Corporate Counseling? The Minefield of Workplace Therapy

just taking a proactive approach is such simple, basic math. We know that you save money by doing that at the very least. So if you don't have any heart, or soul, you don't care about your employees at least think about the bottom line of your company. Hello and welcome to Awake at the Wheel. So recently, companies like AT&T, Google, Delta Airlines have started to introduce therapy in the workplace. So oftentimes they'll have a dedicated therapist that works for the company. And employees can book an appointment and have a therapy session. Sounds pretty self-explanatory. I think this is an evolution of the EAP programs, employee assistance programs, assistance programs where employees can call in to a phone number and get some short term care. So on the face of it, I think it sounds like a great idea. But of course, as a therapist, I'm really giving it some thought and thinking whether this is or is not in the best interests of employees and of employers. So I've got a number of thoughts on the pros and cons side. But initially, what are your your first thoughts on this? Years ago, I did some, let's say, work for an ERP before I became a psychologist and I had some clients and I'll be very careful. Let's just say that with this EAP program, which seemed good and I know it started off with addictions that had spread out to all these other factors, it seemed like a panacea almost, or you're claiming it was. So you have problems at work. Come and speak to a specialist, they can help guide you, etc., etc. and, you know, make you more productive and mentally healthy. The problem is one of my clients had a horrific background and again, I can't go into detail. Let's just say he required a lot of therapy and I was able to wrangle ten sessions out of this program. Usually they gave 3 to 5 sessions and then the clients on their own. That's the issue. So the person thinks, I'm going to get help. Finally, they start opening up and then they realize, it's limited. It's really limited. And also that people who are working for the EAP is not to, you know, to malign any of them, but many of them don't have the training. And so with this person, I begged, I said, look, I've sessions is not enough. I got them ten. And they said, that's like more than anyone's ever received. And I said, Well, I can't help him with ten. I can try my best, but don't expect them to. You know, and he has some issues. Again, I have to be very careful. But I should say that they were really concerned about this health and well-being and safety of not just him, but his colleagues. So that was just one of my you know, it's one of many examples, I could say. But the point is it's it's touted as something great. People put their hope in it. And unfortunately, it doesn't really deliver the way it's supposed to. Yeah. So a couple of things come to mind right off the bat with that. So and I think this is the case not only with the APS, but with insurance companies in general, is that there seems to be this gross misconception that there's a magic number of sessions, I would say. And I think, you know, tell me if you agree or disagree. Ten is like a bare minimum, because depending on the person's history, like you said, there's layers upon layers upon layers before we can even get to the current issue. And that's not just therapists try to bill more. It's the reality of therapy is that it's not, you know, let's snap your fingers in 3 to 5 sessions. They're there, quote unquote, fix. So insurance companies are guilty of that, too, saying that they you know, their clients only receive a very limited number of sessions or funding. And I think, too and I've heard this actually from clients of ours who initially accessed their EAP program, that it feels like it's more for the company to look good than to actually help employees. And that's so sad because I think that these apps certainly have potential. But again, with the limited nature of it, I can see that it's more of a checkbox or more of a value add that they can advertise to potential employees. And it's liability for the company they are worried about. You know, if something goes wrong, they say, well, we addressed it. You know, it's not our fault that this person ended up snapping or hurting somebody or, you know, or themselves having a mental breakdown. So it is all about liability. And people have to understand that even like evidence based therapies, all these different types of, you know, empirically supported treatments and so on, they were encouraged by the insurance company. You and I, we talk about evidence based therapy. We agree that it's a good thing. But you have to also understand how the sausage is made. And they were promoted by the insurance companies in the states. And basically what they wanted was something short term, short that on paper we can say 8 to 10 sessions, that's good enough and the person should be doing better after that. Therefore, our liability is minimized. We've done our part, and if the person's not able to get back on their feet after this period of time, then either they have to pay out of pocket, which is very expensive. And again, think about that. If someone's having struggles and the company has said, we're going to take care of you, we're going to help you, the person opens