Regaurding In Getting The Disabled Back Into Work

GAZBEROTTEN

Well-known Member
If the coalition if i may call them one :laugh::laugh::laugh: ever do get these disabled people back into work some questions are already raised

Ian Duncan Smith states work pays. Well what about the decution of tax, pension and inssurance and full rent, shopping bills, heating all which are rising? Surely for anyone to be better of working they will need £250 to £300 per week for this to make work pay. Or are these sick people going to work 30-40 hours per week to be left with nothing in there pocket and be in the same position they where before. Think about it people, also there are rumours that the national minimum wage will be getting abolished. This really isnt making work pay now is it if thats true.:nono:

Secondly what about the tax generated of all of these disabled people forced back into work paying tax. Will this all be collected into one account and strictly used to pay of the deficit and are there any leglislations that prevent anyone mp pm etc from ever touching that money saved. If not it will be easy for people to take money from that account and for them to use excuses and get away with it.

Thirdly what will be done about orgranisations using computers and unqualified people making assesements against disabled people and classifiing ill people fit for work. This needs to be tackled to ensure the right people make fair assesments and not rejected legitamite claimants. To many people are getting accused of being fit for work.

And last but not least tackle this work programe to many people are reporting its not working and there is even a team of lawyers taking the government to court of this. Thats not good when they have found something illegal about a programe that is supposed to help people.

Thanks for reading :smashin:
 
D

dovercat

Guest
Thing is most of them are not expected to get jobs.

One thing that seems to be rarely pointed out is that the work-focused health-related assessments have been suspended for two years. So people get assessed as work related activity ESA or JSA but the assessment for what type of work they might be able to actually do that takes in to account their illness or disability has been suspended. Apparently the process is under review because they had a lot of trouble trying to think of what job people would actually be capable of doing.

Your are capable of doing some type of work now or possibly some time in future, some of the time, possibly with special training and support.

Ok what work would I be capable of doing? Sorry can not answer that we will get back to you in a couple of years. We will treat you as capable of doing any and all work for now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sonic67

Banned
What is your problem? My dad was disabled and he worked.
 

GAZBEROTTEN

Well-known Member
What is your problem? My dad was disabled and he worked.

My problem is explained in my first post on this thread

Computers deciding whos fit and whos ill and even unqualified people sat in an office are making dessions that are proven wrong. The government funds a certain organisation to do this and have done nothing to put a halt to these issues.

The way people are getting assed is wrong. There are really ill people even with cancer being told they are fit for work lets see you explain this one.

By the way ever noticed how so many people claiming bennefits mostly just get basic rates when they are entitled to more. Thats never been mentioned not once by the coalition.
 
Last edited:
D

dovercat

Guest
What is your problem? My dad was disabled and he worked.

I have no problem with disabled people working.

I have a problem with the government treating all non working disabled or ill people as if they are all capable of working and face no barriers to employment.

The work capability assessment needs to be fit for purpose.
It is not.

The levels of conditionality and benefit sanctions have to be appropriate.
They are not.

Contributions based disability benefits should remain non time limited. People who have paid their national insurance for a non-means tested benefit in the event they become incapable of working due to ill health, should not end up being means tested on household income. Effectively their spouse being made to bear the cost of their partner being incapable for working due to disability.

What is needed is incentives for employers to employ the disabled and ill and support for those disabled and ill who need support to be employable. While recognizing that some disabled or ill people are incapable of working and others may face significant barriers to employability due to the level of their impairment or the attitude of employers.

Instead the state is effectively viewing being disabled or ill as a life style choice, a culture of dependence. Effectively blaming the person for being ill or disabled and applying conditionality, sanctions and reduced levels of benefit, as if that will motivate them to be able to work and able to find a job. Treating the disabled and ill as if they are workshy.


My brother is disabled he does not work. I think it is not right that he should be presumed to be workshy. His quality of life should be the focus of concern not trying to get him to earn a living.

He receives SDA (80% or more disabled) and DLA high rate care (needs help or supervision frequently throughout the day and during the night) low rate mobility (need guidance or supervision out of doors) Income support on grounds of disability, with disability and enhanced disability premiums, he would also get the severe disability premium if he lived alone.
The benefits he gets are amongst those the government intends to cut the numbers entitled to and the level of support given. What job is he suppose to do? Who is suppose to employ him? If he did not live with me he would alternate between living in a residential care home and being a hospital inpatient.


