Guaranteed Interview Scheme

kurgon

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Official research would disagree with you, best not to make sweeping statements when you only have your own experience to go by. If you want to read more there are several studies on the subject.

naf123, it will never be banned because the intention behind it is good. What needs to be banned is stereotyping and stigma attached to disability, and I have no idea how you would do that.

Perhaps you should take ytour own advice. I am making reference to studies completed on behalf of Breakthrough UK and the police federation, both of whom looked at public sector employment and disability, and both of whom found that the public sector was below national averages on support for reasonable adjustments and disability employment. Of note form th Breakthrough UK report was that the NHS was the worst of the public sector employers in this area. In my own personal experience, I have actually been supported very well, although primatily through access to work.

tomjonesrules

kurgon wrote: »

Perhaps you should take ytour own advice. I am making reference to studies completed on behalf of Breakthrough UK and the police federation, both of whom looked at public sector employment and disability, and both of whom found that the public sector was below national averages on support for reasonable adjustments and disability employment. Of note form th Breakthrough UK report was that the NHS was the worst of the public sector employers in this area. In my own personal experience, I have actually been supported very well, although primatily through access to work.

You've read two reports? Yowzers, I bow to your superior knowledge! :rotfl:

* Wonders what I have spent the past two years researching when kurgon clearly knows best! *

kurgon

So where is your 'official research'? Or are you just spouting?
You can add findings from the EDEN group, ANED and many other reports.
You will find a wealth of studies on how the public sector increased the employment of disabled people between 1998 - 2005, however the treatment of those with disabilities is not reflected in these studies. This is the central issue to how the other organisations have taken this issue forward. You can also look at the TUC and their move to adress the legal definition of reasonable, alongside trigger point sickness reporting.
Your sarcasm merely tries to deflect your own self-inflated opinion.

Brassedoff

nannytone wrote: »

as i said in my previous post ... you DON'T have to use the scheme.
I am registered blind, so classed as disabled, but chose to go through the selection process in the same way as everyone else.

You can't blame employers totally.
you say the ones that know you have a disability bedorehand, won't give you an interview, but for many small companies, employiong a person with significant needs may be too costly, factoring in any adaptations and insurance that may be required.

You are right. I had a very bad experience with a former employee who we took on more through pity than need as we created a job. They had been off work due to stress and depression, got one week past the probationary period, then went sick. All offers of help were spurned, but remarkably he knew every bit of law when we eventually had to go down the time away route to rid ourselves of him. He even wasted a lot of our money on a rather silly and hopeless Tribrunal case.

This resulted in no more people being taken on through that particular avenue. I am not saying we discriminated from that point on, but we were careful on selection. Up to that point I employed several physically disabled people who after we made exceptions and adaptions were fine, but we were damn careful on those applying who had ongoing or recent conditions. This was a great pity as I employ people based on their worth/potential/ambition and give no consideration to other aspects. I used to ensure I recieved CV's / application forms rinsed of data that showed sex, race etc to help with that aim.

Naf123, as you have a masters, what field or segment is it referenced to? What are you aiming for?

Honestly. Anyone looking to get a job and who are disabled, it goes a long way if you offer to bed in for free. Say work for 4 weeks to prove potential and if you are there after 12/18 months the employer can pay you the missing gap then. Anyone coming to me with a proposal that would sweep the legs from other candidates. This would, in mine and many friends who own businesses get our attention. Employers are looking at taking the risk out of employing people.

The above is just my take, it's not gospel.

Brassedoff

tomjonesrules wrote: »

What needs to be banned is stereotyping and stigma attached to disability, and I have no idea how you would do that.

You'll never achieve that. Some (not all) disabled or ill people make themselves as unemployable as "as the next man".

Brassedoff

naf123 wrote: »

I wish we were like Italy - companies by LAW have to take on a disabled person!

I was thinking how about giving companies some kind of tax breaks if they employ a disabled person e.g if the company has 10% of its workforce as disabled, they can see a 10% reduction in tax?

On your first point where does that stop? Local demographics. Female, Asian, Black quotas?

On you second, for a person with the level of degree you say you have, its a niave statement. Many companies are currently working for turnover let alone profit. Many company's are making a loss or have a four or in the case of renewable P&M be writing down BS profits for the next 4/8 years. Where does that 10% come from?

Besides. ANYONE over 35 should be praying the 16-18 NEETS OR 18-26 age group (a massive majority with worthless degrees) not in employment get work. If they don't there will not be enough mobey in future years to pay for the bursting welfare state.