Given A, B, & C, Accommodations for Workers with Depression & Anxiety Should be Required

Your first point is based in solid premises:P1-P3 are all valid. However, you've made a major logical flaw here because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises: Arthritis is not comparable to depression/anxiety.Rebuttal: Physical ailments are radically different than mental ailments, and should not be used comparatively. Taking Advantage of Disadvantage1. This brings me to my first argument. Depression and anxiety are, though punctuated with physical symptoms, mental disorders. The burden of proof is radically different. Physical ailments, such as arthritis, require tests to confirm them, in this case, an x-ray. Depression and anxiety, on the other hand, are diagnosed through patients' self-confirmation of their symptoms. This method in itself, is riddled with problems because of the ease in misdiagnosis. But more importantly, it means that a person who wishes accommodation for, say, watching their soap opera at 4 pm, can simply convey the appropriate symptoms to a psychiatrist and get a diagnosis that claims they require accommodation to leave work early.Obviously, there are people with real symptoms who are suffering, however, as the above example suggests, the system is far too easy to exploit by anyone who wishes to do so. "Doctor-backed" accommodations mean little when the only way to confirm depression and anxiety is essentially self-diagnosis of one's own symptoms. Conclusion: Because the diagnosis of depression and anxiety are based on hearsay, the ease of exploitation is inherently harmful to employers. When the Mental Gets PhysicalYou argued that mental disorders can often take on physical symptoms. Certainly. However, I not only disagree with your argument that these physical symptoms can impair productivity in the workplace so severely that accommodation is required, but moreover, I believe that your example of the woman inhaling fumes actually disproves your own argument.Just as a blind person would not be hired as a photographer, and a paraplegic would not be hired as a quarry worker, a woman who was deathly allergic to fumes from cleaning products wouldn't be hired for a position that required her to use these. A person suffering from depression is no different; they are required to fulfill a role upon being hired, and if they are unable to do so because physical symptoms prevent them, then they have no business occupying that role. It is not the employers responsibility to offer charity employment, it is their job to see that a particular objective is fulfilled. Why is the onus on them to accommodate someone who is unsuitable for the position? Rebuttal: If the employee is unable to fulfill their obligations, then the onus must be on the employee to find a job that better accommodates their limitations. 2. This further ties into my second argument. The symptoms experienced by those suffering from depression and anxiety are not sufficient to require accommodation. Certainly, they are unpleasant, and it is why employers give sick days. When employees are suffering from several of the symptoms you listed, they are unable to fulfill their role. As such, there is little point in having them in. However, these type of illnesses are short term; depression and anxiety are not. Thus, if they are for a long period of time incapable of fulfilling their duties, then it is their responsibility to, like a person with a flu, acknowledge their incapacitation and seek remedies for their ailments (such as therapy, medication, etc.) or not burden their workplace with their inabilities. The reality is that most people suffer from mild symptoms. Pregnant women still continue to go to work in spite of nausea, aches, hot flashes, etc. People on prescription medications who suffer from side effects of fatigue, sleep apnea, migraines, etc. are offered no work accommodation. If the anxious and depressives of the world are given accommodation, than we must also give it to the gym-buff who aches, the stressed spouse going through a divorce or the birth control user who experiences migraines and irritability. It is obviously, impossible to accommodate everyone.Conclusion: Everyone by the very nature of being biological creatures will experience minor physical limitations (including stress) at some period in their lives and to accommodate every one of them is setting the accommodation threshold far too low.Depressives Driving Up Shampoo PricesYour stance on economics undermines your own argument. You are entirely correct in saying that, "Emptiness, worthlessness and helplessness...do not promote a successful work environment. Employers want confidence and enthusiasm," and by your own argument, it is clear that the depressive is not fulfilling his employment objectives. As such, he and his kind are the blind photographers, costing the employers of the nation $83 billion a year in what is essentially, wasted capital. The dictionary definition of a