We need a new Support group descriptor.

Wicked_witch

I'm thinking something along the lines of

'An employer could not be reasonably expected to employ the claimant due to:

a) Excessive sickness leave required
b) Excessive leave for hospital or other necessary treatment that cannot be taken outside of working hours (since most treatment is unavoidably scheduled between 9-5, Monday to Friday)
c) Adjustments to the working environment which would cost an amount detrimental to the company, especially if the employer is a small business (apparently should not be an issue, thanks Thomas Hardy)
d) Adjustments to the working environment that would be detrimental to the health and safety (and comfort?) of the other employees
e) Inability of the claimant to be flexible to the business's needs (eg, cannot work additional hours, have their schedule changed, have their place of work changed or work in a different capacity temporarily)
f) Excessive cost for specialised equipment to enable the claimant to carry out their job satisfactorily (again thinking of small businesses)(apparently should not be an issue, thanks Thomas Hardy)

If two or more of these apply, claimant should be placed in the support group.'



Anything else you would add or argue with? I'm mainly thinking of my husband, who has a sensory impairment, so other people will have other perspectives.

If it could not involve flaming any other posters (including me) that would be good. I posted here rather than in the benefits section for a reason as I know it's likely to be an emotive subject. It certainly is for me!

Thomas_Hardy

Most of them are either covered by other descriptors or not needed.

If a or b apply, then the claimant should qualify under the normal descriptors - the descriptor would explain the reason for the absence or need for appts.

Funding is available for c and f under the Access to Work scheme. The employer may have to make a contribution to the adjustments, but a small business would not.

d is covered by a current descriptor - the awareness of everyday hazards one.

e is nowhere near sufficient to be a Support Group descriptor, many healthy people are unable to offer flexibility either.

GlasweJen

Access to work have spent thousands adapting a work place for me at the tax payers expense, it's better to have a service like this than to allow every work place in the country to refuse disabled applicants as they're "too expensive".

Wicked_witch

Thomas Hardy: I don't agree with that really. I don't think the descriptors are anywhere near comprehensive enough as they stand. As far as a) goes, you have a good point but do Atos agree that anyone who needs a lot of sick leave- perhaps one or two days a week at times- is automatically unsuitable to hold down a job?

For b) I agree with you, although again Atos would also need to agree that lots of appointments = not fit for work. So in both cases, clarification is needed.

c and f, thanks for that info. I've not had any involvement with access for work so didn't know how much they funded. I'll amend my post accordingly.

d is currently in the section for mental health and learning difficulties. I have asked Atos to clarify whether it also applies to sensory impairment.

e, I disagree there. An able bodied person would almost certainly be able to work in a different part of the same building or undertake a different task for a short period. Even very minor changes can stump a disabled person. Obviously yes, things like changing hours or days worked might also be very difficult or impossible for anyone.

Glaswejen, I understand your point. The idea (and obviously this is totally theoretical anyway) is that there would be a concrete acknowledgement that employers will avoid employing disabled people because of the hassle incurred and that disabled people are hugely disadvantaged by that.

Wicked_witch

Taking another look at the guidelines for assesors from jan this year, it states

10. Awareness of hazard.
Reduced awareness of everyday hazards, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder, leads to a significant risk of:
(a) injury to self or others; or
(b) damage to property or possessions such that they require supervision for the majority of the time to maintain safety.

So nothing about the impact of sensory or other physical disabilities on awareness of hazard, leaving a huge swathe of people not covered by it.

Boomfloom

I absolutely agree with Wicked_Witch re additional descriptor. It would cover cases where the disability is relatively "minor" (eg awareness of hazards is not impaired all the time so you don't get full 15 points) but would cause problems in the workplace.

Or think about someone with bowel problems - tooting and burping are not covered at all. Incontinence - only if the bowels empty fully - if it just dirties your undies then you are fine to do to work.

The descriptor about mobility - can raise arms above head or something. Even if you can do it, can you do it a hundred times during your shift as an empty box mover? I hope the descriptors will be redesigned by someone who knows the reality of living with a disability, esp fluctuating conditions, and of a workplace.

It will never happen though because the government would have to acknowledge that some of us are simply unemployable. This, in turn means, that they cannot have a go at us for being unemployed and bleeding the country dry. Thus, they would have to attack the rich - make them pay taxes or something similarly preposterous and unfair.

I had a phone call from a recruiter recently gushing about my skills and experience (my cv was not updated since I lost my last job). Upon hearing about my disability, he said that nobody will even interview me since I was off work for more than 18 months. Where's your DDA now?

sunnyone

Why dont we all just write our own support group criteria like the OP?

Then we could all be in the support group no matter how small someones problem might be

The criteria we have covers most of what the OP has posted, most with sensory disabilities only are placed in the WRAG, they changed the discriptors last year to make sure thats where they are placed their so the goverment has decided thats where people with sensory disabilities should be.

The mobility criteria of ESA was changed at the same time as the sensory one becasue it was unfair to people in wheechairs/blind /deaf who work.

Roxy07

Defiantly needs to be broader.

Wicked_witch

The fact that the government has decided something doesn't actually make their decision correct. They make bad decisions constantly, because they have no real idea of what life is like for poorer people and frankly they couldn't care less, since they genuinely believe that people choose to be poor and workless. 'The government made this decision' is the worst possible reason for not challenging something.

Genuine question, how were the previous criteria unfair for disabled people in work?

Cpt.Scarlet

sunnyone wrote: »

The mobility criteria of ESA was changed at the same time as the sensory one becasue it was unfair to people in wheechairs/blind /deaf who work.

You have been trotting this one out for the best part of two years, and yet as far as I know, you have never explained or offered any reference, as to why it is unfair!

Boomfloom

sunnyone wrote: »

Then we could all be in the support group no matter how small someones problem might be

I don't think anyone on ESA - WRAG or otherwise - has small problems. It's just sickening that they drag you to the useless meetings with advisors or force you on to the work programme when you have no chance of finding, never mind keeping, a job. No prospects of recovery either.