Quote:
Originally Posted by MTJR
For me it is exactly the opposite. I only know of people who have been assessed as unable to work when they are (by their own admission) capable of doing so.
But we're back to defining what is "fit for work". If you can use a computer for example then you must be capable of doing work at a computer. I don't particularly buy into the theory that people will be shuffed into jobs that they can't do just because it ticks some boxes. I appreciate there may be isolated cases where people feel hard done by but I'd equally have to say that nothing's perfect and injustices, of varying degrees, happen every day.
|
Let's take your example there.
I can use a computer. It has to have special software and would (If there is paperwork involved) also need a CCTV machine.
Now to get the job the copmany will have to (in most cases) pay for a part of that as the access to work scheme won't cover the whole cost.
So who is the employer going to pick? - someone who can just do the job, or someone who will cost money to do the work?
So just because you /can/ use a computer - doesn't mean it's practical that you will be able to in a work environment.
If the government change their access to work scheme to expand it then cool, but I can't see them doing that.
Even if I could get the software I need on say a memory stick I could take it with me and use it on other pc's