Who's going to loose when DLA becomes PIP?

rogerblack

Soapn wrote: »

If they get kicked off disability benefits, they will get "regular" benefits though won't they?

Perhaps not, for several reasons.

Firstly, to be entitled to JSA, you need to be able to comply with the terms of your jobseekers agreement.

This means being available for work for a minimum of 16 hours a week, even if you have a more generous agreement than someone agreed to be fully fit.

(Being unable to legally claim JSA is not grounds for getting ESA)

If your illness means you are not - then you can't claim JSA legally, and indeed would be committing benefit fraud if you try.

Secondly - if they doubt you are fit for work, they can consider your case using similar rules to the ESA test, and if you pass this test, you are not eligible for JSA.

This does not, however entitle you to ESA, nor does a fail on the ESA medical entitle you to JSA.

This can leave you in a position where you can't claim JSA, or ESA, and problems happen unless you can, for example, make a new claim to ESA on the basis of a worsened condition.

moose1982

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Was just reading this thread whilst sipping tea, out of curiosity. Your post triggered a question in me that pops up every time I see comments suggesting these people get a job ... and the question is this:

Would you employ him?her? I doubt it. And I doubt many employers will employ any of them. Employees that get sick all the time, go on sick all the time. Yes, employers are obliged by law to not discriminate against disabled people ... but I think you'll find a lot circumnavigate those rules and get away with it. All these people on disability benefits that ATOS and the Govt. are trying to get out to work - they are assuming some employers want to employ them! I don't think they need to worry, I am guessing most wouldn't be able to get a job even if they wanted one.

I just wonder where the Govt. think all these jobs for ex-claimants they kick of disability benefits are going to come from.

As dunroamin says, DLA/PIP is different to ESA in that ESA is the out of work benefit. But I know first hand that employers will try to get shot of disabled people if they see them as trouble. Luckily in one of my last jobs, my manager tried to do just that and basically told my solicitor that that was the reason for me leaving.

I haven't had a job for about three years now and I can understand why, I was constantly in and out of hospital for scans, checks, seeing other neurologists etc, purely because the illness affecting my legs is extremely rare (about 1 in 1,000,000 are affected). No employer would've allowed me as much time off for the tests etc as I've had. The problem I have now though is a 3 year gap on my CV with just some voluntary work in that period. So yes, I agree, it is hard for people who have been ill for a while to find work, harder than someone who hasn't been out of work for that long. But we can only try and look, and above all, stay positive

suburbanwifey

moose1982 wrote: »

As dunroamin says, DLA/PIP is different to ESA in that ESA is the out of work benefit. But I know first hand that employers will try to get shot of disabled people if they see them as trouble. Luckily in one of my last jobs, my manager tried to do just that and basically told my solicitor that that was the reason for me leaving.

I haven't had a job for about three years now and I can understand why, I was constantly in and out of hospital for scans, checks, seeing other neurologists etc, purely because the illness affecting my legs is extremely rare (about 1 in 1,000,000 are affected). No employer would've allowed me as much time off for the tests etc as I've had. The problem I have now though is a 3 year gap on my CV with just some voluntary work in that period. So yes, I agree, it is hard for people who have been ill for a while to find work, harder than someone who hasn't been out of work for that long. But we can only try and look, and above all, stay positive

I'm sorry its been so tough for you Moose. Another band of people who are discriminated against, even though its illegal are childbearing age women believe it or not. My husband works for a large company and over the past 5 years every single woman they employed got pregnant after that 2 year period they have to work before they can claim maternity. My husband was told by the company boss, that they will not employ any more women if they can help it, they cost too much with pregnancy, time off, having to see to the children (and the Govt. making firms be more *family friendly* etc ...) and I know this happens a lot with women and also the disabled. The Govt. has high hopes that all will be employed but sadly, employers do not (in the majority) want ill people, women who are going to go off to be pregnant after 2 years of working (forcing them to employ another to take their place on a temporary contract) etc.

Sorry you are in this situation .. its not fair or right but sadly that's the way it is. I'm not sure companies like being told who they should employ as its not Govt. money paying the staff they do, nor the Govt. who are inconvenienced when staff are off sick all the time or off having babies etc. I was a bit annoyed when hubby told me this, but he agreed with it as he is a boss and he said to me that women and the disabled are nothing but hassle! (yeah! I know! :cool:) but at least you get a perspective from someone who has heard of this happening. MY husbands staff are all men now and have been for a while due to the company decisions due to Govt. rules on maternity and illness and family importance etc ... and they legally circumnavigate the rules! for various reasons.

moose1982

suburbanwifey wrote: »

I'm sorry its been so tough for you Moose. Another band of people who are discriminated against, even though its illegal are childbearing age women believe it or not. My husband works for a large company and over the past 5 years every single woman they employed got pregnant after that 2 year period they have to work before they can claim maternity. My husband was told by the company boss, that they will not employ any more women if they can help it, they cost too much with pregnancy, time off, having to see to the children (and the Govt. making firms be more *family friendly* etc ...) and I know this happens a lot with women and also the disabled. The Govt. has high hopes that all will be employed but sadly, employers do not (in the majority) want ill people, women who are going to go off to be pregnant after 2 years of working (forcing them to employ another to take their place on a temporary contract) etc.

