Atos "We Don't Care" Recruitment"

L0RRY

sparkycat2 wrote: »

9. Learning tasks.
They would have to incapable of learning a simple task. The WCA Handbook includes simple tasks that would be evidence of learning ability.
Brushing teeth
Washing
Brushing hair
Turning on the television/ using basic functions on the TV remote control
Getting a glass of water

10. Awareness of hazard.
I think that maybe arguable.
Evidence of awareness in the WCA Handbook includes
Ability in the kitchen
Responsibility for pet
Ability to cope with road safety awareness

11. Initiating and completing personal action
WCA Handbook includes as evidence of ability
Getting washed and dressed

12. Coping with change
It would have to completely disrupt the rest of the day.
WCA Handbook includes as evidence of ability
Shopping
Using public transport

13. Coping with social engagement, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder
It would have to always be precluded due to significant distress caused.
WCA Handbook includes as evidence of ability
Social interaction with family

14. Appropriateness of behaviour with other people, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder.
I think it might be arguable.
It must be daily and they must be unable to control the behaviour.
WCA Handbook includes as evidence of ability
Relationships with neighbours
Shopping



ESA assessment looks dreadful. It appears to involve having a friendly chat then use things like getting there via a bus ride and going to buy a chocolate bar afterwards and having a favorite TV show or being happy because they have a pet cat as evidence of capability which is used against them.

having read all youve posted, mums description and the evidence in the video is enough to tell me she should be in the support group as she'll never be capable of any kind of meaningful paid work and wrag is aimed at people who'll be ready for work with some support to help them overcome the problems of their disability. i'm gobsmacked that atos or anyone else whos watched the video/read the link thinks otherwise.

rogerblack

L0RRY wrote: »

having read all youve posted, mums description and the evidence in the video is enough to tell me she should be in the support group as she'll never be capable of any kind of meaningful paid work and wrag is aimed at people who'll be ready for work with some support to help them overcome the problems of their disability. i'm gobsmacked that atos or anyone else whos watched the video/read the link thinks otherwise.

This is specifically _NOT_ what the work-related group is for.

This is the brief two-sentence description of ESA that is common, and has apparently been used to develop government policy. It is the 'cover' for the reason why it's reasonable to remove contributory payment in the work-related group after one year, amongst other things. It has no force in law whatsoever.


The correct description is something like 'someone who has exceeded 15 points on the descriptors for Limited Capacity for Work, or is treated as incapable of work, or there is a risk of worsening of health of the health of any person if work is undertaken.' (but who does not meet the similar test for the support group)

At no point is employability taken into account in this test.

It used to be that there was following on from the initial work capability assessment, an assessment of the health barriers faced by someone entering work was done.
This was quickly removed.

sparkycat2

L0RRY wrote: »

having read all youve posted, mums description and the evidence in the video is enough to tell me she should be in the support group as she'll never be capable of any kind of meaningful paid work and wrag is aimed at people who'll be ready for work with some support to help them overcome the problems of their disability. i'm gobsmacked that atos or anyone else whos watched the video/read the link thinks otherwise.

ESA Support Group is portrayed as containing the "genuine" ill and disabled who are not capable of working. But if ESA Support Group is suppose to include all those incapable of working who will never be capable of working then its descriptors are way too narrow.

ESA WRAG is portrayed as being for people who are expected to be able to return to work. Even worse it is portrayed as being for people who are unemployed disabled, hence the 12 month time limit for contributions based ESA WRAG as if they are expected to get a job in 12 months, like a contributions based JSA claimant is expected to get a job in 6 months.

But that is not the only type of people ESA WRAG contains. It contains anyone who gets 15pts or more but fails to meet the descriptors for the Support Group. ESA WRAG contains many people who are never going to be capable of any type of work and many who maybe incapable of pretty much any type of work related activity.

ESA in my opinion is being used to portray people as work capable so they can be seen as not genuine or lazy and undeserving be that by refusing them ESA outright or by putting them in a group called work related activity which to those ignorant of the system can imply work capable. ESA in my opinion is being used to reduce the claimant numbers and cut the level of support for most of those remaining.

