Atos "We Don't Care" Recruitment"

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p4eiEuXLc9Y#t=21s

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

How welfare assessors told disabled woman to get ready for work


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/video/2012/oct/04/welfare-assessors-disabled-work-video

rogerblack

It's not solely ATOS.
I am unclear as to what exact descriptors she would gain points on to get into the support group.
Based on the video.

She seems to be able to 'mobilise' well within the limits, and move between seats.
She can reach, and pick up liquid.
She has adequate manual dexterity.
Making self understood seems to be questionable, she clearly can speak - but to what level is debatable.
The understanding others descriptor is irrelevant, as she has no sensory problems.
Clearly, I can't comment on the continence, but it's not implausible this is not a problem.

Are there descriptors under which she could gain entry to the support group - yes, possibly, but it's unclear.

The 'awareness of hazard' one is probably most strongly argued - but is this an overprotective mother?

In principle, the finding that she's in the work-related group is not a significant problem.
All of the regulations emphasise that only 'reasonable' steps should be taken.

She should have been seen once at a WFI, after being put in the work-related group, and then realised that she is not likely to find work.

This would then lead to any further WFIs being deferred. (they cannot be cancelled)

As always, it's a cross between lack of care, and compassion, and the law.

Is she eligible for the support group - arguably yes.

It depends on her real ability alone.

It would be interesting to see more details of the case, to see if there were reasons given for the assessment that she diddn't meet the support group criteria.

Some of the points raised by the mother are not the fault of ATOS - for example, she appears to be able to walk without pain, at admittedly a slow speed with an odd gait.
This would not qualify her on mobility grounds.

Then there are the 'exceptional circumstances' descriptor.
Finding her capable of work-related-activity may not (assuming that it is 'reasonable', as above) make her condition worse, and she's not terminally ill.

The two groups of claimants - work related, and support group are quite unrelated to actual employability.

I've used before an example of someone with multiple disabilities in a wheelchair being found fit for work, and someone who can't raise their arms above their head getting into the support group.

This is not the fault of ATOS, the DWP, or anyone else in the system at the moment.

It is the fault of Labour, who instigated the system, and the Conservatives/Liberal government who continue it.

sparkycat2

rogerblack wrote: »

It is the fault of Labour, who instigated the system, and the Conservatives/Liberal government who continue it.

It is partly the fault of Labour but the Conservatives/Liberal government did not just continue using the same system set up under Labour.

The coalition significantly changed the descriptors and points used in ESA assessments resulting in fewer people being eligible for the benefit.

After someone was assessed under ESA under Labour if they they were placed in the ESA WRAG they then had a Work-focused-health-related-assessment to determine what type of employment might be appropriate as the end goal and what help and support was needed to get there, there was in theory provision of a pathway into employment. Under the coalition work-focused-health-related-assessments have been suspended.

Contributions based ESA WRAG under Labour was also not time limited and those born severly disabled where automatically passported on to contributions based ESA. The coalition has time limted contributions based ESA WRAG to 12 months and removed the passport to contributions based ESA for those born severly disabled.

Finally under Labour it was a pilot scheme, so in theory it could be assessed as to effect and problems could of been addressed before being rolled out nationally. The coalition has rolled it out nationally

L0RRY

rogerblack wrote: »

It's not solely ATOS.
I am unclear as to what exact descriptors she would gain points on to get into the support group.
Based on the video.

She seems to be able to 'mobilise' well within the limits, and move between seats.
She can reach, and pick up liquid.
She has adequate manual dexterity.
Making self understood seems to be questionable, she clearly can speak - but to what level is debatable.
The understanding others descriptor is irrelevant, as she has no sensory problems.
Clearly, I can't comment on the continence, but it's not implausible this is not a problem.

Are there descriptors under which she could gain entry to the support group - yes, possibly, but it's unclear.

The 'awareness of hazard' one is probably most strongly argued - but is this an overprotective mother?