up, they trust the other person, they open up some, you know, some deep wounds, perhaps, and then they're told, well, sorry, you know, you still have to again, pay out of pocket thousands and thousands of dollars or you're not going to be able to come back to work or there's all these other problems that can occur. So, again, as we said many times, you know, good, good intentions executed poorly, lead to terrible outcomes. In this case, I don't know if the intentions were that good. The intentions truly were to get people back on their feet, getting them productive, reducing liability for companies or whoever is insuring them or, you know, who's in charge is somehow responsible for them. Do it as quickly and cheaply as possible. That was the mantra. So let's then assume for argument's sake here that some of these companies, again, like Google, Delta, AT&T, they're like, okay, well, fine, the EAPs aren't sufficient, aren't cutting it. Let's hire someone on and they can be in the office and available to to our employees. Sounds like a lovely idea. And you know, of course the cynic in me will think very briefly about this and see a myriad of problems. So what comes to mind is an example of some of the police services. And I obviously won't get specific here, but I'm aware of some of them who had this same idea where let's get a psychologist, you know, who works for the service, works in the office that way our officers can have quick access to me. That's a huge red flag and a huge problem because that psychologist works for the service. It's, you know, in and of itself a conflict of interest, because although that psychologist does have their ethical obligations that they have to uphold as far as confidentiality and so on, there is a conflict there because they have the same employer. So, you know, let's think of a neutral example here. If a police officer does bring something forward to the psychologist that is in direct conflict with the organization, what's that person supposed to do? Yes, there's confidentiality. But again, there's there's certainly some issues that can arise there. And I also feel, whether it's in a police service or otherwise, there's going to be a level of trust that just can't quite be broached when the psychologist, the therapist or whomever is working directly for the company. Personally, I would feel suspicious as well. And we have to tell the clients that our client really is the company is paying us. That's just the reality and people have to understand that. So you say there is confidentiality to a degree, but the company has the right to those records. How can anyone really feel safe when they know that in the end their employer can see everything I said in therapy? That's a fact. And there are therapists who can stand up. They would say, No, you know, I'm going to be judicious in my no taking. I'll make sure not to present in a way that can be used against the client, not to lie or anything, not to be unethical. But there are ways of phrasing things, right? And unfortunately, over the years, I think you and I agree that many in our profession maybe don't have the spine to, you know, to stand up and say, look, in the end, even though you're paying me this person in front of me, their best interest is paramount. I need to make sure again, you know, we're not talking about breaking any rules, laws or ethics. But the reality is that, again, when your asset is conflict of interest, when the person paying for it, they have the right to those notes. And again, will the therapist will the therapist remind the client before the client says something that their bosses, this person is about to cease and that could get them in trouble. Are they going to remind the client that, you know what? Just to remind just to remind you, anything that you state? I cannot state unequivocally that it will be protected. Right. Will they say that or will they let the person speak and say, well, you know, three months ago, I did tell them about confidentiality at the beginning. So I did my job. I've seen people do that. I've seen many of our colleagues, unfortunately, act in ways that I considered to be immoral. Maybe it's ethical, but it's immoral because they don't use judgment to think about how is this going to impact the person in front of me. And let's say then that there is somebody who is judicious and does say, you know, Hey, Mr. Client, just so you know, just a reminder, the client is the employer that's not going to lend to good therapy either. Right? So while I certainly agree that would be a better approach to remind the client it's really going to interfere. So whichever way we look at it, I feel like there's certainly some real issues here in terms of getting into like real good therapy. I guess another like obvious thing that comes to mind here, I'm remembering working in a large office setting. How do you how do you maintain your own confidentiality about going to your appointment? Everybody knows that the therapist's office is in room number, whatever, and you're leaving for 45 to 50 minutes every Wednesday. It becomes pretty obvious. And I know that there is certainly something to be said about the stigma being removed from attending therapy appointments, of course, But there's also a level of privacy. Even if I was going to the doctor's office, I would want some level