500,000 'fit To Work' Sick Pay Claimants Will Be Forced Back Into Employment

[Injin]

These people are claiming they are unable to work, get Incapacity benefit, assisted housing and mobility cars and yet they do cash in hand work as well.

Their kids have everything they need and then some

The part that concerns me is their attitude which no doubt their kids will inherit

What attitude?

That you cancel extortionists payments with their own money and then work for what you want?

[PopGun]

Because with currency arbitrage those people are getting paid 4x domestic wages.

If there was another country easily accessible where you could go to and earn the equivalent of 60 or 70k a year wiping up snot you'd find our "lazy" developing a work ethic asap.

spot on. It isn't rocket science.

[xux42]

Even if there are no jobs for those who fail the test and these people sign on instead, it will still save a lot of money as JSA is about £30 per week less than Incapacity Benefit for a single person, more for a couple.

I've no problem with this as long as the test is fair.

I agree and whilst I have some sympathy for the lack of jobs argument, yesterday a young lady with joint problems said on the radio that she had 'failed' her medical, by which she meant she was passed fit to work.

Surely this merits a:

[miko]

500,000 jobs advertised in the job centres.

That is a completly force figure , they recount each job each time it is advertised in many job centre's.

Last time I poped into my local job centre by page 3 on the list the jobs advertised were in Somerset , Norfolk and other area's across the U.k. this was in Essex.

I went back to page 1 and counted the actual amount of jobs in the local area. The total was 13, and those 13 included ,1 part time leaflet dropper, 1 in the sex industry, 2 council jobs ( bet those were already allocated to others , the council just going through the recrutiment process ) so that left 9 jobs , whilst I was in there 50 people must have passed through the place so 5 people for each job and that was in less than 1 hour . Wonder how many people passed through that job centre in one week , and how many people that meant for each job that was in the local area.

[red11]

Forcing 500k people into work ?

Where will the 500k jobs appear from ?

It's a useful way for the government to save money, as JSA benefits are much less than Incapacity benefit, and the drudgery of having to produce evidence of jobseeking activity every 2 weeks will certainly be a shock to many claimants.

But where are the jobs ?

It's hard enough at the moment for the unemployed to find work.

[Henrik]

'As the former Labour Work And Pensions Secretary Alan Hutton once said, after two years on IB [incapacity benefit], you're more likely to die than ever move into work.'

I have nothing to add to the debate, but did Alan Hutton have anything to do with the ONS under Labour by any chance?

[dhpcza]

The sort of jobs that will be available to the "long term sick" forced back into work will be ones on the lowest rung.

The jobs on the lowest rung are the ones that are most competitively sought after by the current unemployed who are looking for work. People who work at the job centre will tell you this. People who have been recently or are currently unemployed can tell you this.

This isn't about getting people back to work, that just isn't going to happen because the jobs aren't there. This is about cutting benefits -- fine, "we are all in this together" right? So do our MP's need expenses when they are on 60k a year basic? And don't give me that "living in London" rubbish either, I've got plenty of family there and none of them make anywhere near that money.

I guess it's easier to take some money from people who don't have much in the first place, than it is to get your own nose out of the trough -- no MP with any kind of conscience should be claiming a penny for expenses if they are on 60k a year. To do so, and then tell the poorest in society that being out of work just got a lot harder, is stunning hypocrisy.

[dhpcza]

And to any smart arses that insist "BUT THERE ARE JOBS!"...yes there are. But the number of applicants for most jobs, especially the low level ones, is much higher, meaning people can potentially be out of work for a long time!

[Harry Monk]

And to any smart arses that insist "BUT THERE ARE JOBS!"...yes there are. But the number of applicants for most jobs, especially the low level ones, is much higher, meaning people can potentially be out of work for a long time!

Yep, when my local Dunelm Mill opened, there were 1200 applications for what, 30 or 40 jobs maybe?

Jobs advertised in Job Centres are those on the Government website, and these have a start date and an expiry date, so a vacancy will be shown for six weeks even if the post was filled on the first day.

[billybong]

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article18838.html

Apr 22, 2010

Real U.K. Unemployment is 5.5 million, the Jobless Economic Recovery?

