To think my Blind husband should not be loosing his benefits

[Condemned]

My husband is registered blind. He has a degenerative eye condition and used to work for the NHS as a psychiatric nurse. When he became blind he had to give up work and received Incapacity benefit and DLA. Under the Welfare Reform Bill his Incapacity Benefit will be migrated to Employment Support Allowance (ESA). This benefit is quite complex but the only people who will receive it beyond 12 months are people so disabled to be in the support group (and this does not include blind people). He will loose his ESA after 12 months (which will be judged retrospectively so he will loose it as soon as he is re-assessed). He will not be entitled to means tested benefits as I work. I am self employed so work is sporadic but as I earn more then the minimum wage he will be entitled to nothing. In 2014 his DLA will be changed to Personal Independence Payment and he could loose this as well.
Is this the actions of a civilized society?

OP - you're right, it's a very different form of discrimination. When I told my previous employers I was feeling unwell and needed time off to see a specialist the first thing they said was 'you should think about giving up work'. When I asked them to make adjustments to my working environment as per my GPs advice they said no.

When I rang in sick the first thing they said was 'that's an unreasonable amount of time to be sick, you might not have a job when you come back'. When I came back off sick leave the first thing said was 'you're not commercially viable and your sickness isn't fair on your colleagues'

They just couldn't wait to get rid of me. They didn't want me because I was disabled. Most places I've interviewed at have clearly been put off by my sickness and been concerned that my condition isn't compatible with work. They're worried I'll be expensive due to sick leave, needing adapted furniture etc. I can fully empathise with their concerns but people just assume employers are nice people who will employ disabled people and help them to stay employed...

The problem is that when I apply for jobs with less hours and less stress I'm told I'm over qualified as I have a degree. If I'd known I'd be sick at such a young age I wouldn't have bothered going to Uni at all. Now I'm saddled with £20k of debt and no graduate employer wants me, but no non graduate employer wants me either.

There is a government organisation who pays for things people need to be uin work e.g. special desks, individual loop system,etc. I think it is being severely cut, but they have paid for things at my place of employment.

I actually think chronic illness can be more of an issue in getting a job than a disability. Being disabled, doesn't automatically mean you will have lots of time off sick e.g. if you are deaf. Many chronic illnesses can mean that you will have a lot of time off sick.

Of course employers want to avoid people with a poor sickness record and this does make it very hard to get a job.

My disability is a chronic illness (fibromyalgia) the other is a developmental disorder. Some stuff I needed was basic, foot rests, comfier chair with support, wrist support etc. But the main problem is that with chronic pain and fatigue there's not really a lot you can do and the condition fluctuates so so much. Yesterday I could barely walk or sit, today I'm still in horrible pain but at least I can leave my bed today.

I did need a lot of time off for the developmental disorder but that was because I had to go to hospital for further tests and diagnostic appointments. Then the time off came for GP appointments for the fibro, the the hospital appointments, x rays, bloods etc. Plus the time I wasn't able to work which I had to take off sick.

I do agree, some conditions may not necessitate time off at all beyond normal check-ups/GP appointments as most employees will have when necessary.

Gabby.

no.

Do you think they'd give me a job?

yanbu. This government talks about encouraging marriage, but does very little to assist those who marry. I just wish they'd STFU!

I have also found out today that the Welfare Reform Bill is a paper subject to negative resolution. Now I am no expert on legislation (although rapidly becoming one). I have been told by someone who understands this better that this means it will go through with minimum debate in the commons and not have to go through the Lords. I don't understand how legislation that is going to have such a devastating impact can be passed through the back door! Does anyone have the legal knowledge to confirm that this isthe case?