of privacy that I'm attending appointments. So I think that that's the problem that arises from this as well. Exactly. And look, I mean, that we can take this as an opportunity just to sort of broaden the topic to this idea. I'm sorry to harp on this a little bit, but the fact is and I'll be very mindful of my words, but, you know, you and I have worked with many clients who have insurance coverage. And, you know, there's different types, there's different types of insurance coverage. Some insurance is just like, hey, you know, you need to see a therapist. Go ahead. You can do this or that. That's great. But there's other types where it and especially with the clinic where it's like, okay, we expect you to get this person on his or her feet, right? And we want you to as quickly as possible. And the reality is that many of these insurance companies, they alluded to it earlier, but I'm going to say it again, they don't have the client's best interests at heart. They have point. And the bottom line is what all they care about and I'm going to tell you and they don't think I'm speaking out of school here. And I think that is I'm okay to say this. It's really well known. Anyone who's gone through it knows this, which is whichever insurance company or provider that you are going through, that process in of itself can actually be traumatizing a little T or even big T traumatizing. And the person on the other end of the phone, they're just doing their job. And I've had to say this to so many people, I say it sounds so stupid. And it's as I say, don't take this personally. I say, which is so stupid, because of course it's personal, because your livelihood, your well-being, your future is in this person's hand, this faceless person on the other end of the phone who's speaking to you so callously, they're just saying, well, know, blah, blah, blah, and they have their own experts and I'm going to go out on a bit of a rant here. But I think it's really important for people to recognize that they have to understand, again, how the sausage is made, that these insurance companies have their own experts, psychologists, psychotherapist, doctors and everyone who will basically, in almost every case provide the answer that their employer wants or the insurance the insurance company, the person paying them, no matter how ridiculous it is. And then this poor person has to go pay out of pocket, try to find another expert to say, no, look, here's the evidence. This person cannot go to work or their injury was due to work. It wasn't due to something they made up in their head or something were preexisting condition. And this person can go bankrupt. I've seen cases. It breaks my heart where people have gone bankrupt. It tear us apart, families it ruined. And look, there are people who game the system and I think anyone who game the system should be kicked out of the system. We know this happens whether it's the clients or the professionals who have, you know, destroyed the insurance system they have by being unethical and immoral. But most of these people are good, hardworking people. They want to get back to work. And when your identity is wrapped up in what you do in having a job and seeing the same people in getting sick, not having being feeling productive, and suddenly that's taken away from you because something happens at work, whether it's a physical or a psychological or interpersonal incident. And you cannot work either the way you used to or at all that it destroys the person or it can destroy that person mentally, that their identity is wrapped up in that. And once again, they're going through all of that, all the, you know, the associated problems that go along with that. And then they have somebody on the other end who's just so cruel and cold hearted and they're not besmirching all people who are, you know, in these jobs. I just want to put it out there that these things have to be taken into consideration. So what happens when all of that is in-house? It's for that company, right? I am really concerned about how much influence is a manager, a supervisor, a VP, how much influence are they going to have on the process? Yeah, right. And thank you for the rant or in because that is a rant that I go on on it. I don't know weekly basis. I'm going to say it because it is just so infuriating to see that over and over and over again. And that's such a great point that you make, unfortunately, that I can definitely foresee that happening with, you know, having therapists, psychologists, whatever in the workplace. They're just going to become an agent of the employer. And unfortunately, I can see it being much like what we're seeing with insurance companies. And I'll add something to you mention that there are some bad apples out there. Sure. But having worked in the insurance industry, I don't remember the exact number, but it was such a small fraction of the actual clients who were getting into accidents and getting injured who were scammers. But the narrative that we were served was that, well, you know, we have to protect the poor, defenseless insurance company, so suspect everybody. So I recall it was baked into our training that we suspect everyone. And it's just so wrong and terrible and, you know, now being on the other side of it, I see the result of that, that suspicion and that maltreatment