Whilst the headline UK Unemployment data of 2.502 million has come in near 1 million below academic economist expectations. Which at 8% of the workforce is remarkably low when one considers that past milder recessions had seen UK unemployment peak at much higher levels i.e. in the 1980's at 12% and in 1990 at 10.8%, therefore on face value the Labour government appears to have achieved a minor miracle by UK unemployment peaking at only 8% in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

However, I have long questioned the accuracy and validity of the official unemployment data which over several decades and much manipulation by successive governments has been tweaked many hundreds of times to under report true unemployment for political purposes. Current official unemployment stands at 2.502 million which is against the total recorded as economically inactive of working age that stands at a new all time high of 8.159 million which illustrates the true extent of failure of the Labour government to manage the potential of the work force during the boom years as illustrated by the fact that 80% of the 2.1 million jobs created under Labour went to foreign workers and therefore did nothing to address the true level of UK unemployment that contained a hidden ticking social security financing time bomb that is now exploding.

UK Real Unemployment

During the Conservative boom cycle, real unemployment fell from the 1983 crisis high. However the same did not take place following the early 1990's recession where real unemployment failed to not only fall but steadily rose under Labours boom years as the benefits culture took hold and hundreds of thousands of foreign workers performed the jobs that unemployed Britain's were not prepared to do as they were far more comfortable living off the tax payer in Labours benefits culture.

Whilst not all of the 8.16 million economically inactive should be seeking work, however the figure does imply that at least 3 million of the 8 million form the core of the the benefits culture.

Therefore the 3 million that choose not to work but instead prefer to rely on tax payer funded benefits added to the official 2.5 million unemployed results in a total UK unemployment count of 5.5 million. Which is more in line with the recession experience of other similarly in-debted and structured European countries such as Spain that has an unemployment rate of 19%.

This also suggests that even if the headline unemployment rate improves over the coming months (which I expect it to do for a few months at least), the real rate of unemployment as recorded by those economically inactive will remain stubbornly higher for many years, especially in advance of the 1/2 million public sector job cuts required to shrink the budget deficit.

So that's 500,000 of the millions "fit to work" sorted (500,000 taken off whichever millions figure from all the above suits you best - 8.16 millions or 5.5 millions or some other millions figure).

A way to go then.

Maybe they're just going to be shifted off benefits and exchanged on the benefits list to make room for the 500,000 public sector workers going to be laid off.

Edited October 12, 2010 by billybong

[EdiLass]

I see two problems but no solution to either.

First, how do we determine who is too ill or disabled to work?

There are obviously some clear cut cases, but it is not a simple case of giving everyone a medical.

Take my own situation as an example. I have MS, as confirmed by my neurologist. I worked full-time for 3 years after I first got ill. Then I went part-time but my health continued to deteriorate, and I am now no longer capable of doing any kind if work. So I know from my own experience that someone witth MS is capable of working full-time, part-time or not at all. However, the problem is that I am the only one who can really tell how my MS affects me.So the only way for me to be assessed is for me to be asked. I could easily give answers that reflect what I want. A huge problem for me is fatigue and cognitive issues. I find it hard to stay awake, concentrate and focus. However, this isn't usually immediately obvious, even to a medical professional.

Second, even if we are able to assess what people can and can't do in a 30 minute interview, how do we tell what people can do in a sustained manner. I can do a lot of tasks, but I can do no single task repeatedly, nor can I do enough tasks in a single day, to make me employable. I get far too fatigued. Neurological fatigue isn't like ordinary fatigue. It's not just that I get extra tired and so need to go to bed early. For me it's more like being jet-lagged all the time

[miko]

Second, even if we are able to assess what people can and can't do in a 30 minute interview, how do we tell what people can do in a sustained manner. I can do a lot of tasks, but I can do no single task repeatedly, nor can I do enough tasks in a single day, to make me employable. I get far too fatigued. Neurological fatigue isn't like ordinary fatigue. It's not just that I get extra tired and so need to go to bed early. For me it's more like being jet-lagged all the time

Yes its crazy , 30 minutes and they think they know your whole medical case history and where you are now.

