Other thoughts
Do you have any other ideas or thoughts about the Work Programme that we haven’t specifically addressed?
This discussion is now closed. Thank you to all of you who contributed.
Department for Work and Pensions
Site search
Site navigation
Consultations
Why are you wasting our time, inviting us to contribute to a consultation which will be ignored? Does it really save more money to redesign the welfare system from scratch than it does to raise the annual tax-free threshold to £10,000 together with abolishing Tax Credits at a saving of over 23 billion pounds? Is threatening people who already face significant barriers to labour market entry with financial penalties really going to ‘make work pay’ more than reducing the tax you take from them? How does demonising welfare claimants contribute to us “all being in this together” exactly? Now that ATOS is linking up with so many potential Work Programme providers what stance will you be taking on the obvious conflict of interest given their exclusive contract to vet all the potential ‘clients’, and if their medical exams for DLA for the past 10 years have been so inadequate in identifying fraud (DWP figures say DLA fraud rates are less than 0.5%) why should they be any better suited to providing those for Employment Support Allowance? Lie to yourselves if you want but stop lying to US.
How is this programme to be evaluated for quality?
Are contracts given to the prime contractors on the Framework going to be subject to evaluation?
Going by the extremely poor results of the Pathways to Work programme which proved to be an expensive waste of government money, it is clear that a system of evaluation, both in terms of outcomes and also in quality of service to customers MUST be put in place.
Could I suggest that a system of impartial mystery shoppers be put in place to test all aspects of service delivery and that this be aligned to an evaluation process that gets rid of the bad and rewards the good.
I’d like to speak up in favour of “sheltered employment” and “sheltered workshops.” I realise that these concepts may well be very unpopular in some quarters; the physically disabled groups, in particular, have fought hard for the right to compete for open employment (given reasonable adjustments and adaptations to accommodate their needs) – and I would never suggest that this right should be removed.
But let’s be honest – it is one thing to say that sheltered employment is not right for some people, but quite another to claim that it is suitable for nobody at all. I have heard NASA – or was it Bell Labs? – described as “the biggest sheltered workshop in the world,” because the people working there were left to get on with it and did not face being constantly unsettled and hassled.
It is exactly those aspects – being constantly unsettled and hassled – which are likely to have a deleterious effect on the health of ANY person, but can easily be seen as extremely hostile to those persons on the Autistic spectrum, as well as others with mental health issues.
I have heard it said that work is a positive thing – and so it can be, provided that it is within the individual’s compass, is amenable to them, and provides an income that supports a decent standard of living; such work affords an opportunity to experience success (of whatever scale), which is a boost to self-esteem and thus general health.
Contrast that with the jobsearch activity – there used to be a television advertisement that said, “…getting a job is a job in itself.” Exactly – but what a job! Given that the requirement is to obtain paid employment, how much opportunity is there to experience success here? Not a lot – instead, there are only repeated failures, with their concomitant damaging effect upon self-esteem and thus general health.
If the legwork were done by others, with the applicant only having to attend at a prearranged interview, that would be one thing; asking people acknowledged by the NHS as ill and/or disabled to manage the whole thing for themselves (as those unjustly consigned to the outer darkness of JSA must do), is nothing short of monstrous.
How far this is from the visionary achievements of the postwar Attlee government, which at least attempted to establish fair treatment for all; the Orwellian NewSpeak and Kafkaesque bureaucracy of recent decades should be a source of shame to those who brought it all to pass.
I have just learned that ATOS are part of a consortium which intends to bid for Work Programme provision contracts. ATOS also conduct the medical assessments which decide whether ESA claimants will get one of the two ESA levels, or be left on JSA. If ATOS were permitted to profit from the provision of a Work Programme, they would have an incentive to unfairly assess claimants as being capable of work, so that said claimants could then be referred to a Work Programme. This would allow ATOS to collect payment twice, once for performing the medical assessment and once for providing a Work Programme place. Such an arrangement would constitute an irreconcilable conflict of interest. ATOS should be required to opt for either the medical assessment contract or the Work Programme provision contract, not both.
Absolutely correct. There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict of interest here – part of which is the possibility of bias entering the DWP Medical Assessment, where Atos know that finding somebody fit for work might bring more business their way, whereas finding them unfit for work would not do so. It would be totally unacceptable for even the POSSIBILITY of such underhand activities to exist.
I cannot really see the point in consultations such as this really, no one is going to take a blind bit of notice of what is said here. In fact some of the comments made will probably be treated as nothing more than sources of amusement for the recipient office staff. Unless of course it serves as a way of gathering names and email addresses for further reference.
