Should an employer make an employee take antidepressants?

I worked in a call centre while I was pretty depressed. Some days I'd
be crying for no reason on the way to work but I went in and did my job.
On those days I may not have been the best employee. British Telecom may
not have wanted their customers to deal with a person who was flat
toned, hesitant and sparse with their words.

The customer service training told us statistics like 50% of people can
tell when you're smiling on the phone. They wanted us to be happy,
bouncy and cheery to their customers and when I was not depressed I was
one of their best employees and got promoted quickly. I could turn
around the worst complaints and the most difficult customers while still
remaining polite and cordial. My calls would be tapped and one of them
was used for nationwide training because it was an example of good
customer service.

In fact I tried St Johns Wort at the time and it was good. But I wonder
if an employer would have wanted me to take SJW. I can imagine in other
call centre environments the need for a positive tone and a cheery
attitude could be fulfilled by putting SJW in the tea. It's just a herb
after all.

There are other medications that can be useful in employment. Monafodil
is a treatment for sleep problems (narcolepsy?) that when given to
normal people can make them more intelligent - or so the rumours go; I'm
unaware of the evidence. If this were true organisations like Goldmans
Sachs who spend literally thousands and tens of thousands per person on
recruiting the smartest people in the world would want it in the water
supply (or champagne supply). Gingko may be a herbal alternative though
the evidence base for it's effect on cognition shows it is ineffective
(my personal experience tells me otherwise).

The practical reality is that a depressed employee is more likely to get
disciplinaries or fired. If they don't have periods out of depression or
hypomanic stages they'll be less likely to be considered for promotion.
They may not fit into the various cliques and political office games.
They may be outshined by people with less ability but who are happier.

Leaving the decision up to them means they are more disabled and
disadvantaged. This is the fundamental problem with the anti-medication
and anti-psychiatry movement (though psychiatry and medication may have
limited positive effect on these outcomes anyway). The problematicness
that leads to worse occupational and social outcomes can, apparently, be
treated in some people using biological means in the same way people
self-medicate.

There are other options though. Working the call centre helped me
develop my mask. I can switch into a mode where I sound happy. Over the
years it's developed so I can look happy too, and when I'm drunk it's so
easy. It's hard to tell when I'm masking and when I'm genuinely ok. I
hope so anyway. The same goes for the Goldman Sachs employees. A friend
of mine who worked there learned memory techniques and tried the
Emotional Freedom Technique to lift his spirits.

These options take a longer term view though. Many employers are driven
by automoton-management principles (I want a robot, not a human being).
They want quick solutions to meet their targets. They want constant
performance. They want something easy to manage but they often forget
that it's not a thing. It's a someone they're dealing with.

This is where society change is vital. There are many options to rectify
the problematicness that creates the prognosis. Changing people to
accept people as different and unique is the next step in mental
healthcare and organisational theory, in my opinion.