I had a stomar bag fitted in January 2009, I applied for sick pay while in hospital and got an appointment for a back to work interview while still in hospital. I phoned and said I would not be attending. When could I attend ? they asked don't know was my answer. A few weeks later I got another appointment and refused to attend as the appointment was in the area that I lived but I was staying a fair distance away with familiy while still ill. They asked me if I could travel to them ? again I refused .

They asked when I would be fit enough to travel to them ? again I said I did not know , but would be happy to attend an interview near to where I was staying . This was refused by them as it was not in the area that I had my permenant address. About six weeks later I did attend , and was then sent for a medical , where I was asked to put my hands up , stand on one leg ect. Then the doctor asked about the stomar bag , left the room made a call , came back and informed me that I did not need to be there and was signed not fit to work due to the stomar bag having just been fitted. Why did they not look at this when I first filled in the forms.

The bag was reversed in Sep 2009 and I must have slept 12-14 hours a day for weeks after I left hospital. It took months to get back to normal , and there was more hassel from the DWP, about getting me off benefits.

My doctor signed me off month by month , and then in Jan this year I felt ok and ready to return to work . So stopped going to the Doctors for a Certificate. The sick pay still showed up in my bank account , so I phoed the DWP , who said that I was still on the sick as I had not been signed off it. There had been no need to get my Doctor to give me sick certificates month by month , as due to my condition I had been accepted too sick to work and did not need to confirm this every month. So they took me off sick pay in Feburary this year after that phone call. In march the payments were still coming into my bank account , so I phoned again , they had no record of me being taken off the sick and said they would stop my payments form that day. April I was still getting the payments a third phone call and then they ceased.

It was very hard to get accepted for sick pay at first , but equally difficult to get taken off of it.

[awaytogo]

If there aint the jobs then why are there 7m immigrants? There are jobs for people cleaning hospitals - so many we have to import labor from nigeria to do the work.

You don't get the point, we did not ask the polish to come they came because our previous goverment who believed (only 50000 polish)

would come did not try and limit or delay the opening of barriers to our country like other countrys did. Now that this and the last goverment are going to try and get a lot of people off benefits (those that should not be on them) back to work there are not the jobs because the immigrants are firmly set in this country now.

[CrashConnoisseur]

Even if there are no jobs for those who fail the test and these people sign on instead, it will still save a lot of money as JSA is about £30 per week less than Incapacity Benefit for a single person, more for a couple.

Your £28 per week "saving" (and more) will just be transferred from the poor to the rich....

'Jobseekers treated 'like cattle'':

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1042106_jobseekers_treated_like_cattle

The government pays A4e up to £194 per customer per week,...

'A4e - a company that makes its money from government contracts':

http://watchinga4e.blogspot.com/2009/07/a4e-company-that-doesnt-like-criticism.html

...it has transferred taxpayers' money, in vast quantities, into private hands. In A4e's case, this means the hands of one person, who has become a very wealthy woman. Money intended to provide services to the those most in need goes instead into the bank account of Emma Harrison. This is now considered normal.

[CrashConnoisseur]

...how do we determine who is too ill or disabled to work?

Indeed. Medical assessments are highly subjective and the results often arbitary. Many observers and politicians seem to think that claimants can be divided into defined groups: the fit and the unfit, the willing to work and the unwilling to work. In the real world it's not like that. Every claimant is an individual with their own problems and limitations. Thus there is a frequency distribution of fitness to work, probably approximating to a normal (bell) curve. The decision point naturally gravitates towards the centre of that curve where the government can maximise its influence (and those operating the system maximise their employment and bonus opportunities). Consequently, the majority of claimants will be clustered around that mid-point and many decisions are consequently borderline, arbitary, and unjust.

[dubsie]

If you can work then you should very simple. The welfare system isn't an excuse not to work.

Let's not forget though that one in three people in this country get cancer. Should seriously I'll people be forced to work because the current criteria takes a checkbox attittude towards sickness.

Some people may choose to work if they diagnosed with a serious illness while others may want to stay at home. It's down to the person and they shouldn't feel pressured into going to work.

