DWP admin and salaries cost twice JSA

Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3

DWP admin and salaries cost twice JSA
Topic Started: Dec 23 2014, 08:31 PM (1,024 Views)
papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 08:31 PM Post #1
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	The DWP spent almost twice as much on salaries, welfare-to-work schemes and administration last year than they did on JobSeekers Allowance. The department’s latest six monthly report shows that £7.7 billion was spent on administration costs in 2013/14 compared to £4.3 billion on Jobseeker’s Allowance. In the current year administration spending is expected to hit £8 billion, whilst spending on JSA is forecast to fall to £3.7 billion as hundreds of thousands of people are harassed off of benefits with sanctions and mandatory work activity. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389260/DWP-mid-year-report-2014-2015.pdf Edited by papasmurf, Dec 23 2014, 08:41 PM.



Affa	Dec 23 2014, 08:37 PM Post #2
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	"Cuts cost money"



Rich	Dec 23 2014, 09:01 PM Post #3
Senior Member Posts: 14,463 Group: Members Member #30 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 08:31 PM The DWP spent almost twice as much on salaries, welfare-to-work schemes and administration last year than they did on JobSeekers Allowance. The department’s latest six monthly report shows that £7.7 billion was spent on administration costs in 2013/14 compared to £4.3 billion on Jobseeker’s Allowance. In the current year administration spending is expected to hit £8 billion, whilst spending on JSA is forecast to fall to £3.7 billion as hundreds of thousands of people are harassed off of benefits with sanctions and mandatory work activity. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389260/DWP-mid-year-report-2014-2015.pdf Well, are you suggesting that staff at the DWP work for nothing?



papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 09:14 PM Post #4
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Rich Dec 23 2014, 09:01 PM Well, are you suggesting that staff at the DWP work for nothing? No, I am suggesting they are working inefficiently, which with having Iain Duncan Smith in charge should surprise no-one.



Steve K	Dec 23 2014, 10:32 PM Post #5
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 08:31 PM The DWP spent almost twice as much on salaries, welfare-to-work schemes and administration last year than they did on JobSeekers Allowance. The department’s latest six monthly report shows that £7.7 billion was spent on administration costs in 2013/14 compared to £4.3 billion on Jobseeker’s Allowance. In the current year administration spending is expected to hit £8 billion, whilst spending on JSA is forecast to fall to £3.7 billion as hundreds of thousands of people are harassed off of benefits with sanctions and mandatory work activity. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389260/DWP-mid-year-report-2014-2015.pdf Well thanks for the link, how sad that you didn't read it yourself and so leapt to post a misleading OP I really suggest you read page 20 You do know that the costs reported as "admin" include a lot of other things don't you in the £7.7B line item called DEL. Building and other asset depreciation for a start " The Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) covers administration costs such as staff and estates costs for the Department and its Arm’s Length Bodies, and totals £8.0 billion."



ranger121	Dec 23 2014, 11:35 PM Post #6
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	DWP Estates have long been sold off to foreign investors, notably Japan. What used to be 'Government Buildings' are actually private-sector owned and leased-back office space; the cleaners, building maintenance, messenger service, transport, pest control, along with Internet and Intranet access, furnishings, IT hardware and software and telephone all come supplied by the private sector. Photocopiers and their consumables as well as scanners are rented at great expense. If it weren't, there would be considerably more unemployed around than there is now.



Steve K	Dec 24 2014, 01:07 AM Post #7
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 23 2014, 11:35 PM DWP Estates have long been sold off to foreign investors, notably Japan. What used to be 'Government Buildings' are actually private-sector owned and leased-back office space; the cleaners, building maintenance, messenger service, transport, pest control, along with Internet and Intranet access, furnishings, IT hardware and software and telephone all come supplied by the private sector. Photocopiers and their consumables as well as scanners are rented at great expense. If it weren't, there would be considerably more unemployed around than there is now. There's actually a few left where the government holds the lease (http://data.gov.uk/dataset/epims) I repeat though that the detail of the document PS linked to and insinuated as showing £8B mostly salaries is very interesting Quote: As a result of the staffing efficiencies the monthly salary cost of the core Department’s payroll staff has fallen by £9.3 million per calendar month since March 2014 – from £169.0 million to £159.7 million So that's ~£1.9B DWP salary costs (PS was only out by £6B in his insinuation). It's also only an average salary of £23.7k over the 79,922 core staff (down from 88,626 in March 2012)



papasmurf	Dec 24 2014, 06:28 AM Post #8
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 24 2014, 01:07 AM I repeat though that the detail of the document PS linked to and insinuated as showing £8B mostly salaries is very interesting I insinuated nothing of the kind, how did you deduce that from this:- The DWP spent almost twice as much on salaries, welfare-to-work schemes and administration last year than they did on JobSeekers Allowance.



