DWP calls in Rentadoc to harass the sick off-benefit

Tags

abuse, accountancy, accountant, allowance, amputate, Atos, avoidance, belief, benefit, Big Four, Black Country, bloodbath, breakdown, claimant, condition, corporate, cut, death, Deloitte, Department, depress, Derbyshire, disability, disable, doctor, employment, ESA, esther mcvey, government, grow back, harass, health, healthcare, Iain Duncan Smith, Ingeus UK, Jobseeker's Allowance, JSA, law, Leicestershire, limb, Lincolnshire, mental, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, minister, Multiple Sclerosis, nervous exhaustion, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Parkinson's, Pensions, people, physical, politics, premature, professional, provider, rentadoc, required, Rutland, Shropshire, sick, social security, spending, Staffordshire, suicide, support, tax, threaten, unemployment, Vox Political, welfare, welfare to work, work, Work Programme, work-related activity, worse, WRA

Ingeus out of favour: This image was found on a site protesting against Workfare and demonstrates the high regard in which it is held by previous users of the Ingeus service.

Perhaps we’re jumping the gun with the headline but alarm bells tend to go off when you read that “people on sickness benefits will be required to have regular meetings with healthcare professionals to help them with their barriers to work”.

Everyone working on Employment and Support Allowance should already know what everyone receiving it knows – it’s more a bloodbath than a benefit.

This is down to the attitude of the healthcare professionals already working on it – the people who (and God forbid you should ever ask to see their qualifications) automatically sign 70 per cent of claimants as ‘fit for work’, whether they are or not, and tell most of the rest they need to be work-ready within a year.

The result? Mental breakdowns, depression and suicides; physical breakdowns, worsening of existing conditions, and premature deaths. By the thousand.

These are the people who ask claimants when amputated limbs are going to grow back, and who tell people with Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis that they’ll be fit for work within six months.

If you did (God forbid) ask them where they got their qualifications, it was probably the Teaching Hospital of Noddyland.

“People on sickness benefits will be required to have regular meetings with healthcare professionals to help them address their barriers to work – or face losing their benefits [italics mine] – in a two-year pilot scheme in central England which begins in November,” the DWP press release states.

Isn’t this what happened with people on Jobseekers’ Allowance? Suddenly they had to start fulfilling lots of pointless extra requirements or their benefits would be withdrawn? Part of that is a regular meeting in which – as far as we can ascertain – innocent people are harassed, threatened and abused by DWP employees who are themselves, it seems, millimetres away from nervous exhaustion brought on by the pressures of the job.

Claiming benefits, it seems, is now an endurance test: Who cracks (up) first?

Now, for 3,000 people in the work-related activity group for ESA in the Black Country, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland, Staffordshire and Shropshire, there’s no relief even if they have a nervous breakdown and have to claim ESA on mental health grounds.

“People involved in the pilot – who have all been assessed as being able to work at some point in the future – will have regular appointments with healthcare professionals as a condition of receiving their benefit, to focus on helping them move closer to being able to get a job.”

There you go – all judged as able to work in the future. Presumably Iain Duncan Smith has taken a look at their files, glanced into his crystal ball, and declared that he has a “belief” in their fitness to work. If any of these people are reading, please contact this blog if you have a progressive health condition that won’t ever improve.

Because the meeting is a condition of receiving benefit, anyone attending can expect to be treated abominably. This is not about helping you back to work, or even back to health; it’s about kicking you off-benefit and nothing further. The aim, as with JSA, is to cut claimant numbers and thereby cut spending.

“It’s really important we give people who are disabled or have a health condition the support they need to get into work if they are able,” said employment minister Esther McVey who knows nothing about this at all (despite having been minister for the disabled).

“Traditionally, this help has tended to be work-related, but this pilot will look at whether a more holistic approach is more successful in helping people to manage their conditions and so break down their barriers to work.”

The biggest barrier to a person with a disability getting work is the fact that the Conservative-led Coalition government has been closing down employment opportunities for them and removing incentives for employers to take them on.

The healthcare professionals will be provided by Ingeus UK – a welfare-to-work provider that has been involved in the Work Programme – you know, the time-wasting scheme in which jobseekers are taken off the unemployment statistics while they learn simple skills that, in fact, most of them already have.

