"The shock plans for ‘simplifying’ the work capability assessment, drawn up by a DWP working group, include docking points from amputees who can lift and carry with their stumps. Claimants with speech problems who can write a sign saying, for example, ‘The office is on fire!’ will score no points for speech and deaf claimants who can read the sign will lose all their points for hearing."
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
How Labour will Crucify Disabled People.
Benefits and Work link.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Has charity forgotten who it is for?
You may be pleased to learn that the Third Sector now has a forum. I thought that it was only fair to be able to make my point there. Below is my latest response, please feel free to chip in; we could always do with some more support to ram-rod these points home.
The ‘best person for the job’ argument is a tired old chestnut that most certainly does not convince me. I think it is using the pretence of fairness to keep deaf people away from employment. We are rejected left, right and centre by other employers and then RNID uses that as an excuse not to employ us. Nice(!)
RNID was set up with the express purpose of helping deaf people, and their own stated objects include the ‘better training and employment’ of deaf people. If they are not going to be an exemplar employer in that respect, then how can they convince other employers that it is good to hire deaf people? What right would they have to lecture other organisations on the issue?
Secondly, the ‘best person for the job’ argument assumes that being deaf is irrelevant to working for a deaf organisation when nothing could be further from the truth. A first hand knowledge of deafness and the immediate implications should be considered a critical ‘involuntary’ qualification for understanding our needs and priorities.
Thirdly, there is the issue of self-determination – people should be able to speak and act for themselves, not have somebody else do it for them without their permission or involvement – THAT is what I call patronising! Imagine a Women’s organisation with no women in their senior management team and only 10% of their staff women. Outrageous!
Fourthly, there is the issue of taking advantage of people who have been held back. Rattling tins, saying ‘please help those poor deaf people!’ only to turn around and spend the proceeds on very well paid jobs for people who have never been deaf or hoh in their lives; sounds very much like taking advantage to me – I certainly feel used.
Fifthly, I do not think that they are attracting better people, but worse, people who are out of touch and want nothing to do with deaf people. If you do not consult with the people you work for, you cannot do a good job.
No, RNID has forgotten who it is for.
The ‘best person for the job’ argument is a tired old chestnut that most certainly does not convince me. I think it is using the pretence of fairness to keep deaf people away from employment. We are rejected left, right and centre by other employers and then RNID uses that as an excuse not to employ us. Nice(!)
RNID was set up with the express purpose of helping deaf people, and their own stated objects include the ‘better training and employment’ of deaf people. If they are not going to be an exemplar employer in that respect, then how can they convince other employers that it is good to hire deaf people? What right would they have to lecture other organisations on the issue?
Secondly, the ‘best person for the job’ argument assumes that being deaf is irrelevant to working for a deaf organisation when nothing could be further from the truth. A first hand knowledge of deafness and the immediate implications should be considered a critical ‘involuntary’ qualification for understanding our needs and priorities.
Thirdly, there is the issue of self-determination – people should be able to speak and act for themselves, not have somebody else do it for them without their permission or involvement – THAT is what I call patronising! Imagine a Women’s organisation with no women in their senior management team and only 10% of their staff women. Outrageous!
Fourthly, there is the issue of taking advantage of people who have been held back. Rattling tins, saying ‘please help those poor deaf people!’ only to turn around and spend the proceeds on very well paid jobs for people who have never been deaf or hoh in their lives; sounds very much like taking advantage to me – I certainly feel used.
Fifthly, I do not think that they are attracting better people, but worse, people who are out of touch and want nothing to do with deaf people. If you do not consult with the people you work for, you cannot do a good job.
No, RNID has forgotten who it is for.
Friday, 28 August 2009
A Lesson in Social Justice.
"Dear Tony,
'The Battle for Hearts and Minds - Gaining Social Justice and Inclusion"
The world is not and sadly never will be entirely fair or equal but true "Social Justice" should, and must be, achievable in any civilised society.
If you are listening Mr Blair, that is a legacy worth having, demonising those unable to obtain or simply incapable of work through illness and disability is not.
What you, and government as a whole, seem to have forgotten is that the value of an individual is not diminished by an inability to obtain, let alone be capable of, paid employment. Each and every one of us contributes something to the whole regardless of our situation in that regard.