I really have no idea why we are talking about work opportunities and what should be done to help ill and or disabled people into work. This whole exercise has absolutely nothing to do helping people into work it is about paying claimants JSA and not the more expensive ESA.
99% of those claiming ESA have no chance whatsoever of finding employment, the Government know this but this is about saving money and people’s welfare does not enter into it.
I totally agree with Paul. This is cost cutting at the expense of the most vulnerable people in society. It is not just the sick and disabled that will suffer as a result, but thousands of children too. If my benefits are cut my family will be going without heating, transport, TV, internet, Christmas & Birthday presents, school uniform, haircuts, my medication (I won’t be able to afford the prescriptions) and the cat will have to be rehomed! The current levels of JSA are only enough for basic electricity, water rates, food, clothing and travel expenses. When I worked 30 hours a week, after rent, council tax and travel to work costs I was left with just £70 per week to run my home and raise a child!!! The resulting stress broke my health permanently. I will shout it from the roof tops if this government push us back into that level of squalid existence.
Yes, it seems that it is being assumed that all disabled and vulnerable people are being classed as second class citizens. And, what a lot of people do not realise is that the stress is disabling in itself.
Excellent post Paul.
I was medically & physically out of teaching since 21 just as the pension improved by one Borough Barnet & the one where I live [ on boundary[ couldn’t provide for me socially only as far as DSA for BA & MA went . The MA i had to extend due to issues of discrimination from LA I couldn’t resolve . And when they did not want to address my Formal Complaint of Discrimination in many areas which I named involving false evidence to DLA they branded me mentally disabled & vexatious litigant so could ignore along with Ombudsmen Commissions & MP . Even if I was mentally disabled is that anyway to treat me. . The recent EHRC harrassment survey has not addressed fairness issues I recently supplied them with and could do daily . What do I find the LA Islington promoting those who have made it worse causing the discrimination .
This was due to Thatchers Cuts & inane antibiotic & NHS Policy & disability found in 1969 due to chronic utis the so called mild spina bifida occulta that is not recognised by Doctors & Specialists as there has been not enough research . Since objective Research is done now in tier 3 hospital & in my area there are none & GPs on contract directed by LA/PCT to ration are not allowed to refer in or out of area till your problem becomes acute.
The DLA Appeals Tribunals bought in haven’t time to address discretion do next best thing but when concerns mobility ignore . Likewise ICAS As a result suffered cardiac arrest from stress after a TRIBUNAL & Surgery ignored specialist advice of ischemic signalling & private treadmill test indicating an echodoppler was needd 2 years prior. After DLA tried to take away after not having given a spina bifida specialist they agreed to The Manager Nottingham said he would put down refused test when questioned the validity . Even after the cardiac arrest the social worker the LA had on my discharge notes was the one from abroad they had trained to refuse assistance or communicate. When I waited to speak to someone in charge the Security arrived ??????!!!!
Also, why are decision makers consistently failing to do their job properly?
Why is this not investigated thoroughly? why are so many cases getting to tribunal when it is obvious the decision maker cannot have read the medical report properly, and cannot have analysed the evidence.
The so-called ‘decision makers’ are just rubber-stamp merchants and paper-pushers who transfer the decision already made by Atos onto the DWP computer system. It is blindingly obvious to anyone who has been through the process that there is no medical advice involved in the decision maker stage.
And Mr Duncan Smith, you can write me all the letters you like claiming that Atos assessors are ‘doctors’ when most of them only have registered nurse qualifications, and claiming that Atos don’t make the decisions.
You’ve only been in your position as DWP minister for a few weeks and you know NOTHING. At least do me the courtesy of accepting what I tell you is happening and don’t just reply with a bland statement of what OUGHT to be happening in your department.
Atos assessors do NOT ‘base their opinions on all available evidence’, mine merely glanced at the documents I took and tossed them aside before writing a load of lies and inventions on her report. She took no account of the fluctuating nature of depression. The ESA50 asks what ‘good’ days and ‘bad’ days are like. She asked about ‘average’ days. Why the difference. Why were my remarks on the last page of the ESA50 ignored at the assessment and not transferred to the WCA report? Why were discussions at the WCA not noted and other questions NOT discussed given made-up responses?
If an Atos assessor makes a decision that is later reversed on appeal, s/he is not disciplined or dismissed, but can continue to make bad decisions, receive incentives for returning claimants to work when they are too sick and never have the bad decisions revisited. Would never happen in other jobs where performance is properly scrutinized and determines future salary and advancment. Outrageous!
I agree Mr Duncan Smith – mental health charity Mind did attend the DWP-led review of the WCA. They made recommendations about increasing descriptors for mental health conditions and ensuring that depression and related conditions could be fairly assessed. Their recommendations were simply ignored.