The company’s website is very slick but contains no information about the number of doctors in its employ.

Oh, and guess what? The company is half-owned by Deloitte, one of the ‘Big Four’ accountancy firms that currently writes British tax law to make avoidance easy for the big corporates. How much tax has Ingeus paid lately?

“Everything we do is results driven”, the site declares.

One wonders what Ingeus will do when the casualties start piling up.

How would abolishing the minimum wage help to make work pay?

Tags

benefit, benefits, borrow, Coalition, company, Conservative, cutback, debt, deficit, disability, disable, disabled, economy, employee, employment, firm, government, health, Iain Duncan Smith, illness, in-work, infrastructure, Labour, Liberal, Liberal Democrat, living, Low Pay Commission, Michael Philpott, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, minimum, national insurance, Parliament, pay, people, politics, poor, public, service, sick, social security, state, tax, Tories, Tory, unemployment, Vox Political, wage, welfare, work

The so-called ‘public debate’ over whether Michael Philpott (or if you prefer, Iain Duncan Smith) typifies the sort of people who live on social security in modern Britain has effectively masked something more sinister that was put in motion this week.

The government wants the Low Pay Commission to consider the impact on “employment and the economy” of the minimum wage.

The implication is clear: The Conservatives want to get rid of the statutory lowest level of wages, in order to further depress remuneration for the poorest workers in the UK. Whether or not that is the fact, it’s what people will infer.

The timing is a classic tragedy of modern Conservatism. Having just made a bold (and entirely false) claim that its benefit cuts are “making work pay”, the Tory-led Coalition appears dead-set on making sure that it won’t.

I had an argument, on this very subject, over on the Conservatives’ (I think) Facebook page. It was a while ago, but I thought I had saved the debate for posterity. I spent much of yesterday looking for it and came up with nothing, so what follows is a paraphrase of what I said there, and the best I can remember. For that I apologise. I can only advise others reading this that you should never throw anything away, as you might need it later! (That goes for things you’ve said, mind, not sweet wrappers or other rubbish – you shouldn’t all become hoarders just because of me).

The discussion was based on the premise that, rather than pay the bare minimum, employers should in fact pay a ‘living’ wage, in line with what Labour has been proposing.

I’m very much in favour of a living wage. If a person receives enough, in return for their work, to pay their way in the world without having to take state benefits, several things happen:

They feel valued in their position, and try harder. The quality of their work improves, along with that of the other workers in the company who also receive the living wage, and as a result, the employer is likely to benefit from improved orders. The company flourishes and is able to take on more employees.

As a result of this, the firm and its employees are able to pay more taxes and National Insurance contributions – not as a result of an increase imposed by an oppressive government, but because more people are employed there. The government therefore has more cash to fund public services; it has less need to borrow money and will not have to pay as much in social security benefits – in-work benefits will be unnecessary because working people will be receiving enough to put them above the threshold for them, and fewer people will be claiming out-of-work benefits.

The government can then pay off its debts and deficit more quickly and then cut tax rates. This means everyone will have more money in their pockets – including employers, who can then plough the extra cash back into the firm with infrastructure improvements and more employment.

You see how this works?

Contrast this with what happens when you employ somebody on the minimum wage, or abolish it.

People on the absolute minimum do not feel valued. They consider their employers to be taking more than their fair share of the profits generated by the company where they all work together. They feel undervalued – and demeaned by the fact that they have to claim state benefits in order to survive. Their health may be put at risk, because they may find themselves having to work ridiculously long hours, just to make ends meet. Their work starts to suffer, and they may end up unemployed, either for health reasons or because the company is suffering (as a result of workers turning in substandard work).

The company makes cutbacks. Its bosses don’t want to take a pay cut so they cut corners elsewhere. The workforce diminishes and the quality of the product suffers. In time, the firm’s contribution to the national economy dwindles – if it doesn’t go to the wall altogether. Its tax and National Insurance contribution plummets.

The government finds itself paying in-work benefits for increasing numbers of people, and unemployment figures skyrocket. Employers and workers do not provide enough money in taxes and National Insurance to pay the bill for public services, so these are cut back and borrowing increases. The nation goes into a debt spiral.

That is the current situation.

Which of the above would you rather have?