Columns

When I was in my mid-twenties, in one job, among of the half dozen or so jobs I'd had in which I was reasonably successful, my disclosure of my psychiatric disability came about because I was suspected of being high on something. I had been at the job about two weeks or a month. The employer, in observing me, believed I appeared drugged in some way. The job was delivery driving. When the employer confronted me, I disclosed that I have to take psychiatric medication and I am schizophrenic. That was sufficient for the employer, who didn't fire me and instead was somewhat more helpful in accommodating me to the position.  

(Psych meds in some instances can give the appearance of being drugged, even though the meds aren't usually a pleasure to take.)  

In another job situation, I was doing television repair for a "mama-papa" (small) television repair shop. I impressed the sole proprietor by messing up on something, and then painstakingly fixing the blunder. I performed several other repairs that impressed him. Then, I quit because I felt overwhelmed by the pressure of the position. 

Either the same day or the next day, the employer phoned me to tell me that I had left behind some of my tools. I went back to get them, and at that point, the employer offered me part time work instead of full time, and said that if the pressure was too much, I could go next door to the "mama-papa" sandwich shop and take a break. He said he was impressed by some of the repairs I'd done.  

In both of the above positions, my work was adequate or more than adequate, and this prompted the employers to adjust to my problems. In the case of working for the small TV repair shop, no psychiatric diagnosis was discussed or disclosed, and that employer adjusted on the basis that I appeared nervous or easily stressed out.  

Bosses can be harsh and usually don't sugar coat anything. When something gets sugar coated, it tends to be done by an employer who isn't straightforward, and that to me is worse than overt harshness.  

(I can live with someone being direct toward me, and telling me what, specifically, needs to be done differently or better. I can even withstand a little bit of "abuse." What I can't handle is where I'm dealing with someone who won't come out with the truth. Moreover, I can smell it when someone doesn't want to tell me what is really going on, although I have no way of knowing what, specifically, is being omitted.)  

When someone with mental illness acquires employment, it is of the utmost importance that we do not stand out as a disabled person. We have probably obtained the job at least partly in the vein of boosting self-esteem; and to have the mental health system attempt to intervene and set up special conditions can end up making us feel more stigmatized than we did before taking the job.  

In both of the examples above, I'd proven that I could do the work, and that I could do this work at a level that exceeded that of an average nondisabled person. I did not have intervention of the mental health treatment system. The accommodation and/or disclosure occurred after the point at which I'd "proven myself."  

Performing at a job at the same level as that of "normal" people is a chance for us not to be entirely defined by our diagnosis. When the mental health treatment system enters the picture and tries to set up everything "special," it can sabotage a job offer.  

There was an instance in which the above happened to me. I had interviewed at a television repair shop, and then I'd allowed mental health professionals to talk to the prospective employer, at which point I didn't get offered the job. Before mental health professionals intervened, I felt that I was very close to obtaining that job.  

If mentally ill, it can be very difficult to be employed. We have a number of factors that may detract from being hired and from being able to do the job after being hired. Yet, even if we only "succeed" at one or two jobs, and even if it is only for six months or a year, at least during that time we can get a break from being a mentally ill person and having that as our identity.  

This is my take: When the mentally ill individual is the one doing the job-seeking, and when an accommodation is made without the mental health treatment system as part of the equation, the employee is more likely to be successful in that position, and stigma may be absent. However, when you have "treatment professionals" setting up a "special situation" for the mentally ill prospective employee, it doesn't help the identity of the mental health consumer, and the job situation may not work as well.  

When I worked in my twenties, I usually did much better in informal situations and could not adapt to a corporate environment, or to working for a large company. Dealing directly with an owner/ proprietor of a small company often worked for me, and the type of work to be done may have been a secondary factor, since I could do most tasks that a typical person "off the street" can do.  

By the time I was thirty, being medicated long-term had taken a toll, and it was also much more difficult to get hired because employers were starting to routinely do computerized background checks. I had a couple of jobs in my thirties that weren't very demanding, but I no longer felt a strong desire to have a conventional job. By then I was receiving Social Security Disability, so luckily I am not forced to have a job, something that at this point would be a huge hardship.