Please come back

zagfles

OldScientist said:

zagfles said:

OldScientist said:

Kim1965 said:

According to the latest stats there has been a massive increase "in the long term sick". It has follow ed the covid lockdowns, i can only assume that the furlough scheme has "enlightened" more to the benefits culture?
 I think the uk has more of its population defined as disabled than any othe Europe an country, so is our definition stretch ed to folk with bunions? 

For those interested, the stats are at https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/economicinactivity/articles/halfamillionmorepeopleareoutofthelabourforcebecauseoflongtermsickness/2022-11-10

From this report, it would appear that the ONS do not currently have enough data to speculate on what the reasons behind this increase actually are. For example, "A range of factors could be influencing this recent increase. We introduce some of these in this article, but more understanding is needed about the impacts of National Health Service (NHS) waiting times, long COVID, and the ageing workforce".

It is also interesting that industries with significant customer involvement and that, to a large extent, kept open during the lockdowns appear to be most affected (retail, transport and storage, accommodation and food, health, and construction) - you have to scroll quite a way down to find that graph.

Also interesting that the trend started about a year before COVID. Not sure how the "ageing workforce" is relevant since the stats are about 16-64 year olds! Particularly if there's the supposed problem of more 50-64 year olds retiring early, so that would mean the workforce is getting younger not ageing! The trend by occupation seems to be more that lower paid occupations had bigger increases in those long term sick.

There's certainly more going on than the easy answer of 'everyone else apart from me is lazy or dishonest'!

Well the ONS don't even include it as a possibility. Instead they just mention safe options like "the impacts of National Health Service (NHS) waiting times, long COVID, and the ageing workforce". An "easy answer" is one thing, avoiding a possible but controversial answer is another, and not something any objective statistical organisation should do.

Longer time series long term sickness data (I cannot find the original ONS, but it is plotted at https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-long-term-sickness-rate-rises-highest-since-2005-2022-09-13/) indicates a decline over 2005 to 2019 before the trend reversed. Looking at the same graph on the reuters page, the number of retired appears to be down by over 50 basis points from 2012, so recent rises are returning us to historical norms.

So much for blaming retirees! Shows a significant long term decline in retirees under 65.

PS - when you quote links in brackets - please add a space to the end of the URL before the close brackets, otherwise the link doesn't work, it includes the ) and you have to manually change the link. Or at least that happens in my browser, others may be different.

I also note that the current economic inactivity rate  (16-64 year olds)(https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/economicinactivity/timeseries/lf2s/lms) of 21.5% doesn't appear to be significantly out of line with historic values back to 1971 (where it has been between 20% and 26%). The downward trend over the last decade, reversed towards the end of 2019. Looking at short periods of data (like in the ONS report) can be a bit misleading.

Right - but as discussed above with international comparisons, that's likely to be due to increasing female participation in the workforce. In 1971 married women generally weren't in paid employment and so "economically inactive", similar to other countries which now have a higher economic inactivity rate than the UK. In 1971 sex discrimination was perfectly legal - I've got an old newspaper from around that time and the job adverts are an eye opener, adverts mostly mentioned "man" (eg "university educated man required for...") or "Girl Friday" required!

zagfles

Albermarle said:

zagfles said:

Kim1965 said:

According to the latest stats there has been a massive increase "in the long term sick". It has follow ed the covid lockdowns, i can only assume that the furlough scheme has "enlightened" more to the benefits culture?
 I think the uk has more of its population defined as disabled than any othe Europe an country, so is our definition stretch ed to folk with bunions? 

Compared with other European countries I think there's more of an attitude here of treating disabled people as charity cases rather than people who are differently abled and who can still contribute to society but maybe in a different way, or with a few adjustments. In other countries, it's "oh, you can't walk, still, you can use a computer right? So you can work as a programmer, call centre, etc". Here it's "oh you can't walk, poor you, I really feel sorry for you, my compassion oozes from every pore, but you're no use to us, here have all these benefits so we can ease our conscience but then keep away from us so we don't have to think about you".