I have now submitted a letter from my consultant psychiatrist written since my supposedly failed WCA. It says very clearly that I am not fit for work. A med3 certificate from my GP surgery says the same. Do I have any confidence that this conclusive evidence will be accepted? Not one bit.
The responses I have had from the DWP in the last few days when trying to get this evidence accepted have been deliberately…[truncated by the system]
Perhaps we should go to Atos instead of having GP/consultants professionals maybe there so called nurses know more about illness/disabilies then we do, NOT! stop playing with out lifes and discrimating against us the disabled & sick.
Considering the amount of people online that state ATOS lie, why has the DWP not contacted the police to arrange undercover investigation of atos (ie police officers posing as claimaints etc) to stop this from happening?
Could it be the DWP dont care that it goes on?
They have employed them because they do a good job of chucking people of of ESA and putting them onto JSA saving them money, no throught for disabled/sick. Remember Atos is a profit making business and so is the government.
When is LIMA going to be released, because if you are planning on making conditionality a part of sickness benefits, then it is more important than ever that the claimaint (sorry customer) has the right to a ‘fair trial’ or a fair assessment in the first place.
This CANNOT happen when the assessment is not open, the software, should be released – can you imaging a court using software to provide the evidence for a judge and jury? And the judge/jury/public not being allowed to examine that software to see if it is working properly, or fair, or biased?
It makes a mockery of justice, fairness, transparancy and common sense.
The line that it will damage commercial interests is nonsense, as the DWP say all the protocols behind the software, as well as the descriptors etc are all in the public domain and will be supplied to anyone who asks – so anyone capable of writing software could easily write a version of that software themselves – it is not a secret design.
Unless of course, it is not operating as they claim it is, in which case it is not operating lawfully is it?
If it was released and proven to be not fit for purpose, then really, does it matter if your commercial interests are damaged? Because if its not fit for purpose you should a) not be using it b) not be selling it and misleading other buyers of the software.
The only way your interest will be damaged, is if the sofware is not fit for purpose, but as I say – then you should not be using it and your commercial interests are of no interest to the nation.
Also, why when people are found unfit for work (after having to prove it at tribunal BECAUSE THE DWP AND ATOS GOT IT WRONG) do the DWP often insist on calling them in for another medical shortly after they win, and repeat the process, they do this over and over again.
Could it be because they know by the law of averages, someone will lose at tribunal if they are sent to enough tribunals? Or are they trying to wear the claimaint down so they give up (or kill themselves?)
How can anyone trust a department that harrasses the sick and disabled in this calculated, systematic way?
Another thought is, what is the point of any of this, even in a perfect world where the DWP got it right (which will not happen) if the media/government is putting out propaganda against the sick and disabled on a regular basis.
The latest (which has been going on for some time) is that a large percentage of people on IB are fraudulent, ie fit to work.
Why, is the DWP not countering these claims, going to the press complaints committee, speaking up in the media etc to put the true situation across – instead the allow it to go on unchecked.
This basically is putting the idea into peoples heads that large numbers of sickness benefit claimaints are criminals, and what employer is going to hire a ex-criminal?
The DWP need to speak up, loudly whenever comments like this are made
“A crackdown expects to find around 23 per cent of claimants – 500,000 in all – are fit to work, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319568/Well-500-000-fit-work-sick-benefit-claimants-work-says-Ian-Duncan-Smith.html#ixzz1284wWbwp”
What about the stress caused to claimaints with comments like this too
“Claimants judged too sick or disabled to work could be given a benefits time limit of up to a year.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319568/Well-500-000-fit-work-sick-benefit-claimants-work-says-Ian-Duncan-Smith.html#ixzz12859B0LW”
Again the DWP should be publicly denying this, unless it is true, in which case it should say so.
The DWP are the ones who need to do this, it is after all there department…
Reform in this field goes at snail’s because none of the political parties are adult enough to accept that people with disabilities ought to be involved at the highest level in decision-making. This is especially true in mental health. Can you think of an MP who has been open about a mental health problem?
The situation is a bit better in the civil service and NHS. Rachel Perkins, a psychologist with bipolar and current MIND champion of the year, has played an active part in policy making but given the fact she is a service user her presence is unusual.
We need to get away from the idea that you have a token service user in the room simply to tick the inclusion box. We need to start realising that workable strategies on welfare and employment will only come about if the people affected are involved in policy design from the bottom to the top.
In the context of mental health that means removing the barriers of discrimination that stop people of talent contributing to public life. It should be no shame to be open about a mental health problem in Westminster or Whitehall. What matters is how you and your colleagues cope.
