Killing off the sick and disabled

[Griffin NoName]

Ian Duncan-Smith and Chris Grayling at the Dept. of Work and Pensions have brought in new work capability assessments for the sick and disabled.

Basically, if you can move an empty box from one position to another, even if only have one hand (eg an amputee), or if you can use a single finger to press a buttonn, you will be found fit for work, whatever other sickness or disability you have. They say this is because many sick and disabled people want to work but lack the help to get back into work, so now with these new assessments they are put into groups where they will get assistance back into work. (At least, all the jobs that involve moving empty boxes or pressing a single button. my comment).

The idea is that if found fit for work, you will only get benefits while looking for work, training, going to interviews etc.

People are dying while found fit for work. People are commiting suicide while being found fit for work. Facts.

This video is quite amusing, but you have to listen through to the end, it is a bit longer than it needs to be. ATOS is the company that assesses people.

[youtube=425,350]49sMJQVuqPA[/youtube]

If you have access to UK BBC/Channel 4 watch these programs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode..._or_Faking_It/

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od

[Aggie]

This is crap.

If that's the criteria for "fit for work", then they are under the onus to provide paying jobs that allow one to make money doing that level of work.

_{Side note: What is the level of social assistance provided for those who are not able to find jobs? (i.e. unemployment / welfare)  Do the sick and disabled become eligible for this if they are not able to find work, but considered employable?}

Being able to work at a minimal level by no means makes one a desirable employee; unless there are more jobs than people out there, it's still going to be near-impossible to find a job with diminished abilities. Even if there is a hypothetical job that involves pressing a single button part-time, it's unlikely that an employer will hire someone that can do only that if someone more able is available.

Perhaps you should organize a massive resume-flooding campaign by the sick and disabled aimed at the Department of Work and Pensions (and higher levels of government), with a set of form cover letters stating that the applicant is adept at pressing a single button, moving empty boxes, and other trivial tasks and would therefore make an ideal candidate for any available position.  This could generate some publicity, and is cheeky enough to point out how ridiculous the whole thing is.

---

I've seen both sides of this; I have very recently worked with a fellow with (quite high-functioning) Asperger's syndrome, which was known when he was hired (as a dishwasher).  Personally, I was able to adapt to working with him, but there were certain tasks and multi-tasks which were a major challenge for him, and overall he was not able to meet the usual level of performance required by the position.  He left to pursue other opportunities, and it was a bit of a relief for the rest of the crew. It's tough to keep limping by with an coworker that requires continual assistance when the position usually involves assisting everyone else.

OTOH, a friend of mine is struggling with a chronic and periodically-flaring condition that puts her in intense pain, and on a bad day is unable to work.  Most of the time, she's an enthusiastic and valuable employee. Her workplace is pressuring her to take a block of time off to 'get better', and just not understanding that it's not something that will clear up with a week/month/whatever of bed rest. Even with this level of periodic lowered productivity, it can lead to the employer/management seeing that person as a problem.

This is the ridiculous element about the 'fit for work' attitude.  It's an assessment of potential in a prospective employee without considering the psychology of employers.  Especially with a dismal economy and rampant unemployment, employers will choose whatever (in their own minds) fits the bill of 'best for the job', and declaring a disability during an interview is not going to help present that image to an employer.  It doesn't even have to be active discrimination (refusing to hire someone with a disability), just a bias towards those without. If Candidate A and Candidate B are similarly qualified, but Candidate A requires special consideration or modification of duties/schedule/workstation to accommodate a disability, Candidate B becomes a less costly and more attractive hire.

I found a few stats which are interesting:
http://www.papworth.org.uk/downloads/disabilityfactsandfigures2010_100202152740.pdf

-80% of all those who become disabled are in employment at the time of onset, falling to 60% the following year and 36% the year after that

-Disabled people have a very low representation in public appointments – the current make up is just one in twenty (5%) across England, Scotland and Wales, even though one in five of the working age population has a disability

This indicates to me that instead of getting the very sick and disabled rammed back into the workforce, you'd get more of a boost by setting up programs to keep newly-disabled people working* and to hire more into the public service.  How does the government expect private-sector employers to hire if they won't set the example themselves?  