The benefit system has to be fit for purpose.
The new system is not.

It treats everyone as if they might be better in a year regardless of the nature of their disability or illness.

It lowers entitlement to benefit on the grounds that some day in the future they might be capable of doing some type of work, some of the time, maybe with support, even when it recognizes the fact the person is currently incapable of working. While failing to be able to provide them with any route into work, the suspension of the work-focused health-related assessments. It can not answer the question what job do you hope I might with support be able to do some of the time, in the future maybe depending on the future state of my health.

It assess people as capable of doing some type of work some of the time as being ineligible for anything other than JSA. Failing to recognize the barriers they face to employability and the support they would need to find employment.

The bar on the assessment is set so high as to fail to correctly identify people as being incapable of working. The bar on the assessment is set so high that it is incompatible with the conditionality of the benefits. The person can be incapable of meeting the conditionality by virtue of the level of disability recognized by the DWP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GAZBEROTTEN

Well-known Member
What we need is a system which will protect us from poverty. We could call it Basic Income so what will happen is that anyone who gets sanctioned on JSA, loses dla etc can go to basic income which is enough to feed that person.

Doing a search on tescos website you can feed a single person on £4.50 per week which includes 14 tins of spegetti and even 14 2 litre bottles of cola as well so eating and drinking isnt a problem.

If people dont have a tesco they can go to another store to eat. As for heating costs if the government forced all of the electric/gas companies to refund all customers overcharged over the years no exceptions and forced them to drop costs significantly that would allow people to survive on as little as £89 a fortnight.

They also need to go after the companies charging insane rent ammounts. These should be forced to knock down rent prices a good 50% at least. Rent prices are sky high and are getting out of control. That needs to be cracked down on.
 
D

dovercat

Guest
What we need is a system which will protect us from poverty. We could call it Basic Income so what will happen is that anyone who gets sanctioned on JSA, loses dla etc can go to basic income which is enough to feed that person.

We already have hardship level payments for means tested income replacement benefits, after three weeks of no benefit. You get 40% less than the normal rate of benefit if you are deemed to be in severe hardship. If you have children to look after, or are caring for someone who is disabled, or are chronically ill or disabled you get 20% less than the normal rate of benefit.
 

Steven

Senior Moderator
£250-£300 per week would be £12-£14k per annum, which is about the rate for a starter full time position. So by your own logic you support Ian Duncan Smith ;)
 

GAZBEROTTEN

Well-known Member
£250-£300 per week would be £12-£14k per annum, which is about the rate for a starter full time position. So by your own logic you support Ian Duncan Smith ;)

Problem is not everyone works part time

Meaning there wages will be so low that most of these people will be depressed and will end up committing suicide

And with rumors of the National Minimum Wage being abolished as well as tax credits work will not pay. The point of working is to be better of financially. This means spare cash after your food, rent gas electric shopping etc is paid of each week. Working people are working towards having something to show for all of there life time of hard work not being on a poorly paid pension or retirement.

Sadly a lot of jobs don't offer full time but mostly part time temporary contracts :rolleyes:

I refuse to support an mp who fails to tackle this problem and with rising costs it looks like to many people working wont be better of and work wont pay.
 
Last edited:
D

dovercat

Guest
£250-£300 per week would be £12-£14k per annum, which is about the rate for a starter full time position. So by your own logic you support Ian Duncan Smith ;)

With universal credit conditionality is being extended to those in work.The conditionality will cease at 35hr week on minimum wage. Lone parents of children aged 5-12 will have conditionality dependent on the availability of childcare.

Minimum wage 21 years old is £6.08, 35hr week, £212.80
This is what Ian Duncan Smith means by working as a route out of poverty. £212.80 a week.

The only problem I have is who he applies the conditionality and sanctions to.

The government has been advised by it's own reviews that the ESA system is not fit for purpose. Yet chooses to carry on regardless transferring people from IB, Income support on grounds of disability, SDA to ESA or JSA and thinks the system is so good it is going to apply a similar assessment system to the replacement for DLA.