By the way this is not about creating an elite system of support for denizens of the Westminster village. It is just Westminster and Whitehall cannot expect to lead the rest of the country if it shuns the inclusion of people with mental health problems at the same as insisting that employers up and down the land take on people with such difficulties. London needs to lead by example.
There is nothing special about mental health – it is all health related. Claimants, regardless of disability, should be involved. I speak as one who has been diagnosed as being Bi-polar and have medical issues such as Post Polio Syndrome of which, Bi-Polar could be a part.
You say people with all types of disablities ought to be involved in decision-making. I agree with you on that. I should have made that clearer in my original post. I certainly do not think that one disability is better than another. I think we gain strength by working together.
The reason why I spoke specifically about mental health is because that is my speciality. I also have bipolar and I have been involved in mental health politics for 20 years.
It is impossible to judge from these short posts but you used the phrase “health related”. The way I see things is that welfare to work is a strategy that straddles multiple government departments. It is not just health but I assume you already know that given we’re posting in a Department of Work and Pensions forum. Please forgive me if I’m stating the obvious.
I find I sometimes have to state the obvious with people unfamiliar with the disability world. They need reminders that we are more than our diagnostic labels but you will have thought that one through.
So thanks for the reminder that I should state more clearly that I mean all disabilities should be involved in disabilities. You are 100% right on that score. I shall be more explicit in future.
1) There are many high functioning disabled people who cannot find work due to descrimination. Help and support should be available, but potential employers must be convinced that functioning disabled people are exactly the same as any other applicant, perhaps with some alternative needs to fulfil the position.
They also need job vacancies to apply for…
2) There are many very sick and ill people. They are unemployable beacause they are too ill to work.
No amount of help and support will assist them into work, because help and support dont cure incurable illnesses or reduce pain.
3) There are many fit and well people who are seeking work. They need help and support.
They also need job vacancies to apply for…
4) There are many fit and well people who have caring obligations, and need help and support to identify opportunities for work, respite, alternative care, training or future work opportunities.
They also need job vacancies to apply for…
5) There are many fit and well people who dont want to work. Perhaps conditionality and sanctions may persuade them to be a bit more proactive about seeking employment.
They also need job vacancies to apply for…
But we have not, at any time, seen Government announce that they want 40% of the fit and well to enter work, ony the sick and disabled.
Service providers would, if paid per person, cream group (3) as easy money. And then group (5).
Group (2) would be firmly parked, as would group (1) and (4) probably.
Paying extra for “harder to place” people could lead to group (1) attracting bonuses. This opens the door to abuse of disabled people, placing them in inappropriate situations that dont reflect their talents or abilities.
But the service provider would be “quids in”.
I shouldn’t imagine that disabled people would be thrilled at being targetted simply because they attract a higher financial gain for the service provider.
The whole system is wrong.
It should be supporting those who cant work, and assisting those who can.
Instead the benefits bill is being reduced by placing as many people on JSA as possible, (using an expensive 3rd party) forcing sanctions on them, reducing their benefits when they cant comply, whilst paying other 3rd parties vast sums to “do something” with all these people.
Only one group cannot work due to circumstances beyond their control, the sick and chronically ill. Others may not be able to find employers who will employ them, but are…[truncated by the system]
Better to get alot of people to be self employed an simplify the tax system. Teach them how to become creative or innovative. Get rid of the job centres and turn them into enterprise agencies. Turn government buildings into offices for the self employed. concentrate on getting british citizens skilled and into work. students who come here to study should really put alot of that education back into their home countries so that we reduce the amount of aid that we keep giving out. Other countries dont seem to want their educated students back and many of them have paid for their education.
would still need the job centres, but nice ideas, many self employed could work from home, which would be a boon to disabled people. Regarding students from other countries, could it not be that the students themselves do not want to go back?
I am on IB with mental health problems and have concerns about whether I will get ESA when the migration occurs. I would struggle to work, but could see myself managing a few hours here and there, and if I can find work that pays enough, using skills from when I was previously in work, maybe I could survive on low hours and erratic earnings.
However, I would be very concerned about a number of things when it comes to schemes to get me into work.
Firstly, I would be concerned whether I would be required to attend sessions that I could not cope with, perhaps because the hours were long or perhaps because they were in weeks when I was more ill.
Secondly, I would be concerned whether I would be pushed into unsuitable work. Ironically, this could help me to get ESA via the nearest psychiatric unit when the inevitable breakdown occurs, but this isn’t really very productive, is it?
Thirdly, I would be concerned that I might be pushed towards zero hours contracts, which sound like a good idea for someone needing flexible hours, but which in reality may be a matter of flexibility on my part to suit the employer, not flexibility on the part of employers/clients to suit my needs as a person with mental illness.
The new ESA test is going to leave a lot of people in my position who would previously have been considered unfit for work and who would have very limited employability.
Other thoughts;
The uneducated – educate them to minimum standards.
The untrained – train them.
Physically disabled – enforce disability laws regarding employment.
Chronically sick and ill – cure them.
But that will all cost money.
The government wishes to save money.
So their solution is to threaten unemployed people with sanctions, reduce their benefits, and most horrifically employ at great expense a company to DENY that people are actually too ill to work.
And then employ other “service providers” who cannot provide solutions, they can only identify training, education and jobs, a service that is already provided by colleges, job centres and employment agencies.
But even having an entire population of educated, trained and healthy people who are not descriminated against for any reason, will not get people into work because the jobs dont exist.
For those who are having difficulty with some of the concepts outlined then here is a scenario;
A chronically ill person is deemed well enough to work by a company that is paid to find them well enough to work.
The person’s GP and specialists, occupational therapists and support workers disagree, but are ignored.
The chronically ill person is then placed on JSA and attends the job centre.
The Job centre staff are confused, they recognise this person has little to offer the job market because they are, due to their condition, unreliable.
2 years pass, the condition has not improved, but the chronically sick person now faces financial sanctions.
They are “requested” to enter into scenarios where they cannot fulfil their “obligation”.
There are further financial penalties imposed.
The chronicaly sick person is now receiving less than the government claims a person needs to live on, and declines further.
How this story ends depends on the person, but one thing is certain. No matter how many sanctions are applied, this person can not be forced, bribed, convinced or coerced into becoming well.
Yes, some members of society will need to be quite forcefully encouraged to improve their chances of employment, no-one would deny that there are people who just dont understand the pleasure and pride involved in being employed.
However simply stating that someone is well enough to work, when all other professionals indicate otherwise, is not the starting point to recovery.
Companies must employ the employable, regardless of their impairments.
Government must accept that there…[truncated by the system]
Good post CR. Will anyone listen?
There are some diseases and sickness for which there IS NO CURE!
I know, I have one.
But there are drugs and treatments, which may or may not relieve some of the pain, that are denied to me due to the cost.
I would happily try any treatment that would give me relief from the constant pain.
But I also recognise that the cost of the treatments will probably exceed the savings in my benefits and contributions to the exchequer.
I have a physical disability too, but I could work around that. Not the jobs I previously had, but some job.
However, I cant, frustratingly, work with these pain levels.
At some point soon an ATOS “medical professional” will declare me fit for work… and then I will save the government money by being on JSA, then progressively more and more money as sanctions are imposed.
The truncated last line of my previous post was;
Government must accept that there are people who are too ill to work, and may always be too ill to work.
Great post
I loved your listing CR and hope someone will listen.
I think the government should set up and administer home/cottage/community industries, selling the end product for profit. I’m disabled and cannot tell or predict when I may have the odd hour or so in which I could be productive. I suppose if you get a lot of people like me producing an end `product which does not have a deadline, we, the unemployable could feasibly contribute to society using our individual talents. I suppose there’s lot’s of disabled out there who can do more than just ‘weave a basket’. Just imagine the results if the government could tap into this resource. If you need me to set this up and get it started just email me. I’m cheap at £65,000 per year but please don’t expect an immediate response though. Unless of course you could rig up my bedroom with a decent orthopedic bed and all the paperless technology and telecommunications required. RSPV.
Or an agency where disabled people may register for availability for home work.
Its a bit more complicated than that.
As Jock indicates, he would need a huge financial outlay to make it possible for him to work.
However, as he also indicates, he may not be able to fulfill expectations even WITH these adjustments.
He may be well enough on days one and two to complete 10 hours of work spread over the 48 hours, but on day three he may be unable to complete any work at all.
This state of affairs may last for a few days, or a few weeks.
Work that demands any level of reliability is not feasible for many sick and disabled people. Its not the people that are unreliable – its the illness or disability that is unpredictable.
Add into the equation that the benefits sytem is neither flexible or reactive to fluctuations in income.
Imagine if I wanted to “guarantee” 8 hours of output a week, working fom home.
1) I can’t guarantee 8 hours of “wellness” a week.
2) I would, if I managed 8 hours a week have my benefits adjusted accordingly.
However this woud take weeks to make these adjustments, and I may have my earnings accounted for three times, through housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support.
Eventually after much effort a decision is made over which benefit aknowledges my income, and I then have to try to reclaim the underpayments, if possible.
3) The following week I can only manage 4 hours.
