Odd ethical standard in another profession's code...

[futureapppsy2]

I teach ethics, and I was reading the codes for other allied professions. One had what seemed like a really broad standard in it:

"Members must not participate in activities which might initiate disparaging comments about the profession, personnel, and/or colleague."

I understand that members of a field should be good public stewards for it, but this seems like it could be interpreted really broadly and restrictively, especially the part about colleagues. As we saw with the APA this summer, there's definitely times when leadership in fields and colleagues prompt rebuke and debate or as we see to a lesser degree with concerns about programs that poorly train people, have large class sizes that may fluid the market, etc. A statement like "members should not make unfounded critical statements about colleagues" or the profession" or "members should be civil and constructive in disagreements with colleagues" or "Members should represent the field well and speak respectfully in professional capacities" would make sense, but this statement seems overly broad. Like, if you have a colleague who you really dislike, does mentioning that to your SO technically violate this because that might lead to you or your SO disparaging your colleague?

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CheetahGirl]

SO..as in Significant Other?

If it is Significant Other, then technically and ethically were not supposed to discuss any patient- and/or training- related material with him/her.

I think it's good practice...to not disparage others and just be curious about their behaviors. I totally agree with being civil and constructive - the end goal of complaints should always be considered. Is it to just bitch and complain, understand one's own anxiety about a person/occurrence, or remediate some situation? And if you need to share issues, there should be some avenue to do so...like individual therapy or confidential supervision/meeting with employers.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yeah, but this is the same profession that treats several purely made up disorders.

Although, I guess we have that in our profession as well (PCS, CTE)...

 

[smalltownpsych]

I teach ethics, and I was reading the codes for other allied professions. One had what seemed like a really broad standard in it:

"Members must not participate in activities which might initiate disparaging comments about the profession, personnel, and/or colleague."

I understand that members of a field should be good public stewards for it, but this seems like it could be interpreted really broadly and restrictively, especially the part about colleagues. As we saw with the APA this summer, there's definitely times when leadership in fields and colleagues prompt rebuke and debate or as we see to a lesser degree with concerns about programs that poorly train people, have large class sizes that may fluid the market, etc. A statement like "members should not make unfounded critical statements about colleagues" or the profession" or "members should be civil and constructive in disagreements with colleagues" or "Members should represent the field well and speak respectfully in professional capacities" would make sense, but this statement seems overly broad. Like, if you have a colleague who you really dislike, does mentioning that to your SO technically violate this because that might lead to you or your SO disparaging your colleague?

Thoughts?

Very vague. I actually read it as don't do anything really stupid that might start people making fun of us.

 

[PsychScience]

I teach ethics, and I was reading the codes for other allied professions. One had what seemed like a really broad standard in it:

"Members must not participate in activities which might initiate disparaging comments about the profession, personnel, and/or colleague."

I understand that members of a field should be good public stewards for it, but this seems like it could be interpreted really broadly and restrictively, especially the part about colleagues. As we saw with the APA this summer, there's definitely times when leadership in fields and colleagues prompt rebuke and debate or as we see to a lesser degree with concerns about programs that poorly train people, have large class sizes that may fluid the market, etc. A statement like "members should not make unfounded critical statements about colleagues" or the profession" or "members should be civil and constructive in disagreements with colleagues" or "Members should represent the field well and speak respectfully in professional capacities" would make sense, but this statement seems overly broad. Like, if you have a colleague who you really dislike, does mentioning that to your SO technically violate this because that might lead to you or your SO disparaging your colleague?

Thoughts?

Is that just for students? Or broadly all members? Either way it is a vague and unhelpful statement, but if only applied to students it makes a little more sense. I'm pretty sure my graduate school handbook had a similarly vague statement that boiled down to, don't be an a'hole and don't make the department or the field of clinical psychology look bad.

 

[futureapppsy2]

SO..as in Significant Other?

If it is Significant Other, then technically and ethically were not supposed to discuss any patient- and/or training- related material with him/her.

Is saying, "Man, [co-worker] was so rude to me today." really an ethical violation, though? That seems to be really reaching.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Very vague. I actually read it as don't do anything really stupid that might start people making fun of us.