parasite is, "a person who receives support, advantage or the like from another or others without giving any useful or proper return". A person who is depressive or anxious and unable to cope is less capable than an otherwise qualified employee yet leech money and benefits. You say that putting them on SSI is more costly than employing them, but a little basic math shows this as completely false.The current population of The U.S is 317,000,000 people. [1]The percentage of people who are diagnosed with suffering major depression in The U.S is 6.2% of the total population per year. [2]Therefore, it can be assumed that 28,530,000 people are suffering depression in The U.S annually.However, only 30% of these cases are categorized as severe. [3]Therefore, only 8,559,000 people in America would be considered "eligible" for accommodation.The maximum SSI monthly payment is $721 in The U.S. Assuming every single person with severe depression got the maximum per month, this only amounts to $74,052,468,000 annually.Not only is this number several billions less than what the depressives are currently costing the economy, but moreover, most don't receive the maximum allotment. This means the number would actually be several billions less than the math shows. Further, because it is impossible to account for all lost productivity caused by depression, your $83 billion dollar figure would most likely be much higher.Rebuttal: Based on your cost figures, those suffering from depression would be less of a drain on the economy were they to get SSI payments rather than continue working. 3. Now there is an obvious rebuttal to my argument here; that the SSI payments come out of taxpayers' pockets rather than big corporations. I'd like to explain why this is faulty thinking and is a mistake commonly made by people who don't thoroughly understand opportunity-cost economics.SSI payments come directly from taxpayer funds; costs that are relatively fixed and predictable. Thus, we know how much is coming out of our pocket, and can plan accordingly. The alternative is unfixed and unpredictable. These are higher prices due to loss of profit on part of employers which results in inflation. Inflation then requires medical costs to rise, which further financially burdens employers, who again must raise prices and pass the burden on to the consumer. It is a vicious cycle; one that is exacerbated by placing the onus on the employer to cover costs of employee incompetence. [4]Large corporations pay much more in taxes than we do. Thus rather than the majority of the cost burden falling on consumers through inflation, the burden of the SSI tax funding comes from corporations themselves. And because their taxes are based on the amount of gross sales, the money paid in taxes does not result in price hikes. The top 20 American corporations alone accounted for $122.55 billion in tax revenue.*[5] This would cover the cost of putting each and every single severe depressive on SSI at the maximum monthly allowance TWICE OVER at NO additional cost to the consumer!Conclusion: Putting depressives on SSI is SIGNIFICANTLY less damaging to the economy than keeping them at work. Economic Burdens 101"If the old hours need to be filled, then someone out there needs a job and will work those hours. If it costs too much to hire one more single person, then the employer is not financially sound enough to support the business." This sentence conveys one of the most limited understandings of economics I've seen in many years. Rather than point out all of the glaringly obvious logical flaws (such as how someone being hired for one hour, 9-10 am, so an anxious person can avoid rush hour traffic is asinine), I will simply remind you that any law that applies to accommodating large corporations also applies to small "mom and pop shops". New businesses are necessary for the economy. Hiring one new person may pose no problem to Wal-Mart, but when you are a single mother seeking to support your children and taking a huge risk trying to start up a bakery, hiring one new person for frivolous and unnecessary reasons in addition to the costly burden of lost productivity and medical benefits conferred to depressives is enough to break a business. Moreover, to say that it puts no additional burden on employers is extremely narrow-minded, because you've only accounted for one possible accommodation; alternate work hours. If that person is accommodated, then it is necessary to accommodate the depressive who has coaxed their doctor into recommending 4 day weekends. Accommodations can get extremely costly and burdensome, especially considering you are robbing a perfectly eligible and capable person from an employment opportunity. Conclusion: Accommodations can easily become extremely burdensome to employers, and can prevent new business from entering the market. 1. United States Census Bureau2. http://www.cmha.ca... 3. http://www.nimh.nih.gov... 4. Henry Hazlitt, 'Economics in One Lesson' 5. http://www.forbes.com...*2010