Sorry you are in this situation .. its not fair or right but sadly that's the way it is. I'm not sure companies like being told who they should employ as its not Govt. money paying the staff they do, nor the Govt. who are inconvenienced when staff are off sick all the time or off having babies etc. I was a bit annoyed when hubby told me this, but he agreed with it as he is a boss and he said to me that women and the disabled are nothing but hassle! (yeah! I know! :cool:) but at least you get a perspective from someone who has heard of this happening. MY husbands staff are all men now and have been for a while due to the company decisions due to Govt. rules on maternity and illness and family importance etc ... and they legally circumnavigate the rules! for various reasons.

I can understand that thought from your husbands employers, trouble is, it sounds like the employer is not seeing the 'person', just a prejudice. Aren't fathers now entitled to more leave after the birth of a child? So it may not work out quite so well for the employer as they had hoped :rotfl:

suburbanwifey

moose1982 wrote: »

I can understand that thought from your husbands employers, trouble is, it sounds like the employer is not seeing the 'person', just a prejudice. Aren't fathers now entitled to more leave after the birth of a child? So it may not work out quite so well for the employer as they had hoped :rotfl:

Yeah, but at my husband's place his staff are on hourly pay so they loose too much money taking the time off, so a few of the new dad's have failed to take that option as it cost them too much money! The employers seems to have it all ways in their favour from where I am looking .. not good huh.

uponahill

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

You know, it is people like you who give DLA claimants a bad name. On your own admission you are not disabled, You go to the gym and don't need the help that DLA provides. So why don't you do the decent thing and stop claiming? Ahhhh... wait a minute, no you won't do that, because it is free money. You feel you are entitled, right?

Then there are people like me, who don't have a spouse to take care of them, who need 24 hr care and buy it in. People who really need the help that DLA provides. And you stand in moral judgement? NICE!!!!

What I did say was - do I consider myself as being disabled - the answer is no. No one that I know would willingly label themselves as 'being disabled'. I have difficulties that is all.

Do I fit the government's DLA criteria of being disabled - yes.

Being told I am disabled is one thing, believing and accepting it is another!

OK. My DLA was given to me for the following reasons:
Mental health (proven beyond doubt with care plan etc etc) LRM & MRC.
Being unable to walk gave me HRM.

So I receive MRC & HRM!

As for claiming it, my entitlement is just the same as everyone else's. I fit the boxes and the government award the benefit.
I certainly don't see it as 'free money'.

I have a Motability car that helps me get round, but more importantly I don't have the normal running costs (apart from fuel) to pay for. The care element pays for the gym membership, the weekly diesel bill, and an improved diet.

When PIP comes in I accept I will have the car taken off me as I will not qualify for the higher mobility element.

As I have said before PIP is a good thing all round, yes it will affect me but that loss is measured by the knowledge that it will be only given to those that pass the much more difficult tests.

Yes I do stand in moral judgement. In my case DLA might work for me, but is it morally right that I should be awarded it?
Taking my example and being totally honest, there must be 100's if not 1,000's who are in the same position as me.
Do we all deserve the award - well that depends how you look at it.

Do you fit all of the criteria V Do you believe that you are as disabled as the award makes out you are?

uponahill

schrodie wrote: »

Roll on PIP indeed!!! I bet you can't wait.

Yes I agree with PIP - it has been a long time coming!

Personally I don't care if and when I lose my HRM and maybe the MRC.

I am planning for the inevitible now.

What I see that is good with PIP is that the government can start with a fresh slate with new regs to decide who is and isn't disabled. That is not possible with DLA as the boundaries of the definition have been stretched to near breaking point.

uponahill

Morlock wrote: »

You don't seem to have much problem sitting at a computer and typing bile all day. What is stopping you from getting a job in customer services, answering e-maill or online queries? You could even work from home.

You know very little about me to say that.

I passed the ESA assessment and was placed in the Support Group for 3 years. I wonder if that means that I am too sick and ill to be able to work.

Additionally, I have been assessed by ATOS for IIDB and have been awarded it at the 40% rate purely for mental health reasons.

Additionally, I have been awarded HRM & MRC of DLA.

Now put all of that together and I would think that most people would say that there is enough wrong with me that could be the reason why I can't work!

uponahill

bloomingflower wrote: »

Oh dear, I think you have just shot yourself in the foot!

I can now feel the rush of posters waiting to stampede on your above post!

You have rather contradicted yourself when you quote the following;

'So am I disabled - no not really' am I considered to be disabled - well yes I am - So I must be disabled!! uummmmm'

Which one is right?

What you have said above just doesn't make any sense at all!

Read it back a couple of times and you will see what I mean!

Have I - I don't think so!

Do I think and consider myself to be disabled - no, does the government say that I am disabled - yes.

Who should be believed, me or them?
The government say I am - so who knows, maybe they are right and I am wrong and I am disabled!

Maybe I look at it in a different way.

uponahill

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Was just reading this thread whilst sipping tea, out of curiosity. Your post triggered a question in me that pops up every time I see comments suggesting these people get a job ... and the question is this:

Would you employ him?her? I doubt it. And I doubt many employers will employ any of them. Employees that get sick all the time, go on sick all the time. Yes, employers are obliged by law to not discriminate against disabled people ... but I think you'll find a lot circumnavigate those rules and get away with it. All these people on disability benefits that ATOS and the Govt. are trying to get out to work - they are assuming some employers want to employ them! I don't think they need to worry, I am guessing most wouldn't be able to get a job even if they wanted one.

I just wonder where the Govt. think all these jobs for ex-claimants they kick of disability benefits are going to come from.

Thanks and you might as well add to the mixing pot, the ex cons that are released from prison who will now have to go straight onto the Work Programme along with everyone else who is unemployed/sick/ill & disabled.
Will employers be there for them as well?