The dreaded work capability assessment

[iansheff]

What I found annoying was Chris Grayling denying there are targets to get people off disability benefits and back to work. The doctors employed by ATOS said there were "guidelines" and if they went outside these then the DWP came back to them. Surely that is just another way of setting targets.

[pottedplant]

Agree to a point but it depends on the individual. This is where the rigid classification process breaks down. Somebody with cancer might still be fairly physically fit and pass an assessment on that basis, but be mentally all over the place and unable to work because of their mental state. But for others with the same illness going to work and keeping their normal routines might actually be the best medicine for them. In the latter case telling somebody they are unfit for work could be just as bad as telling the mentally unstable patient they are fit for work.

 

Quite simply it looks like the assessments are not rigorous enough or detailed enough. It's like they were drawn up on the back of a fag packet. And from what I've seen it's outrageous that many people are put through massive unwarranted stress at what for many of them is the worst time of their lives.

 

Agree - which is why my other post said those that are able to work.

 

I personally find those automatically stating someone cannot work as frustrating as those that automatically state someone cannot.

[I1L2T3]

Agree - which is why my other post said those that are able to work.

 

I personally find those automatically stating someone cannot work as frustrating as those that automatically state someone cannot.

 

It's the able bit that is so important. I think the government interpretation of it is too skewed towards physical capability whereas for many illnesses the psycholgical impact could be what makes somebody a potentially viable member of the workforce or not. I know cancer is always an emotive illness but some of the rules seem set to punish people for not having bad enough cancer, and to me that is a very bizarre situation.

[Teddybare]

Don't see why people are against paying for a welfare state. It improves the job market for those of us that do want to work. The issue of ESA for me isn't that it's available, it's that it's more than jobseekers allowance. Why does having depression or being an alcoholic or many other ailments mean you need more money than an able bodied person to live on? It's silly.

If citizens income was implemented as has been suggested by chem1st and several other forum visionaries/nutters this wouldn't be an issue. And taxpayer money wouldn't lining the pockets of big ruthless companies such as ATOS.

[sheff1johnny]

Don't see why people are against paying for a welfare state. It improves the job market for those of us that do want to work. The issue of ESA for me isn't that it's available, it's that it's more than jobseekers allowance. Why does having depression or being an alcoholic or many other ailments mean you need more money than an able bodied person to live on? It's silly.

If citizens income was implemented as has been suggested by chem1st and several other forum visionaries/nutters this wouldn't be an issue. And taxpayer money wouldn't lining the pockets of big ruthless companies such as ATOS.

 

maybe a sensible solution is to accept that alcholism and drug addiction are disabillities, but they should be classed as self inflicted disabled, but only recieve the equivalent of job seekers allowance

[truman]

maybe a sensible solution is to accept that alcholism and drug addiction are disabillities, but they should be classed as self inflicted disabled, but only recieve the equivalent of job seekers allowance

 

Where does that stop though...whatabout someone who broke their back playing rugby or similar..is that self inflicted..or how about someone who was paralysed through a car crash that was their fault.. etc.etc..?

[iansheff]

I have just read in the paper about one citizens advice client who had his benefit stopped in April. This person is in a wheelchair, he broke his back in an accident, is paralysed and has no feeling below his chest yet has been assessed as fit for work. I wonder what work Chris Grayling thinks that he can do and what support any employer would be able to give to enable him to work.

[HeadingNorth]

I have just read in the paper about one citizens advice client who had his benefit stopped in April. This person is in a wheelchair, he broke his back in an accident, is paralysed and has no feeling below his chest yet has been assessed as fit for work. I wonder what work Chris Grayling thinks that he can do and what support any employer would be able to give to enable him to work.

 

That will depend on the extent of his paralysis as well; if his arms work fine, he can do a typing job just as well as anybody. Nobody types with their legs.

[Happ Hazzard]

Plenty of wheelchair bound people work.

[Obelix]

I have just read in the paper about one citizens advice client who had his benefit stopped in April. This person is in a wheelchair, he broke his back in an accident, is paralysed and has no feeling below his chest yet has been assessed as fit for work. I wonder what work Chris Grayling thinks that he can do and what support any employer would be able to give to enable him to work.

 

I know an excellent project manager that is paraplegic, being in a powered chair never stopped him. The issue isn't if he is fit to work, it's if employers will give him the support needed. Many seem to think that in an office environment someone in a wheelchair can be a problem when often it's not the case.