logo
Why mental health support matters for all workers

Why mental health support matters for all workers

Fast Company3 days ago

The old adage 'the only thing constant is change' seems to ring true in workplaces today. Workplaces are rife with challenges, from navigating economic uncertainty to rapidly adapting to technological change. Workplace mental health support plays a pivotal role in helping employees build resilience to navigate the stressors they face.
When we discuss mental health in the workplace, we often think of a corporate office: a desk, a screen, and a Slack channel. In reality, the need for mental health support extends to all sectors and workers. From healthcare to hospitality, construction to retail, food service to utilities, workers in non-office jobs are just as in need of support as their desked peers. There is no such thing as a stress-free workplace. As a leader, what you do to address it can make all the difference.
It's a business imperative
At Calm, we've seen this firsthand. Through our app, we support over 3,500 organizations, including 600 non-office industries. Across sectors and industries, employees come to Calm for stress, anxiety, mindfulness, and sleep support. Workers across the board might share similar challenges—anxiety, burnout, family stress—but their experiences are unique to their role or environment. An office worker may fear being replaced by AI. A warehouse worker may worry more about the risk of injury or being replaced by automation. Each of those fears is valid, and each deserves bespoke support.
Supporting workers isn't just the right thing to do; it's a business imperative. According to yale researchers, the U.S. economy loses over $280 billion each year due to mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression. Gallup found that employees who report poor mental health take nearly five times as many sick days. That's $47.6 billion in lost productivity. But more than that, it's millions of people quietly struggling to get through the day. It doesn't have to be this way and making mental health support a priority goes a long way.
It begins with open and honest communication. Leaders must be willing to share their own experiences with stress, anxiety, or burnout to normalize these conversations. I've publicly discussed my personal journey with my team, from experiencing panic attacks starting as a teenager to leading Calm, aiming to inspire others to prioritize their mental well-being. This transparency has helped break down the stigma associated with mental health challenges and encourages employees to seek help when they need it.
Steps leaders can take
Here are some other ways leaders can help incorporate employee mental well-being as a workplace priority:
Talk about it. Leadership sets the tone and should model and share their own experiences balancing mental well-being while at work.
Listen. Be present. Find ways to hear from your teams.Understand the stressors that exist across different types of work. For some, it's emotional fatigure. For others, it's physical strain or unpredictable hours. All of it matters.
Meet people where they are. Whether it's a digital platform, a flyer in the locker room, or a text-based check-in, delivery matters as much as the message.
Tailor support. One-size-fits-all solutions fall flat. A call center agent and a construction worker have very different needs, and your approach should reflect that.
Normalize mental health in company culture. Mental wellness shouldn't feel like an afterthought. At Calm, we begin every all-hands meeting with a short meditation. I try not to start my day by checking emails or texts. These aren't big shifts, but they're grounding. When mindfulness is integrated into the rhythm of work, it becomes an integral part of the culture, rather than just a checkbox.
At Calm, we've learned that purpose and performance aren't opposites. When employees feel supported, they show up stronger and better. Engagement goes up, turnover goes down, and business benefits.
Stress isn't going away. However, we have an opportunity to transform how we support employees in handling it. Workplace mental health support isn't optional; it's essential. It is crucial to create a supportive and sustainable workplace that enables leaders to take a holistic approach to caring for their people. After all, we can't build healthy companies without a thriving workforce across all teams in every sector of our economy.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Stocks Hit Highest Since February on Jobs Surprise
Stocks Hit Highest Since February on Jobs Surprise

Bloomberg

time25 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Stocks Hit Highest Since February on Jobs Surprise

Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Katie Nixon, Northern Trust, Betsey Stevenson, University of Michigan, Dan Dolev, Mizuho, Rashad Bilal & Troy Millings, Earn Your Leisure, Matthew Griffin, Bloomberg News, Barry Bannister, Stifel, Jess Menton, Bloomberg News, Ed Ludlow, Bloomberg News, Stacy Rasgon, Bernstein Research, Frances Katzen, Douglas Elliman, Brett Winton, Ark Invest, Tony Zaccario, Stretch Zone, Nicole Camarre, 43North. (Source: Bloomberg)

Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes

New York Times

time34 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes

By Ralph D. Russo, Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams A federal judge Friday granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, a watershed agreement in college sports that permits schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time. The settlement, which resolves a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences, establishes a new 10-year revenue sharing model in college sports, with athletic departments able to distribute roughly $20.5 million in name, image and likeness (NIL) revenue to athletes over the 2025-26 season. Previously, athletes could earn NIL compensation only with outside parties, including school-affiliated donor collectives that have become instrumental in teams' recruiting. Advertisement The NCAA and the power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC), as defendants in the settlement, also agree to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were not allowed to sign NIL deals, dating back to 2016. The damages will be paid out over 10 years, with most of the money expected to go to former power-conference football and men's basketball players. Universities can begin directly sharing revenue with college athletes starting July 1. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who previously ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon and Alston cases, granted approval roughly a year after parties agreed to settlement terms and nearly two months after a final approval hearing on April 7, where Wilken heard testimony from more than a dozen objectors. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants noted that the number of objections and opt-outs in the settlement represent a tiny fraction of the nearly 400,000 athletes in the certified class. However, some of those objectors delayed approval, largely citing the settlement's new roster limits. These limits, which replace sport-by-sport scholarship limits, cap the maximum roster size per team while allowing for every roster spot to receive a scholarship. Schools can offer scholarship funds — partial or full — as they see fit, which creates more potential opportunities. But as schools preemptively prepared to comply with those new limits, they removed roster spots for thousands of walk-ons, particularly in football, and partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. In late April, Wilken offered an ultimatum, instructing the settlement parties to revise the terms in a way that mitigated any lost roster spots as a result of schools preparing for the new roster limits, or she would deny the whole agreement. Settlement lawyers responded with an amendment that allows for voluntary 'grandfathering' of any athletes who lost roster spots as a result of the roster limits, a status that will follow those athletes through the remainder of their eligibility, whether they return to their original school or transfer elsewhere. Advertisement The initial House v. NCAA case — brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, and Sedona Prince, then an Oregon women's basketball player — was filed in June 2020. It challenged NCAA policy at the time that prohibited athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL rights or from sharing in the revenue generated from NCAA and conference television contracts. The case was later consolidated with two similar suits, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. The cases had not gone to trial. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences, fearful a verdict might result in much higher damages, agreed to a settlement in May 2024. Wilken granted preliminary approval in October 2024. The NCAA's traditional amateurism model, in which athletes could not receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, began to crumble in 2014 when Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a suit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, who objected to his image being used in an EA Sports video game without his permission. Wilken ruled for the plaintiffs, but after an appeals court struck part of her decision, the only tangible effect was that schools began offering cost-of-attendance stipends. The next major case, Alston v. NCAA, made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 9-0 against the NCAA. Often mischaracterized as a case about NIL, Alston's main impact was that it allowed schools to provide athletes $5,980 a year in academic expenses. However, the lopsided decision left the NCAA vulnerable to additional legal challenges regarding rules that limited compensation, and it was delivered on June 21, 2021, nine days before numerous state laws allowing NIL payments were set to go into effect. The NCAA quickly scrapped most of its intended restrictions on NIL. In the years since, many athletes have entered into deals with local companies and struck lucrative endorsement deals with national brands like Gatorade and New Balance, as intended. But a far more common practice involves boosters using purported NIL deals to lure recruits or players from the transfer portal to their favorite school. The NCAA's enforcement division initially sought to punish schools that used NIL as a form of 'pay for play' or recruiting inducement, but when the University of Tennessee came under fire in early 2024, the state's attorney general sued, and a judge issued an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing those rules. Advertisement The amount of money being spent in the NIL arena has skyrocketed since 2021. Last year, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said the Buckeyes football team — which later won the national championship — was earning $20 million in NIL. CBS Sports recently reported that a number of men's basketball rosters have already topped $10 million for next season. To this point, collectives supporting specific schools have ruled the market, but administrators are hoping the House settlement will curtail that influence. In addition to schools being allowed to make NIL deals themselves, the new model also requires all outside NIL deals of more than $600 to go through a clearinghouse that will determine whether the payments are for a valid business purpose and reflect fair market value. Meanwhile, the settlement establishes an enforcement arm that will penalize schools that go over the $20.5 million cap. All of this will be overseen by the newly established regulatory body, called the College Sports Commission, which is in the process of shifting considerable oversight and control of college sports away from the NCAA and to the power conferences. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors recently approved a series of proposals, pending settlement approval, that will strike 153 rules from the association's handbook and clear the way for the settlement terms to be implemented. The settlement represents a significant shift in college sports, but it will not mark the end of the NCAA's legal challenges. Among numerous ongoing cases, Johnson v. NCAA was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have athletes classified as employees who are entitled to minimum wage compensation. The NCAA's efforts to dismiss the case have thus far been denied. Revenue sharing and third-party NIL constraints could also invite additional lawsuits on the basis of Title IX, antitrust violations and conflicts with state laws. NCAA and power conference stakeholders continue to pursue antitrust exemptions in the form of Congressional intervention, in hopes of codifying the settlement and its effectiveness moving forward. President Donald Trump has explored a new commission focused on the issues facing college sports, led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and billionaire Texas Tech board chair Cody Campbell, though it is paused as members of Congress pursue legislation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store