Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I am not going to post individual case details here, unless I can find any that are already ok in the public domain, but it is one of the reasons lima was introduced.

Oh, right, so the answer is you have no proof whatsoever.

As for your contention that "it is one of the reasons LiMA was introduced" please be so good as quantify and provide your evidence for that statement.

Thanks.

I believed LiMA (along with other IT systems) was introduced because, due to the ever increasing document and admin processing requirements required for a growing number of applicants/recipients, it was impossible to find/process paper files in a timely manner (this information is from someone who worked in the DCS at the DWP, who told me that when they told people on the phone they couldn't find their file, they really meant it, as nearly everything was in one big folder, and if the person who had it last was on holiday, and hadn't re-filed it before they went, it would be stuck in their desk drawer for two weeks).

[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.

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

No, just incompetant / useless / not up to the job - take your pick.

Is that because they stick to a script/list of questions to ask?

[dilli-theclaw]

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

[MTJR]

It was just an example. Not intended to be a "one size fits all" approach. I also understand that everybody's needs are different and that there will be people that are just incapable, through whatever reason, of carrying out a job of work.

Generally, I don't think anyone can disagree that there are a number of people out there on benefits who are "cheating" the system and more to the point "cheating" the system on purpose.

If the only people who ever claimed benefit were always legitimate then I doubt we'd feel the need more such measures. The minority spoiling it for the majority. Any system under any government that attempts to tackle the issue must surely be looked upon positively.

John

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by MTJR

If the only people who ever claimed benefit were always legitimate then I doubt we'd feel the need more such measures.

We'd like to think that, but it might be the case that they still might do it as a means of shaking it up and saving money.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by MTJR

It was just an example. Not intended to be a "one size fits all" approach. I also understand that everybody's needs are different and that there will be people that are just incapable, through whatever reason, of carrying out a job of work.

Generally, I don't think anyone can disagree that there are a number of people out there on benefits who are "cheating" the system and more to the point "cheating" the system on purpose.

If the only people who ever claimed benefit were always legitimate then I doubt we'd feel the need more such measures. The minority spoiling it for the majority. Any system under any government that attempts to tackle the issue must surely be looked upon positively.

John

There have always been a number playing the system for personal advantage and without doubt due to the massive numbers now within the system it has reached ridiculous levels. Something must be done and rolling back to what was intended and reasonable must be achieved.

What I find irksome is the is manner in which the achievement of the objectives are proposed. A government in a rush to resolve problems acts the same way as anyone who sees a goal as the objective and skips the planning stage. The consequences of the carnage on the way to the goal often creates more problems than the objective and frequently the goal is lost in a raft of new problems created by unintended consequences.

A blanket tick box test on previously unfit people will throw up thousands of anomalies and especially with those who have the myriad of complaints that alternate between flare and remission. Almost everybody could be classified as being fit to do something but matching an individual to a job that they supposedly could do with an employer who is willing to take on the liability of what may be, through no fault of the unfortunate potential employee, a grossly unreliable employee is where the government's utopian dream ends.

The coalition idea whereby long term unemployed are possibly going to be required to do compulsory work is IMO a degrading and punitive move. The close parallels with court orders virtually ensures stigma. It is easy to think of the work-shy free loaders and think that they deserve such a kick up the backside but a different conclusion may be reached if the thought process involves "what if I become one of those". Before this period of economic re-adjustment is over many who currently think themselves safe and secure will find disappointment.

Fortunately little of this affects me personally as I am retired as is my wife. My businesses are closed and I no longer hire and fire but having been a concurrent employee and employer I can see the naivete of all of these coalition proposals. They are divisive and a recipe for social division which is not only evident but gaining momentum.

These problems could have been tackled with more precision but the new young guns are in a hurry and its sledgehammer to crack a nut time. Social division, anger, resentment and disdain towards others is something that I decidedly do not want to see but it is building via the government and media and as it will affect quality of life for almost everyone I see no winners beyond the coalition deflecting criticism from themselves.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

We have to look at this matter two ways, those people that have lost there jobs, through no fualt of there own, or the lazy gits who are using the benefit system as an easy way of life.

I got made redundant two years ago, so l was determined to find a job, as the benefit system to me, put me on the overty line, so l sat in my car for 6 hours a day, taking numbers down from the side of vehicles going down the A4 near my home, going home, getting the companies on the internet and faxing my CV to them.

I got more interviews from that, than from the JC, who were totally useless, they sent me on training schemes, which were a total waste of time, and when l told them what l was doing, they said, it was a waste of time, and l had to go via the JC, doing it my way, l got a job and am still there.