Yes. I agree. And I think the statement is most effectively pursed if it applies to broadly to all members. Makes unethical distinctions more clear for professionals if it's applied to all because while in training you're still learning. When you're licensed (which I'm not yet but will be soon enough), you should know better.

"Man, [co-worker] was so rude to me today."

Futureapppsy2, if you say this to your significant other, it could be a poor reflection on how you handle your professional relationships, if and only if your significant other reveals your discussion. An ethical violation? I don't know about that...perhaps it should be an ethical guideline or recommendation would be much better.

However, do you see where this could lead, if you begin the practice of bad-mouthing your coworkers to your ex-significant other and that person wants to take you for everything you've got and divulges all your work secrets and how you disparaged everyone in your work place? It could get nasty if out of control, which could end up being an ethical violation for a licensing board, especially if they get wind of secrets being shared in a non-professional manner. Not saying it would. Just exaggerating to make a point. I'm also not saying that disparaging others could stand alone, but it could add to a picture of how one presents poor professional boundaries (*think law* you often here stories of folks being suspected of crimes, and then being booked on unrelated charges while the real charges are pending...that's along the lines that I was thinking).

I'm curious: To which allied profession does this ethical violation apply? More context would be helpful.

I love ethics. I would love to teach and debate it (consider yourself fortunate, Future), but I'm going to run along to my tables of t-tests now.

 

[Ollie123]

Seems like a massive overreach to me. That said, its one of those that is so vague its basically going to be ignored 99.99% of the time and only brought out when someone needs an excuse to get rid of someone they don't like or outrageously extreme cases (i.e. creating a "so-and-so is a terrible counselor" website and google bombing it to be the top link above their private practice). This seems like something a committee of people with nothing better to do with their time would debate about for weeks before finally agreeing on because its the only thing that everyone could agree on (its also why I think most IRBs no longer even deserve to be taken seriously...but that's a separate discussion!).

If its an ethical violation to occasionally complain about your boss/co-workers to a spouse or close friend, I suspect everyone on the planet who has ever been gainfully employed and has even the most absolute bottom-of-the-barrel level of social support in their life is likely guilty. If any couple has never vented about a colleague to one another from time to time, it probably says a lot more about the quality of their marriage than their ethics

Which is exactly why it is silly and pointless.

 

[PsychScience]

And I think the statement is most effectively pursed if it applies to broadly to all members. Makes unethical distinctions more clear for professionals if it's applied to all because while in training you're still learning. When you're licensed (which I'm not yet but will be soon enough), you should know better.

I may agree with you whilst disagreeing with you. I think this type of statement would be ridiculous in a professional code of ethics for all members for the exact reason that you list-professionals should know how to conduct themselves as professionals. As you say, they should know better. For a code of conduct that applies specifically to students, it may still be vague, but at least the vague statement is indicating to students, who are still learning and may not always be professional, that they shouldn't be talking smack about the program, the profession, or their peers.

Either way, I don't agree with it as written. I find the statement, at least in isolation from the rest of the code, vague and unhelpful, but it makes a little more sense to me if it is in the context of student behavior rather than all members.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I just had a discussion with my SO today about her not being able to give her opinion about various providers and services in this town. It is a very small town and so I am pretty well-known. She was initially resistant to me trying to tell her what she can and cannot do or say, imagine that , but when I pointed out that my income depends on the goodwill of the public, she was quite a bit more understanding. Learning to communicate diplomatically and tactfully is more of our skill set so when I complain it is a bit more subtle.

 

[PsychScience]

I guess, I'm curious about two things 1) Who is it written for (who is the audience) and 2) Is this really an ethical code or is at guideline for behavior? I can't imagine it as the former, but as the latter, maybe?

 

[CheetahGirl]

I suspect everyone on the planet who has ever been gainfully employed and has even the most absolute bottom-of-the-barrel level of social support in their life is likely guilty.

Ah, but does it make it right to do so? That's why if it were a clear guideline in an ethical codebook, then no one would have doubt, and it would be much better than a violation. That way if you chose to discuss your #@#$%& co-worker with your SO, you are making a choice to do so. Hence, taking your risk at will, and can choose to use better judgment under different circumstances (like not talking about that #@#$%& co-worker to another co-worker).