of clients. It's terrible. Yeah. So you know, again and I said good intentions, bad execution. So, I mean, there are ways, I guess, that, you know, that could be implemented that would help mitigate these concerns. And look, anything that helps the the client or the employee, the client, the individual I'm all for, but I really do hope that whatever, whenever and however the system is implemented, that they really take into consideration the kind of issues that we're talking about. And again, that they prioritize the employees well-being, not the companies, not the insurance company or whoever's paying for it, but the employee. And again, I get I'm not naive. I understand there have to be financial considerations that someone says, look, I want to do psychoanalysis five days a week for the next five years, then have you pay for it? I can understand that the insurance company might go, okay, wait a second, let's look at some short term therapy. I get all that. But there has to be flexibility and acknowledgment that, you know, these issues that you say ten sessions, bare minimum. That's really simple. Cognitive behavioral therapy type of issues. But either the issue that the person went through is traumatic or whatever that requires more therapy or that incident triggered something in that person that requires a lot more work, historical issues and whatever. And if someone says, well, that's not our responsibility, that's something the person brought with them to the company, well, this person is giving you 40, 60, 80 hours a week of their time to you. Let's have a bit of reciprocity here. Well, and not to mention the fact that oftentimes times our past influences the way that we're interpreting what's happening in the present. So if something does happen in the workplace, we can't just ignore the fact that we have this past in this history that that does influence what we're seeing and feeling and experiencing right now. Right, Exactly. And one thing I just going to say, just this kind of segueing somewhere else, which is I'm wondering how much of this is silly, is influenced by the TV show Billions. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that. No. Okay. Well, there is a I think she was a psychiatrist. Wendy forgot her last name, but she is an in-house therapist for this company. Acts financial and and she's a coach, too, just because you want to protect yourself. So she acts as a coach rather than as a psychiatrist. That way, she has more leeway in what she's doing and so on. So but anyway. But she's in-house and everyone will watch this show. You can see how tricky that can be. I know it's just a dramatization and so on, but the fact is, if people just take a look at that and see these torn loyalties and I there it was almost cool for some people. They were ashamed to go. Others it's kind of like, Hey, everyone, I'm going to see Wendy. And it became this thing. So, you know, I'm not quite sure if that influenced in any way, but but the reality is, you know, life is influenced by art and vice versa. So if people are seeing this program, they might have these very different understandings that have misconceptions about what therapy is supposed to be like and what it's going to bring for them. And so on. So, you know, maybe they're being sold on a false pretense. Yeah. And I guess that brings up another potential definite, definitely likely pitfall with this is if one therapist is working with all of these employees and there's conflict in the workplace, that's very difficult for the therapist to be able to maneuver and, you know, remain objective. And of course that's our job to do so. But that adds a complication and a layer of complication for the therapist as well. Right. Yet on the other hand, if the therapist has good boundaries, if the therapist is really adept at working with assistants, that could be a good thing where, you know, whether it's private therapy or you have the therapist come in, speak with either two or three people or the whole team help them out and so on. The problem is a lot of companies do this with these. They'll have like a seminar and they'll have a come in and it'll have some catchy thing of the day. What are you, what color represents your work style, blah, blah, blah. All right. And it's almost always the same principles just rejigged to look like something new that someone was able to sell to some, you know, some naive or ignorant company. Right. And again, they have this and it's supposed to somehow help. Now, once again, is it because the employers believe it's really helping or are they trying to say, look, we know there were some concerns, we know there was some tension between certain people or groups or whatever. Our productivity is low. And are there is there somebody in the system like a manager or V.P. or whatever, who's just going for the cheapest, simplest of what's actually on the cheap? But anyway, they're going for what they think is the simplest, fastest route and saying, I addressed it right because they want to tell their higher ups what the point of getting to is. We have in any of these kinds of situations, we really need to question the motives of the people involved. That's so important. We can't naively think it's just for the well-being of others, because then I go one more step here. I know you've had the same