The government is being advised by it's own joint committee on human rights that the assessment system, conditionality and sanctions, may result in disabled people incapable of working being left in a state of destitution. Inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of human rights treaties. Yet it chooses to carry on regardless.

Ideologically driven to end what it thinks is a culture of dependency.
With a belief that work is not only a way out of poverty but a cure for illness and disability.
With callous indifference to the suffering it is causing and will cause.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GAZBEROTTEN

Well-known Member
Scandelous how the coalition refuses to tackle issues they caused already. And i heard from a friend that the department of work and pensions sent a dead guy a letter asking him to go to a so called apointment with an advisour in getting back to work and he is dead. Ill bet his family will have a field day in court or with the papers.

What does that tell you about the coalitions competence?
 
Last edited:
D

dovercat

Guest
Scandelous how the coalition refuses to tackle issues they caused already. And i heard from a friend that the department of work and pensions sent a dead guy a letter asking him to go to a so called apointment with an advisour in getting back to work and he is dead. Ill bet his family will have a field day in court or with the papers.

What does that tell you about the coalitions competence?

It is surprisingly how many appeals the claimant is unable to attend due to dying of the illness, that was assessed as not severe enough to make them unfit for work.

The most odd case I have read is the claimant dying during the assessment, and then being sent a letter saying they had been found fit for work. Being pronounced dead at the assessment obviously not enough to convince the assessor. The joys of clerical oversight.


I think it is bad that rather than looking at the number of appeals that are found against the DWP and taking onboard that the ESA assessment system is not correctly applying the law. Instead they seem to have looked at the number of won appeals and decided the problem was claimants having access to legal advice. So the government is removing legal aid from DWP appeal cases.
They also changed the criteria descriptions and points so more people are assessed as not eligible for ESA. The whole point of the system is to deny ill and disabled people benefits on the grounds of illness or disability, rather than act as a fair assessment of their capability to work. The governments decision to go for a system that is not focused on medical evidence, diagnosis and prognosis of the illness or disablity is telling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
What is your problem? My dad was disabled and he worked.

and I once had a client who was blind and worked for the IR /.He did so out of free choice which is fine. What is wrong is disabled people being bullied and intimidated into work they clearly are not fit to do;the absurdity (as well as the injustice) of it being shown by, as Dovercat points out,: "they had a lot of trouble trying to think of what job people would actually be capable of doing."
 

GAZBEROTTEN

Well-known Member
and I once had a client who was blind and worked for the IR /.He did so out of free choice which is fine. What is wrong is disabled people being bullied and intimidated into work they clearly are not fit to do;the absurdity (as well as the injustice) of it being shown by, as Dovercat points out,: "they had a lot of trouble trying to think of what job people would actually be capable of doing."

There are many ways we could fight back against these decisions and to stop the coalition from causing future problems. Heres an example of some ways.

Lawsuit

Filing a lawsuit and getting every affected ill person who the government has said where fit for work to give at least £1 or what ever they want to to a law firm and getting a really good lawyer to have the coalition in front of a judge and forced them to answer for the stunts and illegal tactics they are pulling. Because more than enough evidence is out there the disabled will easily win and the coalition will be forced to re evaluate there own assessments.

New Elections Forced

Even though they may be in for the next 5 years we can still call for new elections early. This will mean that because the coalition is still doing bad things non stop enough people will vote them out and get someone competent in. This will stop all the attacks on the vulnerable and will end the unfair system we have now.

Boycotts, More protests, strikes

These will cause the coalition no end of problems and soon enough people will realise the coalition cant do its job. This will ensure they will be forced to stop the attacks on the vulnerable and apologize for there disgraceful behaviors.

There are many more ways we can fight back those three are only a minor few from tons of ideas
 
D

dovercat

Guest
New Elections Forced

Even though they may be in for the next 5 years we can still call for new elections early. This will mean that because the coalition is still doing bad things non stop enough people will vote them out and get someone competent in. This will stop all the attacks on the vulnerable and will end the unfair system we have now.

