Forced To Look For Work On ESA?

sniggings

longtomboy wrote: »

I think that this has a lot to do with what Maggie did when to get the unemployment figures down she authorised the DWP to move people over to sickness benefit for the flimsiest of reasons. Being on the dole for 12 months was bound to have caused mental anguish and possibly depression. Hence why those on the sick in the working group are seen as in a half way place, sat on the fence between unemployment benefit and sick benefit.

I agree but since the new rules, if you pass an ESA assessment then you are not there to help make the unemployment figures look good but because you can not work, the assessment is not easy to pass if you still can breathe...they know this yet they still send them on the work programe, heck a doctor could be ill go on ESA and he/she would be sent on the WP, at least let these people get well, then if they can not find themselves a job after 6 months then look to give them more help, lets remember the WP has been shown to hardly improve your chance of finding work, some say being on it lessens your chance to find work, depends which figures you believe but either way it will probably save the tax payer more money by leaving these people alone to get well again, and look for their own jobs.

sniggings

longtomboy wrote: »

sniggings wrote: »

I agree but since the new rules, if you pass an ESA assessment then you are not there to help make the unemployment figures look good but because you can not work, the assessment is not easy to pass if you still can breathe...they know this yet they still send them on the work programe, heck a doctor could be ill go on ESA and he/she would be sent on the WP, at least let these people get well, then if they can not find themselves a job after 6 months then look to give them more help, lets remember the WP has been shown to hardly improve your chance of finding work, some say being on it lessens your chance to find work, depends which figures you believe but either way it will probably save the tax payer more money by leaving these people alone to get well again, and look for their own jobs.[/QUOTE]

But would they? Or would they just languish on this benefit like they did with the old version.

why would you think they wouldn't? even on JSA you do not have to go on the WP for a year, so why not apply that rule to those that are ill and when they get well give them a chance to find work, most on JSA find work within 4 months, it's only a small percentage that use JSA as a life style, why would you think there are more people on ESA that have past a strict assessment that when they are well again would not want to work? if it's the same percentage as JSA then again it's a small number, why not focus the attention on that group rather than pester all those in the working group, and again remember the WP has been shown to be next to useless, it's main use is to badger those that don't want to work to find work...again those on ESA do not need this when they are unfit to even work if they wanted to.

Indie_Kid

A lot of people on ESA have long term incurable medical conditions. I fail to see how those people who were found unfit for work could work within a few years or so?

osdset

I think the point is, why make these people do this stuff when they have been found unable to work,

They haven't been found unable to work though, they have been found to have limited capability for work, a different kettle of fish entirely. For as long as the the word 'work' features within ESA entitlement, claimants will be nudged in the direction of eventually finding some, however long that may take.

Indie_Kid

osdset wrote: »

They haven't been found unable to work though, they have been found to have limited capability for work, a different kettle of fish entirely. For as long as the the word 'work' features within ESA entitlement, claimants will be nudged in the direction of eventually finding some, however long that may take.

But if they were able to work, they'd be on JSA.

sniggings

osdset wrote: »

They haven't been found unable to work though, they have been found to have limited capability for work, a different kettle of fish entirely. For as long as the the word 'work' features within ESA entitlement, claimants will be nudged in the direction of eventually finding some, however long that may take.

can you not use your own brain to work this out or do you just follow what the tories say without question?

no they have been assessed to show they can not do any work but may be able to work in the future, it's a simple suggestion I'm making, if they can not work now, why not leave them alone to get well and if they fail to get a job when well then set the attack dogs on them...it'll save a lot of wasted money.

Indie_Kid

sniggings wrote: »

can you not use your own brain to work this out or do you just follow what the tories say without question?

no they have been assessed to show they can not do any work but may be able to work in the future, it's a simple suggestion I'm making, if they can not work now, why not leave them alone to get well and if they fail to get a job when well then set the attack dogs on them...it'll save a lot of wasted money.

Most won't get better in the future. That's the problem - most have permanent and incurable disabilities.

Indie_Kid

longtomboy wrote: »

Then those should be in the supporting group shouldn't they? They shouldn't feature in this argument as the working group would be inappropriate.

Doesn't work like that though, does it, Andy?

Own_My_Own

longtomboy wrote: »

Then those should be in the supporting group shouldn't they? They shouldn't feature in this argument as the working group would be inappropriate.

I really do wonder where you people gets your ideas from. My ds has Aspergers and is in the work program. His disability will never get better or go away. He is hoping to find work in the near future, but it isn't that easy.
He doesn't like speaking to strangers, so can't sell himself. The adviser he sees is trying to help him find the right job.

On JSA he would have to apply for x amount of jobs a week, which would do nothing but send him into a meltdown.

rogerblack

Several people have a fundamental misunderstanding in this thread.
It's not entirely unreasonable - as it seems to be shared by many government ministers who go on to make policies based on it.

In short - the common descriptions of the two groups of ESA are something like:
The support group is for the terminally ill, and those who are unlikely to work again.
The work-related group is for those who can be expected to in the near future get back into work.

On the basis of these two lines many policies - for example the capping of contributory work-related payments at one year, and mandating almost everyone in the work-related activity group into the work program sort of make sense. 'in a time of austerity'.

The problem is that this is not what the two groups are.
The reality - where ESA does not in fact measure directly 'likelyness to be able to work in the near future' - but assumes it based on tick-box descriptors that may in practice mean that the person would never not qualify for ESA, due to a lifelong condition, and that there is no employer in the land that would employ them - is silently ignored, and policy formed on the basis of the above paragraph.

My common example is someone who due to a sports injury cannot place either arm into a upper shirt pocket, but can do every other task gets placed into the support group.

A claimant who uses a wheelchair, can't walk and can slowly wheel himself over 200m. He can only work for 90 minutes at a time before becoming utterly exhausted. He has difficulty conveying or understanding more than simple messages from strangers. Once every couple of months has a sudden accident where he loses control of his bowels. Can barely operate a washing machine. Several hours a day he can't cope with trying to talk to new people.

Is fit for work.

At no point in the ESA test is 'claimant is unfit for any reasonable hope of work' a direct route to ESA.