If any couple has never vented about a colleague to one another from time to time, it probably says a lot more about the quality of their marriage than their ethics

True.

 

[Grenth]

This is for speech pathologists students, so that adds an extra dimension. http://www.asha.org/Members/NSSLHA/Pre-Professional-Guidelines/. I wonder if they think this is appropriate for students, but not for the profession in general because it's not in their professional guidelines, I don't think. There is a similar policy at the master's program of a friend. She is not allowed per the student handbook to in any way disparage the school, which is unfortunate because the program engages in some shady practices it seems. It seems like open discourse (obviously not about confidential information) is usually respected by legitimate organizations and programs.

 

[bmedclinic]

This is for speech pathologists students, so that adds an extra dimension. http://www.asha.org/Members/NSSLHA/Pre-Professional-Guidelines/. I wonder if they think this is appropriate for students, but not for the profession in general because it's not in their professional guidelines, I don't think. There is a similar policy at the master's program of a friend. She is not allowed per the student handbook to in any way disparage the school, which is unfortunate because the program engages in some shady practices it seems. It seems like open discourse (obviously not about confidential information) is usually respected by legitimate organizations and programs.

So, my SO is a SLP- and that bottom guideline- about paying ASHA dues, always made me chuckle then pause. Because how is it an ethical guideline to pay dues to the national association? There are times where I want noting to do with APA. Why would I give them my money? I get that it's a tad different for SLP's with ASHA- they dont (that I know of) have as many disparate groups as psych does- e.g. I see myself much more in line with SBM/ABCT/SBSM than I do with APA), whereas all SLP stuff (as best as I can tell) pretty much all funnels through ASHA.

I dont know that I really agree with the guideline that Grenth posted about students not being disparaging. Might ask the SO about this tonight. I personally think open discussion is best while you're in school. To each their own. To the best of my recollection, my program just had guidelines for how to handle a dispute.

 

[Ollie123]

Ah, but does it make it right to do so? That's why if it were a clear guideline in an ethical codebook, then no one would have doubt, and it would be much better than a violation. That way if you chose to discuss your #@#$%& co-worker with your SO, you are making a choice to do so. Hence, taking your risk at will, and can choose to use better judgment under different circumstances (like not talking about that #@#$%& co-worker to another co-worker).

I realize you meant that as somewhat rhetorical, but I'm still going to say "Yes, it is absolutely right to do so." As a psychologist, I can't in good conscience recommend we (or anyone else) set rules that run completely counter to what we know is a tenet of good mental health, etc. Having rules/guidelines that say you can't sometimes vent to a partner after a frustrating day at work is pretty much the opposite of what we would ever recommend to any of our patients. Obviously there are lines one doesn't cross (e.g. telling my wife "I had a really frustrating case today with someone who had a full-blown panic attack during session and I was just fried afterwards..." vs. "I had a really frustrating case today with Jim Smith...) and these can get blurry/complicated at times. I think it goes immensely too far to say it shouldn't be done. Barring some sort of extraordinarily high-end security clearance where doing so might make your spouse a target for kidnapping/assassination by government operatives...spouses should be allowed and encouraged to talk to one another about their lives.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Good morning, Ollie ~ for our healthy, disagreement du jour:

I realize you meant that as somewhat rhetorical, but I'm still going to say "Yes, it is absolutely right to do so." As a psychologist, I can't in good conscience recommend we (or anyone else) set rules that run completely counter to what we know is a tenet of good mental health, etc. Having rules/guidelines that say you can't sometimes vent to a partner after a frustrating day at work is pretty much the opposite of what we would ever recommend to any of our patients. Obviously there are lines one doesn't cross (e.g. telling my wife "I had a really frustrating case today with someone who had a full-blown panic attack during session and I was just fried afterwards..." vs. "I had a really frustrating case today with Jim Smith...) and these can get blurry/complicated at times. I think it goes immensely too far to say it shouldn't be done. Barring some sort of extraordinarily high-end security clearance where doing so might make your spouse a target for kidnapping/assassination by government operatives...spouses should be allowed and encouraged to talk to one another about their lives.

If it is Significant Other, then technically and ethically were not supposed to discuss any patient- and/or training- related material with him/her.