The problem then is how we achieve acceptance, rather than merely lip service, to the notion that we should all be seen as equal members of society, each contributing according to their ability and each supported according to their needs.
What is needed, and I would argue Equality 2025 and the EHRC must be about, is not just establishing equality of opportunity in work and other aspects of society but, perhaps more importantly, ensuring an acceptable degree of minimum outcome sufficient to ensure true social inclusion for all.
Equality of minimum outcome is therefore how I would define "Social Justice" as it is the only definition that includes the need for full "Inclusion" as the ultimate goal of that "Justice".
Yes it is true that removing obstacles to work is the best chance for all disadvantaged groups, but especially the disabled, to escape from poverty.
Gaining decently paid, meaningful employment provides not just the financial resources necessary for social inclusion, but also helps individuals gain self respect and promotes the acceptance of their worth by society as a whole.
Removing disincentives to work is thus clearly part of the solution, but only a part. Other less obvious obstacles need to be overcome first. Not least of these is the need for such solutions to be applied in a way that doesn't serve to discriminate against those still unable to obtain, or are simply incapable of, such gainful employment.
The social inclusion of those able to gain paid employment can not and must not be at the cost of the social exclusion of those that can't.
The reality of Britain in the 21st century is that entrenched attitudes to the disabled will not disappear overnight. It will take years and maybe decades even to get those that can work into work.
It therefore is imperative that any welfare reform recognises this and that the disabled in or out of work are provided with the minimum funds required to allow a reasonable degree of social inclusion.
I believe this minimum level of support for all working age adults with disability whether working or not should be at least equal to that provided under the Pension Credit guarantee arrangements for those over 60, as in many ways our financial and physical situation is often on a par with non-disabled pensioners.
Working Tax Credit already achieves this for those fortunate enough to be both able to work and also the help a few receive to overcome some of the hurdles in finding and maintaining meaningful paid employment.
But what of those for whom these two vital criteria do not apply?
Interestingly, even before the detail of the Welfare Reform Bill became public last year (2006), I had proposed the following solutions as part of my contribution to the then DRC "Debate" forum. (The Disability Rights Commission now part of the new EHRC)
1. For those considered able to work, but as yet unable to overcome the barriers that already exist because of their disability, maybe what is needed is a special 'Disabled but looking for work' premium which reflects the desire to work but recognises it may take time to remove the barriers preventing that desire being fulfilled.
2. For those with no realistic prospect of ever being able to work, even if all the barriers could be removed maybe what is needed is a special category of disability that encompasses this added difficulty and adds a 'Disabled and unable to work' premium.
The reality is disability covers a broad spectrum of ability and there will always be individuals at every point on the scale from able to fully unable to gain paid employment due to that disability and so focusing just on getting people off incapacity benefit and back to work will never be a cure all.
3. Maybe what is needed instead is a new way of looking at individuals that recognises the disabled are, more often than not, simply doing the best they can, so perhaps a 'Disabled and doing the best I can' premium could also be introduced.
Welfare reform should also recognise the many other forms of direct contribution the disabled make to society as a whole particularly when they are parents. This includes the love they give their children but also the voluntary work they so often do for others.
For all groups though, the key welfare reform needed is a work and benefits system that truly allows the disabled and their children to fully participate as equal members of society with nobody left behind simply because of being unable to obtain paid employment particularly when this is due to disability.
The simple fact the current Welfare Reform Bill has the need to "protect" the benefit levels of those currently in receipt of Incapacity Benefit clearly indicates that neither the "conditional" work related activity supplement or the "support" element of the new ESA will make it equivalent to, let alone higher than, current levels of Incapacity Benefit.
Even this would still be nowhere close to the Pension Credit Guarantee figure I proposed earlier should be the absolute minimum considered as appropriate for working age individuals with what the DRC would call "Severe workplace disadvantage".
Sadly we already know, from your earlier refusal to answer my earlier simple questions about reforms that you are not prepared to even guarantee the net effect of the reforms will not simply be that individuals such as me actually continue to go backwards in terms of our social inclusion rather than forward as full and equal citizens of the UK.
Yours respectfully
Peter J Farrington ."