Invalidation

rogerblack wrote: »

So someone that starts something has no blame whatsoever, only the person that continues it?

Earlier administrations can take the blame for creating it, but it is this Government NOW that is fully implementing it. They can simply hold their hands up and say "Hey we didnt create this". It is this Government NOW that has just appointed ATOS as well as other companies to administer the DLA and UB next year, despite being told ATOS is killing people and are total fools. This government has the power to modify change or even cancel this ridiculous situation or at the very least sack Atos and employ a company that actually cares about people

real1314

L0RRY wrote: »

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.

It's in the bit I quoted. Once a contract has been allocated to an organisation, the concept of any flaws is gone.
The contract is the intention of the government. Ergo, there are no flaws - the parts you disagree with/feel are "glaringly obvious" are policy intent.
The contractor is legally obliged to follow the contract.

To do otherwise would be to subvert the democratic process. :cool:

sparkycat2

Talking about democratic process here is a link to the House of Commons debate on ESA and ATOS on 4th September 2012

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120904/halltext/120904h0001.htm#12090423000249.

I would quote sections highlighting the failings of the system but I would run out of space. Considering the coalition has made many changes to the system from rolling it out nationaly, to changing the descriptors and points, to suspending the Work-focused-health-related-assessment, to time limiting contributions based ESA WRAG, etc... I find Chris Grayling's replies disingenuous. I also find his statement about it not being about saving money as being relaint on words like liar being unparlimentary.

earthbound_misfit

I thought there was a 'get-out clause' type descriptor for the support group? Along the lines of: "there is a risk of serious harm to the claimant or others if they are found fit for work-related activity" or something like that. And that alone puts you in the support group. Do correct me if I'm wrong
I'd presume taking away someone's only income could be argued to be "serious harm" and that Atos would use this convenient descriptor if they could forsee terrible publicity otherwise. They don't seem to bother using this one though.
I think the biggest part of the problem is the mistruths and underhand (and inadequate) ways of gathering information. For example, asking "what do you like to watch on TV?" and taking any answer to mean that the claimant can sit still and concentrate for long periods of time. They also seem to record different answers to questions, and not record appropriate information relevent to the descriptors. My own Atos report actually stated several things that should have given me points, yet the Dr put 0's all the way through (45 on appeal!)
Because they are made to work to targets (albeit not blatently) they will lie just to fail as many people as possible, even before you look at faults with the descriptors.

The 'back to work' help seems to be useless too. I was looking into going self-employed, but can't actually do it if universal credit happens next year (due to relying on tax credits/LHA to begin with).

Invalidation

Its called 'covering your !!!!' if they dont dump as many people off Benefits as they can they lose their job.
Simples

rogerblack

earthbound_misfit wrote: »

I thought there was a 'get-out clause' type descriptor for the support group? Along the lines of: "there is a risk of serious harm to the claimant or others if they are found fit for work-related activity" or something like that. And that alone puts you in the support group. Do correct me if I'm wrong

This is in principle correct.
I made this very argument (in writing) to a tribunal, that does not seem to have agreed.
I need to get the statement of reasons to find out in detail why.

In addition, being found fit for work related activity does not mean they have no money to keep them, just slightly less (20/week for a single claimant often).


The decisionmaker/HCP/tribunal could take the view that all 'work related activity' is going to be 'reasonable'.

This means it could be as little as one in-person interview, followed by over-the-phone interviews, or even those WFIs being deferred.

Work related activity can now in principle include anything up to full-time poorly paid work placement on a permanent basis.
What is 'reasonable' depends on the person assigning it, you can ask for it to be reconsidered, but there is no right to appeal.

So, if someone thinks your illness is 'not real' - despite the fact it may actually be diagnosed, and their information solely come from the daily mail, they can assign you quite inappropriate things, to which you have a limited right of appeal.

But, arguing this is a justification for this regulation applying in front of a tribunal may be problematic.