I remember working with someone 20 years ago who, looking back, was clearly bi-polar. He would often go missing, not turn up to work, or go down the pub at lunchtime and not come back. But when he was at work his work was far better than anyone else so management turned a blind eye to his attendance & timekeeping. But in today's tick-box culture, he'd probably be sent to occupational health and put on warnings, and probably sacked. Square peg round hole, but the hole didn't need to be round, it's defined as round by arbitrary unneccessary rules.

Another guy I know has paranoia, but his technical expertise in areas I've worked on were excellent and I often asked him for advice. He could easy produce good paid work if the employment law and benefit rules were more flexible, but he simply couldn't face the idea of coming off and then back onto benefits if his MH changed, and he had a point, it would have been a nighmare for anyone. So even people who have genuine MH problems, who can produce valuable work, are discouraged to by the system.

I suspect it is not just tick box culture at work, but the whole issue of Mental Health has hit the headlines in the last two or three years. It is constantly mentioned in the news, social media etc. 
This is good as it highlights poor underfunded care and therapies for people with serious MH problems/shines a light in areas which were not mentioned so much in public.
It is not so good as it seems to mean that anything negative in your life can now be labelled as causing poor mental health, rather than just being unhappy/sad/upset/negative mood/fed up with lockdowns etc . 
I suspect that at least some of the increase in long term sick is down to some better acknowledgement of real MH problems, but some is down to more people thinking/saying they have MH problems, when really all they have is life problems/ a lack of resilience/over influenced by media coverage.

Yes, I remember an article by a mental health doctor saying that so-called "mental health awareness" drives are causing their workload to be flooded by people who are just a bit sad or stressed meaning that those with real, serious life threatening MH issues aren't being seen. Can't find it now, maybe been "cancelled"

MikeJXE

After reading moist of the posts on here I find it surprising almost everyone retired early, did no one think enough of their job to stay longer, wasn't there no job satisfaction ? I'm 82 and had to retire at 63 because my wife became ill and I had to look after her, I did that for 10 years till she passed. Now I'm raring to go and start again, When I was working in the construction industry I couldn't wait to get up and go to work, I'm not fit enough to do that now but I am fit enough to do something so I applied for a job, if I get it thats when my life will begin again. 

Brie

zagfles said:

Kim1965 said:

According to the latest stats there has been a massive increase "in the long term sick". It has follow ed the covid lockdowns, i can only assume that the furlough scheme has "enlightened" more to the benefits culture?
 I think the uk has more of its population defined as disabled than any othe Europe an country, so is our definition stretch ed to folk with bunions? 

Compared with other European countries I think there's more of an attitude here of treating disabled people as charity cases rather than people who are differently abled and who can still contribute to society but maybe in a different way, or with a few adjustments. In other countries, it's "oh, you can't walk, still, you can use a computer right? So you can work as a programmer, call centre, etc". Here it's "oh you can't walk, poor you, I really feel sorry for you, my compassion oozes from every pore, but you're no use to us, here have all these benefits so we can ease our conscience but then keep away from us so we don't have to think about you".

I remember working with someone 20 years ago who, looking back, was clearly bi-polar. He would often go missing, not turn up to work, or go down the pub at lunchtime and not come back. But when he was at work his work was far better than anyone else so management turned a blind eye to his attendance & timekeeping. But in today's tick-box culture, he'd probably be sent to occupational health and put on warnings, and probably sacked. Square peg round hole, but the hole didn't need to be round, it's defined as round by arbitrary unneccessary rules.

Another guy I know has paranoia, but his technical expertise in areas I've worked on were excellent and I often asked him for advice. He could easy produce good paid work if the employment law and benefit rules were more flexible, but he simply couldn't face the idea of coming off and then back onto benefits if his MH changed, and he had a point, it would have been a nighmare for anyone. So even people who have genuine MH problems, who can produce valuable work, are discouraged to by the system.

most of that would be covered by equality law.   there's lots of adjustments that can be made for those that are differently abled.

barnstar2077

MikeJXE said:

After reading moist of the posts on here I find it surprising almost everyone retired early, did no one think enough of their job to stay longer, wasn't there no job satisfaction ? I'm 82 and had to retire at 63 because my wife became ill and I had to look after her, I did that for 10 years till she passed. Now I'm raring to go and start again, When I was working in the construction industry I couldn't wait to get up and go to work, I'm not fit enough to do that now but I am fit enough to do something so I applied for a job, if I get it thats when my life will begin again. 