'The Battle for Hearts and Minds - Gaining Social Justice and Inclusion"
The world is not and sadly never will be entirely fair or equal but true "Social Justice" should, and must be, achievable in any civilised society.
If you are listening Mr Blair, that is a legacy worth having, demonising those unable to obtain or simply incapable of work through illness and disability is not.
What you, and government as a whole, seem to have forgotten is that the value of an individual is not diminished by an inability to obtain, let alone be capable of, paid employment. Each and every one of us contributes something to the whole regardless of our situation in that regard.
The problem then is how we achieve acceptance, rather than merely lip service, to the notion that we should all be seen as equal members of society, each contributing according to their ability and each supported according to their needs.
What is needed, and I would argue Equality 2025 and the EHRC must be about, is not just establishing equality of opportunity in work and other aspects of society but, perhaps more importantly, ensuring an acceptable degree of minimum outcome sufficient to ensure true social inclusion for all.
Equality of minimum outcome is therefore how I would define "Social Justice" as it is the only definition that includes the need for full "Inclusion" as the ultimate goal of that "Justice".
Yes it is true that removing obstacles to work is the best chance for all disadvantaged groups, but especially the disabled, to escape from poverty.
Gaining decently paid, meaningful employment provides not just the financial resources necessary for social inclusion, but also helps individuals gain self respect and promotes the acceptance of their worth by society as a whole.
Removing disincentives to work is thus clearly part of the solution, but only a part. Other less obvious obstacles need to be overcome first. Not least of these is the need for such solutions to be applied in a way that doesn't serve to discriminate against those still unable to obtain, or are simply incapable of, such gainful employment.
The social inclusion of those able to gain paid employment can not and must not be at the cost of the social exclusion of those that can't.
The reality of Britain in the 21st century is that entrenched attitudes to the disabled will not disappear overnight. It will take years and maybe decades even to get those that can work into work.
It therefore is imperative that any welfare reform recognises this and that the disabled in or out of work are provided with the minimum funds required to allow a reasonable degree of social inclusion.
I believe this minimum level of support for all working age adults with disability whether working or not should be at least equal to that provided under the Pension Credit guarantee arrangements for those over 60, as in many ways our financial and physical situation is often on a par with non-disabled pensioners.
Working Tax Credit already achieves this for those fortunate enough to be both able to work and also the help a few receive to overcome some of the hurdles in finding and maintaining meaningful paid employment.
But what of those for whom these two vital criteria do not apply?
Interestingly, even before the detail of the Welfare Reform Bill became public last year (2006), I had proposed the following solutions as part of my contribution to the then DRC "Debate" forum. (The Disability Rights Commission now part of the new EHRC)
1. For those considered able to work, but as yet unable to overcome the barriers that already exist because of their disability, maybe what is needed is a special 'Disabled but looking for work' premium which reflects the desire to work but recognises it may take time to remove the barriers preventing that desire being fulfilled.
2. For those with no realistic prospect of ever being able to work, even if all the barriers could be removed maybe what is needed is a special category of disability that encompasses this added difficulty and adds a 'Disabled and unable to work' premium.
The reality is disability covers a broad spectrum of ability and there will always be individuals at every point on the scale from able to fully unable to gain paid employment due to that disability and so focusing just on getting people off incapacity benefit and back to work will never be a cure all.
3. Maybe what is needed instead is a new way of looking at individuals that recognises the disabled are, more often than not, simply doing the best they can, so perhaps a 'Disabled and doing the best I can' premium could also be introduced.
Welfare reform should also recognise the many other forms of direct contribution the disabled make to society as a whole particularly when they are parents. This includes the love they give their children but also the voluntary work they so often do for others.
For all groups though, the key welfare reform needed is a work and benefits system that truly allows the disabled and their children to fully participate as equal members of society with nobody left behind simply because of being unable to obtain paid employment particularly when this is due to disability.
The simple fact the current Welfare Reform Bill has the need to "protect" the benefit levels of those currently in receipt of Incapacity Benefit clearly indicates that neither the "conditional" work related activity supplement or the "support" element of the new ESA will make it equivalent to, let alone higher than, current levels of Incapacity Benefit.
Even this would still be nowhere close to the Pension Credit Guarantee figure I proposed earlier should be the absolute minimum considered as appropriate for working age individuals with what the DRC would call "Severe workplace disadvantage".
