It is is the top statistical secret of McGill's Human Resources that the number of nervous breakdowns among employees is alarmingly high and continues to grow. So far the all requests for analysing this data are ignored and an article bellow represents my attempt for breaking the silence:

--------

"Trying to depress ministers and not workers"

The most recent Harvard University studies have indicated that employee depression costs our three Nafta countries about $61 billion U.S. per year, primarily in lost productivity. Canadian expenses are estimated at about $16 billion.

Unfortunately, in the recent press reports about this issue nobody wanted to look deeper and highlight the Canadian cost per capita. Out of a total of over 400 million people, Canada's 30 million represent about 7%, but pay 25% of the total expenses caused by depression.

Why is Canada tops in these "depression statistics"? Well, we should first ask our provincial ministers of labour. It seems they have been keeping a comfortably low profile in their offices -- an easy thing to do in the shadow of aging fitness enthusiasts who dominate our politics with their standardized topics of independence (separation), taxes or seasonal budget issues.

However, these ministers should not be so modest, because they have a lot of power in supervising the work place and could possibly initiate some improvements. Thanks to a more formalized Canadian social system they are more influential in comparison to the equivalent governmental bodies in the USA or Mexico. This translates into their better ability (proportionally to the overwhelming number of existing regulations in the Canadian labour market) for improving or worsening the situation of workers.

According to studies, the biggest portion of the" depression cost" is caused by bad organization or abusive management in the workplace. This can often be a cause of alcoholism, mental disorder or even physical illness among workers. Recently the Canadian Press presented the shocking example of the Royal Bank, where 31 per cent of short-term absenteeism is related to mental illness and addiction.

If this can be seen in that "financially unsinkable" institution, we should be more sensitive toward frequently heard cases of depression in other giant organisations that are also relatively free of financial or competition problems. Here we can include all government institutions together with different social services. The managers here are primarily servants of glorified structures mixed with politics. Typically they are far away from a more humane society, which if more religiously respected from the top to the bottom, would also secure a healthier interaction among workers. They need to see a consistent system of values, as "production workers" themselves are aware that managers must at least respect Mammon's rules. Ordinary employees usually see a neurotic entourage around political figures playing a temporary role as leaders of big governmental units. This is a partial explanation of the common (and paradoxical) feeling that we hear less about depression issues in free-enterprise businesses where everybody is supposed to be worried about their companies' chances of survival.

The intuitive conclusion, which however needs statistical confirmation, is that the management of free-enterprise business is more open to solving the workers' problems and better understands their environment. Thus, in the distinctly non-subsidised places of work, efficiency issues (equally important for the future of workers and managers) are creating a more transparent system of values and keeping people closer together. As a result, these "production people", who usually work harder, appear to be mentally stronger.

Of course these conclusions would not be comfortable to tax-financed or monopolistic institutions because then there would have to be more reflection and public involvement. Before we try to expose these issues ourselves, we need free access to information, and these institutions leaders are reluctant to reveal any internal problems. Even if they are not cynical, but enthusiastic about improving, they are afraid of political games, as in the recent exposure of the ministry responsible for grant distribution with Minister Stewart on the top. The sector paid from budgets is usually more hermetic and its members feel too paralysed to express themselves.

Let us promote another type of investigative journalism -- that of simply exposing problems and informing "in situ" the public about the progress in obtaining further data from usually uncooperative civil servants. Thus by "marrying" elements of the sensationalism with public pressure we can involve more readers for a good case.

I know of one big social institution employing thousands of people (McGill!), where the number of depression cases is growing. This big employer has the privilege of collecting and administrating disability payments from its own workers itself. The CSST only takes care of legal procedures. Both institutions co-operate very well at the executive level, but the workers are beginning to have doubts. Some senior members are quite easily getting months' sick leave for depression, without hospitalization paid by the insurance, but the lowest-ranking workers are squeezed to the absolute minimum or asked to perform other jobs. Certainly those at the top know too much; if they were not treated well, they could expose some issues. But the simple workers lower down see only depressing injustice financed by their taxes. This institution?s workers also see that in the recent years only the managers' population and their salaries are increasing. It is somehow equivalent to the latest revelation about $ 1 million of annual bonuses for about 200 managers in Mrs. Stewart's office.

The point is that even the provincial ministry of labour, which is involved, has not helped convince the CSST presidents that it would be beneficial to allow their collected data to be studied. We must try to break this unhealthy "solidarity of civil servants" who should start to care more about their good image in society instead of only among themselves or unstable political mentors.