http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4227991.stm

So, the government having just decided that people on incapacity benefit should be encouraged back to work, I'm curious to know what exactly their definition of being too sick to work actually is?

The benefit is paid to 1.5 million people and there is evidence to suggest people who have started claiming this are quite likely to remain on the benefit indefinitely, which is apparently one of the reasons why the government is trying to encourage these people back to work

I appreciate there are people who could possibly return to work, but is it appropriate that genuine incapacitated people should have added stress to their lives?

I must admit I'm not impressed with the last paragraph of the link below.

"GPs are not occupational health trained and wouldn't know if someone's fit to work or not. What we know is whether they are ill or not."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4225991.stm

I've also attached a poll to try to gauge what the general feeling is.

Another option is to allow people to work as they can.

Some people are more than capable of working, but have periods of illness/depression, during which they're incapable of working. However, if they were to be allowed the time off they need during these periods and were welcomed back to work to carry out their usual duties, it would help a lot more people take up employment. I myself fall into this bracket. I'm currently awaiting an operation that will hopefully sort me out.

However, bosses are unwilling to take someone with health problems on. I mean, what's the point of employing someone who needs three or four days off every month? Employers just won't do it. They need a reliable workforce and rightly so.

This is just another attempt by politicians to look as though they're actually doing something positive. Most MPs and the PM don't have a clue about people who suffer with forms of arthritis, depression, or other debilitating illnesses.

There are plenty of people who have been signed off manual labour jobs (and will never be able to continue in their job), who could reasonably be expected to retrain in a less strenuous role.

PS I'm from Liverpool - nuff sed

In the past people have been encouraged to take incapacity benefit as this conveniently removes large numbers from the figures when unemployment is calculated. It's like a cycle so that when the attention is on unemployment people are herded onto incapacity to massage the figures, but as soon as the increased numbers on incapacity are noted by the press or the opposition the same people are then hounded off the benefit whilst government waggs the finger at them and labels them lazy scroungers.

There are of course people who take full advantage of the system when they could and should be working for a living. But it's seldom these people who really suffer when attention is focused upon getting people off incapacity. In the rush to lower the figures on the benefit, there have been many instances when the genuine claimants who are in danger of suffering and even chancing a fatality have been forced to look for work as swathes of people are kicked off the benefit rather than each case being judged on its individual merits.

Would adding to the poll another option be possible Lickszz?

One that says "yes if they are proved to be abusing their levels of sickness" This is what gets to most working people, when they go to and from work and still see that "scrounger" at the end of the street doing all kinds of odd jobs which he/she is supposedly unable to do.

Originally posted by owdlad
Would adding to the poll another option be possible Lickszz?

One that says "yes if they are proved to be abusing their levels of sickness" This is what gets to most working people, when they go to and from work and still see that "scrounger" at the end of the street doing all kinds of odd jobs which he/she is supposedly unable to do.

I think you summed up the most reasonable stance there, Owdlad...I second the amendment.

Originally posted by Strix
What's the number for the Benefit Fraud Hotline......? :suspect:

So that's why you moved away from Liverpool is it ;)

The local number is in here

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/business-economy/fraudweb/benefit-fraud/reporting-a-benefit-fraud

Of course people who are capable of working should do so.

Coming at this from another angle, there are plenty of disabled people who would love to work but the system is far from encouraging.

Just because a persons legs don't work doesn't mean that he or she can't hold down a job. So long as the workplace is wheelchair friendly then why shouldn't they contribute. Hey I'm sure that PT will have more to say on this one she doesn't need me to fight her corner ;) .

If the workplace is accessible and equal opportunties policies are in action of course people on benefit should be encouraged to work.

But there will always be claimants who can't and never will be able to work.

Originally posted by Carmine
In the past people have been encouraged to take incapacity benefit as this conveniently removes large numbers from the figures when unemployment is calculated.
Yes the numbers have arisen out of Govt. policies. Yet another of Mrs Ts legacies. Tony won't blame his heroine so much as cosh the people who have been put on incapacity benefit as a result of Govt policy

A close relative of mine was off sick for a variety of reasons for over a year from her job. Because of this she had to attend a special medical by the DWP, I think because they didn't believe she was that sick.

Anyhoo, the doctor she saw at DWP signed her off for five years! As that takes her to age 63, I don't think she'll ever work again.

The point is though is that we all pay into the NI scheme, and this particular lady was very well paid for the majority of her working life before she fell ill. Why should she be 'frightened' into going back to work when she is sick and has paid her dues?

K x

Originally posted by Mo
Of course people who are capable of working should do so.

Coming at this from another angle, there are plenty of disabled people who would love to work but the system is far from encouraging.

Just because a persons legs don't work doesn't mean that he or she can't hold down a job. So long as the workplace is wheelchair friendly then why shouldn't they contribute. Hey I'm sure that PT will have more to say on this one she doesn't need me to fight her corner ;) .

If the workplace is accessible and equal opportunties policies are in action of course people on benefit should be encouraged to work.

But there will always be claimants who can't and never will be able to work.



well, i see my name being "taken in vain" ;) ;)
lol

Some of us with disabilities need adjustments to the workplace, such as access adaptions, yes, this is true.

Others may simply need "a bit of support", or "thought" given to them from their place of work. (a slightly different layout of the workstation for someone with limited dexterity, or lights instead of bells for someone who is partially hearing, for example. )

I agree that if someone is "up-to" working, then they should be helped, and encouraged, and given every support, financially and in their physical environment.

I have gone back to work half-time, as this is the maximum I am physically capable of coping with. (I spend most of the rest of the week in a state of physical collapse, recovering from the energy expenditure required to do my work.)

In truth, I am over extending myself, and I am "suffering the consequences", but I have pride in my work, and I enjoy doing it, knowing that I am helping improve the quality of life for folk who are elderly/infirm/ disabled.

I have struggled with being made to feel that I am a "Sponger" because I had been too ill to work, for a long time, (and I am not in the best of health, even now) and had to be reliant on benefits. as someone who historically was a hard worker, it was a difficult experience.

I had hoped that I would be able to gradually extend the hours I work until I was earning more but it doesn't look a likely prospect :(

PT

The way that the Government has to look at it is that they need to educate employers, before any of these strategies can work.
if employers do not change their attitudes to give people a chance, they cannot expect to have a diverse workforce.
There is a lot of stigma attached to mental health even in todays society.
It is time for all employesrs to put their attitudes at the front of their mission statement,such as
WE BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE ,IRRESPECTIVE OF RACE,DISABILITY,ETHNIC OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION SHOULD BE TREAT EQUALLY AND ENCOURAGED TO ACHIEVE THEIR FULL POTENTIAL.
People with disabilities have a lot to offer, if only employers could see that and give them a chance

Originally posted by Pauly
If the people with the illness are physically unable to work then fair enough but I happen to know that my evil ex has an ongoing back problem and claims benefit for it, but still does cash-in-hand jobs that she tells the authorities she's unable to do.

If anyone wants her name to check it out I'll send it via PM. Not bitter or owt. ;) :twisted:

Are you sure this "Evil ex" of yours still does cash in hand work?
I have a couple of ex's who have come clean on the things they have been doing just as soon as they are fit enough to work. Considering what the government pays some people to live on who are on incapacity benefit it's little wonder that people have to take what they can to make sure they get by. Not only are comments like yours potentially offensive and libelous they could also just be malicious lies. Think before you type.