Steve K	Dec 24 2014, 09:23 AM Post #9
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	because you chose to mention salaries first and to no great surprise another poster picked up that that indicated it was the biggest part of the £8B whereas it's actually less than a quarter. And you made no attempt to correct that misconception



papasmurf	Dec 24 2014, 10:10 AM Post #10
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 24 2014, 09:23 AM because you chose to mention salaries first I didn't choose to, the DWP report did.



Steve K	Dec 24 2014, 10:19 AM Post #11
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 24 2014, 10:10 AM Steve K Dec 24 2014, 09:23 AM because you chose to mention salaries first I didn't choose to, the DWP report did. Ahem DWP report: "The Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) covers administration costs such as staff and estates costs for the Department and its Arm’s Length Bodies, and totals £8.0 billion." PS version: "The DWP spent almost twice as much on salaries, welfare-to-work schemes and administration last year than they did on JobSeekers Allowance." Sure looks like an intended insinuation



papasmurf	Dec 24 2014, 10:29 AM Post #12
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 24 2014, 10:19 AM Sure looks like an intended insinuation Just check how much was wasted on "welfare to work" schemes. £Billions wasted on those privatised schemes and they still only find 5% of disabled people a job, exactly the same as JobCentre Plus managed before but JCP did it at less cost.



Steve K	Dec 24 2014, 10:30 AM Post #13
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	No argument on that. My point is the DWP has a lot of hardworking fairly low paid staff.



papasmurf	Dec 24 2014, 10:38 AM Post #14
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 24 2014, 10:30 AM No argument on that. My point is the DWP has a lot of hardworking fairly low paid staff. Who would get a lot more done and promptly if they were not being tasked to go over the same ground with the same claimants repetitively. (They also really do have NO excuse for most of the sanctioning they are carrying out, like sanctioning people who were at a job interview so could not gate to a JSA appointment, or were having surgery.)



ranger121	Dec 24 2014, 11:03 AM Post #15
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 24 2014, 10:29 AM Steve K Dec 24 2014, 10:19 AM Sure looks like an intended insinuation Just check how much was wasted on "welfare to work" schemes. £Billions wasted on those privatised schemes and they still only find 5% of disabled people a job, exactly the same as JobCentre Plus managed before but JCP did it at less cost. You constantly forget the purpose of the Jobcentres. They are not there to find people jobs, or 'place' people in work, or force people to go to work, they are there to help people find jobs for themselves. Big difference, and one that you constantly ignore.



Malum Unus	Dec 24 2014, 11:42 AM Post #16
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese Posts: 1,389 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	One thing I think the DWP could do to lower costs would be to have a mark on their computers for people who are disabled due to a permanent condition, (be it genetic or physical injury) that means they don't have to be tested every three years, and just get their benefits permanently... It's not as if someone who has no limbs is suddenly going to grow them back is it?



papasmurf	Dec 24 2014, 11:43 AM Post #17
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 11:03 AM They are not there to find people jobs, or 'place' people in work, or force people to go to work, they are there to help people find jobs for themselves. Big difference, and one that you constantly ignore. Actually I don't ignore it at all, Ranger, but the current government does. You are well aware that most people who end up unemployed find work in less than 6 months. Yet IDS wants JCP staff to harass people as soon as they sign on.



ranger121	Dec 24 2014, 11:49 AM Post #18
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 11:42 AM One thing I think the DWP could do to lower costs would be to have a mark on their computers for people who are disabled due to a permanent condition, (be it genetic or physical injury) that means they don't have to be tested every three years, and just get their benefits permanently... It's not as if someone who has no limbs is suddenly going to grow them back is it? People with 'permanent' disabilities are already given indefinite awards of disability benefits, but if they want to claim "Jobseeker's" Allowance as well, they have to do what everyone else is expected to: Seek a job. The DWP is well aware that missing limbs, sight, hearing and other disabling conditions can't be fixed by the NHS.