Sadly we already know, from your earlier refusal to answer my earlier simple questions about reforms that you are not prepared to even guarantee the net effect of the reforms will not simply be that individuals such as me actually continue to go backwards in terms of our social inclusion rather than forward as full and equal citizens of the UK.
Yours respectfully
Peter J Farrington ."
Sunday, 9 August 2009
RNID: "Do as we say, not as we do."
In order to be able to engage effectively with employers, the Department of Work and Pensions as well as local public authorities should be capable of acting as exemplar employers in terms of the recruitment, retention and progression of disabled people. Currently, the public sector has a poor record in this area, and RNID would like to see a strategic and measurable commitment to increasing the numbers of deaf people working across both DWP, Ministerial Government Departments and the public sector in general.
From: A Response by RNID (A pdf link.)
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Charity Commission
One of the particularly ugly hallmarks of the ‘New Labour’ government is their propensity to forsake established principles, such as non ‘conflict of interest,’ the ‘right to be heard’ and many others. One way in which they do this is to wave the word ‘debate’ around as if it is a magic wand that can make these pesky principles disappear. Wearing a mask of pseudo- innocent reasonableness they chirp and chirrup ‘I just want to start a debate!’ before elbowing established maxims and morals into the dustbin.
On the Charity Commission’s website, they make the following pious statement about what their role is:
That’s strange; because I’ve noticed a large number of charities bidding for lucrative government contracts to carry out Welfare Reform objectives. The Welfare Reform Bill proposes to commit a number of human rights breaches against deaf and disabled people. I know this because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has written to the Secretary of State expressing concern that some things in the Bill are not compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations. Certainly to my mind, forcing disabled people into slavery, referred to euphemistically as ‘work related activity,’ is driving and reversing a Sherman tank over disabled people’s human rights.
Enraged, I wrote to the Charity Commission to point out this glaring conflict of interest. Charities are supposed to be looking after their beneficiaries, yet here they are, bidding for contracts which give them the power to force disabled people to attend ‘work-focussed interviews,’ to force disabled people into slavery and to cut the benefits of those who don’t comply, sending them even deeper into poverty than they already are! I thought that there was absolutely no way that a charity could claim to be operating independently of government and commercial interests at the same time as bidding for lucrative government contracts that allow them to piddle on the human rights of their beneficiaries. So I didn’t expect the lawyerly, weasel-worded reply that I got from the Charity Commission.
In their usual highly condescending tone, they explained that it’s up to charity trustees to decide whether or not these things are in the interests of their beneficiaries (!) I guess that we humble pawns, I mean beneficiaries, should just butt out then. Clearly it’s very important what the government thinks. It’s very important what the charities think. It’s very important what the Charity Commission thinks. But the people who are the ones who are supposed to benefit from all these shenanigans - the beneficiaries – well, who gives a rat’s behind what they think?
‘It is not illegal for charities to carry out their purposes by undertaking work under contract with government,’ the Charity Commission’s response chirped. For some reason I remembered numerous MP’s declaring that they ‘haven’t broken any rules’ over the expenses fiasco. Well, that’s all right then! It's easy for those who are a law unto themselves to abide by their own laws.
In the Charity Commission’s leaflet, Andrew Hind and Dame Suzi Leather (the CEO and chair) declare ‘[b]ut the last few years have seen increasing numbers of charities undertaking this work and the debate has certainly moved on.’
That ‘debate’ magic wand again!
I hope to return to strictly RNID issues in my next post.
On the Charity Commission’s website, they make the following pious statement about what their role is:
“Whatever their size or purpose, an essential requirement of all charities is that they operate for the public benefit and independently of government or commercial interests. Our job is to ensure this happens.”
That’s strange; because I’ve noticed a large number of charities bidding for lucrative government contracts to carry out Welfare Reform objectives. The Welfare Reform Bill proposes to commit a number of human rights breaches against deaf and disabled people. I know this because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has written to the Secretary of State expressing concern that some things in the Bill are not compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations. Certainly to my mind, forcing disabled people into slavery, referred to euphemistically as ‘work related activity,’ is driving and reversing a Sherman tank over disabled people’s human rights.
