Disability related benefits

[annwfyn]

So, disability benefit.

I have, perhaps foolishly, been spending a lot of time on the Guardian news website lately, reading the CiF section. The first thing that bemuses me about many of the commentators on there is how many are horrifically right wing, and apparently only come to that website to be annoyed. The second thing that bemuses me is how terribly bad most of them are at arguing their point. The more I read the CiF section, the more left wing I become, mostly because the near monstrous lack of compassion, empathy and basic humanity shown by half those posters actually makes my skin crawl. The third thing that bemuses me is the overwhelming lack of internal consistency in many of the arguments on benefits, employment and specifically disability which tend to crop up on there.

I am, therefore, going to talk about the primary inconsistency which befuddles me the most right here. I don’t think many of the CiF right wing posters (who I am not calling ‘trolls’ because I don’t think they just post there for the sake of the conflict) are likely to read this, but there may be a couple of right of centre types lurking around here, or just people who understand the thinking better than I do who can just explain to me how this is all meant to work.

Now, the main area of confusion I have is that the same posters seem to be fighting very hard for two totally contradictory points. One is that there shouldn’t be too many government rules limiting what businesses can do. They are all very opposed to maternity pay in the first place, they don’t like extended maternity leave, and they really think that businesses should only have to hire people who are fit, well, able to work, never have to take time off, happy to do lots of overtime etc etc. The other is that there are too many people on disability benefit who are scrounging bastards who could be working, and, frankly, if you are not incontinent, brain damaged and lying in a pile of your own bodily fluids 23 hours per day you should be able to work.

And I don’t think those two make sense.

Now, on one hand, I do agree that there are many people on benefits who could, in theory, do some kind of work. I do, however, feel that at present there are probably relatively few of them who could actually get a job.

Let me try and explain this with a theoretical example.

Let’s say we have a disabled person. Let’s call her Alice. The nature of her disability isn’t important; she could have mental or physical disabilities. Let us say, however, that the nature of Alice’s disabilities are such that she could, in theory, do some form of work. She wouldn’t be able to work all the time. Shall we say that she would probably be off work sick for between 60 and 80 days per year on average, due to the variable nature of her condition. The kind of work she could do would be limited. She can sit at a computer, sure. She can’t, however, get up and move around the office much, and she really can’t lift things. So, even doing the filing isn’t really feasible, and helping lift boxes, or shift desks around is totally out of the question. She also, for some reason, isn’t really able to deal with customers or members of the public. Perhaps she has a speech impediment which makes her very hard to understand, or perhaps she has an anxiety related condition which means she can’t cope with people. It doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that she can’t deal with the public at all.

Oh, and because of Alice’s disability she sometimes has difficulty getting into work and will regularly be late into the office. It’s not her fault; say there are only a few specially adapted buses she can get, or maybe she relies on getting a lift with a friend or family member because she can’t manage public transport. She is willing to work later to make the time up, but Alice tends to get tired and is a bit useless after 4 pm anyway.

Alice isn’t a genius in her field. She’s not that one brilliant scientist who could cure cancer. She’s not that amazing writer who could change the world with her pen. She’s just a fairly normal 20-something. She has a 2.2 in English Literature and Sociology from Hull University, or maybe she’s got a General Science Degree from Edinburgh University, or perhaps she’s got a Third in Theology from Heythrop College in London. She’s done a couple of data entry jobs in the past, but her CV is pretty thin apart from that and she’s not worked in three or four years.

First of all, can Alice work? Should Alice be signed off on incapacity benefit?

And if you said ‘yes’, what should Alice do? What kind of job would be suitable to her, with her limitations? And finally, if you were an employer, would you hire her?

Comments

[ginasketch.livejournal.com]

I'd be very interested to know what answers people have to this as I am in a similar situation to Alice. Thankfully people are generally understanding about my condition but I might not always get people that are quite so understanding.

And despite what the right wingers think- I ALWAYS want to be able to come into work. Sometimes I just can't cope.

[pmp.livejournal.com]

I think the Sun explained the right wing view in much the same light today

Headline - 9 out of 10 people on disability "fit for work"

The first line then read "More than 40% of those claiming incapacity benefit were deemed fit to work"

-----------------

I do wonder if a compromise is to relax the rules on the benefits, let companies hire people on contracts that mean they get paid for what they work, and the government guarentees to make up the shortfall to an agreed minimum. In return for doing this, the company gets a bonus, and the person gets a job that might otherwise be out of their reach.

