Indivdiual Grief And The Workplace
More Statutory Leave is Good for Both Parties
One of the subjects I am interested in is how institutions and organisations respond to grief. This includes examining how bereavement leave is allocated to employees and the ways organisations support grieving individuals moving forward. It seems like common sense that certain types of death will result in different levels or intensities of grief. The companion post to this one explores the Adult Bereavement Care Pyramid which attempts to demonstrate the needs of different grieving individuals.
Currently in Australia, the statutory bereavement leave for an employee is two days of paid leave. In the vast majority of cases, this is the only paid leave a grieving person is entitled to. I have spoken to numerous individuals and organisations about this issue, including politicians at the state and federal levels, parliamentary select committees, and union presidents. The response I generally receive is agreement that more should be done, especially when considering the grief of someone who has lost a child, spouse, or sibling. However, there is little appetite to take matters further.
I have been working with research academics and a charity to draft a policy document that will make recommendations on how this could be changed. This is likely something I will expand on in a future post.
We all have a vested interest in this
I recognise that some people are not fortunate enough to have statutory leave. This may be due to the nature of their employement contract or because they are self-employed. I also realise that many people can accrue different types of leave (this is particularly true for Australia), which can serve as a buffer when required and still allow them to get paid.
Still, for someone working in a company or organisation who experiences an unexpected loss, two days of leave is simply not adequate, for the grieving employee or for the society, which depends on that employee’s work. I imagine most people reading this would agree.
Consider this: if you found out the pilot flying your plane had lost his wife the week before, would you feel uncomfortable? If the surgeon about to perform delicate eye surgery on you had recently lost one of her children to cancer, would you be anxious? On a less dramatic scale, would you want the self-employed electrician, who is only working because his wife has just died and he now has three children to support; rewiring your house?
Finally, I can assure you: you would not have wanted me to teach your children in the aftermath of my son’s death. At that time, I was too consumed by the visceral pain and the struggle to function. Any person with a bit of empathy would have found it difficult to be in my company.
The current allocation of bereavement leave is really just "funeral leave." It is bad enough burying a grandparent you were close to. Employees need adequate time off and a structured return-to-work process. Most will value a positive workplace that provides a healthy distraction from their troubles. The truth is, there will be times in the day when they will not be able to cope, but these moments of incapacity will diminish over an extended period of time.
Unfair Comparisons
Many institutions, including governments and large corporations, introduce new employee entitlements for various reasons. These changes might be legally mandated, part of a negotiated settlement, or designed to attract and retain staff. There will always be organisations leading the way and others following for fear of being compared unfavourably.
Human Resources teams often highlight these policies internally and externally to demonstrate their organisation’s values. For example, in Australia, there has been an ongoing campaign to reduce domestic violence. Sadly, many women are regularly assaulted or even murdered by a husband or male partner. In response, the Federal Government amended the Fair Work Act to provide up to 10 days of paid leave for any employee experiencing domestic violence. This has been broadly seen as a positive move.
Similarly, changes can occur in response to significant societal events. Towards the end of my recent studies at a large university in Brisbane, the Australian Indigenous Voice referendum occurred. This proposal aimed to amend the Constitution to formally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and create an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Like most referendums, it was keenly and sometimes controversially debated. A significant majority of Indigenous Australians voted Yes, but many did not. The majority of the Australian population voted No, and the referendum failed to pass.
The university responded by emailing all staff and students to announce policy changes. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff were entitled to five days of special leave to cope with the stress of the campaign . Federal and state employers offered similar entitlements.
Imagine this: in October 2023, a woman of Indigenous descent in Australia could receive:
10 days off with if domestically assaulted;
5 days off if distressed by the referendum;
but only 2 days off if her child had died.
Which event would affect her most deeply? The death of a child is an incomparable loss, one from which she may never fully recover. Yet, her employer appears to have assigned it far less importance. If you had lost a child, how could you not feel devalued by such policies?
To add to this disparity, the Queensland Government’s report Annual Report: Deaths of children and young people 2022-23 states that "the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mortality rate was 2.5 times the rate for non-Indigenous children for all causes." This is a in itself worthy of far more discussion in the country I now call home.
Summary
As I write this, I am conscious that the motivations for these policies often come from a good place. I do not dispute the importance of reacting to difficult circumstances of employees, particularly the scourge of domestic violence. However, some decisions appear overly focused on virtue signaling, leading to actions that seem unfair or dismissive of some very deep and serious human suffering.
If I had never spoken to federal or state ministers, union presidents, and industrial relations officers, it might be fair to assume these gaps in bereavement leave were simply overlooked. But this is not the case.
Practically and morally, revisiting bereavement leave policies would not be difficult. This is not just about supporting grieving individuals but about ensuring society as a whole can function when tragedy strikes.