Channel 4 9pm

schrodie

Dunroamin wrote: »

Then perhaps we should question why there are so many people claiming sickness benefits today compared to 1949?

One reason may be that the population has grown from about 50million to about 63million! There maybe other reasons.

I don't know how many people were claiming sickness benefits or sickness benefit back in 1949, maybe you do.

schrodie

Dunroamin wrote: »

Only a minority of disabled people use wheelchairs or scooters anyway.

Oh right.

dori2o

Dunroamin wrote: »

Then perhaps we should question why there are so many people claiming sickness benefits today compared to 1949?

Thats already been answered.

Employers were actively encouraged to take on disabled people, especially those who had come back from the front line with disabilities.

Now, it is extremely hard, especially when the disabled are vastly outnumbered by able bodied out of work people, for the long term sick/disabled to a) be offerred a job, and b) maintain that job.

Why would an employer choose to take on the additional costs of employing a disabled/long term sick person, when there are so many able bodied people looking for work?

The biggest problem for the long term sick/disabled, especially those with conditions that are unpredictable, is that they often lose their jobs as a result of absenteeism, mainly due to the need to attend appointments, or to manage their condition.

Making the employment of disabled workers more attractive to employers, and also making it easier for people to work from home, would help those sick/disabled people who want to work stay in work despite the problems they have.

schrodie

dori2o wrote: »

Thats already been answered.

Employers were actively encouraged to take on disabled people, especially those who had come back from the front line with disabilities.

Now, it is extremely hard, especially when the disabled are vastly outnumbered by able bodied out of work people, for the long term sick/disabled to a) be offerred a job, and b) maintain that job.

Why would an employer choose to take on the additional costs of employing a disabled/long term sick person, when there are so many able bodied people looking for work?

The biggest problem for the long term sick/disabled, especially those with conditions that are unpredictable, is that they often lose their jobs as a result of absenteeism, mainly due to the need to attend appointments, or to manage their condition.

Making the employment of disabled workers more attractive to employers, and also making it easier for people to work from home, would help those sick/disabled people who want to work stay in work despite the problems they have.

The unemployment rate in 1949 was 1.6%, also you could often walk into a job within walking distance of your home this after leaving another job the previous week!! Compare that to the unemployment rate of 7.4% today!

Brassedoff

Dunroamin wrote: »

Then perhaps we should question why there are so many people claiming sickness benefits today compared to 1949?

I have already done that, only to get "hate PM's". Some people only have their agenda of ensuring that when rules are brought in to expose those who are "swinging the lead" do not apply to them. Even if they are ill or disabled, it does not matter, they will not accept anything that might see them be put under the spotlight, no matter how brief. This is because they fear being found to have the ability to do something, even if it were voluntary for just half an hour a month.

It exposes the benefit culture in the nation. If people had the 1949 attitude that they were accepting charity, which they are actually doing. Its the charity of the nation they are getting. Would they have a different attitude? I am not advocating they receive no money. The nation cannot afford the welfare bill.

There are aspects that could be cut, the working tax credits. To do that wages have to be higher. Make wages higher and the country cannot export anything as we are too expensive.

Somewhere though, the gravy train has to stop. Either people live like our Grandparents did and had what they needed, not what the demanded. Or the whole house of cards fall.

Should the type of need be prioritised? That would be an idea to start with. Those with permanent debilitating disabilities get one rate, checked bi-annually. Then a temporary rate for the next step down for temporary illnesses and so on etc.

I would be massively in favour of workfare. You could bet your bottom dollar the unemployed would prefer taking any job (then looking for their desired employment) rather than receiving workfare!

Oh, if I were King........................I would be hated by half the nation, loved by the other.

Brassedoff

dori2o wrote: »

Thats already been answered.

Employers were actively encouraged to take on disabled people, especially those who had come back from the front line with disabilities.

Now, it is extremely hard, especially when the disabled are vastly outnumbered by able bodied out of work people, for the long term sick/disabled to a) be offerred a job, and b) maintain that job.

Why would an employer choose to take on the additional costs of employing a disabled/long term sick person, when there are so many able bodied people looking for work?

The biggest problem for the long term sick/disabled, especially those with conditions that are unpredictable, is that they often lose their jobs as a result of absenteeism, mainly due to the need to attend appointments, or to manage their condition.

Making the employment of disabled workers more attractive to employers, and also making it easier for people to work from home, would help those sick/disabled people who want to work stay in work despite the problems they have.

I know this sidelines this debate (although some on here take anything written personally and are incapable of debate) but why does the Labour Party and Vince Cable claim we need to maintain mass immigration to fill the jobs that are vacant if we have an unemployment rate of 7.4%?

Is the problem that people want "the job" instead of a job (before then looking to move to their preferred job or vocation?)

Dunroamin

dori2o wrote: »

So if you don't use one of these methods of mobilising you have no excuse for not being able to commute to work or be able to maintain employment despite your disability?

My comments were in response to another poster's who was talking about the difficulty disabled people using wheelchairs and scooters have in accessing public transport.

Far too many people seem to think that only those in wheelchairs are disabled.

Dunroamin

schrodie wrote: »

The unemployment rate in 1949 was 1.6%, also you could often walk into a job within walking distance of your home this after leaving another job the previous week!! Compare that to the unemployment rate of 7.4% today!

Comparing the unemployment rate in 1949 with that in 2013 is a totally pointless exercise, given the differences in society and the way in which statistics were collected.

schrodie

Dunroamin wrote: »

Comparing the unemployment rate in 1949 with that in 2013 is a totally pointless exercise, given the differences in society and the way in which statistics were collected.

So is perhaps asking the question why there are so many people claiming sickness benefits today compared to 1949 pointless if you're going to ignore demographics and state that statistics were collected differently as they're collected today.

dori2o

Brassedoff wrote: »

I know this sidelines this debate (although some on here take anything written personally and are incapable of debate) but why does the Labour Party and Vince Cable claim we need to maintain mass immigration to fill the jobs that are vacant if we have an unemployment rate of 7.4%?

Is the problem that people want "the job" instead of a job (before then looking to move to their preferred job or vocation?)

In terms of people with long term conditions and disabilities, 'the job' for many is the only option.

I would live to be able to go back into my old trade, and could do as there is quite a lot of vacancies in that trade, but I'd never last a week as most of it involves being on my feet all day, walking about, carrying, getting into and out of awkward spaces etc etc.

For me, if I was jobseeking, I need 'the job' rather than any old job. Something where I am sat down for the whole time, where I don't have to walk around, no fetching and carrying.

Most other disabled people are the same.

Also, back in 1949, people with ceryain disabilities could do menial labor jobs which are now either defunct, or have been taken over by 'technology', and are no longer required by to be done be a human being.

One such example of this is our local snooker hall. They have gotten rid of 2 of the cleaners as they have invested in a couple of those robot vacum cleaners. They run at night when the hall is closed.

He therefore only needs 1 cleaner to clean the bar, and the toilets.

One of the reasons why Remploy is no longer viable is because a lot of the work they did, to very high standards, can be done automatically by machine.

A lot of disabled/long term sick people have skills they could apply to the workld of work, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be the demand for these skills anymore.