I also think we need to invest heavily in the telecommonications network in this country so that it becomes feasible to offer "office" jobs that are in fact served by the person working from home. In your example situation with Alice, how much easier would it be if they could do their job from home? No travel times to worry about, if they felt ill then they could stop and take a break, and pick up when they felt able.

[kizzie.livejournal.com]

There are some jobs like that, but they are so very few and far between. When I was doing data entry there were a few work at home people who had the stuff delivered to their door, they input it and someone collected the paper copies. All in their own time.

So it can be done. Whether businesses want to (and whether things like data protection may get in the way? these were utility bill swapping things)... it's all a mystery

[emma7783.livejournal.com]

It's much easier for people to believe that the majority of sick & disabled people are lazy scroungers rather than to accept the general publics views of disability are way off the mark.

I get told, every second day, that a bright articulate graduate like myself should be able to get a job in a heart beat.

When I explain I only have a max of 3 'good days' out of 7 and that I could only work a maximum of about hours on those good days. I don't know when those good days will be in advance, hell I don't know when I wake up, often I'll feel fine then two hours later I'm curled up with tears in my eyes being sick everywhere.

What employer, paying well enough to make 9 hours of work something that would get me off benefits, wants someone who can't commit to making meetings? Can't commit to hours or deadlines? Needs somewhere wheelchair accessible to work? Get's her PTSD triggered by loud/aggressive voices so can't really do anything with customers/ staff? Can't do proof reading or typing from home because of her learning disabilites? Can't drive so has to rely on someone else for transport? Will frequently need time off Mon-Fri, 9-5 for hospital appointments?

No employer wants that. They don't say it when I apply and they turn me down. They say there is a 'better qualified candidate with more experience' or that as a graduate 'I'll get bored' or 'I should apply for management - which is a 38h a week training course'.

Yeah I've got skills to offer but they come at a very high price. One employers won't pay, because I'm not Stephen Hawkings.

I’ve spent a long time pondering such questions. And may rant

[kathminchin.livejournal.com]

So to the question “Can Alice work?”

If I look at my own employer and the kind of jobs we have available; the immediate answer is “yes.” There are a lot of admin type jobs which do not require talking to customers either face to face or by phone; which solves the anxiety issue. The admin work doesn’t involve heavy lifting – when it comes to boxes and that kind of thing she could either ask for help without anyone feeling that she’s taking advantage; or we have a porter who hefts boxes of booklets about with a grin and a trolley. We have a subsidised canteen which means we don’t need to locate lunch; and our building is fully disabled friendly with a lift; disabled loo; ramp into the building and friendly trained fire marshals with yellow vests who know what to do if we’ve got someone who can’t get down the stairs in an emergency. We have flexible working. We’re even on a main bus route and all the buses in Birmingham are adapted for wheelchair users. In sort; on the face of it we’re perfect.

But we couldn’t employ Alice. Actually I think it’s more likely that we wouldn’t employ Alice.

Firstly the amount of sick leave would be an issue. Companies need to be able to rely on their staff turning up on time and able to work. If Alice has the kind of disability that’s stable then that wouldn’t be an issue. If however Alice has something like ME which can be completely fine one day; and then make Alice unable to get out of bed much less get to work this makes it really difficult for an employer. We currently have a lady in my old department who works part time – she occasionally can’t come in due to child care issues. For example this week her youngest got a rash which meant she had to go to the GP and get him checked before she could take him to the childminder. She was late in as a result. Obviously not her fault; but if it keeps happening she ends up absolutely slammed workwise and as she’s the only person in the building who does her job none of us can help. If Alice can’t get in then either she has to catch up on her work load when she gets back or someone else has to do it in addition to their workload. Eventually something will have to give.

Secondly the buses may be adapted – but Birmingham rush hour isn’t. I’d challenge any able-bodied right wing whinger to sit in a wheelchair and get into where I work by bus, to arrive for 8:45 mid September. At the moment the buses aren’t too busy, come term time they will be packed. All the adaptations / ramps / flip seats in the world won’t help if there is simply not enough room on the bus to fit another person on; much less someone in a wheelchair. If they got on my first bus where I do it would be fine – but the second bus is halfway through the bus route and sometimes during termtime there’s not enough room for me to do anything but stand next to the driver.