I then have to inform the benefits departments again, repeating point (2)
4) Subsequent weeks of being financially penalised for working, huge amounts of time spent trying to explain that my income will vary according to my illness, and trying to assist the benfits agencies in ensuring that neither I nor they are out of pocket.
That in itself would be taking up all my “well” time.
How about an agency where single parents may register for home work?
Or stay at home mums?
More home working opportunities would help single parents, carers, ill and disabled people to gain employment, but sick and ill people will still have conditions that make them unreliable and unable to manage more than sporadic contributions.
And finally, these type of jobs dont exist.
Many people will agree with me, as most disabled people, and those with debilitating conditions, do want to work and would benefit from home working, but the opportunities just dont exist.
If the jobs existed, employers would prefer the single parent who is reliable than the unreliable ill.
I suspect Jock was indulging in some degree of irony,…[truncated by the system]
I like the idea of getting people back to work. I speak as one who is disabled and have been on the scrap heap for the last 14years. I am disabled and would have found life nigh on impossible without the support provided by the DWP. But I would have rather been in employment. There are jobs that I could do/have done, I am due to retire next March anyway. What is required above anything else is a fundamental change of attitude on the part of employers. Presently, it appears, that anyone whose physical abilities and appearance are less than perfect is not good for the corporate image. I am given to understand that the DWP is an exception to this. Employers are going to have to provide facilities for disabled people, everything from toilet facilities to wheelchair access – especially round the workplace and to the workplace. Generally speaking, disabled people are tolerated if it is socially convenient to do so. Of course there will have to be exceptions, for example business employing less than X number of employees, but generally speaking jobs that can be done by people who are seated could, in many cases, be done by disabled people. But it seems it is the old prejudices that prevail. Finally, does it really matter if the person operating the checkout at the local supermarket is wearing a cervical collar, wrist brace/s, and leg supports? As long as they’re doing the job does it matter?
What is needed by the majority of people today is a back to work scheme that continually updates and maintains a high level of vocational qualifications that directly relates to what employers are currently seeking in their prospective employees. (Best option I can think of: ongoing vocational apprentiships for all ages within business environments).
For example, to get into security work, expensive SIA training and certification is required before you could even be considered for such work. Or to get a steady job in administration, nothing short of NVQ level business administration type vocational qualifications would get your foot in the door these days. To be a credit controller, SAGE and accountancy NVQ level qualifications are required and so on.
So basically, a high level of ‘relevant’ vocational qualifications is now a necessity for the majority of steady jobs going these days before employers will even consider your application.
With employers’ increasingly rigid and obscure person and job specifications for the steady full-time (let alone part-time) positions advertised, armed with anything less, the world of work becomes a ‘closed shop’ to the average unskilled jobseeker, or even those that are academically, but not vocationally, qualified.
With the present rapidly changing employment market as well, affordable life long learning and retraining is also a necessity to continue to be viable for the world of work.
Basic skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic, along with computer literacy, are important, along with general academic qualifications such as GCSEs and even A-Levels. Such basic skills and academic qualifications though are, at best, only good for being bounced between benefits and ‘here-today-gone-tomorrow’ temporary, short-term, part-time, unsustainable positions.
I am now 36 years of age, a member of the previous ‘lost generation’ of the 1990s with 5 GCSEs and grade C and above (including mathematics and english) and two A-Levels. My experience with the numerous previous back to work schemes has been that of the revolving door. Every time the provision and support provided has not come anywhere close to what I’m proposing above.
The older I get, without the help really need, the more ‘unemployable’ I become.
What employer in their right mind would want to employ someone like me with so many huge gaps in their work history. Let alone anyone who have even less than me.
I think you should be in touch with Hospitals for records, and then The persons own GP…That should sort a lot of problems out. Get Medical Facts then you have your fake claimants..thats 3/4 battle won…
I read somewhere about a Deaf Person who was called to JobCentreplus and the persons friend or wife whatever, answered by phone. Deaf person wanted Speech to text reporter so he or she could communicate, Jobcentre Got back to them saying they dont do that ??? well what can One say….
Given the report of the Public Accounts Committee on Pathways to Work one wonders how the Work programme when it replicates the structure and processes which have already failed.
There is little point in changing the ” back to work ” programmes where people with physical and mental and sensory impairments are concerned until the issue of employers reluctance to employ disabled people are addressed.
