Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:26 am Post subject: BENEFIT BUSTERS
I watched the program and came away with mixed feelings .
I imagine that the TV crew did not have unfettered access to the salespeople at Shaw Trust. And yes that is exactly what they are.
It was notable however , that there was a 5 sec clip in there with a personal advisor telling a client "There is no reason you cant get work" and this was not said supportively but accusingly.
I commend the advisor who was dealing with the woman with both depression issues and alcohol issues . Despite the fact the woman said she was ready for work immediately, the advisor said to her perhaps you ought to continue with your counselling and concentrate on yourself for now . Later the advisor said to camera that she hoped to be able to help the woman in about a year. That is the perfect way to deal with similar clients , and would mean that the woman had less chance of relapse , and would actually be more likely to remain in employment.I am hoping that this interview was not set up for the camera. Believe me when i say that is the correct way to do it , as i spent over a year volunteering at an independant addiction drop in.
I was shocked at the medical , (myself being on incap and passed with just a completed IB50 and no medical) , although obviously edited , it seemed to turn the whole thing into a flippant excercise with questions that sounded innocuous and "conversation like" actually being part of the assesment. Eg . "where did you park" so the assessor(i refuse to call them Doctors even if they are) could ascertain how far someone could walk if they had to.
The star "saleswoman" had no knowlege at all about medical conditions and their impact, and im curious as to what info was supplied to them by Atos to enable her to make decisions as to what an individual is actually capable of. She did seem to genuinely believe she was doing good ,and there is an element of truth in what she was saying.
With that in mind i am curious about something the program did not mention, the CMU (Condition Management Unit) and what their role is and whether there are sanctions etc if you refuse to go . Also how qualified are they and how well do they know occupational therapy.Is this going to be- people at work get occupational therapy from the NHS, people on Sick/Disabled Benefits get treatment from a CMU?
I guess i have that to look forward to when i get changed over to ESA at some point from next year.
Yet another charity being forced to take on target driven DWP contracts , and i hope their ethical conscience means they withdraw , as many have already.
Yet again though despite the fact the program was a small insight into the process of ESA, the only true way to guage how it is working is by resources like this forum , and people willing to campaign and share their own experiences with anecdotal evidence.
Rich
Woman with mental health problems hounded by Jobcentre staff
A woman with acute depression and behavioural problems (attributed to brain damage from a road traffic accident), unable to cope with official interviews, had an “unfortunate experience” at the hands of Jobcentre staff, the Dept. for Work and Pensions admitted. Under Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), people with disabilities now have to attend a work-focussed interview, then an assessment, followed by compulsory “work-focussed activity”. Only people whose disabilities are extremely severe are exempt. ESA claimants have to deal with a bewildering three different offices – the DWP Benefit Delivery Centre, privatised Medical Services (Atos Origin Ltd.) and the Jobcentre.
Having to repeat information about her health history, on forms and by phone, was making the woman more anxious and suicidal, and aggravating her behavioural problems, so she was unable to complete the required form. She had sick notes covering her claim.
Jobcentre staff ignored phone calls and letters from WinVisible, from concerned medical practitioners and even a letter from the woman’s MP. They insisted that attending the work-focussed interview was obligatory, suggesting that WinVisible should accompany the woman if she had behavioural problems which they were not trained for. Interviews were automatically rescheduled, culminating in a “Pathways to Work” interview.
Finally, Compliance Officers came to the woman’s home. They pushed a letter under her inner front door, which threatened that her benefit would stop unless she contacted them to explain herself. WinVisible immediately phoned the Jobcentre, telling the Compliance Officer that we had notified the Adviser she could not attend. The Officer maintained that the interview could not be waived -- their actions were government policy. WinVisible answered that Compliance Officers are responsible if, as a result of their actions, anything happened to vulnerable claimants who are already suicidal. The Compliance Officer put the phone down on WinVisible. (She later said the call was unexpectedly cut off.)