I think the coalition is still quite popular. The politicians and the media have painted those on benefits as workshy for years. I think they have popular support for the benefit changes. In part because people are ignorant of the details but also I fear because many people are bigoted.

The government policies are targeting those on welfare and public sector workers neither are traditional Conservative voters. Both have been pilloried by the press and TV. Their policies maybe unpopular with those adversely effected but I think they are popular with the general public.

If the economy fails to recover and if house prices tumble and if interest rates rise, then they might lose the next election.

Some people hated Thatcher it did not stop the Conservatives winning election after election. The opposition has to be a viable alternative. I fear the Labour party does not look a viable alternative and as far as benefit reform goes the Coalition is merely continuing and expanding what Labour started. So I doubt a Labour government would be much better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

krish

Distinguished Member
I think someone is living in a fantasy world about the unpopularity of the govt and the popularity of the opposition (and I am no Tory/Labour/LD loyalist)
- the Tories are way ahead of the others and Ed Miliband has so far been a total disappointment and, unfortunately for Labour, they are not as ruthless as the Tories at removing a crap leader

Just how many times does EM make each of these points? :facepalm: ...
  • these strikes are wrong while negotiations are still going on
  • after today's disruption both sides should get round the negotiation table, put aside the rhetoric aand stop this kind of thing happening again
  • parents and the public have been let down by both sides
  • the govt has acted in a provocative and reckless manner
 

Steven

Senior Moderator
The most hilarious thing about the strikes was that parents having to make childcare arrangements excepted, nobody was effected. "Best service ever" at Heathrow was widely reported. Will hopefully make people think twice about striking before people question why they are employed! Ed's backtracking and toning down of the rhetoric after the event was just sad more than anything
Problem is not everyone works part time
Surely you mean "not everyone works full time" because otherwise your post makes no sense
With universal credit conditionality is being extended to those in work.The conditionality will cease at 35hr week on minimum wage. Lone parents of children aged 5-12 will have conditionality dependent on the availability of childcare.

Minimum wage 21 years old is £6.08, 35hr week, £212.80
This is what Ian Duncan Smith means by working as a route out of poverty. £212.80 a week.
This post makes no sense either. On what basis can someone not survive on a minimum wage £12-£14k per annum job? It'd be tight but so long as you are sensible and don't take out say a £30 mobile contract, it is perfectly doable

Or is this the AVF "you aren't living without a games console and plasma in your living room" middle class thinking that has sadly populated this forum section in the past?
 
D

dovercat

Guest
Minimum wage 21 years old is £6.08, 35hr week, £212.80
This is what Ian Duncan Smith means by working as a route out of poverty. £212.80 a week.
This post makes no sense either. On what basis can someone not survive on a minimum wage £12-£14k per annum job? It'd be tight but so long as you are sensible and don't take out say a £30 mobile contract, it is perfectly doable

Note that is a full stop not a exclamation mark.
I was clarify what Ian Duncan Smith sees as the minimum acceptable destination of the route out of poverty. Earning £212.80 a week. This is the point at which with Universal credits in work benefit conditionality is expected to stop.

The next thing I stated in that post was
The only problem I have is who he applies the conditionality and sanctions to


Or is this the AVF "you aren't living without a games console and plasma in your living room" middle class thinking that has sadly populated this forum section in the past?

It is not the level of hoped for earning I have a problem with.
Although I will point out that the UK government defines household poverty as a household with a income below 60% of the median household income for the UK. So the government is seeking to replace on benefits living in poverty with in work living in poverty. Using it's own definitions of poverty. Personally I think the definition of poverty needs changing.


What I object to as I stated in my first post in this thread it is the fact that most of the ill and disabled are not actually expected to end up in employment. The idea they can or might in the future be able to work is being used as a means to redefine what level of financial support the state provides to them and the introduction of new assessments and conditionality and sanctions.

I would not object to the ill and disabled being given less money. Say for example if unable to work due to long term illness or disability they get 100% of the basic state pension. If ill or disabled and able to work some of the time or facing severe barriers to employability say the equivalent to JSA without the conditionality.

My problem is with the endless assessments and reassessments and changing criteria, the conditionality and the sanctions. I think they are inappropriate for many people who are disabled or ill.