I wish you luck, but I think you may find the modern work place a very different environment to the ones you have known before.  Let us know how you get on!

zagfles

Brie said:

zagfles said:

Kim1965 said:

According to the latest stats there has been a massive increase "in the long term sick". It has follow ed the covid lockdowns, i can only assume that the furlough scheme has "enlightened" more to the benefits culture?
 I think the uk has more of its population defined as disabled than any othe Europe an country, so is our definition stretch ed to folk with bunions? 

Compared with other European countries I think there's more of an attitude here of treating disabled people as charity cases rather than people who are differently abled and who can still contribute to society but maybe in a different way, or with a few adjustments. In other countries, it's "oh, you can't walk, still, you can use a computer right? So you can work as a programmer, call centre, etc". Here it's "oh you can't walk, poor you, I really feel sorry for you, my compassion oozes from every pore, but you're no use to us, here have all these benefits so we can ease our conscience but then keep away from us so we don't have to think about you".

I remember working with someone 20 years ago who, looking back, was clearly bi-polar. He would often go missing, not turn up to work, or go down the pub at lunchtime and not come back. But when he was at work his work was far better than anyone else so management turned a blind eye to his attendance & timekeeping. But in today's tick-box culture, he'd probably be sent to occupational health and put on warnings, and probably sacked. Square peg round hole, but the hole didn't need to be round, it's defined as round by arbitrary unneccessary rules.

Another guy I know has paranoia, but his technical expertise in areas I've worked on were excellent and I often asked him for advice. He could easy produce good paid work if the employment law and benefit rules were more flexible, but he simply couldn't face the idea of coming off and then back onto benefits if his MH changed, and he had a point, it would have been a nighmare for anyone. So even people who have genuine MH problems, who can produce valuable work, are discouraged to by the system.

most of that would be covered by equality law.   there's lots of adjustments that can be made for those that are differently abled.

There are but terms like "limited capacity for work" don't help - everyone has limited capacity for work, there are lots of jobs I couldn't do because I don't have the required skills and ability, same applies to virtually everyone. The benefits system can be a nightmare for people moving in and out of work.

sevenhills

zagfles said:

Personally I don't have a problem with people "gaming" the system, if that means arranging their affairs to maximise benefits, as long as there's no lying, exaggeration or other fraud.

My ex-wife hasn't worked for twenty years due to mental health issues, I was surprised when she applied for PIP due to a bad back.
She had seen the doctor and physio, as she doesn't work it doesn't impact on her life. It was just caused by stress, but she got the PIP.
It's got me thinking how bad will ny arthritis need to be before I qualify for PIP.

Getting_greyer

Do you not think that rather than medical professionals misdiagnosing "sadness" as MH illness, the increase could be due to better recognition of signs and symptoms plus people feel more comfortable seeking help as the social stigma has lessened.  

nigelbb

MikeJXE said:

After reading moist of the posts on here I find it surprising almost everyone retired early, did no one think enough of their job to stay longer, wasn't there no job satisfaction ? I'm 82 and had to retire at 63 because my wife became ill and I had to look after her, I did that for 10 years till she passed. Now I'm raring to go and start again, When I was working in the construction industry I couldn't wait to get up and go to work, I'm not fit enough to do that now but I am fit enough to do something so I applied for a job, if I get it thats when my life will begin again. 

I'm 69 & still working albeit part time. I'm drawing my pensions too so am better off than I have ever been in my life. I'm slowly winding down work-wise. Last tax year I worked around half full time equivalent. This tax year it will be about a third. I guess that I will give up work sometime but my job is interesting satisfying & well paid so even in five years time I can still see myself working the equivalent of one day a week.

OldScientist

zagfles said:

OldScientist said:

zagfles said:

OldScientist said:

Kim1965 said:

According to the latest stats there has been a massive increase "in the long term sick". It has follow ed the covid lockdowns, i can only assume that the furlough scheme has "enlightened" more to the benefits culture?
 I think the uk has more of its population defined as disabled than any othe Europe an country, so is our definition stretch ed to folk with bunions? 