Enraged, I wrote to the Charity Commission to point out this glaring conflict of interest. Charities are supposed to be looking after their beneficiaries, yet here they are, bidding for contracts which give them the power to force disabled people to attend ‘work-focussed interviews,’ to force disabled people into slavery and to cut the benefits of those who don’t comply, sending them even deeper into poverty than they already are! I thought that there was absolutely no way that a charity could claim to be operating independently of government and commercial interests at the same time as bidding for lucrative government contracts that allow them to piddle on the human rights of their beneficiaries. So I didn’t expect the lawyerly, weasel-worded reply that I got from the Charity Commission.
In their usual highly condescending tone, they explained that it’s up to charity trustees to decide whether or not these things are in the interests of their beneficiaries (!) I guess that we humble pawns, I mean beneficiaries, should just butt out then. Clearly it’s very important what the government thinks. It’s very important what the charities think. It’s very important what the Charity Commission thinks. But the people who are the ones who are supposed to benefit from all these shenanigans - the beneficiaries – well, who gives a rat’s behind what they think?
‘It is not illegal for charities to carry out their purposes by undertaking work under contract with government,’ the Charity Commission’s response chirped. For some reason I remembered numerous MP’s declaring that they ‘haven’t broken any rules’ over the expenses fiasco. Well, that’s all right then! It's easy for those who are a law unto themselves to abide by their own laws.
In the Charity Commission’s leaflet, Andrew Hind and Dame Suzi Leather (the CEO and chair) declare ‘[b]ut the last few years have seen increasing numbers of charities undertaking this work and the debate has certainly moved on.’
That ‘debate’ magic wand again!
I hope to return to strictly RNID issues in my next post.
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Solidarity.
I was reading a 'disability' messageboard recently and came across the following fine comment:
I couldn't have put it better myself. We have a right to be heard and one day disabled people will unite effectively and demand that right.
It is shocking how often the people who surround the disabled will attempt to exert power and be abusive. Power over what they will provide - even if you know of a better and cheaper option - power over how you are to be perceived and represented, even if you can do a better job yourself and are actually better qualified - power over how you are supposed to feel and express your emotions, and if you don't do as they expect you are unpredictable, abusive, dangerous and the all time favourite angry and Filled With Self Pity!
I couldn't have put it better myself. We have a right to be heard and one day disabled people will unite effectively and demand that right.
Friday, 19 June 2009
EHRC Ignoring Disabled People.
Some time ago I wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission because I felt that they were not doing anything to make life better for disabled people. Here is my letter:
I did not receive a response to that letter. I did receive a response to a later letter that I wrote to them about disabled people's human rights being abused by the Welfare Reform Bill, but they did not answer my questions or points.
So while disabled people are being neglected and ignored by the EHRC, what do they actually sit up and pay attention to? According to their website, they will respond with a full page when people decide to vote for the BNP.
Further reading:
Grumpy Old Deafies
At the Rim
Equality body 'failing Disabled.'
Dear Mr Phillips,
I recently e-mailed your off ices at Manchester on October 2 to express my concern about the EHRC’s approach to disability issues. Basically, I feel that disabled people are being treated as the poor relation in the equality movement; here is the content of my e-mail:
“Hi,
It was reported recently (see enclosed link) that the EHRC is not working for disabled people. It seems that many disabled people, including myself, agree with this sentiment. I would like to ask the EHRC if they have any comments or reassurances to make on this issue in the following discussion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbouch/F2322273?thread=5942747
Regards,”
Unfortunately, I have still not received a reply to my points, even though I received an automated response saying that ‘a full response will follow in due course.’
Please may I ask if you are concerned that some disabled people do not at present have confidence in the EHRC. It does not seem as if the EHRC is at all bothered that disabled people are underrepresented in politics, the workplace (especially at executive level) or even in their own organisations.
Yours sincerely,
I did not receive a response to that letter. I did receive a response to a later letter that I wrote to them about disabled people's human rights being abused by the Welfare Reform Bill, but they did not answer my questions or points.
So while disabled people are being neglected and ignored by the EHRC, what do they actually sit up and pay attention to? According to their website, they will respond with a full page when people decide to vote for the BNP.
Further reading:
Grumpy Old Deafies
At the Rim
Equality body 'failing Disabled.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)