they quit Accenture or get fired, they lose access to all mental health services. One former moderator for Google said she was still experiencing symptoms of PTSD two years after leaving.

Well garbage workers unions have ensured that the job is one of the best paying you can get without a degree or credential.

Sanitation worker is also one of the most dangerous jobs you can do. Being a sanitation worker is more dangerous than being a cop: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/08/most-dangero...

from https://www.bls.gov/emp/documentation/nem-definitions.htm:

No formal educational credential. This category signifies that a formal credential issued by an educational institution, such as a high school diploma or postsecondary certificate, is not typically needed for entry into the occupation. Examples of occupations in this category include janitors and cleaners, cashiers, and agricultural equipment operators.

I didn't look to see if garbage workers specifically get higher salaries, but could be. But even if that's the case, it doesn't seem like a very high salary, so, assuming that unions are not in a zero-sum game, and didn't need to cause other salaries to lower, this sounds like a benefit of unions. Or is it a drawback? I wasn't sure how your statement was taken.

Dunno why the downvoted. here at least, they mske more than a say a nurse.

The comment seems to imply an unjust degree of compensation, or at the least, fails to acknowledge its merits.

Given the charged and rather wanton nature of other comments in this thread, it may be being judged unfairly, though that's not my view.