For those interested, the stats are at https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/economicinactivity/articles/halfamillionmorepeopleareoutofthelabourforcebecauseoflongtermsickness/2022-11-10

From this report, it would appear that the ONS do not currently have enough data to speculate on what the reasons behind this increase actually are. For example, "A range of factors could be influencing this recent increase. We introduce some of these in this article, but more understanding is needed about the impacts of National Health Service (NHS) waiting times, long COVID, and the ageing workforce".

It is also interesting that industries with significant customer involvement and that, to a large extent, kept open during the lockdowns appear to be most affected (retail, transport and storage, accommodation and food, health, and construction) - you have to scroll quite a way down to find that graph.

Also interesting that the trend started about a year before COVID. Not sure how the "ageing workforce" is relevant since the stats are about 16-64 year olds! Particularly if there's the supposed problem of more 50-64 year olds retiring early, so that would mean the workforce is getting younger not ageing! The trend by occupation seems to be more that lower paid occupations had bigger increases in those long term sick.

There's certainly more going on than the easy answer of 'everyone else apart from me is lazy or dishonest'!

Well the ONS don't even include it as a possibility. Instead they just mention safe options like "the impacts of National Health Service (NHS) waiting times, long COVID, and the ageing workforce". An "easy answer" is one thing, avoiding a possible but controversial answer is another, and not something any objective statistical organisation should do.

Longer time series long term sickness data (I cannot find the original ONS, but it is plotted at https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-long-term-sickness-rate-rises-highest-since-2005-2022-09-13/ ) indicates a decline over 2005 to 2019 before the trend reversed. Looking at the same graph on the reuters page, the number of retired appears to be down by over 50 basis points from 2012, so recent rises are returning us to historical norms.

So much for blaming retirees! Shows a significant long term decline in retirees under 65.

PS - when you quote links in brackets - please add a space to the end of the URL before the close brackets, otherwise the link doesn't work, it includes the ) and you have to manually change the link. Or at least that happens in my browser, others may be different.

I also note that the current economic inactivity rate  (16-64 year olds)(https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/economicinactivity/timeseries/lf2s/lms ) of 21.5% doesn't appear to be significantly out of line with historic values back to 1971 (where it has been between 20% and 26%). The downward trend over the last decade, reversed towards the end of 2019. Looking at short periods of data (like in the ONS report) can be a bit misleading.

Right - but as discussed above with international comparisons, that's likely to be due to increasing female participation in the workforce. In 1971 married women generally weren't in paid employment and so "economically inactive", similar to other countries which now have a higher economic inactivity rate than the UK. In 1971 sex discrimination was perfectly legal - I've got an old newspaper from around that time and the job adverts are an eye opener, adverts mostly mentioned "man" (eg "university educated man required for...") or "Girl Friday" required!

My guess is that they haven't included laziness or dishonesty because a) it is unlikely to encompass a significant number of people and b) it is not easy to measure or define (well, fraud is, but laziness isn't).

For example, among the early retirees on this forum (including myself) how many of us can be categorised as lazy? In the last year, I have written about 75% of a book and 3 academic papers (and, when I've finished responding here, am in the process of finishing off a fourth), but only the book, if I can make money from it, will count as economic activity. Admittedly, I only spend a couple of hours a day doing this instead of the upwards of 10 hours a day I spent when being paid for it (when not being interrupted by meetings, meetings about meetings, targets, meeting about targets, targets about meetings, etc.). I might be safely categorised as one of the 'idle comfortable' since I have enough income to supply my wants without recourse to direct resources from the state. Of course, that will change once I reach state pension age.

I try to rein in my cynicism, but I suspect that a relatively small cohort of 500k or so (with no protected characteristics) of extra inactive people (and early retirees especially), make an ideal scapegoat for any current economic difficulties. I've corrected the links in my original post (and hopefully will remember in the future!) - thanks for spotting that.

As for female participation in the workforce, looking at that graph again, from the mid-90s (when more women were in the workforce and sex discrimination was at least starting to lessen) to 2011, the inactivity rate was fairly constant around 23% - current levels have yet to return to that. It is frightening what was acceptable in those days (rewatching sitcoms from the early 70s can be an eye opening reminder of how far some things have changed for the better over the last 50 years).