Government plans to get long term sick back to work.

[Miley1967]

Does anyone have any information about how the Government are planning to get long term sick/ disabled back to work? I have read there is a paper being published/ announced this week. In my local area ( East Midlands) I have seen jobs advertised this week ( multiple jobs) for health and work coaches but employed through the NHS and based in Gp surgeries, so it does seem as though they are already taking steps to implement this.
Just a bit worried for some of my clients( I work in benefits advice work ) as to whether this is going to be pushed on them or if it's a scheme they will choose to be part of and just wondering what it is going to entail, will these coaches be working with employers who are genuinely going to be able to support this group of people into work?

“There are how many people of working age in this Country? And the people out of work on benefits do not outnumber them”

Well I would hope not. We really would be in trouble if that was the case.

The public were told explicitly that only two chidren would be supported, starting about two years before the cap was introduced. There were exclusions for multiple births and only children born after the cap began were affected. Children born prior to the cap continue to be eligible for support until the age of 18.

Quite. People choose to have children and raise them in poverty. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

The thing is, no one told the unborn children that they wouldn't be well financially supported by their parents. Is anyone willing to go around telling them now that their parents are feckless?

Or shall we just wait until they're in the prison system or receiving benefits themselves?

Hmm so let's just make the children suffer eh? People who had their children in comfortable circumstances have been left high, and dry, and have had to seek out the safety net, that is the welfare system. It never pays to be too smug in life.

Single mothers are some of the poorest in society and unlike fathers they are restricted about work because of childcare and finding suitable working hours. They are often in NMW jobs because they need to work around their children.

Yep, just you. The benefit rules allow this, so the mothers are doing nothing wrong. Be glad that some fathers pay for their kids, loads don't bother.

Indeed.

I have a relative that is young and signed off sick with multiple issues - PTSD from a SA that left her suicidal and a severe IBD that leaves her hospitalised at least once a year. She would love to work, but unfortunately would end up being a bit "flaky" as she would have a lot of days off sick, at short notice, and could end up in a mental health crisis too.

As much as I love her, as an employer I wouldn't want to take the risk of employing her. She would not be a reliable member of staff.

She too is much better off, both physically and in terms of her own mental health, by not working. She still lives with her DPs so doesn't get much in terms of UC anyway and her DPs are happy to continue supporting her. Her MH is much better than it once was, but she's a very vulnerable woman that wouldn't take much to tip her back into crisis.

I do worry for her future, but being forced back into what would undoubtedly be unsuitable work would make me worry for her even more. The MH support is just not available.

I don't think anyone is saying that they are doing anything wrong just that the rules are wrong. If it wasn't financially more attractive to be separate more couple might stay together. The world needs to change. The government can't afford to keep funding so many lifestyle choices.

Rather than penalise women, penalise men. Being abandoned or leaving an abusive relationship, isn't a lifestyle choice. There are no tangible consequences for men when they abandon their families. They should be forced to pay for their children.

I completely agree that men should be forced to pay. I don't think it is either or.

BIG difference between actually having children at a time you know you can't afford them, compared with having a child at a time you can afford them, but then suffering something later.

Exactly- big difference!!!

Exactly.

I want all children to be well looked after, regardless of the bad choices their parents may or may not have made. Children living in poverty does not benefit society one iota.

Well that needs more than money then, doesn't it? To do what you ask, we'd need to massively increase fostering and adoption to take kids away from parents who are unable (for whatever reason) to give them the best options and chances in life.

Chucking more money at hopeless feckless parents won't achieve what you want - taking them away from those parents will be a better option, especially as there's no guarantee at all that extra money will end up benefitting the children!

I don't think that is what the evidence shows in the majority of cases.

If the government is serious about forcing the chronically sick and disabled into work they can show a good example by hiring the chronically sick and disabled into the civil service, council, and other public service positions.

They won't of course because most employers (including the government) don't want disabled people around at work or employees who need part time work or regular time off to deal with medical conditions. It is even worse for people with learning disabilities.

No one ever seems to be able to prove that - regardless of the absolute figures - these ratios are incorrect.

As you were.

E2A: Just to say I posted this under the last government. Balance and all that crap.

I don’t disagree with this, and would hope nobody would, but anything that requires giving out extra cash is also going to require bringing in extra cash. Lots of people who agree with you morally, would not be happy if the consequence is that tax is increased and so we all end up worse off each month. For some people the extra tax paid wouldn’t make much difference as they are already comfortable but for a huge amount of others every last pound of their income is already accounted for and needed to keep their own kids fed, clothed, warm, housed, they can’t afford to lose another £100+ a month in tax to put towards those struggling families without becoming one of those struggling families themselves.

It’s a really hard situation and I don’t know what the answer is, but we as a country, the government, can’t afford to just keep paying out for more & more without there being some extra cash coming in. At some point people do have to accept some responsibility for themselves and their own choices and accept that we can’t swoop in to save everyone as much as we might want to.

They need to invest the money in timely treatment for conditions that are treatable (I realise not all are).
my daughter has waited over a year for a dynamic X-ray for hip impingement to see if keyhole surgery would be appropriate. It took us 6mths to even get to see orthopaedics. Meantime she’s gained weight, has been on high strength pain killers for more than a year causing extreme fatigue and is suffering widespread referred pain (diagnosed fibromyalgia).
she had to give up a job she loved, when timely treatment could have got her back to work.

I can see the issue here, although I would say I think the Civil Service is better than most employers for this already, it could definitely be better.

As you say though and the crucial point, especially with Civil Service which is tax payer funded, having people in who are off frequently isn’t ideal in any workplace. It means a dip in productivity, or extra pressure placed on colleagues, which can ultimately then impact the service users/clients/customer. The only alternative would be to hire more staff than you need so that there’s always extra to cover those absences but then the employer is essentially having to pay for 2 members of staff when actually all they need is 1, with civil service especially thats tax payer money so some would be critical of that.

Yes and this is what is usually the case. Most parents who find themselves in need of government assistance were able to afford their children at the time they decided to have them.

I would love to know what jobs they are hoping people are going to rush to go back to work for. As far as I can make out in the current climate, there are minimum wage jobs with no prospects and still require government top ups to actually live on the wage, any jobs between minimum wage and about 70k are being offshored faster than you can say 'labour' and anything above that requires 2 degrees and organ donation to qualify for the role. What valuable jobs are being offered and what incentives are there to do them.

This depends how you measure “valuable” surely? There are lots of jobs, and min wage doesn’t mean it’s not a needed job. And the incentive is going to be that if you fail to do the job when you COULD do the job, you won’t be entitled to anything from the government to enable you to choose not to work.

I’d also say your summary is untrue really. As I say I still have colleagues working in getting people into work and there are hundreds of vacancies, sometimes thousands, but they’re not 50k glamorous jobs. They still need to be done though!