The other thing is anxiety issues such as our example has can be triggered by many things. Imagine that Alice has something like PTSD, and its cause was because of abuse. Put her in my office with a Birmingham City fan, an Aston Villa fan and a supporter of Wolves – you can imagine that sometimes Monday morning is filled with loud; cheerful and caustic banter. It’s all in good heart; but it could well trigger an anxiety attack. No one would mean it. No one would want it. Even Alice would logically say that they weren’t a threat – but her brain wouldn’t process it that way; and it wouldn’t help stop the panic attack.

Re: I’ve spent a long time pondering such questions. And may rant

[kathminchin.livejournal.com]

So whilst I think that there’s every chance Alice could be able to work; her restrictions mean that the chances of her getting any work are incredibly slim. And that’s the first thing that needs to be recognised – you can put equality legislation in and everything but you can’t make people employ disabled folks whose problems are going to cause the business that kind of issue.


There is a lot of evidence that it is good for people to work. However I think it’s bloody insulting of the Government to even think that disabled people don’t know this. That they just need a bit of encouragement and they’ll find a job. I live in the real world thanks.

As for the Government figures – oh god they want to make me scream. According to Mind there are areas of the country where applicants for disability benefits with mental health issues are 100% guaranteed to be rejected first time. On appeal; with a Mind or other specialist advocate they are 85% likely to get the benefit. These figures haven’t taken into account the appeals process – which can take 18 months or more.

Here’s a couple of stats that don’t add up. The government’s figures show that the rate of fraud on disability claims runs at less than one percent. They want to cut the benefits paid by 20%. That’s not going to get fraudsters – that’s going to get people who are too ill to be able to appeal effectively. Add into that the fact that there were two types of disability benefit – Incapacity “you can’t work” benefit and Mobility allowance “you’re able to work but are disabled enough to have additional costs.” The Alice example – she can’t get the bus but could take a taxi. My bus pass is £52 a month. Taxi - £20 a day. Where would the extra money come from? You can’t expect an employer to pay Alice more because she’s disabled – that would be unfair. So the mobility allowance was there for that purpose. Now Alice is likely to loose that money – which in turn means she’d be unable to get to work and lose her job. How does that help anyone?

Sorry, I ranted a lot. But I’ve been thinking (and discussing) this with people who are affected and I feel myself going more and more left wing every time I think about it!

[quisalan.livejournal.com]

Hmm... if you want to understand it, you need to look at this in a completely non-people centric way - and it's a perspective that you have to take in corporate business to a certain extent. It may not be something I personally agree with on a individual basis, but I have to be able to think in these terms when looking at strategies or growth, hence I can see where it comes from.

Things you need to consider:

1. Companies are important. They generate revenue (and therefore by proxy economic prosperity and jobs). The most important things for a company are it's revenue, profit, cashflow and conversely cost.

2. Companies are fragile and strategy must be flexible and adapt to economic situations, with regards to acquiring and disposing of assets to maximise profit and long term sustainability.

3. People are simply a part of the whole of the companies assest. There's a reason why it's called 'human resources' rather than personnel. These are assets to be used, maximised, deployed and dropped as and when the market demands it. One of my former work colleagues had a mantra that "nothing is personal" in business. If you get knocked back, made redundant, have a business relationship terminated, it's nothing about you, and everything about the market and the company, and how it's aiding or not the business you're looking at.

That's the basic view you have to take. People are not the centre of the business world, and that's the bottom line in private sector. Look at Dragon's Den and it always come down to what will bring in profit and have growth, not what is socially responsible (unless it sells or enhances the brand - brand are often given a financial value, so if the cost of disabled policies is less than the cost of the brand decline if they don't do them, then they will keep doing them).

Therefore, the view that companies shouldn't have to make allowances for disability is because if they have to make a special effort, it has an economic cost, and therefore an impact on the bottom line which could mess up financial balance. It doesn't mean disabled people shouldn't be employed, just not in jobs which will have an effect on income, reputation and functionality of the company.

The flipside of this is that not all jobs are the same. Not all jobs require people to need to go into work (ie some encourage home working like writing or some remote IT support), some have longer term projects so the deadlines aren't as tight and can be organised by the person (such as editorial work on books), some don't require as much reliability/attendance, which tend to be lower end/ minimum wage jobs. As people are resources with multiple skills, they can be deployed in jobs which do not have a negative impact on the company they work for.

Ergo, the two views are not hypocritical. What they do do is limit the number and type of jobs disabled people can do, and will often push them into the lower paid bracket.

Hope that helped.

As this is an explanation, not an espousal of my personal views, I'm not going to reply to any comments from this as I don't want to have to defend a point of view not my own!

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

Thank you for that. That was really interesting. The only thing I will say to disagree with that (which I'm not expecting an answer to) is that in my experience companies who are offering lower end/minimum wage jobs are actually much less flexible than those offering more skilled jobs - they tend to be the ones who sack people for having more than [X] days off sick etc, mostly because they can afford to be. If you are employing someone with a phd, and 8 years experience of research into the chemical composition of 18th century ceremics, you tend to make more allowances because you know that person is a rare commodity. If you're working with a stream of identikit, often unskilled people, you can afford to just push out anyone you don't like and move on to someone else.

The other thing I have seen in my experience is that the jobs which don't demand deadlines, or results, and often let you work from home usually pay by results - ie - AQA used to pay be for replying to text messages. I worked from home, for my computer. I could work as many or as few hours as I liked. They paid me per text. However, I only really made any money if I was replying to a certain number of texts per hour. I think envelope stuffing etc from home tends to be the same. I mean, first of all, it's hard to make anything like a living wage, and I think the only way to do it is really to work as many hours and as intensively as you would in any job, and, of course, it makes you count as 'self employed', which means you are not eligible for any kind of sick pay or sickness benefit if you're taken ill short term.

This is just my experience with these jobs. Certainly, they do help in offering an income boost in a very flexible way if you are a student, or mother with young children, or have some other main source of income.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I tend to not see many ways that someone who is disabled to any significant extent can reliably find a way of working which enables them to support themselves.

Again, this isn't me starting a fight or expecting a reply, and thank you very much for your earlier reply. It was really interesting.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I know what I think.

Honestly, I think Alice should be able to work. I think she’d be better off, happier and generally saner if she had some kind of employment. However, I think that in the current employment climate it’s pretty much impossible for her to do so, and I think any job she did manage to hold down would be so stressful as to be actively bad for her health.

I think the basic premise of the ESA is good; focusing on what people can do, and not what they can’t. I think the way it has been implemented, the ATOS tests, and the use of GIANT BIG STICK applied to the disabled, whilst offering employers no reason whatsoever to hire anyone disabled, is absolute shite.

I think there are ways to get Alice into work. I think offering employers financial incentives to create networks which enable people to work from home, maybe investing more in virtual infrastructures, would help. I think putting in legislation which actually bans employers for sacking anyone for taking time off sick, or severely limiting their capacity to do this would help. I think giving employers incentives, like saying that they do not need to pay sick pay, but the government will, instead, cover the pay of anyone off sick (and at a better rate than SSP which is impossible to live on and is a huge cause of stress if anyone is off sick for more than about a week) would help, or maybe just saying that if you’re on ESA, you won’t be penalised for working part time, and can still claim ESA at a slightly reduced rate in order to top up your salary to help people who can work part time but who might find full time work a bit too much would be really helpful. Actually, I think my ideal solution would be to say that you can work for a set number of hours per week (maybe five or something) and get paid for it without having your ESA reduced at all, because I think that would do wonders for letting people learn more about what they could do, what their capabilities are, and would be actively helpful in letting disabled people feel like they can work.

But as far as I’m aware this isn’t happening. Right now, there is a dichotomy which says ‘if you are capable of pushing a button, you can get a job’. And I don’t think this is the case. I think what the government is doing is pushing the disabled and their families into poverty. And what annoys me the most is that there is this noisy and vociferous little pile of people out there who simultaneously complain about anyone who currently has their own head attached who aren’t out there working, who would absolutely not make a single one of the accommodations which would actually make it possible for many disabled people to have some kind of working life or employment.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

As a note, I also think that there are people who categorically can’t work at all who are being put under totally unrealistic pressure to work by a system which actually costs more money than it saves. My sister works for the Huntingdon’s Disease Association. She has an extended rant on how much staff time is taken up with supporting clients through these tests, and then the appeals, which pretty much are always successful as most of her clients are actually terminally ill with a very difficult genetic condition. She is a health psychologist. Her time doesn’t come cheap, and right now it’s being wasted on dealing with appeals which clearly shouldn’t be necessary.

I also find it painful how hideously skewed the system is against the unwell. Her latest case featured a client who had his benefits cut because he was now being fed only through a tube. Previously, his carer had had to feed him by hand, which was difficult as he tended to spasm and thrash around at times. Once the feeding tube was put in, it was decided that the carer’s care allowance should be cut as changing a bag at the end of a tube was much easier and therefore they didn’t need the higher rate of care allowance. This wasn’t appealed because there would be no point. Apparently this is standard. I can kind of see the logic but it feels sort of inhuman; your loved one deteriorates to the point where they can only be fed through a tube and you lose money?

[kissmedeadly.livejournal.com]

Clearly, all of us with disabilities should start our own businesses. Selling knickers ;)

Quite seriously though that why i do this. I can work, but I can't have a proper job.
The anti disability stuff the govnt propoganda is producing is causing me to become increasingly grumpy.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

How many employers are reading this? Just me?

Do I think for one second I can give a no-bullshit answer to how employers peceive this situation without getting flamed? No.

You misinterpret the employer's perspective: it's different to what you think.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

To be fair, I believe there are three people on my flist who run their own business, in various forms, and a few more with responsibility for hiring and firing people in their job. You are, however, the first person who has actually replied to this!

If you want to mail me offlist, I'd be really happy with that. This may well be something I just am not getting my head around.

Surinen@gmail.com is the best address for me these days. :)

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'm putting nothin' in writing. I'll talk you through it next time I see you though.

Re: I’ve spent a long time pondering such questions. And may rant

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Back in the 1950's, there was a project called the "national scheme for the employment of disabled ex-servicemen". I know this because the building company my dad worked for when i was little had a large and impressive certificate on the wall showing they'd been members.

Under this scheme, rather than paying any sort of additional disability allowance to the men signed up to it the government paid employers a small stipend, or exempted them from certain taxes, if they took them on.

Just a thought.

Re: I’ve spent a long time pondering such questions. And may rant

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I quite like that idea, and have pondered such things in the past.

I think the only downside to that is that it doesn't necessarily help the disabled person with the additional costs of being disabled. Right now, I have made the slightly exciting choice to take a ten month contract working in sunny Braintree. I am now, as a result, paying twice as much for my travel as I was when I was working in scenic London. And I'm really noticing the difference. Honestly, if I had to pay much more for my commute, I'd be moving into a position where I wouldn't be earning enough to be able to sensibly keep existing on my current salary.

Say you're Alice, and you can't use public transport, and need to pay £20 per day for taxis. It's really nice if the government exempt your employers for certain taxes in order to let you work there, but that doesn't cover the £20 per day. And if you're earning £8 per hour, for a 7 hour day, you are losing nearly half your day's salary (before tax), just getting to and from work. That's not a problem that is being resolved.

As a note, I don't think this is a case of Evil Big Business vs Sainted Disabled. I do think that either we, as a society, need to offer the disabled a lot more support in order to be able to work or we need to be more realistic about who can and can't work and stop whinging so much about the horrible evils of people claiming benefits. I am, however, open to debate on this subject.

[fearmeforiampink]

To me, the post doesn't seem to be about the employers perspective. It's about people who yes, can to some degree work, but who would find it hard to work in most normal working situations, needing a high level of support, flexibility, and likely subsidy in some form

[fearmeforiampink]

I'm reminded of my friend who IIRC is on incapacity benefit or something similar, and one of the issues she had was that if tried to get a job, got one, then found that she was unable to keep that job due to her problems, then if she went back onto incapacity benefit, she would permanently be getting less money, because she had left that job.

[kathminchin.livejournal.com]

I definitly sympathise with the employer in many respects. To take Alice - if Alice had been employed by the company for 20 odd years and was just now having issues then my expectations would be different to Alice applying for a new job. And there are things that a company can do around making sure that a building has disabled access that they should be doing.

However many many Alice's aren't in a position where their condition is stable and therefore they can state that they can come into work when required without issues. Someone in a wheelchair because they have amputated limbs will be in a different situation to someone with a chronic muscle condition which may flare up and be agony with no warning at all.

I have no sympathy for people who say "all disabled people can work and those who don't are scroungers" or for the Government trying to get people who have conditions that mean that *at this point in time* they are not employable; and forcing them through the humilitating processes that ATOS uses.

Re: I’ve spent a long time pondering such questions. And may rant

[kathminchin.livejournal.com]

I do like that idea. Or grants to help an employer make adjustments to a building that kind of thing.

But that won't get Alice to work by Taxi every day. What makes that happen is Mobility Allowance; which is being cut.

[kissmedeadly.livejournal.com]

I am an employer, actually. And prior to that I was a manager so did the whole panel interview picking people for jobs thing.