I think it's good practice...to not disparage others and just be curious about their behaviors. I totally agree with being civil and constructive - the end goal of complaints should always be considered. Is it to just bitch and complain, understand one's own anxiety about a person/occurrence, or remediate some situation? And if you need to share issues, there should be some avenue to do so...like individual therapy or confidential supervision/meeting with employers.

This is what I originally wrote, and I'm sticking to it. I'm not saying someone needs to go to their own therapy to vent about everything and anything, and cannot rely on their SO's support on a day to day basis. But I disagree that is absolutely right to disparage your coworkers to your SO. Good mental health does not equate (what I understand from this discussion) to using your SO as a crutch for your workpace disputes (i.e., constructive venting). Maybe it helps with flippant venting, for example: "today, I had a bad day...I work with a bunch of dingbats." vs. "Dr. Pill is such a bastard, he told my patients that they should increase their med dosage and move to once a month therapy."

Using your SO to vent can be problematic for a myriad of reasons, such as your SO may not know how to handle your anxiety, your SO may not know how to advise properly & professionally, your SO may not care, your SO may talk about it to others, your SO may have problems of his/her own and this adds to your SO's anxiety...etc. Plus...when is there going to be time for lovin' if you're spending valuable SO time hatin'. (I need a batting eyelashes emoji here.) Hopefully, you get my point...which is flowing into couple dynamics.

Side note: In NY State it is illegal to operate a vehicle with the engine on while texting on your phone (you can talk with a hands-free device, and I suppose keep your engine on to make calls, but for texting, while the vehicle is operation, meaning engine on, it is a violation). That is the written law....legally you cannot text while at stop light or if the engine is on (I know this because I had this discussion my kids and we looked up the law). But, do people do it...hell, yes. Every single moment of every day...people are texting, taking photos, and other things in violations of various codes/laws.

My point being, it is not proper professional practice to disparage your coworkers to your SO - IMO, but people do all the time. Perhaps that is what this bizarre SLP violation is all about. But, hey, if your spouse welcomes your disparagement of others (specifically "coworkers") as your relationship stands, by all means, go for it. But just like texting at a stop light, for SLP (it seems), it is a violation. So that does not make it right...in my humble opinion. Maybe the SLPs are on to something that APA needs to look into, on second thought.

 

[Ollie123]

I guess it somewhat depends if we are talking about morals, ethics or laws as they overlap but are not synonymous. In this case (as with texting), obviously the rules are the rules and to the degree we participate in that subculture/group/society we are expected to follow them. To not do so is "wrong" to the degree we want an orderly society...but sometimes it is appropriate to break them to instill change. That's a whole separate discussion way beyond the scope of this topic though.

My point was simply that good mental health generally includes (or at least is correlated with) having individuals you can rely on for social support in difficult situations. That can consist of many different things. Some activities are likely more helpful than others (e.g. co-rumination probably not helpful; 5 minutes of empathy/sympathy from a loved one...potentially very helpful). I just object to a profession thinking it has either the power or the right to dictate this to its members. Like I indicated above, I imagine any couple that has never vented to one another about problems at work has probably not done so because they are in an utterly horrendous relationship. Clinically, I imagine it would be an enormous red flag if any patient who showed up and told me that. You identify some good examples why that might occur (SO doesn't care, SO can't be trusted, etc.). Obviously, it can go too far in the other direction too and its equally unhealthy if they spend all their time complaining. Like with virtually anything else, the key to good mental health seems to be balance. Dictating an imbalance in either direction seems a massive overreach for a professional society and that is why I object to it.

 

[PsychScience]

This is for speech pathologists students, so that adds an extra dimension. http://www.asha.org/Members/NSSLHA/Pre-Professional-Guidelines/. I wonder if they think this is appropriate for students, but not for the profession in general because it's not in their professional guidelines, I don't think.

If this is indeed the original source, as I also suspect it to be, I think it is inaccurate to present this as a component of an ethics code. The actual code of ethics for speech and language is here http://www.asha.org/Code-of-Ethics/ and looks to me to be much more consistent with what you would expect from another health discipline. Admittedly, I did not read it in close detail, but the most similar statement to the one posted above that I can find is this: "Individuals' statements to the public shall provide accurate information about the nature and management of communication disorders, about the professions, about professional services, about products for sale, and about research and scholarly activities". As written, this is pretty hard to argue with.