With a recent survey of employers showing 73% suggesting theyd not employ a disabled person,
http://www.iosh.co.uk/news_and_events/news/latest_news_releases/25_back_to_work_plans.aspx
Its there the govt need to start if disabled people able to work are going to get work whatever
Even if the programmes were excellent, if the majority of employers wont take on disabled people it will all be a waste of time and money and will appear simply as a cost cutting exercise which will ultimately harm those individuals and society
Somehow there always seems to be an emphasis on getting people ‘off benefit’ and ‘into work’. It would be slightly more encouraging if the words were always the other way around, putting ‘into work’ first, rather than ‘off benefit’, which indicates that removal of benefits is the priority.
It is similar with New Deal and Flexible New Deal, where ‘mandatory’ and ’sanction’ seem to be stressed right at the start of the courses. People obviously need to be informed about their obligations, but it would surely be better to start with the idea of what people would gain from New Deal/Work Programme, rather than starting with the consequences of non-compliance.
Changing the words round won’t change what is involved with provision, but the effort in deliberately putting ‘into work’ before ‘off benefit’ could help some providers, some JCP staff and some government members demonstrate their knowledge that the priority is a successful outcome for the client.
There is rampant discrimination against disabled people both in the job market and within the work environment. As a highly qualified engineer with two decades of experience working in a specialist field I found myself forced out of my career when my ex-employer, a supposed ‘national champion’ which trumpets its commitments to equality, decided that if the effects of my disability stopped them considering me as just a faceless cog in the machine then they had no interest in either exploring the list of potential reasonable adjustments I proposed to mitigate the effects of my disability or in continuing to employ me. Entering the job market, I found that every employment consultant I spoke to told me to ‘forget the private sector’, the disablist discrimination in recruitment there so rampant it is simply taken as read. I was even warned that the variability around my disability would make even the public sector reluctant to employ me, with higher education the only sector that might discount it to look at what I can do (but first, get a doctorate).
If recruitment specialists consider me all but unemployable, no matter my background and that I want to work, then what hope have training providers who barely understand what my qualifications mean of doing a better job? The problem certainly isn’t me, nor is it my disability, the problem is management and HR departments who are happy to flout the law. Any scheme hoping to increase the employment of disabled people without explicitly working to change the attitudes of employers is doomed to failure.
I pass our LEAP Centre every morning – it’s always empty, cost thousands, and seems to be wasting cash. A good idea but it was imposed from above, and was doomed for that reason.
Let’s start small: let’s look at individuals, make the Big Society work by showing everyone that they have a part to play. For too long we have been told what is happening, and as a fresult have lost the will to get involved especially if you are receiving means-tested benefits.
No Work Programme will ever work for disabled people until the following two issues are resolved:
1. The fact that many disabilities result in an irretrievable loss of productivity, even with all reasonable adjustments in place.
As an example, imagine someone whose failing eyesight has chopped their productivity in half. The first thought that comes to mind is that an employer could just hire two people and pay a half-salary each, assuming the original job pays enough to make that work. Just one snag: overheads. Hiring two people doubles the overhead of employing them (renting office space, buying computers, and so forth). Per unit of production, it’s cheaper to hire one person who can handle the whole job by themselves. Although the full salary still needs to be paid, the employer can save money on the second person’s overheads.
The result: no employer wants to hire disabled people whose productivity might be compromised as a result of their disability.
2. Employers can effortlessly discriminate against disabled job applicants simply by telling them that “another candidate was a better fit to the post / team / company”. There are no checks and balances to ensure that discrimination is not taking place.
The result: if employers have even the slightest fear that a disabled person will be unable to sustain full productivity, that person will never get a job. Ever.
====
The proposed Work Programme will only be effective if these two problems are dealt with in some way. Two example options are:
1. Subsidise the employer with something like a tax credit for each disabled person they employ, as compensation for the increased overhead of employing them.
2. Require all employers over a certain size (20 people, for example) to employ a minimum percentage of disabled people. Although this option has been tried before, it was never properly enforced, so it was inevitably doomed to failure.
====
I’m sure there are other options, but the key point is this: no amount of pushing by a private-sector Work Programme provider will get a disabled person into a job unless the prospective employer has some reason to take them on. The Government must put a practical solution in place to level the playing field before forcing disabled people into any form of Work Programme.
>> imagine someone whose failing eyesight has chopped their productivity in half. The first thought that comes to mind is that an employer could just hire two people and pay a half-salary each <> Subsidise the employer with something like a tax credit for each disabled person they employ, as compensation for the increased overhead of employing them. <> Require all employers over a certain size (20 people, for example) to employ a minimum percentage of disabled people <<
Which irretrievably writes off our careers as the product of tokenism.
The solutions you have proposed unconsciously pander to the disablist perception that disabled people are worth less as employees. It is this perception we need to challenge and drive out of society as a whole and management and HR departments in particular. We need an employment market in which no one suggests a candidate should be discarded due of their disability because of the absolute certainty they will be summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, just as they should be for suggesting it of a candidate from any other minority.