After our complaint, the DWP acknowledged that Jobcentre staff applied the wrong rules. They had not taken the extra steps which, according to officials, are there to safeguard people with mental health problems. They had delivered the wrong letter at the home visit – the ESA letter is not supposed to contain any threat to stop benefit. Jobcentre staff could not threaten to cut the woman’s benefit, as no decision was yet made on whether her lack of compliance was wilful or a result of her illness. She was at the assessment stage, before the main stage when sanctions could be applied. The DWP acknowledged that claimants perceive the home visit as a threat, and that staff should have acted to alleviate that threat, but described such powers to visit as “support”.
The woman was made distraught by the threatening letter. ‘When I found the note from the Jobcentre under my door, it added to my feelings of fear, panic and distress. It made me feel that if the people I thought were there to help me worked against me, that there was no point in going on. It has only been with the help of WinVisible, my friends and my psychiatrist that I have started to pull myself back together.’
WinVisible was on hand to support her and to phone the Jobcentre immediately. But what is happening to vulnerable claimants who don’t have anyone to help fight their corner? Prof. Peter Beresford reported* about a man terminally ill with cancer, in his last days in a hospice, pressed by the Jobcentre that he had to go there for the sake of his ESA claim, and who died before payment. It is shocking that there is no legal duty of care towards claimants, to protect us from official bullying and brutality.
*Insensitive treatment of dying claimant raises fears over new benefit, JoePublicBlog. Guardian, 10 March 2009
I watched the program with mixed feelings and focus for any lop sided bias it may give. I was very interested to see it focussing on Shaw Trust which is a charity taking the governments money instead of representing sick/disabled people. I fail to see how it can still be called a charity when it has a £6 or was it £7 million contract? At least I could recall the news in Steves last B & W bulletin that Shaw lost £3 million on that contract and it's not hard to see why.
The whole emphasis is on getting people into work. They are salespeople because they have bonus related targets. As a former sales manager it was interesting to watch their management. Most of them appeared very uncomfortable with what they were doing and failed miserably to get anywhere near their target. The lady who had sales experience came closest but she was also the one who empathised the least with her 'customers'.
There was only one offer of a training course throughout the whole program. At the end the lad was thrown off disability without any mention of his right to appeal. No right to appeal was ever mentioned or the number of people getting reinstated on appeal because of the hopelessly biased and brutal way the system is appraising disabled people.
One thing I did feel was that a lot of people on disability probably could do some form of paid work in some capacity but the system is so inflexible and politically motivated that a caring, responsive, properly thought out and funded program to help the disabled help themselves would never be implemented.
It seemed to me that the 'skills' of the advisors in helping people with difficulties find the right work option were non existent. The 'method' consisted of sales pep talks and jumping about like cheer leaders to create temporary enthusiasm and harassing people and putting guilt trips on them. When it really gets going with the sanctions they will frighten a lot of people out of claiming and they won't ask where they went. Mental hospital, crime, prison, family back bedrooms, the street - do they know or care.
But none of that will add up to their million - that will come by reclassification of sick people in to well people. Once on JSA the harassment will be far worse and the skilled help to overcome difficulties won't exist. People will reappear on ESA only they will be more sick by then.
None of it will produce more jobs. And when you think how the job market has been undermined with a drive for low paid contract working with no security that takes people in and burns them up and where employers take less and less long term responsibility or care for staff you are forcing people out in to a market that will not accommodate their problems. Why are they targetting Remploy for closure if they really want disabled people supported in work?
So I agree exactly with admin here. If you had a caring, intelligent, sensitive program of help and money available to employers to fund them for supporting disabled people in work - then there could be some good outcomes. But all that costs money and this is about saving money.
I saw that program , am l a target O well. People need to no that thes changes will affect people in Hospic care no one will be left along even if you have had a stroke.