There is a similar policy at the master's program of a friend. She is not allowed per the student handbook to in any way disparage the school, which is unfortunate because the program engages in some shady practices it seems. It seems like open discourse (obviously not about confidential information) is usually respected by legitimate organizations and programs.

To me, this is more ethically dubious. Depending on the nature of the shady practices, it could also be an ethical violation, at least according the APA code of ethics, not resolve or report knowledge of unethical practices.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Good morning, Ollie ~ for our healthy, disagreement du jour:
This is what I originally wrote, and I'm sticking to it. I'm not saying someone needs to go to their own therapy to vent about everything and anything, and cannot rely on their SO's support on a day to day basis. But I disagree that is absolutely right to disparage your coworkers to your SO. Good mental health does not equate (what I understand from this discussion) to using your SO as a crutch for your workpace disputes (i.e., constructive venting). Maybe it helps with flippant venting, for example: "today, I had a bad day...I work with a bunch of dingbats." vs. "Dr. Pill is such a bastard, he told my patients that they should increase their med dosage and move to once a month therapy."

Using your SO to vent can be problematic for a myriad of reasons, such as your SO may not know how to handle your anxiety, your SO may not know how to advise properly & professionally, your SO may not care, your SO may talk about it to others, your SO may have problems of his/her own and this adds to your SO's anxiety...etc. Plus...when is there going to be time for lovin' if you're spending valuable SO time hatin'. (I need a batting eyelashes emoji here.) Hopefully, you get my point...which is flowing into couple dynamics.

Side note: In NY State it is illegal to operate a vehicle with the engine on while texting on your phone (you can talk with a hands-free device, and I suppose keep your engine on to make calls, but for texting, while the vehicle is operation, meaning engine on, it is a violation). That is the written law....legally you cannot text while at stop light or if the engine is on (I know this because I had this discussion my kids and we looked up the law). But, do people do it...hell, yes. Every single moment of every day...people are texting, taking photos, and other things in violations of various codes/laws.

My point being, it is not proper professional practice to disparage your coworkers to your SO - IMO, but people do all the time. Perhaps that is what this bizarre SLP violation is all about. But, hey, if your spouse welcomes your disparagement of others (specifically "coworkers") as your relationship stands, by all means, go for it. But just like texting at a stop light, for SLP (it seems), it is a violation. So that does not make it right...in my humble opinion. Maybe the SLPs are on to something that APA needs to look into, on second thought.

If I can't complain to my SO about the people I work with who can I complain to? I agree that complaining and venting is not the most adaptive of coping, but I also think we all have to do it at times and be allowed the space to do it. My wife was complaining about some of her coworkers to me the other day. One of them apparently drinks a lot and then calls in sick on Mondays, then "works" overtime to make up for it (actually just stays late and talks with friends). So if I have a colleague who does something that bothers me, why wouldn't I be able to tell her? At this point in time, I get along pretty well with my colleagues so I am more likely to vent frustration with other aspects of mental health in our community. If I get too carried away with it, she begins to get bored and that is my cue to shift topics.

 

[CheetahGirl]

If I can't complain to my SO about the people I work with who can I complain to? I agree that complaining and venting is not the most adaptive of coping, but I also think we all have to do it at times and be allowed the space to do it. My wife was complaining about some of her coworkers to me the other day. One of them apparently drinks a lot and then calls in sick on Mondays, then "works" overtime to make up for it (actually just stays late and talks with friends). So if I have a colleague who does something that bothers me, why wouldn't I be able to tell her? At this point in time, I get along pretty well with my colleagues so I am more likely to vent frustration with other aspects of mental health in our community. If I get too carried away with it, she begins to get bored and that is my cue to shift topics.

Well, I'm not saying you can't do it, I was saying it probably is not the proper, most professional way to handle workplace conflict. Also, if it is a violation (like for Speech Pathologists), then you may be willfully breaking a code. And if it were to become a violation in our field, most of us would likely break that code based on our own judgement of the situation and our significant other.