Malum Unus	Dec 24 2014, 11:50 AM Post #19
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese Posts: 1,389 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 11:49 AM Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 11:42 AM One thing I think the DWP could do to lower costs would be to have a mark on their computers for people who are disabled due to a permanent condition, (be it genetic or physical injury) that means they don't have to be tested every three years, and just get their benefits permanently... It's not as if someone who has no limbs is suddenly going to grow them back is it? People with 'permanent' disabilities are already given indefinite awards of disability benefits, but if they want to claim "Jobseeker's" Allowance as well, they have to do what everyone else is expected to: Seek a job. The DWP is well aware that missing limbs, sight, hearing and other disabling conditions can't be fixed by the NHS. Then perhaps you could explain why I've seen people repeatedly tested (every three years) who have no limbs, or who have Marfan Syndrome?



papasmurf	Dec 24 2014, 11:56 AM Post #20
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 11:50 AM Then perhaps you could explain why I've seen people repeatedly tested (every three years) who have no limbs, or who have Marfan Syndrome? Three years? I personally know of cases where people have won a tribunal and had a letter for yet another "Work Capability Assessment" within days.



ranger121	Dec 24 2014, 11:57 AM Post #21
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 24 2014, 11:43 AM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 11:03 AM They are not there to find people jobs, or 'place' people in work, or force people to go to work, they are there to help people find jobs for themselves. Big difference, and one that you constantly ignore. Actually I don't ignore it at all, Ranger, but the current government does. You are well aware that most people who end up unemployed find work in less than 6 months. Yet IDS wants JCP staff to harass people as soon as they sign on. The current government doesn't ignore the fact that it is up to the individual to find a job for themselves, and the Jobcentre is there to assist people to achieve that. You are, of course, well aware that the longer a person is out of the 'habit' of going to work, the less likely that they are to bother looking for a job and employers are less likely to hire from the long-term unemployed when someone with recent, relevant experience is available. So the quicker that people get themselves working at getting a job, the more likely they are to be hired quickly. You appear to have this notion that a visit to the Jobcentre to claim benefits has to be an us-and-them confrontation all of the time. You couldn't be more wrong.



ranger121	Dec 24 2014, 12:01 PM Post #22
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 11:50 AM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 11:49 AM Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 11:42 AM One thing I think the DWP could do to lower costs would be to have a mark on their computers for people who are disabled due to a permanent condition, (be it genetic or physical injury) that means they don't have to be tested every three years, and just get their benefits permanently... It's not as if someone who has no limbs is suddenly going to grow them back is it? People with 'permanent' disabilities are already given indefinite awards of disability benefits, but if they want to claim "Jobseeker's" Allowance as well, they have to do what everyone else is expected to: Seek a job. The DWP is well aware that missing limbs, sight, hearing and other disabling conditions can't be fixed by the NHS. Then perhaps you could explain why I've seen people repeatedly tested (every three years) who have no limbs, or who have Marfan Syndrome? 'Tested'? Is that to 'test' their capability for work, or their 'employability', or a medical examination to see what affect the disorder has on their daily lives?



Affa	Dec 24 2014, 12:43 PM Post #23
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 11:03 AM You constantly forget the purpose of the Jobcentres. They are not there to find people jobs, or 'place' people in work, or force people to go to work, they are there to help people find jobs for themselves. Big difference, and one that you constantly ignore. Perhaps this criteria is wrong, and the government could do more to to actually find work placements ......... much as agencies do now at a respectable material gain. It would in fact be a good use of the data information they collect. I knew a coal miner who did have the often criticised outlook that "Thatcher took my job away. She can bloody well find me another for all I care it". There is some merit there ....... Government policies do very often cause people to lose their jobs (destroy), and yet we hear "it is not government's place to create jobs". 'It is however their place to get rid of jobs - and congratulate themselves when doing so'.