Many people in this country work damn hard and pay into the system in order to protect themselves and family against poverty during illness. In reality though our benefits are being used by people who thinks it's ok to take and never contribute. This is why I hear about terminally I'll people being told they are fit to work by our crazy system.

[Inca]

Second, even if we are able to assess what people can and can't do in a 30 minute interview, how do we tell what people can do in a sustained manner. I can do a lot of tasks, but I can do no single task repeatedly, nor can I do enough tasks in a single day, to make me employable. I get far too fatigued. Neurological fatigue isn't like ordinary fatigue. It's not just that I get extra tired and so need to go to bed early. For me it's more like being jet-lagged all the time

What type of MS do you have?

[EdiLass]

What type of MS do you have?

good question. I've been diagnosed with relapsing remitting, but although I have relapses, they last for months, and the remissions don't consitute full recoveries. So my normal level of functioning even when I'm not relasping is pretty low

[Inca]

That sounds like progressive relapsing - have you tried tysabri or campath?

[MrP]

I suspect this will just be a reduction in benefits for the 23% or so who get caught out. I doubt very few will try to get a job.

Many of them will be unemployable anyway. Would you employ someone who hasn't had a job through the ten years of economic boom we had prior to the credit crunch?

[EdiLass]

That sounds like progressive relapsing - have you tried tysabri or campath?

that's what I'm thinking. I've not tried any DMDs mainly because

a) I have some very severe and atypical drug reactions

I saw the local MS drug specialist and she advised against it

[Tomlad]

Its a bit silly really.

Most of these people have got no chance of getting jobs. Take my girlfirend's parents. They've been on incapacity benefit for years.

They couldn't do physical work, but could just about manage in an office.

They'd both like to work, but have no chance. They've been out of work for years and have no qualifications. What chance do they have when we have so many unemployed graduate applying for the same jobs?

What the government really mean is they are cutting benefits payments. I wish they'd just be honest about it. Its got nothing to do with getting people back to work.

Its like the idea that we can all work until we're 70 to reduce the pensions bill. It won't work because there aren't enough jobs as it is!

[Inca]

that's what I'm thinking. I've not tried any DMDs

Wow.

I am pretty much thinking that your MS nurse is an idiot.

Everyone with MS should be on DMD's - they have been proven to slow progression and reduce relapses - something like tysabri reduces relapses by 70% and has been show to reverse some of the neurological damage (although it does have a high risk profile). Even the 20 year old drugs like Betaferon cut relapses by 30% (and have a low risk profile).

There are also a number of oral drugs - Gileyna etc that will be available soon in the UK that cut relapses and the development of lesions by 50% +

Campath which is in phase 3 trials looks to be the most promising of all - the closest to a cure that I have seen - and is a once yearly treatment.

Five-year follow-up data from a mid-stage trial of the drug, presented at the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) on Thursday, showed that 87 percent of patients experienced no worsening of disability.

By comparison, only 62 percent of patients taking Rebif, a rival drug made by EMD Serono, an affiliate of Germany's Merck KGaA and Pfizer Inc, experienced no worsening of symptoms.

The alemtuzumab group, moreover, on average saw an improvement in disability scores as opposed to a worsening among those on Rebif.

Patients taking Campath had an annualized relapse rate of 0.11, compared with a relapse rate of 0.35 for Rebif, which indicates that on average, approximately one in every 10 patients who received alemtuzumab had a relapse in any given year, compared with about one in every three patients taking Rebif.

"The most remarkable thing about this data is that it hasn't changed much from the four-year data," said Michael Panzara, who oversees clinical development of Genzyme's multiple sclerosis and immune system drugs. "This is unique and starts us thinking, are these people in remission? Is this what remission in MS looks like?"

Four-year data released in April showed that 71 percent of patients had no relapse or worsening of disability.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE69D30C20101014

I am not trying to be a dick (comes naturally) but you need to get yourself on a DMD of some kind - jeeze! how anyone could recommend against it is totally beyond me. Even if you have low tolerance to drugs it has got to be worth a shot!

Edited October 15, 2010 by Inca