Ollie had a good point about morals, ethics or laws overlapping and not being synonymous. I may have broken the texting law (texted while the car engine was running); it certainly wasn't the right thing to do and I was running a risk (but it was a cost/benefit situation...do I text my son back to say don't leave school, @ a red light, I'm coming to get you or waste time pulling over & turning off the engine to do so?). Most recently, I actually cried about one of my patients, and I told my husband I was crying about a patient (tears of joy, really)...I did not tell him exactly why only to say that I helped this person and felt accomplished by my work (I was feeling sorry for myself, under-appreciated at home, and highly emotional, so there was a lot going on regardless). And yes, I have disparaged that supervisor to my spouse (which would make me in violation of that SLP code), but again, it probably wasn't the best thing to do...b/c when he met him/her, he was a little stand-offish and I was like 'oh crap, what did it do?!?' But those are all side notes. I'm just saying we all use our better judgments (or so we hope) when it comes to professionalism, and maybe this violation has a point that would safe-guard some workplace conflict...it would save some work-home balance, for sure b/c you'd have to leave your dirty work-laundry at work...and vice versa.

Hell, I talk to my spouse all the time. Now, if he listens is a different story.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Well, I'm not saying you can't do it, I was saying it probably is not the proper, most professional way to handle workplace conflict. Also, if it is a violation (like for Speech Pathologists), then you may be willfully breaking a code. And if it were to become a violation in our field, most of us would likely break that code based on our own judgement of the situation and our significant other.

Ollie had a good point about morals, ethics or laws overlapping and not being synonymous. I may have broken the texting law (texted while the car engine was running); it certainly wasn't the right thing to do and I was running a risk (but it was a cost/benefit situation...do I text my son back to say don't leave school, @ a red light, I'm coming to get you or waste time pulling over & turning off the engine to do so?). Most recently, I actually cried about one of my patients, and I told my husband I was crying about a patient (tears of joy, really)...I did not tell him exactly why only to say that I helped this person and felt accomplished by my work (I was feeling sorry for myself, under-appreciated at home, and highly emotional, so there was a lot going on regardless). And yes, I have disparaged that supervisor to my spouse (which would make me in violation of that SLP code), but again, it probably wasn't the best thing to do...b/c when he met him/her, he was a little stand-offish and I was like 'oh crap, what did it do?!?' But those are all side notes. I'm just saying we all use our better judgments (or so we hope) when it comes to professionalism, and maybe this violation has a point that would safe-guard some workplace conflict...it would save some work-home balance, for sure b/c you'd have to leave your dirty work-laundry at work...and vice versa.

Hell, I talk to my spouse all the time. Now, if he listens is a different story.

The way you are describing it is probably already covered as a principle which are more aspirational as opposed to the more black or white ethical standards. I would think it fits well under Principle B Fidelity and Responsibility.

Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility Psychologists establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work. They are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work. Psychologists uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior, and seek to manage conflicts of interest that could lead to exploitation or harm. Psychologists consult with, refer to, or cooperate with other professionals and institutions to the extent needed to serve the best interests of those with whom they work. They are concerned about the ethical compliance of their colleagues’ scientific and professional conduct. Psychologists strive to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no compensation or personal advantage.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Warning: Unrelated rant...

"Psychologists strive to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no compensation or personal advantage."

What? On top of the nothing that we make already. What are they trying to make us...Saintly?! Some guru in dhoti/loincloth, releasing our worldly possessions, for the benefit of goodwill for all humankind? Gracious!

I volunteer too, but to be told to strive to volunteer as part of my professional career irks me...shouldn't that be more along with the tenets of someone's faith? I didn't know that we had principle that asked us to do pro bono work. I always thought it was above and beyond the call of duty. One thing for sure, you definitely don't get into this field for the big bucks.

 

[PsyDr]

Making "big bucks" makes it infinitely easier to do pro bono work.

 

[CheetahGirl]

True. Okay, so I'll strive to make the big bucks so I can volunteer then. (Feels like a faulty-logic kind of day, to me.)

 

[smalltownpsych]

Warning: Unrelated rant...

"Psychologists strive to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no compensation or personal advantage."

What? On top of the nothing that we make already. What are they trying to make us...Saintly?! Some guru in dhoti/loincloth, releasing our worldly possessions, for the benefit of goodwill for all humankind? Gracious!

