Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour

Not having any hard evidence didn't stop them with MMR....

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Could I just point out there's a huge difference between your initial assertion (that this was widespread) and your latest (a single instance).

You also appear to be stating that ATOS reprimanded a doctor for doing what you said they wanted (certify people as being fit for work when they weren't), or are you saying they reprimanded him/her for saying that people weren't fit for work? Any links?

A single instance was sent to the bbc.

There is many unknowns with atos, because they a private company freedom of information requests cannot reveal what they do internally.

What I know?

Atos get paid more if they find more fit for work.
Atos question their doctors if they rule a large amount of people unfit for work in any given space of time.
Some hand written reports have been altered after the medical has taken place, in every case to make the condition less serious.
Some reports hand written and lima based have factually incorrect information about what the claimant is capable off.
Atos sometimes uses nurses or even non medical admin staff to carry out medicals.

Keep poking me for holes if you like.

---------- Post added at 20:50 ---------- Previous post was at 20:47 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

that would usually be because without hard evidence they will get into a lot of trouble,of course there are papers that don't care as much about hard evidence when making claims such as NOTW or the DM so if there was so much as a sniff of truth behind that allegation you made they would be all over it imo

Papers dont print anything as long as there is evidence, they have political allegances. Papers often do print stuff without evidence of course. You put too much trust into them.

Seriously -Atos get paid more if they find more fit for work - is that in their contract?

Update - found this on the whatdotheyknow website (publishes FOI requests and answer) - Atos

In question 3 you asked:- if confirmation can be given that ATOS Medical Services are not given incentives of any sort by DWP to reject potential ESA claimants

Neither ATOS Healthcare nor Atos Healthcare's approved Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) are required to meet any type of target or obligation with regard to the number of people expected to qualify for Benefit. Benefit entitlement is then determined by DWP Decision Makers considering all available evidence including reports received from ATOS Healthcare.,

And this from Hansard (6th September 2010)

Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information his Department holds on any bonuses or incentives paid by Atos Healthcare to staff undertaking incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance medical assessments. [12282]

Chris Grayling: The role of the health care professional is to provide an independent, impartial assessment of the effects of a customer's illness or disability on their everyday lives. Neither Atos Healthcare nor their health care professionals receive any kind of bonuses or financial incentive in relation to the outcome of benefit

btw, not poking - just trying to have a debate based on factual evidence.

[Chrysalis]

Hugh I am fairly sure there is online evidence of the atos contract situation, so will try and find it for you.
In addition the new work related interviews which ESA claimants will have to undertake will be done by the private sector and that sector will be paid a lump sum for every claimant they get into work, the latter will be easy to find proof on as it was ministers themselves revealing that.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Hugh I am fairly sure there is online evidence of the atos contract situation, so will try and find it for you.

That would be very useful. Especially if it were to prove that Chris Grayling misled Parliament. I very much look forward to seeing that.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

In addition the new work related interviews which ESA claimants will have to undertake will be done by the private sector and that sector will be paid a lump sum for every claimant they get into work, the latter will be easy to find proof on as it was ministers themselves revealing that.

I think you are possibly getting confused between Work Capability Assessments and work related interviews (assuming you don't mean Work Focused Interviews). WCAs are specific to those claiming ESA whereas the work related interviews apply to anyone seeking employment. It is not unusual for private sector companies (eg Grafton) to be paid a lump sum for getting someone a job. Indeed it's how recruitment agencies have worked for decades.

If, however, you can provide proof that ESA claimants - and ESA claimants alone - are being targetted specifically by these work related interviews and that any such initiative is anything beyond conventional recruitment agency practices then that is a very different matter. Again I'd genuinely very much welcome an opportunity to view any such proof if you are in a position to make it available.

Thanks.

Chrysalis has taken a lot of flak for what he has said and while i cannot claim to have seen it in dozens of cases i can confirm some of what he says during the time i did voluntary work for a group that represented disabled people on benefit. I can also say that of the fifteen appeals i went too with clients not once did the atos doctor that signed the person off benefit turn upto the appeal they submitted a written statement and a representative of atos was there at the appeal.

All fifteen appeals were found in favour of the claimant with some quite stinging comments made on the conduct of atos. Now here is the thing that got me as i always understood it these things were on record and could be viewed yet not once have i been able to find a single mention of any of those appeals even though i know they happened as i was there.

Also in that office we saw other ways people were taken off benefit including an eighty year old woman completely riddled with arthritis to the point she could barely move. Her family had paid for her house to be adapted as much as was possible and had basically moved her completely downstairs as she was no longer physically capable of climbing the stairs. She had a private care worker go visit her six times a day. When the atos doctor came to assess her he asked her to climb the stairs something she couldn't do and she explained to him and refused on the grounds it would cause her great distress and pain he put her down as being uncooperative with the assessment.