Being relatively poor vs someone working full time I think should be acceptable to people who are unable to work. Being continually put under stress and uncertainty, made to jump through hoops and treated as if you are workshy is not.

In my opinion my brother should simply be given whatever financial support the state sees fit to supply him with for life unconditionally. Free of stress and with financial security as far as knowing what income he will have. Either we believe as a society in providing the ill and disabled with some level of independent financial income and dignity or we do not.

He is not going to wake up one day and be miraculously cured. His quality of life is impaired and his life expectancy is also greatly reduced. Quality of life and adequate financial support should be the concerns. Not being treated as if it is a life style choice of being workshy and he should face never ending assessments, conditionality and threats of sanctions. Making peoples lives more miserable than they already are is cruel. Life is difficult enough for the severly ill or disabled.


It is not just the benefits that are being changed it is also the support given to people. My brother went to work therapy with pottery, gardening and woodwork. There was a minibus to take you there for the day, or you could pop in and stay as long as you wanted to, or be dropped off and picked up. That has been scrapped and all the trained and experienced staff gone. Work recovery replaced it with new young staff with a few days training supervising everyone doing monotonous light assembly on a production line with production targets and work assessments, people are also expected to turn up and leave at the appointed times. As well as the work they set people challenges and do group meetings with people being told how to cope with their illness or disability. At the end of each day a staff meeting behind closed doors is held with people expected to play board games untill it is time to leave.

The idea of work recovery, people having challenges to do more than they think they are able to do and being told how to cope, may sound good in theory. But in practice it is ill considered and inappropriate given the severity of the illnesses and disabilities and the lack of training and experience of the staff. Take for example using public transport rather than being picked up by the minibus, or being sent to the shops to buy food for dinner. Since these are challenges people deemed unable to do these tasks are made to do them even if they are worried at the prospect. Resulting in people failing to arrive, or return and relatives or residential care home staff being eventually phoned up and told we have lost your relative or resident. Work recovery is by all accounts miserable where you have to do a monotonous task with a target to meet, get made to feel uncomfortable by being challenged to do things you are not capable of or are worried about, get patronized with advice on how to cope and being told to play childern's board games. My brother no longer goes. Someone will end up wandering off and coming to harm or committing suicide or injuring a member of staff as the staff do not appear to comprehend the nature and severity of the disabilities and illnesses of those going.

The aim seems to be that they will be able to say you are being moved to JSA because thanks to work recovery you could now in theory work. Since disability benefits act as a gateway to other social care provisions including residential care homes and sheltered accommodation and work recovery miserable as it is, is not like a real work place, this is a recipe for disaster. Some people are through no fault or choice reliant on the support of society to survive, that support should not inappropriately be made conditional or withdrawn. Encouragement, help, support, compassion is what they need, not conditionality and threats being cruel to be kind as if they are chosing to be severely ill or disabled as a lifestyle choice and need to be kicked out of the habit of dependency.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GAZBEROTTEN

Well-known Member
Its funny how Labour gave financial support for the vulnerable helped improve the economy during Blairs reign got cheered by there pears and a huge majority of there skeptics and people never complained about it yet the only people moaning about it are the Tories. Funny how Gordon Brown is used as an excuse to make the tories look good and labour get judged over the actions of 1 failed prime minster in there cabinet ie Gordon Brown. Yet the tories have 2 compared to the 1 Labour has.

It is non stop negativity and no nos with these Tories isn't it? They had there chance with Major and Thatcher dropped the ball non stop with failures and yet they are doing it again with Cameron. Although Major did know when to stop and didn't go overboard i will give him credit where its due.

By rights they have had there three chances and shouldn't even be in power:thumbsdow

We can get new elections early and kick them out don't let them ever kid you if they say they will be in for the full 5 years. Public opinion will change soon when stacks of people lose there jobs because of there incompetence not to mention all the people getting sanctioned for stupid reasons, and even the computers, unqualified people assessing the sick will just add to there soon to be downfall.

If you don't believe me just watch what happens. You'll look back and think i wish id of listened to Gaz Be Rotten

And heres some pre new years entertainment for the people reading this thread

 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Samsung TV Launch & QN95A Neo QLED Review, plus Film & TV news & Reviews
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom