I wrote this post for False Economy on losing my ESA after one year.
Also read this post by Creative Crip on the same issue. Depressing, and harrowing but an honest account of the realities of losing ESA.
I hate this coalition, despise, deplore and detest them. And I don’t think much of Labour either. They are showing NO opposition!
It was an extremely productive and useful meeting yesterday in Parliament on “Welfare not Workfare” which was organised by the LRC in conjunction with DPAC and Boycott Workfare. My task was to chair the meeting. Speakers included Boycott Workfare, Adam from DPAC, John McInally (PCS Vice President) and John McDonnell MP.
There was an exchanging of ideas, views, activities and so on, which was positive. As I was chairing I didn’t take copious notes, which I usually do. But the statistics, attacks and experiences from participants highlighted and exposed the continuing onslaught by the ConDems on the welfare state. I was angry listening to the experiences of the Boycott Workfare speaker regards to the workfare scheme. It made me admire the speaker’s courage and determination as it is not an easy thing to do speaking out. For me, it is important and integral to the movement that we give a platform to the people who on a daily basis face the cruel, vicious and callousness of welfare reforms. Workfare is an attack on ALL workers, driving down pay and conditions. And it’s a trade union issue.It is estimated that £6m is lost due to unpaid wages in regards to workfare. Private corporations lining their collective pockets with profit at the expense of jobs.
The attacks on welfare benefits, as John McInally pointed out the constant hate crimes towards people on disability benefits, the vilification and demonisation; from being patronised as “poor dear” to condemned as a “benefit cheat”, will only get worse (see Lancet research here). Private companies hovering up public money, allegations of fraud and so on. Shoddy and appalling “support” and “advice” given claimants. Private companies are no substitute for the public sector. Atos is not fit for purpose, the trial by computer package is shrouded in secrecy and people winning appeals on a regular basis. There are backlogs regarding appeals regarding Atos and DLA decisions (mine took nearly 7 months which is quick in comparison).
There was a good discussion and exchanging of ideas about where we were in campaigning and activism, which also included the importance of direct action. During the past month or so the spotlight has fallen on companies who use workfare schemes which has caused major outrage. We need to keep this pressure up. I compiled a email list to continue the exchanging of ideas/protests/campaigning and so. If you want to be on this list leave a comment on my blog or email me at louisefeminista@btinternet.com
Links:
I have been in Bristol during the past week, flat hunting and attending job interviews. Saw this exhibition advertised but unfortunately it finished the day before I arrived.
Resistance: which way the future? takes as its starting point the Nazi programme of mass-murder which targeted disabled people and became the blueprint for the larger holocaust. What turned doctors and nurses into killers? What stopped ordinary people from speaking out? And what does this history mean for all of us today?
Over ten years in the making, the film-based exhibition recently returned from its run at Washington DCʼs Kennedy Center, where a visitor wrote “One of the most powerful things I have ever experienced. I was so amazed by it, I went back to see it twice more.”
The opening drama follows the story of Elise, a patient who sweeps the institution in which she lives. She watches buses full of patients leave and return empty. When her turn comes, she knows what’s in store. Based on real events, this is the story of one woman’s resistance in the only way she could.
Director Liz Crow says “This is an episode of history that is virtually hidden, yet the values that underpinned it still echo through disabled people’s lives today. We can’t change history, but we can learn how to influence the future. The events of the holocaust came to an end because ordinary people resisted. I want audiences to feel inspired to get involved, be effective and find the courage to be a part of change. Resistance deals in a difficult subject but is infused with a sense of possibility.”
Open Tuesdays to Friday 10.00am to 5.00pm (closed Mondays). Saturdays and Sundays 10.00am to 6.00pm.
And what does this history mean for all of us today?
Indeed. This exhibition was being showed during the Welfare Reform Bill was debated during the Lords and MPs, rather a pertinent time to show the extreme realities of demonisation and scapegoating. And with present day reality of increased abuse and hate crimes towards the disabled. I ask myself, what does the past mean for all of us today, do we ever learn?
There are benefit scroungers who exploit the system but not the ones politicians and the right-wing media say it is. The mounted hysteria that points the collective finger at the unemployed and disabled. No, it’s corporate capitalism, big business. Most readers of this blog would say, “Duh! You don’t say”… But a powerful media peddles a lie where alternative voices are silenced or just ignored. “We have a deficit”, they cry and “tough choices have to be made”… So the constant drip-drip-drip lies saturate the morning papers with the drip-drip-drip whispers of “benefit cheats”, benefit scroungers”, “benefit cheats live in a mansion”, “disabled benefit cheat not really disabled”… “benefit cheats living off the tax payer”… then the whispers build up into an almighty crescendo of hate. That’s how lies are perpetuated.
Obviously, we don’t see headlines splashed with the “rich tax evader living in a mansion at the tax payer’s expense”. Scapegoating is about demonising the powerless not the powerful. Distract people from the bleeding obvious to point the finger at the already vilified.
On the other hand the story still in the shadows is the taxpayer funded gravy train that is the Work Programme. People on Employment and Support Allowance are now getting called to work focussed interviews. The first anecdotal evidence accords with the recent Guardian article. The interviews and the support offered is little more than a session of being moralised at. Often this is done in a group session so as to save the Work Programme provider company as much money as possible. Little seems to be on offer of practical assistance such as provision of free or cheap broadband, transport to interviews etc. There seems to be little interest in either what discovering people have to offer or what are the real obstacles that people face.
The structure of the Work Programme with long chains of prime contractors, a middle “wholesale” level of contractors and then further subcontractors who are supposed to do the supporting all taking a cut. It seems an expensive way of getting a group of people together to receive a dumbed down lecture consisting of bits and pieces of culture of dependency theory.
Perhaps the Taxpayers Alliance would be interested in checking out how much is paid out in management overheads along the Work Programme supply chain?
So what of JSA? The future is workfare. The future is unpaid labour.
The approach seems to be a turbo-charging of the way the Flexible New Deal was being used to restructure the bottom end of the labour market. In particular there is a pressure put on people to accept 16 to 20 hours work each week. People are told off for wanting full-time jobs. The reason for this pressure is simple. In the world of social security and tax credits 16 or more hours each week counts as full-time work. A person working 16 hours each week can claim JSA. They lose entitlement to this benefit once they work 16 hours each week. Instead they may become entitled to tax credits.
For example say there is 80 hours worth of work going at the local chicken plucking factory. If you get employment for 2 people you only get two people back into work and only collect two lots of payments from the government for reducing the JSA count. If you split the work into 5 lots of 16 hours each week you collect 5 payments from the government.
Now if two people on minimum wage start working 40 hours each week they will be paying tax and national insurance and doing their bit for reducing the deficit. They will be two extra ragged trousered philanthropists channeling money back to the bankers. Their tax credit/housing benefit and council tax benefit entitlements are also much reduced.
The five people working 16 hours each week pay no tax or national insurance between them. They may well be getting a relatively large amount of housing benefit and council tax benefit.
This is the real way to work the benefits system: get yourself a Work Programme contract. Spend some of your plush salary on a photo of Charles Murray to worship.
What is either ignored and hidden away in a liberal leaning newspaper is the realities of this continued class war, such as, “Councils fail to spend thousands earmarked for housing poor tenants” or Local Authority’s cutting social care, rationed or withdrawn completely (this began to happen under NL). Birmingham Council, for example, changed the criteria for care as “super critical” but backed down after protest however will still increase its threshold from substantial to critical. It is nothing more than a cut cutting exercise that puts disabled people at risk. See this report about Elaine McDonald to illustrate the barbarity of these cuts.
So there you have it, private companies making a quick buck in profits while the powerless get shafted and blamed…..
From the LRC website
MPs will be debating the Welfare Reform Bill on Wednesday 1 February 2012, which is the day after the Lords final debate. This is quite clearly a tactic to prevent campaigning and lobbying of MPs which is an attack on democracy. There are important issues at stake – protecting the disabled, including young disabled people and those with cancer, people on housing benefit, lone parents and larger families (details below).
Please email your MP today to lobby them to support the amendments passed by the Lords. If you don’t know who is your MP, find out here.
If you do not have time to write your own letter, you can use the PCS template letter here to email your MP.
Amendment 12 – Protecting Housing Benefit
The amendment seeks to prevent a change to the definition of under-occupation currently used by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Bill paves the way for a much tougher test than at present, with a hefty under-occupation penalty – a cut to the housing benefit – for those whose accommodation fails the new test.
This amendment has been supported by housing charities as it penalises people with extra bedrooms. This means for instance that someone who becomes unemployed who lives alone and has two small bedrooms will be driven further into debt and may face homelessness. In many parts of the country there may not be a supply of one bedroom flats for people to live in.
As an alleged social evil under-occupancy has only really been trailed by the government since the summer. There has not been any period of research and debate about what the effects of these measures may be.
Amendment 36A – Protecting young disabled people
To ensure young people who are very severely disabled and who are assessed as qualifying for the support group continue to be entitled to contributory employment support allowance (ESA) in the future.
This is an important social object as this specific benefit gives independence to young disabled people. Stopping this benefit would not save much money but would wreck lives. The typical disability would be a young person who has learning difficulties. Having contributory ESA makes people much vulnerable to exploitation. Many will go onto means test ESA instead and will require greater support to do so as a result of the greater complexity instead with barely any saving (as the means tested benefit will be for the same amount for most people) to the public purse.
Amendment 38 – oppose the introduction of a 12-month limit on which those in the work-related activity group (WRAG) are able to claim contributory ESA
12-month limit on contributory ESA will cause much more poverty as after one year the benefit will become means-tested. A couple living in the same house, one working just above the minimum wage the other on contributory ESA, the salary of the worker is not taken into consideration BUT once it becomes means-tested it will. Therefore it will increase poverty and takes away independence. Particularly affected will be claimants who have a low paid working partner. Ironically in the view of the policy objective of making sure work pays if partners of contributory ESA claimants move back into work they will be worse off under the government’s proposal. If some moves back into work while their partner is on contributory ESA then the ESA is unaffected and the household gets a clear increase in income. If the contributory ESA is replaced by a means tested benefit any income from a start in work will be drastically reduced by the tapers that exist in the means tested regime.This tapers will become much steeper with the introduction of Universal Credit.
Amendment 38A – Protecting those with limited work capacity due to cancer
(a) where a person is receiving treatment for cancer when entitlement shall continue for so long as the person has (or is treated as having) limited capacity for work; or
(b) the person has (or is treated as having) limited capacity for work as a consequence of a cancer diagnosis.
When people are fighting cancer they need support not being bullied by the state to find work. People with their jobs being held open for them until they get better will be unable to claim JSA as one of the conditions of entitlement of JSA is that you do not have a job. Again the irony is that people will be asking their employers to dismiss them for incapacity in order to have food to eat! Some people will be forced from work and on to long term benefits by this measure. It will also force people into pointless job searching to comply with the JSA rules when they should be concentrating on getting better.
Amendment 59 – Exclude Child Benefit from the benefit cap
The arithmetic does not make sense a household with an earned income of £26000 will be getting the full amount of Child Benefit for the children within it. The important social policy objective of giving women independence within a relationship will be lost. The children will suffer if a male claimant holds back money from his female partner. This does happen in abusive relationships. It also makes escaping domestic violence much more difficult by women in abusive relationships also caught by the benefit cap.
Amendment 62C – Oppose government proposals to charge single parents for using the Child Support Agency
Most women caught in poverty do not have the resources to pursue absent partners. Whether they are on benefit or balancing work with being a lone parent they are not often in a position to deal with getting money from an unwilling or in impecunious absent parent.
Yesterday, I attended the TUC seminar on A positive agenda for disability and employment: A seminar on the Government’s Cuts and Reforms
Speakers included Prof Paul Gregg, Declan Gaffney, Kaliya Franklin (‘Bendy Girl’) and TUC economist Richard Exell, former member of the Disability Rights Commission. Unfortunately Sue Marsh (‘Diary of a Benefit Scrounger’) couldn’t attend due to illness. It was chaired by Nicola Smith Head of Economic and Social Affairs Department at the TUC.
The seminar was about the changing to the benefits system. The new Welfare Reform Bill is skyrocketing through the commons, fortunately the Lords has voted down certain elements of the draconian Bill. But this hasn’t stopped the ConDems who will continue their ideological onslaught on the poor. I attended the seminar mainly to listen to Kaliya (who I know mainly through her blog/Twitter account as “Bendy Girl”) especially as she was one of the authors, along with Sue Marsh and Declan Gaffney, of the “Spartacus Report”. I was also interested in what Paul Gregg to say bearing in mind his recommendations were included in the previous Welfare Reform Act under NL and James Purnell as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Declan Gaffney was not someone I had heard speak before but had read articles by him in the Guardian. And Richard Exell, I have heard on many occasions at these events before.
Paul Gregg (Labour market analysis) started his presentation with the statement that the cuts are falling on families and the disabled, who will also be experiencing the “sharp end of the stick” when it comes to the changes in the WRB. He’s right when he says that there’s this myth being peddled that the benefits system is “out of control”. It’s not. The problem I have with Gregg’s analysis (other than his part in the previous Welfare Reform Act) is that he states that during the recession of the late 1980s onwards, disabled people were pushed out of the workforce due to employers seeing them as “nonproductive”, which was undoubtedly true but there are also other explanations as to why sickness benefits rose, such as the actively seeking work rules come in. Until then someone could claim benefits for being unemployed without having to show they were looking for work. This meant that a lot of people with health problems could sign on. This coupled with the supplementary benefit rules for additional payments meant there was no reason for people to go onto the forerunner of Incapacity Benefit, Invalidity Benefit. Therefore people bumped off signing on and bumped out of their jobs claimed Invalidity Benefit and later Incapacity Benefit.
Gregg concluded that because disabled workers were pushed out, they stayed out. He believes that people should be moved back into work by support and engagement. Incapacity benefit to ESA (which he was involved in) was designed to get people back into the job market with “generous financial incentives for providers”. But, as I stated during the Q&A, that’s not what is happening in reality. Before Purnell and now IDS spout the language of “support” and “help” all fluffy and meaningful words yet the reality is coercion, sanctions and conditionality. Also, I stated, that the Work Capability Assessment was a travesty and a total mess. It’s trial by computer. These providers are not interested in need they see pound signs in their eyes. Profits to be made, gagging orders, and “parking and creaming”. I also argued that the private sector should be removed from the benefits system and that the state should run all of the functions. Yes, the state has problems but 1. it’s accountable and 2. nobody makes a profit. The continued privatisation of the benefits systems has made things utterly worse. Purnell, Gregg and Freud unleashed a Frankenstein monster with previous Welfare Reform legislation along culture of dependency and now the ConDems are continuing the trend.
Gregg presented Powerpoint presentations and statistics in a very anodyne manner but the reality is for blunter and brutal. Funny as well, Gregg never referred the intervention I made about the privatisation of the welfare system, incompetency of Atos nor the fact that conditionality and sanctions should be removed confined to the dustbin as they are an insult (to applause from the audience).
Kaliya Franklin argued that the changes to benefits will create perverse incentives. There is cross party consensus (Liam Byrne supports the cap on benefits). And in times of austerity, a powerless group in society is stigmatised, vilified and demonised. There has been shift in now in blaming the individual. During the past couple of years, benefits have been tightened and withdrawn altogether. Kaliya outlined some of these perverse and pernicious clauses:
Clause 51: Limit contributory ESA to 1 year.
At the moment if someone is on contributory ESA and they have a partner who works, the salary of the worker is not taken into account. BUT with this proposal, after one year, your partner’s salary will be taken into consideration and means tested.
Clause 52: Abolition of youth ESA for new claimants. Existing claimants at that date will be able to continue claiming, but entitlement will be limited to one year from the time entitlement began, disregarding time in the support group. Time spent on youth ESA prior to April 2012 will count towards the time limit.
This will affect young disabled people as it will take away independence.
She also spoke about Local Authority’s cutting social care, rationed or withdrawn completely (this began to happen under NL). Birmingham Council, for example, has changed the criteria for care as “super critical” it is nothing more than a cut cutting exercise that puts disabled people at risk. See this report about Elaine McDonald to illustrate the barbarity of these cuts.
The argument and justification by the ConDems for the replacement of DLA to PIP (Personal Independence Payment) is fraudulent claims, which is misleading. One of the reasons why the Responsible Report (Spartacus Report) was published to counteract these claims but to also show that the ConDems cherry picked responses and that they refused to publish all of the responses hence why the authors of the report put in Freedom of Information requests. Around half a million disabled people will lose access to DLA. This is where the “Big Society” is expected to paper over the cracks of cuts and replacing state support. With the attacks on benefits and also housing benefit many, including Kaliya, won’t be able to afford the rent where they live. Access to Work is being tightened, rules being changed and so on. It also means taking away independence. Along with the increased demonisation of people of benefits, there has been a 75% increase in hate crime towards disabled people within the 12 months. So much for a responsible media! The constant abuse will lead to do distress, despair and suicide. This is a perfect storm. Becoming more punitive and oppressive towards disabled people.
Richard Exell’s introduction included a history of the progress made in the past few years regards to changes with the DDA and Equality Act. Civil rights have progressed for disabled people but not economic equality. It has got worse for women and disabled people (especially with the onset of this recession and unemployment). NL foreshadowed the problems. He argues that there should be socially sanctioned income for people who can’t get work. Factors will include exhaustion, nausea, pain and so on. People experiencing these won’t be expected to work. Exell supports the idea of sanctioning people (he’s stated that before) even if it is with the best intentions you are still siding with an ideology that believes people can’t be trusted and punished. Even if you oppose the overall ideology of the right (which Exell claims he does) supporting sanctions still puts you on the side of the right. Sanctions (and conditionality) are wrong and don’t work!
Declan Gaffney started his intervention with the fact that the grievances the ConDems (and NL….Ed Miliband and Liam Byrne) have about “scroungers” is imaginary along with the deserving and undeserving poor as there’s no distinction nor any given basis. John Humphrys awful programme on the welfare state and benefits portrayed the unemployed as static, that things don’t change, immobile block. It’s creates two homogenous groups. Yet the reality is much more complex (mental health doesn’t get mentioned as much as it should). UK employment for disabled people is not exceptionally low when comparing with similar wealthy European economies but for those with “more severe work-limiting restrictions” is weak compared to some other countries. And for those with lower qualifications and more severe restrictions UK performs very badly!
One question from the audience was about Labour’s narrative. The panel had really nothing to say about Labour’s narrative because there isn’t one except to agree parrot fashion the ConDems. There’s no coherent alternative from Labour or opposition.
Two things that deeply depressed and saddened me, one was the latest British Social Attitudes report from the National Centre for Social Research and the other was the death of David Askew. The man had learning disabilities and was bullied relentlessly until one day his heart gave out.
South Manchester coroner John Pollard ruled Mr Askew was unlawfully killed.
Mr Pollard said there was a “staggering degree of inertia and complacency” shown by police, the council and housing associations in dealing with the anti-social behaviour towards Mr Askew.
“The fact that there is 38 separate offences reported against this family within a three-year period shows the appalling way in which this element of feral youths can bring misery to a decent, vulnerable family,” he said.
Pathologist Dr Charles Wilson told the coroner Mr Askew suffered from ischemic heart disease, which meant not enough blood got to his heart.
He was also suffering from cancer of the oesophagus.
Mr Wilson said the adrenalin released by the altercation with the youths would have made his heart beat faster, and in turn this could cause heart failure in an already weakened heart.
The term “feral” is unhelpful and wrong, also very anti-working class. Bullying is all about picking on someone who is in a very powerless position. It is easy to bully, torment and harass someone like David Askew.
This leads to the British Social Survey report and the emphasis being on individualism coupled with assumptions. An example of this can be found on the section regarding child poverty and the reasons why children live in poverty.
75% Drug and alcohol problems
63% Parents not wanting to work.
56% Family breakdown.
51% Lack of education
50% Long period out of work.
Interesting that “parents NOT wanting to work” is high on the list.
Constant and unrelenting lies spouted by politicians and screaming headlines about “benefit scroungers” “fecklessness” and “workshy” will only increase oppressive attitudes towards people. And it seems to be working, the lies have been absorbed. Though human beings are a contradictory bunch as well.
With the economic meltdown, recession and a double-dip one forecasted I imagine it will be a case of looking after number one as opposed to collective action. I hope I am wrong. But with the cuts comes more alienation and atomisation. Blame the poor and powerless. Picking on people just because you can. I knew a man some years ago who was bullied and tormented constantly because his wife had depression. Adults encouraged their kids to shout abuse at him. In the end, the council moved him and his wife and did nothing about the tormenters.
There is little doubt that disability hate crime is on the rise. A recent Equality and Human Rights Commission report concluded that “people with disabilities in the UK face harassment, insult and attack almost as a matter of routine, while a collective denial’ among police, government and other public bodies means little is done to challenge the situation”.
Furthermore
According to a ComRes, some 47% of disabled people surveyed said that attitudes towards them have worsened over the past year while 66% claimed that they had experienced “aggression, hostility or name-calling”. Taken to its extreme, this bullying leads to the tragic deaths of people such as Fiona Pilkington and Francecca Hardwick, Gemma Hayter and Keith Philpott.
And now David Askew…..
Sometimes I think we are down the barbarism path where nothing is on your terms instead it’s stigmatisation, bullying and vilification from lazy right-wing politicians and media outlets who scream lies and more damn lies. It’s about punishment and coercion; your fault you’re disabled, your fault you are unemployed. Your fault your kids live in poverty….get a job! Never about building awareness, insight through education. It’s more about alienation, atomisation and individualism. Though as I human beings have a knack for being contradictory lets hope the collective wins over the individualism.
The attacks on benefit claimants is unrelenting. Sound bites, spin and lies (“Something for nothing” culture etc.) and the ConDems want to make things a helluva more difficult. Labour, unfortunately, is mimicking the behaviour along with pitting one oppressed group against another. What’s even more disgraceful is that this increased onslaught is at a time of economic crisis, recession and unemployment. Solution? Up the ante against the poor, attack benefits and cut services.
What has also made me think other than wondering where these mythical jobs are is how employment can have a detrimental impact on people. ConDems and Labour think the unemployed and disabled people aren’t trying hard enough to find work. Bring in an oppressive private company such as Atos Origin whose job is more about right-wing ideology as opposed to objective medical evidence therefore creating more stress, anxiety and desperation, pushing people into an ever shrinking job market where preciously good jobs are hard to come by. Though the ConDems and Labour don’t think people should be so choosy and selective and moralised into going for any old shitty job. And various private companies brought in with public money chucked at them will keep a collective beady eye on the unemployed where they can “park” and “cream” at leisure and where people can work for their dole which inevitably will push pay and conditions down. Why would an employer give a qualified person decent pay when they could get the same qualified person for free? This is a trade union issue yet trade unions are undeniably quiet……
The benefits system is based on fear, sanctions and conditionality. Disabled people are exposed as being liars and majority fit for work based on an assessment which is more about ideology and less about medical evidence. And unemployed people are not doing enough to find work. Both groups are seen as “scroungers” and “workshy” and not really disabled. This constant message eventually seeps through and impacts on attitudes. Disabled people feel vulnerable and powerless and constantly exposed.
On the issue of disability, what the ConDems and Labour miss out is the attitudes of employers. There is so much anecdotal evidence that employers can be very ignorant, misguided, unfair and discriminatory in their treatment of disabled workers. Lack of education and the legislation that supports disabled people just isn’t tough enough. Instead of damning disabled people what about employers and their discriminatory attitudes?
The Office for Disability Issues published ‘Public perceptions of disabled people’ looking at attitudes towards disabled people as revealed in the 2009 British Social Attitudes Survey (BSAS). It measures how much prejudice there is in Great Britain towards disabled people and examines how attitudes have changed between 2005 and 2009. Unfortunately, it made for some disturbing reading. The research showed that even though attitudes toward disabled people have improved on the whole, prejudice is still a worrying issue especially towards people with learning disabilities or mental health problems.
The report suggests that people are more comfortable interacting with people with physical or sensory impairments in social situations than they are interacting with individuals with learning disabilities or mental health conditions, many also struggle in situations where disabled people are in positions of authority. This may reflect a false belief that a disabled boss will be less effective than a non-disabled boss.
It is very worrying that stigma and discrimination remain so strong. Such prejudice is one of the biggest barriers to employment for people with a learning disability or mental health problems. Employers are often reluctant to take on someone with a learning disability or a mental health problem, possibly because they do not know enough about the benefits of employing them or they do not know how to get the right support to make it work.
And with this constant and unrelenting lies spouted by politicians and screaming headlines about “benefit scroungers” will only increase oppressive attitudes towards people. How many people have suffered burn-out in their job, harassment, bullying and discrimination? This will have an impact on their own attitudes about getting another job? My own experiences of the workforce has been negative, some workplaces better in understanding mental distress than others. I have to say this as given me a rather cynical outlook on work along with a feeling of nervousness. It really doesn’t inspire me to want to leap back into the job market as there’s only so much harassment, bullying and discrimination you can take. Also, it doesn’t have to be explicit in its nature. What about needs of disabled people such as adjustments, flexible hours and so on?
Over a third (37 per cent) of those who were disabled while in paid work said that they had to leave work for reasons connected to their impairment. Just under three in ten (27 per cent) of those who had ever left a job for reasons connected with their impairment felt that they could have remained in that job if some support, adjustments or adaptations had been made. Most of the adjustments that respondents would have wanted related to support and understanding from managers (14 per cent) and colleagues (eight per cent), but few (eight per cent) of these respondents were offered any support or adjustments/ adaptations.
Even when I psyche myself up to apply for jobs I always have in the back of my mind what is the attitude of mental distress (in my own case). One recent application form asked how many days had off sick in the past 2 years. Interesting that this was asked and it was very naughty indeed to ask this. Why did they need the info at this stage? Was it to be used to filter out people? Naughty and very unfair. The organisation that asked that particular question wasn’t some non-unionised private company but an organisation which champions the rights of people with mental distress…. Ironic or what! I wasn’t sure whether to laugh or cry.
Then if you are successful with the job you have the dreaded occupational form which can stop the progression of your potential employment dead in the tracks. Do you tell them about your sick record? Disability? Hauled in front of an occupation doctor or nurse who asks for personal details, again is this about supporting you or hindering you? Along with the lack of awareness, understanding and insight combined with the misfortune if you end up in a workplace where discrimination and bad behaviour is inherent. Oh, and that reminds me, I truly wish there were enlightened trade union reps when it comes to discrimination and disability. Education and training wouldn’t go amiss!
We live in a society that treat people as cogs in a capitalist wheel where we are undervalued. When you can’t work, for whatever reasons, you are given a meagre amount of money to exist along with going through humiliating, distressing fake assessments or you’re constantly scrutinize to make sure you are chasing one shitty job after another without any consideration about what you want or need. Nothing is on your terms and this creates a sense of powerlessness and stigmatisation and vilification from lazy right-wing politicians and media outlets. It’s about punishment and coercion; your fault your disabled, your fault you are unemployed. Never about building awareness, insight through education. Where people are treated with respect and being allowed to choose when they want to work (if they want to) on their own terms. Where decent paid jobs exist along with prospects and support. But punishment, coercion and condemnation is the name of the game in this callous and cruel society.
See as well: Public Perceptions of Disabled People - Evidence from the British Social Attitudes Survey 2009
“The first duty of all doctors is to make the care of your patient your first concern”… Jane O’Brien, Assistant Director, Standards & Fitness to Practice Directorate GMC.
I attended the protest outside the Business Design Centre in Islington today as the BMJ (British Medical Journal) Recruitment Fair has allowed Atos in who will be attempting to recruit yet more ‘disability assessors’. There were cops about penning us in as we were on private property and they wanted us to move across directly into the heat of the sun … activists said NO.. And the cops didn’t push it. There were speakers and there was an excellent presence along with the media interest.
A recent study by Mind found that 3-quarters of people surveyed said that the prospect of a work capability assessment had made their mental health worse and 51% said it had left them with suicidal thoughts. Atos assessments are trials by computer. They ignore medical evidence. Over 40% of people who have appealed Atos Origin’s decision have been successful. Surely, then, Atos is NOT fit for purpose. They have no concern nor consideration for the people they are assessing rather for them it is ideological and profit making. Nothing about people need more about greed. Public money have been pumped into a private company like Atos and for what? To create more misery and desperation.
See: Open Letter on Atos ‘Healthcare’ to the BMJ and RCN
Extracts from the letter:
Doctors’ and nurses’ ethics are being corrupted by Atos’ offers of higher salaries and daytime reduced work hours. Some doctors have tried to argue that their duty to patients does not apply when assessing benefit claimants on behalf of Atos. But the General Medical Council has upheld that doctors are always bound by this duty whether seeing patients, employees (when assessing occupational health), benefit and insurance claimants, athletes, among others (see attached response from the Standards & Fitness to Practise Directorate).
And
Atos kills. Medical professionals who lend it credibility give it a licence to kill. We call on the BMJ Group and RCN to end all association with Atos, and on doctors and nurses to defend patients and uphold our welfare.