experience. We've had countless people who have had terrible things happen to them, whether it's in school, whether they work for the government, whether they, you know, have worked for a hospital. And they are told every day or every month or, you know, on Bell let's talk day or something like that about, you know, we care about you, we want to help people. We, you know, blah, blah, blah, mental health and so on. And being good citizens and everything, they hear it, they buy into it. And then when it comes to actually receiving the services or getting a little bit of empathy or anything like that, they realize it's all just talk and that can be devastating. I've had so many clients think of all the places I thought this would be the one. They talk about her all the time, but on all the doors, all the walls and everything, so is having a therapist or just a way to be sitting, Hey, you know, we did our part. We have these therapists, we're doing good. Or, you know, is it really going to be, you know, used to its fullest advantage because there can be events. I don't, you know, crap over this because if done right, of course it's good to have someone there who can help people when you know, when they need the help. Yeah, and I wish I knew the numbers, but I know that it's startlingly low as far as EAPs companies that offer them the actual usage of them is is very, very low. So I sense that that in part has to do with the level of trust or not feeling the buy in to it and perhaps feeling like it is all just talk. Right. And again, I keep saying this I hate to sound too cynical, but you know, there is a reality which is in any of these kinds of programs, there's layer upon layer. There's the therapist and the client. That's a good one. That's the connection that's most important relationship. But then there's the bureaucrats, you know, then there's matters that people who say, there's a certain amount of money allocated to this, let's say $10 million to do health care. Well, how much of that is administrative, how we now create a new position that allows someone to, you know, to make more money or to elevate themselves at the cost of others? We have to be so careful about this because if nothing else, again, we've seen this happen time and time again, whether it's the government, whether it's the health care system, whether it's private organization. There are so many people in charge of these types of operations who should not be in charge. They don't know what they're doing or they do know what they're doing. And they're doing it for their own self-interest, not for the benefits of others. Yeah. So I guess maybe some listeners are wondering, okay, well, that's that's great. We've crapped all over this idea. So what what would actually be helpful? So I think that in theory, like you're saying, in theory, these are good ideas, but if they're executed properly, they can actually serve to help people, which is, I would hope, the intention, I think that as far as in health therapists, I don't see it being a good idea. I think that, you know, we've identified all the possible pitfalls with it, which to me outweigh the benefits. But I would say, you know, having access to maybe near site, if not on site, a dedicated therapist or a company that you know, that the employees can access regularly or unlimited or whatever the case may be in a similar fashion to having someone in-house. And I think having somebody near site rather than onsite would mitigate some of those problems. And I think to as far as people's private benefits, I think companies would serve their employees better by perhaps increasing the access they have to private insurance benefits. So they do have the freedom to access a therapist that is of their choosing. And perhaps is the appropriate fit, because that's something we didn't talk about either. Is that what if the in-house therapist is a terrible fit? That's not going to be helpful either. That is so important, right? And we know that one of the most important factors is, if not the all support factor is the therapist client relationship. So exactly. And if if it's a limited number and they don't fit with them, well, then that points the problem, obviously, versus maybe the therapist isn't that great. Maybe they have a problem with men or women or whatever. So yes, And again, this we should say I've seen over the last number of years, maybe it is because, of course, I know COVID played a part, but maybe this was happening beforehand, which is more companies are increasing the benefits, at least in Ontario, I can say. So kudos to those companies. There should be more. But sometimes when I hear about the packages that they have, I go, Wow, I am so happy for you. You could actually get some good treatment as opposed to three sessions or something like that. So there is more of move. And the craziest thing is this has been known. I don't know, 30, 40 years at least. We do know that for whatever Harvard, whatever dollar, how many dollars you invest in the clients well-being, whether it's preventative or whether it's, you know, when it happens shortly after the fact, if it's done properly, if you take if you take care of the clients, mental health stress, etc., you save so much money later on, whether it's through litigation, whether it's through, you know, decreased efficacy at work