Malum Unus	Dec 24 2014, 01:09 PM Post #24
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese Posts: 1,389 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 12:01 PM Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 11:50 AM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 11:49 AM Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 11:42 AM One thing I think the DWP could do to lower costs would be to have a mark on their computers for people who are disabled due to a permanent condition, (be it genetic or physical injury) that means they don't have to be tested every three years, and just get their benefits permanently... It's not as if someone who has no limbs is suddenly going to grow them back is it? People with 'permanent' disabilities are already given indefinite awards of disability benefits, but if they want to claim "Jobseeker's" Allowance as well, they have to do what everyone else is expected to: Seek a job. The DWP is well aware that missing limbs, sight, hearing and other disabling conditions can't be fixed by the NHS. Then perhaps you could explain why I've seen people repeatedly tested (every three years) who have no limbs, or who have Marfan Syndrome? 'Tested'? Is that to 'test' their capability for work, or their 'employability', or a medical examination to see what affect the disorder has on their daily lives? A Medical examination, to determine their capability for work, their employability or the effect said condition has on the subjects daily life doesn't seem to enter into it.



ranger121	Dec 24 2014, 01:25 PM Post #25
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 01:09 PM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 12:01 PM Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 11:50 AM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 11:49 AM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Then perhaps you could explain why I've seen people repeatedly tested (every three years) who have no limbs, or who have Marfan Syndrome? 'Tested'? Is that to 'test' their capability for work, or their 'employability', or a medical examination to see what affect the disorder has on their daily lives? A Medical examination, to determine their capability for work, their employability or the effect said condition has on the subjects daily life doesn't seem to enter into it. So what is the nature of the 'testing' and what is it meant to establish?



ranger121	Dec 24 2014, 01:43 PM Post #26
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	Affa Dec 24 2014, 12:43 PM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 11:03 AM You constantly forget the purpose of the Jobcentres. They are not there to find people jobs, or 'place' people in work, or force people to go to work, they are there to help people find jobs for themselves. Big difference, and one that you constantly ignore. Perhaps this criteria is wrong, and the government could do more to to actually find work placements ......... much as agencies do now at a respectable material gain. It would in fact be a good use of the data information they collect. I knew a coal miner who did have the often criticised outlook that "Thatcher took my job away. She can bloody well find me another for all I care it". There is some merit there ....... Government policies do very often cause people to lose their jobs (destroy), and yet we hear "it is not government's place to create jobs". 'It is however their place to get rid of jobs - and congratulate themselves when doing so'. Then we should at first go back to the opening line in this thread: Quote: The DWP spent almost twice as much on salaries, *welfare-to-work schemes* and administration last year than they did on JobSeekers Allowance. So there is an effort being made to create jobs that weren't there before. What MORE can they do? I am married to a coal-miner's daughter who lived through those Thatcher vs Miner times, and when the pit shut, she witnessed her village in West Yorkshire go from a thriving community to a wasteland full of embittered people, boarded-up shops, debt, eviction and repossession, suicides and early deaths. The crime rate went through the roof. The place has not recovered, it is still exactly the same decades later, as we found out when we attended a funeral there the other week. It is possible now that we could use the coal under our feet to generate electricity because of improvements in science and technology. Such technology was not around in the Thatcher days, and the short-sighted government couldn't see it forthcoming. Pity there's not the skills around today to do it, because they're all dead.



papasmurf	Dec 24 2014, 01:43 PM Post #27
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 01:25 PM So what is the nature of the 'testing' and what is it meant to establish? It is designed to take people off of benefit, it serves no other purpose.



ranger121	Dec 24 2014, 01:44 PM Post #28
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 24 2014, 01:43 PM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 01:25 PM So what is the nature of the 'testing' and what is it meant to establish? It is designed to take people off of benefit, it serves no other purpose. That isn't what that particular 'test' is for, and you well know it.



papasmurf	Dec 24 2014, 01:52 PM Post #29
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 01:44 PM That isn't what that particular 'test' is for, and you well know it. That is what both tests are for Ranger, they serve no other purpose than to remove benefits from people.



ranger121	Dec 24 2014, 02:05 PM Post #30
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 24 2014, 01:52 PM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 01:44 PM That isn't what that particular 'test' is for, and you well know it. That is what both tests are for Ranger, they serve no other purpose than to remove benefits from people. If that is what the test is actually for, then the government that is so 'transparent' would say so. But it doesn't, does it? Any 'test' designed to establish entitlement to a benefit can either approve OR deny.



papasmurf	Dec 24 2014, 02:59 PM Post #31
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 02:05 PM Any 'test' designed to establish entitlement to a benefit can either approve OR deny. But both default to deny.



ranger121	Dec 24 2014, 03:02 PM Post #32
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 24 2014, 02:59 PM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 02:05 PM Any 'test' designed to establish entitlement to a benefit can either approve OR deny. But both default to deny. The 'default' is neutral, neither one way or the other. The 'result' of the 'test' is partially used to make the decision.