_{*even if the equivalent of a disability support payment was pumped per capita into such programs, there'd be a net boost to GDP, a higher quality of life for the disabled person, and a good chunk of the money would be returned in personal income tax - because the person would actually be holding down a paying job.}

[Griffin NoName]

Yes, it's crap.

They make no link between unemployment of non-disabled (high) and likelihood of disabled finding jobs. The exercise is purely to stop benifits to the sick/disabled to cut payments. The fact that the assessments are ludicrous does not seem to have ocurred to them. The logical conclusion is that there will be a huge rise in those living on the streets.

It is the ludicrous statements by government ministers that really gets to me (as well as the results).

[Aggie]

Flood the bastards with resumes from those cut off from payments, and actively track and blog / crow to the media about how many are sent vs. how many are called in for an interview, let alone hired.

Also examine how many disabled people are actually working at the department, as a percentage of their workforce.  

Shame the bastards publicly, I sez.... if they won't hire a workforce composed of those deemed able to work in the proportions they are present in society at large, they cannot ask anyone else to do so (and therefore cannot expect people to be successful in finding employment).  Shame them to hell, and yell about it, I sez.

If people are literally put out on the street due to losing their support, camp 'em out on the front doorstep of the DWP with protest signs.  Let the world see what 'able to work' actually looks like.

The Harper government hasn't got this far, but is currently gutting the hell out of Canadian socialism, with much the same rhetoric about cheats and slackers.  

[Griffin NoName]

The Harper government hasn't got this far, but is currently gutting the hell out of Canadian socialism, with much the same rhetoric about cheats and slackers.  

The result of the rhetoric is that the stats for disabled being attacked on the streets is rocketing. It's disgusting.

[Sibling DavidH]

I'm just dreading one of our Echo people being got at, either by these aggressive types or by the benefits authorities.

[Griffin NoName]

It will happen.

[roystonoboogie]

A slight leak from the DWP's 'Third Sector' consultation on the Work Capability Assessment's criteria:

http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/breaking-news-possible-new-wca.html

Having compared them to the existing criteria, they look a little bit better. But as long as the DWP are paying private companies like A4E and Working Links on outcomes (putting someone back on ESA is not an outcome, only forcing them into a job is an outcome), the most disadvantaged will still get bullied and harrassed.

I'll go back to lurking now...

[Sibling DavidH]

No, join in, Roy.  We dinnae hae ony guid Scotsmen here the noo. 

[Griffin NoName]

Having compared them to the existing criteria, they look a little bit better.

Yes, that's a good website. The criteria are better, but not necessarily for certain illnesses. For example, people with ME/CFS say they can't say certain activities cause problems x% of the time because it varies from day to day. Anyway, will these criteria actually be adopted - I'll be surprised if they are

Lurking is fine, but it's also good to hear from you. 

[Aggie]

Having compared them to the existing criteria, they look a little bit better. But as long as the DWP are paying private companies like A4E and Working Links on outcomes (putting someone back on ESA is not an outcome, only forcing them into a job is an outcome), the most disadvantaged will still get bullied and harrassed.

Private companies = taking money out of the system, for profits.  Why is this not obvious to all?*  Quite often they are more efficiently run than government agencies, true, so the total costs can be similar or better, but decisions will be made in a private company (especially a publicly traded one) to maximize profits no matter what.  BAD idea for social services.

_{*rhetorical question. It is obvious to politicians; our provincial bigwigs have a fine tradition of selling off profitable public corps to their buddies.  They are doing this with the liquor agency at the moment.}

[Swatopluk]

I first read that as 'profitable public corpses' 

[Griffin NoName]

We'll all be corpses** but not profitable as it will cost the state to bury us*. Less costly tho.

* those of us who dont have families

** probably from starvation. the food hand out numbers are already increasing.

[Swatopluk]

Efficiently starved corpses are cheaper and easier to handle (e.g. by those still in the process)

Let the dying bury their dead.

OK, I am in a Swiftean mood today

[Griffin NoName]

I think the dying have often been used to bury the dead.

Here's a doom video:

[youtube=425,350]fYFw3O--2R0[/youtube]