and so on it or effectiveness, just taking a proactive approach is such simple, basic math. We know that you save money by doing that at the very least. So if you don't have any heart, or soul, you don't care about your employees at least think about the bottom line of your company. Why wouldn't you do that? And again, do it right? Yeah, definitely. And I guess, yeah, to summarize our points here is it is a great idea to ensure that employees and people in general have access to mental health care. But there's there's better, more effective and more likely to be utilized ways to do it than these in-house therapies. And in our opinion here. But listeners, we want to know what you think is having a therapist in the office a good idea? Is it a bad idea? Let us know in the comments what you think. And I do want to add one more thing. I started saying it, but I'm going to say it one more time that I don't know if we were a part of that program or if if employers should really think about, as I said, having a psychologist or a psychotherapist available when there is tension within the system, when there's conflict, when there are, you know, shenanigans going on because, again, a person can spend 40, 68 hours of her life per week dedicated to this job, and it has such an impact on them that all it takes is one bad apple, one poisonous snake within the organization that can make everybody feel sick. So it's so important, I think, to be able to have someone who can come in, speak to the different people, get a sense of everything that's going on. I mean, we have to be done in a way that, again, confidential information would not be disclosed. But the fact is that they would be able to go there and treat the system, not just the individuals, but, you know, you have to help the individuals by seeing that the system is so let's say, corrupt, toxic, broken, ineffective, however you want to call it. And today I'm seeing more and more that just a little side note here that, you know, many of my clients and patients are saying that, you know, they are high achievers. They they are high functional, They want to do well and they are being held back or they're being sabotaged or they're being excluded because of those great traits. So I would hope that companies would say, you know what, we have to realize that there are problems in the system. And I'm going to tell people again, kind of this I've seen this happen many times that that especially in the West, we have this need for justice. We we have this need for a sense of safety and security to believe that whatever system we are in, that there's something or someone above us that's going to oversee and make sure that things stay within the guardrails. And when you don't have that sense, it's terrifying. It's stressful. You don't want to go to work the next day. I've got people popping out of bed, you know, every morning as soon as they see their building, they start having a stress reaction because they know and again, it doesn't even have to be the whole system. One person. However, here's the thing. When you have layer upon layer of seniority, for example, I've seen this happen where the person above that their manager, right. That person is just trying to keep things quiet here. That person is not trying to, you know, they want to make sure that their superior doesn't hear any of this. So, you know, but they're not adept at taking care of these problems. So they just that they can keep it quiet. That's all that matters to them. And so you're feeling this. Wait a second. I know there's a solution. I know there's recourse. Yet the person who's supposed to be doing this, they're not helping. And so someone says, well, go to HR, Guess what? HR Is not your friend. HR Works for the company. You know, they want to keep things quiet. So if you're going out there and you're a troublemaker, they're not going to resolve the problem. You are going to have the target on your back moving forward. And i've had so many clients, whether it's government, whether it's hospitals, universities, private businesses, banks, take your pick. I have seen this happen over and over and over, have watched people's mental well-being deteriorate because they know there's a solution, but it's being denied them. So I know it's another rant here, But again, I'm just saying this out of empathy because I've seen so many people have their lives ruined. And again, once again, especially if you're the breadwinner or you're one of the breadwinners, if your life is ruined, if you can't work, if you can't function, if your mental health is deteriorating, there's a lot of people who may depend on you and you're letting them down, which then exacerbates the other the feelings of helplessness, distress, shame that the person's going through. So I'm just putting this out there again, just as I'm hoping if some people hear this, it resonates with them. And the question is, you know, we always say at the end, what can you do about it? Well, I'm going to put it to you, Malini, what if someone feels they're in a situation like this? What can they do about it? What can they do about it? So, I mean, the obvious would be accessing therapy outside of the employer, I think for all the reasons we've discussed here. But that's not always an option right there. I think the spirit of offering therapy in