Affa	Dec 24 2014, 04:26 PM Post #33
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 01:43 PM Affa Dec 24 2014, 12:43 PM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 11:03 AM You constantly forget the purpose of the Jobcentres. They are not there to find people jobs, or 'place' people in work, or force people to go to work, they are there to help people find jobs for themselves. Big difference, and one that you constantly ignore. Perhaps this criteria is wrong, and the government could do more to to actually find work placements ......... Then we should at first go back to the opening line in this thread: Quote: The DWP spent almost twice as much on salaries, *welfare-to-work schemes* and administration last year than they did on JobSeekers Allowance. So there is an effort being made to create jobs that weren't there before. What MORE can they do? I am married to a coal-miner's daughter who lived through those Thatcher vs Miner times, and when the pit shut, she witnessed her village in West Yorkshire go from a thriving community to a wasteland full of embittered people, boarded-up shops, debt, eviction and repossession, suicides and early deaths. The crime rate went through the roof. The place has not recovered, it is still exactly the same decades later, as we found out when we attended a funeral there the other week. It is possible now that we could use the coal under our feet to generate electricity because of improvements in science and technology. Such technology was not around in the Thatcher days, and the short-sighted government couldn't see it forthcoming. Pity there's not the skills around today to do it, because they're all dead.



papasmurf	Dec 24 2014, 04:32 PM Post #34
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 01:43 PM So there is an effort being made to create jobs that weren't there before. What MORE can they do? It is not the DWP doing though, it is privatised and is a total failure, in fact it is worse than doing nothing and that is the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee.



ranger121	Dec 24 2014, 04:53 PM Post #35
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 24 2014, 04:32 PM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 01:43 PM So there is an effort being made to create jobs that weren't there before. What MORE can they do? It is not the DWP doing though, it is privatised and is a total failure, in fact it is worse than doing nothing and that is the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee. So, did they suggest an alternative?



papasmurf	Dec 24 2014, 05:58 PM Post #36
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 04:53 PM So, did they suggest an alternative? Scrapping it would be an improvement.



ranger121	Dec 24 2014, 11:11 PM Post #37
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 24 2014, 05:58 PM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 04:53 PM So, did they suggest an alternative? Scrapping it would be an improvement. Not the question. Which is: What's the alternative?



Malum Unus	Dec 25 2014, 03:17 AM Post #38
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese Posts: 1,389 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 01:25 PM Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 01:09 PM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 12:01 PM Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 11:50 AM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep 'Tested'? Is that to 'test' their capability for work, or their 'employability', or a medical examination to see what affect the disorder has on their daily lives? A Medical examination, to determine their capability for work, their employability or the effect said condition has on the subjects daily life doesn't seem to enter into it. So what is the nature of the 'testing' and what is it meant to establish? Did you not read what I posted?, it's a medical examination by a supposedly trained doctor to determine a persons capability for work. As PS said and I'm pretty sure he's right, it's meant to take people off of benefits, regardless of whether or not they need them. The 'doctors' (and I use that term extremely loosely), they send are clearly unqualified if they ARE even doctors, as I fail to understand how any of them could find a person with no limbs or Marfan Syndrome capable of work is beyond me.



HIGHWAY	Dec 25 2014, 10:25 AM Post #39
Senior Member Posts: 4,040 Group: Members Member #54 Joined: Jul 23, 2014	Malum Unus Dec 25 2014, 03:17 AM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 01:25 PM Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 01:09 PM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 12:01 PM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep A Medical examination, to determine their capability for work, their employability or the effect said condition has on the subjects daily life doesn't seem to enter into it. So what is the nature of the 'testing' and what is it meant to establish? Did you not read what I posted?, it's a medical examination by a supposedly trained doctor to determine a persons capability for work. As PS said and I'm pretty sure he's right, it's meant to take people off of benefits, regardless of whether or not they need them. The 'doctors' (and I use that term extremely loosely), they send are clearly unqualified if they ARE even doctors, as I fail to understand how any of them could find a person with no limbs or Marfan Syndrome capable of work is beyond me. I know people who work with missing limbs,,if someone told them there not allowed to work,they would be insulted



papasmurf	Dec 25 2014, 10:31 AM Post #40
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	HIGHWAY Dec 25 2014, 10:25 AM I know people who work with missing limbs,,if someone told them there not allowed to work,they would be insulted



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3