How about grouping the jobs into two categories: A) Causes PTSD and B) Doesn't cause PTSD
If a job as a constantly high percentage of people ending up with PTSD, then they aren't equipped well enough to handle it, by the company who employs them.
>How about grouping the jobs into two categories: A) Causes PTSD and B) Doesn't cause PTSD
I fail to see how this addresses my previous questions of "it's purely a monetary dispute?" and "where do you draw the line?". If a job "Causes PTSD" (whatever that means), then what? Are you entitled to hazard pay? Does this work out in the end to a higher minimum wage for certain jobs? Moreover, we don't have similar classifications for other hazards, some of which are arguably worse. For instance, dying is probably worse than getting PTSD, but the most dangerous jobs have pay that's well below the national median wage[1][2]. Should workers in those jobs be able to sue for redress as well?
What could a company provide a police officer with to prevent PTSD from witnessing a brutal child abuse case? A number of sources i found estimate the top of the range to be ~30% of police officers may be suffering from it
I wouldn't say purely, but substantially yes. PTSD has costs. The article says some out; therapy, medication, mental, physical, and social health issues. Some of these money can directly cover, whereas others can only be kinda sorta justified with high enough pay.
I think a sustainable moderation industry would try hard to attract the kinds of people who are able to perform this job without too much negative impacts, and quickly relieve those who try but are not well suited, and pay for some therapy.
>Content moderator is a min wage job
So it's purely a monetary dispute?
>bad working hours, no psychological support, and you spend your day looking at rape, child porn, torture and executions.
Many other jobs have the same issues, though admittedly with less frequency, but where do you draw the line?