I volunteer too, but to be told to strive to volunteer as part of my professional career irks me...shouldn't that be more along with the tenants of someone's faith? I didn't know that we had principle that asked us to do pro bono work. I always thought it was above and beyond the call of duty. One thing for sure, you definitely don't get into this field for the big bucks.

About 20 years ago when this was written, our relative incomes made us a bit better off than they are these days. It is a lot easier to do some pro-bono work when your more basic needs are being met. Also, I think I might have a ways to go making money as a licensed psychologist before I make up for all the work I did during training.
p.s. tenets are beliefs, tenants are the people who rent my condo

 

[CheetahGirl]

p.s. tenets are beliefs, tenants are the people who rent my condo

Spelling error, me? Nope, I don't see a spelling mistake? No error here (except for the post you quoted of mine...grrrrr).

Yes...that slipped past my internal OCD spell checker...for shame.

If SDN did not let me back in to edit my posts...I would not have stuck around for as long as I have.

 

[smalltownpsych]

 

[deleted343839]

"Psychologists strive to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no compensation or personal advantage."

Two words: peer review.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Two words: peer review.

I think I spent more time on my last peer review than I did writing the discussion of the last article I published.

I didn't get paid for the publication, either. Sigh.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Two words: peer review.

Ooooooooh. Got it. I'm down with that. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Goobernut]

Using your SO to vent can be problematic for a myriad of reasons, such as your SO may not know how to handle your anxiety, your SO may not know how to advise properly & professionally, your SO may not care, your SO may talk about it to others, your SO may have problems of his/her own and this adds to your SO's anxiety...etc. Plus...when is there going to be time for lovin' if you're spending valuable SO time hatin'. (I need a batting eyelashes emoji here.) Hopefully, you get my point...which is flowing into couple dynamics.

So are you saying the only thing my SO is good for is sex?!?

All kidding aside, I admire the wonderful respect for humanity and co-workers you are demonstrating in your posts. But the above statement almost (borderline) makes its sound like you are a therapist talking about a client. I can't say "damn Jane really pissed me off at work today" because I might set off my husband's anxiety? Whaaaat? What else are you not talking about because it might set of your spouses anxiety? I just really feel like the above paragraph in particular is problematic. It sounds too much like 1) you are your SOs therapist or 2) this would be an exception to the rule because the SO has high anxiety. I don't need my SO to advise me professionally when I complain about my workplace environment, I feel like it's his duty to say "wow that sounds like you had a crappy day."

And if my SO can't handle some of my anxiety sometimes then what good is he? Lol

 

[CheetahGirl]

Goobernut, I never said anything about SOs being only good for sex. They are good for conversations as well if you find the right one for you.

Uh...thanks for your compliment....but no, I'm not saying you must not talk to your SO because of the potential of increasing the SO's anxiety. Everybody has to work out the right SO for him/her and if your SO can't help contain some of your anxiety than maybe that is not the right SO for you. Hopefully your SO will say "wow sounds like a crappy day," after you bash your coworkers. But I was referring more to the SLP's violation regarding avoiding workplace disparagement in the discourse with your SO. And I listed all those potential reasons why it could backfire on you, and perhaps the usefulness of finding another forum for workplace disparagement.

I think my main point - and I honestly forgot now b/c this conversation is getting so convoluted in my brain - is to examine your own reasons for bashing your co-workers. If it is to harmlessly vent, then go for it. If it is to seek support in retaliation for some bigger cause (like the example: "today, I had a bad day...I work with a bunch of dingbats." vs. "Dr. Pill is such a bastard, he told my patients that they should increase their med dosage and move to once a month therapy."), then perhaps..the spouse is not who you should disparage Dr. Pill too...but formally, disparage him in the proper forum to someone so the criticism will be constructive, not flippant hostility that you may bring back to you when your return the next day to work alongside Dr. Pill and the dingbats.

Am I making myself clear or more convoluted? Let me sleep on this because I feel like I'm trying to defend and explain code law. and I'm not. Just offering a dissenting opinion () that is contrary to the forum's opinion but somewhat aligned with the SLP's violation.

Night, night.