The authors have received a reply from the BMJ but it is not on the net as far as I am aware. Photocopies of the reply were handed out to campaigners. BMJ say:
There is also a presumption that recruiters are clear about the nature of the work and will do nothing to jeopardise doctors’ GMC standing. Your letter challenges that point and I will now ask ATOS for an assurance that their employees’ duties are congruent with the GMC’s Good Medical Practice. When I hear back from them, I and my colleagues on the BMJ board will consider what if anything needs to be done and we will let you know the outcome.
Seems like pressure needs to be put on the BMJ Group and that Atos isn’t based on duty of care they are based on profit and greed.
On 19th October, from 1pm at the Business Design Centre, it’s the annual Welfare to Work convention ….!! Conference speakers include James Purnell and Lord Freud. If you believe working for your dole is wrong, wrong and WRONG then get yourself down there on the 19th October and tell them where they shove workfare!
I watched the Panorama programme which involved a reporter going undercover in a home that “cares” for people with learning difficulties. Abuse, violent and humiliation was rife. Restraint was used to torture these people. And one professional who watched the video described it Guantanamo style “care”. Indeed. Sometimes I am skeptical of these undercover investigations but this one truly shocked and distressed me. How can these workers treat people like this? Part of me isn’t shocked though vulnerable and powerless people are fair game violence is institutionalised in these settings. Support workers and nurses used their frustration and boredom by creating situations where they could torture and abuse (physical and emotional). People were subjected to physical restraint that blocked airways and put people into dangerous situations. What these workers did amounted to assault. Indeed I hope there will be a police investigation not just the behaviour of these individuals but also, on more general issue, the structures of these care homes.
As the excellent post from DPAC illustrates, many of these care homes are private therefore profit before need. Possibly as well the wages will be low. Becuase of the privatised environments of these care homes abuse will be a looming factor.
A further example, is of private companies running secure training centres where young people, many vulnerable have been subjected shocking levels of physical restraint. It led Adam Rickwood to commit suicide. Gareth Myatt was restrained by being held down by 3 members of staff where he choked to death on his vomit. Apparently there have been changes to the way physical restraint has been used now primarily as a “last resort” . Personally, I believe that physical restraint should be outlawed, even when properly used.
Also, in the Panorama programme, workers were shown lying about their reasons why they used physical restraint encouraging others to follow. There were pecking orders in the staff regime, one of them was a bully to other staff and there seemed to be fear of this specific members of staff. Protocaols, procedures, accountability and responsibility weren’t integral to the running of the centre. The whistle blower wrote countless letters to the management of the home and the CQC (Quality Care Commission) where he got no reply. The talking head from CQC admitted, rather defensiviely, that procedures had failed this man. You can say that again!!
Is this commission fit for purpose? It let down these people and it let down this whistleblower. humiliation, abuse and violence was the day-to-day experiences dished out by paid thugs.The programme also reminded me of the investigations that gave the viewing world a glimpse of the violence in the special hospital regime, case in point Rampton, horrific abuse and violence were regular occurrences. Another example institutionalised violence. The behaviour went unchecked and ignored, I mean, these are dangerously mad people, aren’t they…I mean, who cares? Fortunately, the documentary caused a storm of protest which led to an investigation into the practices and state intervention.
Again, violence against people with learning difficulties, disabilities and mental distress or just anyone vulnerable and powerless in this society is accepted in some form or another. Along with the constant vilification and stigmatimatsion and demonisation. And that powerlessness renders you into nothing. One woman in the Panorama programme said that her daughter told her that she was being beaten yet she didn’t believe her. Watching this woman’s expression change when she saw the support workers and nurses attacking her daughter was upsetting in itself. Her daughter was telling the truth but nobody believed her (and certainly in the past as a mental health advocate I have come across that time and time again). Who wants to believe the powerless in this society? Out of sight out of mind. The kind of dog-eat-dog society we live in defines this kind of savage, alienating and barbaric behaviour. The level of brutality truly scares me. And with this Big Society con trick things will get so much worse without the state’s checks and balances, people will be at the mercy of private charity based “care”…. I kinda imagine a Dickensian future.
Finally, as Eleanor eloquently writes at the end of her post about privatised care: What we want to know is when is this austerity driven government going to see that this privatised, institutionalised care is not cheaper but that it costs disabled people and their families dear in depriving them of their human rights to live independently with support in the communities that includes them.