As we all no employers will Discrinate, we allridy have ageism and reseach has stated most empoyers will not imploy someone with a mental health proplem so even if we wish to work we would end up with dead end jobs if we are luck.
Times are heard and we need to stand up for owerselfs, l think we should not cooperate with the state what the hell we are going to lose money if not ower lifes so lets fight back
It's the same problem as 'care in the community'. Good care in the community would be a good thing but it would cost more money. Bad 'care in the community' which is effectively no care is very cheap.
We have to insist on lots of practical help to get back to work that is voluntary for people with complicated and serious difficulties. And no threat to enhanced benefits so they have security.
That is the current CarerWatch campaign. We have started with mental illness to create a precedent. We have sent invitations to join the campaign to independent campaign groups including Welfarewatch (we are hoping for a positive reply soonest to post on the blog), politicians and charities.
We will then know who is in this fight with us and who isn't.
All replies to be posted on the campaign blog at -
Alan Wheatley the Disability spokesperson for the Green Party has sent us this link to the voyage of discovery of the Disability Minsister as he tours the country and disabled apparently throw rose petals in his path.
Please go and throw comments on his patronising blog.
Minister for Disabled People, Jonathan Shaw, continues his blogging on
Community Care 'Social Experts' blog.
So I have put in a response to today's blog about encouraging disabled
people to report hate crime. (See below.)
Please feel free to build on what I have written, or 'do your own thing'
in response to what the Minister writes. Those with blogs or website
might like to arrange a 'trackback'.
Alan Wheatley
Green Party of England & Wales Disability Spokesperson
Minister's disability tour day 3: Encouraging people to report hate crime
By Simeon Brody <http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/mental-health/> on
September 24, 2009 10:06 AM | 1 Comment
<http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-care-experts-blog/2009/09/ministers-disability-tour-day.html#comments>
| No TrackBacks
<http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-care-experts-blog/2009/09/ministers-disability-tour-day.html#trackbacks>
Jonathan-Shaw.jpg*by Jonathan Shaw, Minister for Disabled People
*
I am now well into my week of visits to disability organisations across
Britain to learn about the experiences of disabled people.
While in Wales yesterday
<http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-care-experts-blog/2009/09/tea-rooms-and-training-inister.html>,
We’re back from annual leave now and have been catching up on what’s been happening in our absence.
We’ll be sending out a detailed newsletter on Tuesday which will include evidence from several reputable sources that DLA is definitely under threat, plus voicing your concerns about what exactly is going on with the Big Care Debate website, where your responses are often not being published even when the website is working.
Meanwhile, however, we would strongly urge campaigners to sign the DLA and AA petition on the No 10 website, posted on 7 September by Peter Hand of Mencap.
So far it’s collected 3,728 signatures and is the 33rd largest petition on the site, which is not bad, but far short of what’s needed.
We know lots of people are very sceptical about petitions on No 10 – they feel they achieve very little other than dismissive responses from civil servants. Some also don’t like the fact that you’re asked to give an email address and your home address.
However, the petition is up and running and, unless it gathers lots of support, it could be used as evidence that there’s actually little concern about the future of DLA and AA.
Bear in mind that signing up to the Benefits and Work campaign is not like signing a petition – we aren’t going to be passing on your details to anyone else. So the fact that almost 26,000 people have now signed up to the campaign can be ignored by politicians.
But politicians know that virtually every signature on a No. 10 petition belongs to a voter and, with an election less than a year away, every signature really could make a difference.
So, please do sign the petition and spread word of it around forums and to people on your email list.
Good luck,
Steve Donnison
Please feel free to forward or publish this email.
We need a fresh look at welfare says Jonathan Rutherford Tuesday, October 20 2009
Yesterday the TUC held a conference on An Alternative Vision of the Welfare State. Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to the welfare reforms of David Freud, neither aim to raise benefits and each tries to outdo the other on how many claimants they will remove from incapacity benefit. What hope an alternative?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