Within the rules which they operate under there are many ways for them to quicken the assessment process and recommend a person be taken off a medical benefit which on the surface seem all well and legitimate. I ceased working for that group because although they had plenty of proof of misdoing on the part of atos they were simply content to win the appeals when i felt they should have made a bigger deal and pushed the issue of the conduct of atos more then they did. I couldn't personally do it as i was bound by confidentiality and the only way i could have gotten the proof would have been to have stolen it which i wouldn't do on a personal level but i believe that anything i had stolen also couldn't have been used.

I would dearly love to know why this issue hasn't been taken up by the media and why atos havn't been held to account for some fo their actions and while i could repeat many things on here that i have heard from people i trust i won't as technically it would be rumour. Something is rotten in the system and does need resolving for the benefit of all but how that comes about i am not sure.

Perhaps this should be raised with Consumer programmes, such as WatchDog?

[MTJR]

With the greatest of respect we're talking about a limited number of "possible" claimants being treated in a way other than what they think they should. What that doesn't amount to is a system wide practice of doing so. Furthermore, in the cases RizzyKing alludes to, the judgement was found for the claimant which again does not stack up with any attempt by any party to cover up any wrong doing.

People claiming against the DWP in particular is nothing new as people do it all the time. Some could point to the confusing terminology or amount of information that seems to be required these days which leads people to answer a question in a way that might go against them rather than for them, purely because they didn't completely understand what was being asked.

The most likely reason that a scandal has never been reported is that there probably isn't one.

John

[Gary L]

Tough new welfare rules will strip unemployed claimants of their benefits for up to three years if they refuse the opportunity to work.
Unemployed people who turn down offers of work, refuse to apply for appropriate jobs or fail to turn up for mandatory community work will lose their £65-a-week Job Seekers Allowance, said Prime Minister David Cameron.
The measure, included in the Welfare Reform White Paper being published on Thursday by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, is intended to be in place before 2013 in an effort to cut the bill for JSA, which is claimed by 1.5 million people.
The allowance will be removed for three months on a first offence, six months the second time and three years on the third breach of the new rules. JobCentre advisers are expected to have the power to strip errant jobseekers of JSA and there will be no right of appeal, said officials.

Why not?

Job advisers already have the power to remove JSA for up to 26 weeks from people who fail to take up offers of employment, but the sanction is very rarely applied.

Why not?
through fear of violence, or the fact that there's only a few that fall foul of it?

Those losing income from JSA will be able to apply for a hardship allowance, worth 60-70% of the benefit (around £39-£44 a week), but this is not expected to be available in many cases.

Why not?
Actually they will. they won't be allowed to put anyone into poverty and this £39-£44 will be claimed. so there will be no such thing as 'losing your benefits' after all?

http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/ne..._lose_benefits

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Perhaps this should be raised with Consumer programmes, such as WatchDog?

I agree.

Furthermore it should, providing there is proof beyond anecdotal evidence and unsubstantiated allegations, be raised as a PQ.

Unfortunately, as things stand, no one seems able to produce / provide anything by way of such proof.

[MTJR]

I'm not sure Gary, reading your post, what bit of it you have issue with. Let's not forget that, at the moment, these proposals are just that, proposals.

The story that the powers are not currently used is just not true. The powers are used when and where they can be enforced based on evidence collected and received.

[vanman]

The measure, included in the Welfare Reform White Paper being published on Thursday by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, is intended to be in place

in an effort to cut the bill for JSA, which is claimed by 1.5 million people.

they have got 2 or more years to look for work

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by MTJR

I'm not sure Gary, reading your post, what bit of it you have issue with. Let's not forget that, at the moment, these proposals are just that, proposals.

According to who Jeremy Vine was just talking to it will come into force.

The story that the powers are not currently used is just not true. The powers are used when and where they can be enforced based on evidence collected and received.

They probably are, but probably not enough. and probably because of the fear of the person who sanctioned the claimant being attacked?

[vanman]

just a qestion Mr Duncan Smith says that millions of people had become "trapped"on benefits.
and at the same time he said there are 450,000 vacancies "
so if the 450,000 jobs are filled
what are the rest going to do ?

Mr Duncan Smith, who campaigned for root-and-branch welfare reform while in opposition, said millions of people had become "trapped" on benefits and long-term unemployment had become entrenched in communities where generations of families had not worked for years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11728546

Mr Duncan Smith hit back at claims there were not enough jobs in the current economic climate for the plan to work, saying there were 450,000 vacancies "even as the country is coming out of recession".

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I find that the Governments attitude to the unemployed stinks.
I look at it this way, at the present time there is nearly 4 million people seeking JSA, there is 'supposedly' 400.000 vacancies, WHERE, each week l get newspapers with half a page of vacancies, which are normally gone by the time you get to a phone.

You go to the job centre, where jobs are approx 15/17 grand a year, you attend an interview with about 50 applicants, what chance have you got, ZERO.

You go a training centres, for what, to be taught how to right a CV, how to use a computor, and not a worthy job.

What the government has to do is provide EMPLOYMENT, and they won't as employers are moving out of the country as it is cheaper abroad, or are the government going to supply planes to take us there.

This idea is all wind, and to have a go at the genuine people who want to work, but cannot is poor.