In principle, the finding that she's in the work-related group is not a significant problem.
All of the regulations emphasise that only 'reasonable' steps should be taken.

She should have been seen once at a WFI, after being put in the work-related group, and then realised that she is not likely to find work.

This would then lead to any further WFIs being deferred. (they cannot be cancelled)

As always, it's a cross between lack of care, and compassion, and the law.

Is she eligible for the support group - arguably yes.

It depends on her real ability alone.

It would be interesting to see more details of the case, to see if there were reasons given for the assessment that she diddn't meet the support group criteria.

Some of the points raised by the mother are not the fault of ATOS - for example, she appears to be able to walk without pain, at admittedly a slow speed with an odd gait.
This would not qualify her on mobility grounds.

Then there are the 'exceptional circumstances' descriptor.
Finding her capable of work-related-activity may not (assuming that it is 'reasonable', as above) make her condition worse, and she's not terminally ill.

The two groups of claimants - work related, and support group are quite unrelated to actual employability.

I've used before an example of someone with multiple disabilities in a wheelchair being found fit for work, and someone who can't raise their arms above their head getting into the support group.

This is not the fault of ATOS, the DWP, or anyone else in the system at the moment.

It is the fault of Labour, who instigated the system, and the Conservatives/Liberal government who continue it.

its clear the girl doesnt have the developmental age of an adult, she should have immediately been put in the support group.........for life! even if she didnt fit all the descriptors (which i seriously doubt) atos staff should be duty bound to use their initiative to point out the glaring flaws and challenge a system which declares someone with the developmental age of a child, fit for work!

real1314

L0RRY wrote: »

its clear the girl doesnt have the developmental age of an adult, she should have immediately been put in the support group.........for life! even if she didnt fit all the descriptors (which i seriously doubt) atos staff should be duty bound to use their initiative to point out the glaring flaws and challenge a system which declares someone with the developmental age of a child, fit for work!

You think that organisations should over-rule the legislation laid by parliament?

Giving a private organisation that sort of power is more than a lttle dangerous; Would you be happy if they went further the other way? :cool:

L0RRY

real1314 wrote: »

You think that organisations should over-rule the legislation laid by parliament?

Giving a private organisation that sort of power is more than a lttle dangerous; Would you be happy if they went further the other way? :cool:

point out the glaring flaws and challenge a system does not = over-rule the legislation laid by parliament

rogerblack

L0RRY wrote: »

point out the glaring flaws and challenge a system does not = over-rule the legislation laid by parliament

"she should have immediately been put in the support group.........for life! even if she didnt fit all the descriptors " - how would this not be ATOS overruling parliament?

L0RRY

rogerblack wrote: »

"she should have immediately been put in the support group.........for life! even if she didnt fit all the descriptors " - how would this not be ATOS overruling parliament?

thats in a different sentence & relating to my opinion that she would fit descriptors to place her in the support group. absolutely nowhere in my post have i suggested (nor would i!) that atos should have authority to over-rule parliament simply that atos should be duty bound to report glaringly obvious cases where the sytem is failing badly such as this one.

sparkycat2

L0RRY wrote: »

thats in a different sentence & relating to my opinion that she would fit descriptors to place her in the support group.

Which descriptors?
I am less confident that it is a procedural error. ESA legislation and regulations seem to often find people fit for work who are blatantly not, and put people in to the work related activity group who are never going to be work capable, who then lose entitlment to contributions based ESA WRAG after 12 months.

I think in this case they assessed her ESA WRAG. Going by rogerblack post that would seem to probably be the correct assessment under the legislation and regulations.

Invalidation

rogerblack wrote: »

It's not solely ATOS.


It is the fault of Labour, who instigated the system, and the Conservatives/Liberal government who continue it.

NO SIR !
It is the fault of the present Government who allow this failed system to continue after being told by everyone it is wrong.
They could stop it today if they wished, dont try and slide the blame onto others, if someone has the power to stop something then it is THEIR fault by allowing it to continue.