What solutions do you propose for driving out that perception and creating such an employment market? The reason I ask is that I find myself unable to come up with any.
Even now, no one in their right mind openly suggests that a candidate be discarded on the basis of their disability (or any other protected characteristic, for that matter). It’s always done by deciding that “another candidate was a better fit to the post / team / company” in some nonspecific way.
As things stand, disabled people whose disabilities reduce their productivity *are* worth less as employees. I say that in a strictly financial sense, without regard to their undoubted worth as human beings, and I accept that not all disabilities lead to reduced productivity at work. However, the point remains that the only ways to get the reduced-productivity group into work are to:
1. help them attain higher productivity (not always possible);
2. eliminate the financial penalty for the employer; or
3. compel the employer to take them on regardless.
Very much agree with what you say..seealso my post which provides some evidence that only 27% of employers would employ a disabled person..ive changed the shift of it from positive to negative..isnt it interesting what one can do with statistics!
I agree with you, assistance, guidance and incentives for employers are essential, even to the point of help in providing access for disabled people, grants, vat exemption on adaptations etc.
It seems ridiculous to be trying to cut back on benefit payments without spending considerable time and effort (and probably money!) on creating reasonably paid employment for people to move into.
It sometimes appears that govt believes that everybody could find work if they just tried a bit harder, but if there employers are not willing to hire people, this is clearly not so.
Will the work programme actually make new jobs, paid at a livable level, or is it just “wishing” people into work?
Nicely put.
Good post
Plans to get disabled people into work need to take into account the fact that employers do not want to hire disabled people. It’s not fair to punish disabled people with conditionality,sanctions and tough regimes if employers do not do their bit.
I agree, employers have to do their bit too.
Work Programmes should support young people who are considering volunteering or working part time – at present if they are volunteering they have to come off Job Seekers allownace and may get income support – this greatly affects their housing benefits. On Work Programme young people should be able to volunteer and get paid the benefits and then progess into either full or part time work…again if on part time work, some allowance should be given.
It sent a wave a cold horror through me when I read that Goldman Sachs had shown an interest in making profit from being paid by the government for each person it found employment for. Work Programmes need to be humane and to show genuine and deep care for, and an interest in, the individuals they are trying to match with work.
There is a whole class of unemployed people who would happily work from home (parents, disabled people, older people, sick people), and the government needs to think carefully about enabling employers and those people to work from home. In this age, the virtually office is easily achieved. The government would needs to promote home-working a lot more.
There also, generally, needs to be a lot more equality of pay, with the top getting less and the bottom getting more.
And finally, won’t a Work Programme which be largely a waste of taxpayers’ money, and a waste of a lot of people’s time and effort, if there are only 500,000 jobs available in Britain, and 3 million people on the Work Programme?
It’s a shame that we are looking to the Private Sector to support the Work Programme. Across the UK+NI there is a vast amount of experience, knowledge and drive within Jobcentre Plus / DWP etc. that could easily be focussed on new and dynamic customer support and training. The amount of money related to this contract and outcomes could be used to move Jobcentre Plus, with clear purpose and foundation, to a true back to work organisation.
Unfortunately my experience of DWP/JCP as a highly qualified disabled person actively seeking work is that the system and the vast majority of personnel have a disconnect with the needs and reality of disabled people that amounts to institutional disablism. Training providers seem to be even worse, but there is a need for a root and branch change in the attitudes within the organisation and its subcontractors that actively recognises the needs of disabled people to be seen as something more than just another prospectless statistic to be thrown at low wage jobs. As an engineer with two decades of experience in safety critical work I found the attitudes I encountered nothing less than offensive, and yet the staff seemed convinced that they were helping me. There seemed little comprehension of the massive discrimination faced by disabled people in the employment market and of the need to actively support disabled people in overcoming this mountain of disablism and finding work that matches their abilities and potential rather than simply trying to get them off their books with a job shelf-stacking (no matter their physical limitations). A DEA system that simply says ‘I can’t help you’ to a disabled person who refuses to be written off and throws them back into the general pool without support is hardly something we want to build upon.
I have come across the discrimination in a number of spheres, dentists, places of worship, solicitors, shops, and that is only as a customer, not an employee. Public transport too needs to adapt, although much has improved in recent years, more needs to be done.
Any programme should be audited not only on outcomes but in the execution. There needs to be a complaint process for clients that is transparent. Choice is also key. Where a client lacks faith in a provider and thus becomes disengages ther client ought to be able to seek support from another provide in which they can have confidence.