workplaces that sometimes it is cost prohibitive for many people to be able to access regular therapy. So in situations like that, I think it's important to to find somebody you can confide in, perhaps in the company, whether it's a colleague, probably not. HR, not a manager because of all the reasons that you stated. But i would say first confiding in a coworker and having safe and healthy outlets for that stress. We've spoken in the past about diet and exercise and getting good sleep and having good habits in general. That's certainly not going to solve the issue, but it could certainly to help it certainly help with relieving and alleviating some of that stress. Right. And then there's also, you know, again, you have to be strategic and you have to recognize, I mean, because people, again, when they go into the system, especially when the companies say we're like family, Right. Well, okay, a dysfunctional family, because when things go wrong, where is the person there to help and say, hey, knock it off or let's straighten this out and so on? So I say you have to have the right perspective, the right attitude. And it's, you know, like the old expression, don't let the bastards get you down and, you know, use that power of spite. I say don't let them break you, whether it's an employee, whether it's an ineffective manager, whether it's H.R., or whether it's the insurance company. I say I know it's hard. And they say, look, I'm saying this from the sidelines, but you need to play the long game. You need to look at as in right. It's not us versus them kind of thing. But the reality is that they don't care about you. They really don't care whether it's the employer call the insurance company. They really don't care at all. And that might sound disheartening, but that's just a reality. So if you if you have the right perspective instead of saying, they don't care about me, poor me, it's like, okay, well, yeah, they don't care about me. The only thing they have, the only obligation they have to me is if they're my boss, You know, it's to pay me, right? And to make sure that you know, that it's a relatively safe environment. But, you know, that's really it. So I need to advocate for myself. Don't have to be a lonely feeling. It can be an empowering feeling of I need to make sure that I take care of myself. And it's a diet exercise, sleep, you know, doing things to make you, you know, to be in the best shape for the fight that may lie ahead and to be prepared. And if you have gone to HR And there's no recourse, are you going to go above them? Can you do a, b, c, and d? Are you collecting all the data and evidence that you need? Are you creating a paper trail, making sure that you are advocating for yourself? Because if a therapy is if therapy is offered through EAP, through in-house, through, you know, private insurance, whatever, okay, that's all good. But in the end, it's up to you truly to advocate for yourself. All these other services can help you, but you have to have the right perspective and the right strategy. So, you know, it's too easy to just give in and say, poor me, right? If you if you have. And by the way, again, we've worked with so many people. We've seen this where it's not like they want to go back to work. They want to do what's right for themselves. That's one. And all they do need is some help and support, which we do provide, you know, psychological treatment, strategy, etc. and coping and so on. Right. But again, in the end, I'm just saying I hope that people can realize that it's not a bad thing to say, Fight for yourself out of yourself, get the supports in place in any way that you can and you know, and be prepared to fight to the end. And if you can't, then you have to think about different careers. I've had so many clients over last number of years, you know, just change careers, whether it's to get out of the company or work another one or get out of, you know, let's say, government and work privately or, you know, go to the bank and work privately and so on, or just change your career completely because it's there's no shame in saying, look, I've put ten, 20 years of my life into this and I'm looking at burnout here. And I've seen know 20% of my colleagues go through the same thing. There's no shame in saying I've done my time. I'm a little bit older now. I'm in a different life position right now. Maybe I have to shift my perspective and see what's best for me. How do I maintain a balanced life and start to lead a balanced life? When you feel that all the kind of pressure that we're discussing right now, so step back and reevaluate and see whether there's a better path forward. Absolutely. And self advocacy and essentially what you're saying there is finding things that you can control. Sometimes there's very little to nothing in our control in those situations. And leaving and pursuing something else is the only thing that we can really grab on to. And speaking from experience, I'm almost a decade removed from my previous career. That was a huge motivating factor is I need to get the hell out of here. Right? Okay. And again, having the right perspective on all of that doesn't mean you failed. Maybe you just have a different perspective and it's a healthier one. So anyway, on that note, until next time, keep your eyes on the road and your hands upon the wheel.