The Government must not treat all the unemployed with the same brush, as the lazy gits, that sit on the backside, they MUST help the unemployed get back to work, but there is no incentive whtsoever, to get them back to work.

[MTJR]

I've no wish to get into the politics of it all but I see this as a Labour created problem that is becoming marked as a coalition problem. It was the previous regime that made the mess we have now.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by MTJR

I've no wish to get into the politics of it all but I see this as a Labour created problem that is becoming marked as a coalition problem. It was the previous regime that made the mess we have now.

yer ! yer ! and it was a conservative before that.
As Rome burns keep passing the buck .
as i said before when the conservative were in
70/80s there was 3 million on the dole

i went on one of these schemes in the 80s 16 of us got to sit in a garage all day talking.
as the forman was also unemployed.
3.3 million were unemployed
we got £10 extra on top of the benefits

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by MTJR

I've no wish to get into the politics of it all but I see this as a Labour created problem that is becoming marked as a coalition problem. It was the previous regime that made the mess we have now.

There is a problem and there needs to be a solution. The hoped for answers are in the hands of those elected as only they can make the decisions.

Whereas a blame game of politics is somewhat pointless the political decisions of those elected to steer this country is most important as they are mapping out the future that we will all have to live within.

I am stuck with no current political convictions but have concern that the mess that we are in may become a far bigger mess in a few years time.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Oh, right, so the answer is you have no proof whatsoever.

As for your contention that "it is one of the reasons LiMA was introduced" please be so good as quantify and provide your evidence for that statement.

Thanks.

my response to that is you cant have it both ways, the government have provided no proof to their own figures.

So if you dont accept what I say then you shouldnt be accepting the other side of it either.

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

I believed LiMA (along with other IT systems) was introduced because, due to the ever increasing document and admin processing requirements required for a growing number of applicants/recipients, it was impossible to find/process paper files in a timely manner (this information is from someone who worked in the DCS at the DWP, who told me that when they told people on the phone they couldn't find their file, they really meant it, as nearly everything was in one big folder, and if the person who had it last was on holiday, and hadn't re-filed it before they went, it would be stuck in their desk drawer for two weeks).

Lima is just as much paperwork, it gets printed out. Lima was introduced mainly to cut back on the complaints regarding reports been altered (sometimes even in different handwriting to the original report) and to provide a more streamlined and efficient (standardised) medical process. I have the lima software here somewhere as I requested it via the freedom of information act some years back, and its interesting stuff.

---------- Post added at 15:29 ---------- Previous post was at 15:26 ----------

Originally Posted by MTJR

It was just an example. Not intended to be a "one size fits all" approach. I also understand that everybody's needs are different and that there will be people that are just incapable, through whatever reason, of carrying out a job of work.

Generally, I don't think anyone can disagree that there are a number of people out there on benefits who are "cheating" the system and more to the point "cheating" the system on purpose.

If the only people who ever claimed benefit were always legitimate then I doubt we'd feel the need more such measures. The minority spoiling it for the majority. Any system under any government that attempts to tackle the issue must surely be looked upon positively.

John

There is cheats now and will be cheats after this change. But you are misguided if you think these changes are solely to tackle fraud. But what doesnt hit the news and what seemingly noone has a care for is that there is also people who wrongfully get turned down, more than half of appeals overule the DWP. these appeals are expensive.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

my response to that is you cant have it both ways, the government have provided no proof to their own figures.

Sorry, the facts of the matter are that you made (still) unsubstantiated allegations about medical professionals committing fraud. This has nothing to do with Government figures (wheter corroborated or not) it has to do with you making unproved libellous statements in an attempt to support your "argument".

An "argument" based, I have to say, on a premise which you have singularly failed to supply any evidence, whatsoever, in relation to.

Now, back to the question. Where is your proof to back up your allegations of fraud being committed by medical professionals in relation to these assessments and where is your proof that LiMA was introduced to prevent such occurances?

Cheers in advance.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Sorry, the facts of the matter are that you made (still) unsubstantiated allegations about medical professionals committing fraud. This has nothing to do with Government figures (wheter corroborated or not) it has to do with you making unproved libellous statements in an attempt to support your "argument".

An "argument" based, I have to say, on a premise which you have singularly failed to supply any evidence, whatsoever, in relation to.

Now, back to the question. Where is your proof to back up your allegations of fraud being committed by medical professionals in relation to these assessments and where is your proof that LiMA was introduced to prevent such occurances?

Cheers in advance.

Until you admit it works both ways I wont take this further with you, the government is making unsubstantiated allegations about claimants, you discount it as irrelevant tho.

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/new...edical-reports