Bold truth: the way work treats younger generations could be harming both their lives and the bosses’ bottom lines. A growing body of research points to Gen Z increasingly using “mental health days,” and the consequence is a visible hit to productivity and engagement across workplaces. This isn’t just a cultural trend; it ties directly to how job security, stress, and organizational culture shape attendance and performance.
A study from Macquarie University estimates that young workers aged 18–29 miss about 26 million days of work annually due to distress, placing them among the most stressed groups in Australia, alongside women and residents of Victoria. The report, Workforce Psychological Distress and Absenteeism in Australia, shows that people in this age bracket experience distress at roughly 1.5 times the rate of workers aged 50–64. These figures draw on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics National Health Survey for 2020 and 2021 and reflect broader shifts in the labor market and mental health exposure.
Lead author Kristy Burns explains that many young workers operate in casual roles with limited job security and significant financial pressures. Beyond job insecurity, they often face workplace conflicts, limited control over their tasks, and bullying—all factors closely linked to poorer mental health. The concern is clear: discouraging or sidelining young workers due to distress risks depriving industries of fresh talent and innovation, while also failing to support the mental health of a generation.
Burns notes that the trend toward higher psychological distress has been rising for two decades and may have intensified during the Covid-19 pandemic. The cost to workplaces is substantial, with stress-related issues accounting for about $17 billion in annual losses. The data indicate that the highest levels of distress correspond with employees who miss more than 20 days per year—roughly a full extra month off compared with less distressed colleagues. Psychological distress also contributes to about 10% of serious injury claims, and 18% of workers report experiencing distress.
Within industry breakdowns, clerical and administrative roles report the highest distress at 25.9%, followed by financial and insurance services at 23%. Mining, conversely, has the lowest distress rate at 8.5%. Overall, the analysis suggests about 56 million days off due to distress across the workforce, with younger workers accounting for the largest share despite being a smaller portion of the labor pool. Sectors with the most distress-related absences include healthcare, education and training, accommodation and food services, and retail.
Gender differences also emerge: 21.9% of women report distress, compared with 14.8% of men. Regional variations show Victoria with the highest distress rates, followed by the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory (around 19%), while Western Australia records the lowest at 14%. On average, Victoria experiences the highest annual loss days (about 5.7 days per worker), with Tasmania close behind. The ACT records the fewest distress-related days off (about 3.35 days).
This research aligns with independent findings from News Corp’s Growth Distillery and Medibank, which reported burnout affecting roughly 34% of Australians. Among those experiencing burnout, Gen Z accounted for about 45% and Millennials about 41%, with common triggers including insufficient downtime and daily overburden from career demands, family duties, and social pressures.
The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)—the most widely used burnout metric—defines burnout through three criteria: exhaustion, depersonalization (loss of empathy or cynicism toward work), and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment. Gen Z mental health advocate Milly Bannister of ALLKND argues that burnout is more than fatigue from heavy workloads. She describes burnout as an identity crisis: when work erodes one’s sense of self, values, and ability to connect with others, true damage occurs. According to Bannister, burnout is not solely about workload but about misalignment—when work that once energized turns into energy drain.
If employers want to attract and retain young talent, the message is clear: invest in meaningful work, supportive environments, and real pathways to stable employment. Encouragingly, mental health support and flexible, respectful workplaces can help employees thrive rather than merely survive. How should organizations balance the need for productivity with the wellbeing of their younger workers? Do job security, fair treatment, and genuine mental health resources justify a more generous approach to attendance? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments.
