Friday, 17 February 2012

Livability Confirms that the Disabled Really are a "Stock" of slave labour.

So disabled people are to be forced to work for benefits? It's only fair isn't it? If they don't want to work full time, even if they physically and mentally cannot they should have to contribute to society. I believe that the Queen still misses her Royal Yacht, Britannia, after it was decommissioned years ago. Why don't we build a copy of the old Roman battleships and as long as we sort out the access issues we can put the disabled on there to row her about?

This whole argument about the sick and disabled having to earn their benefits revolves around 2 key assumptions which the ConDem's have never to my knowledge addressed. I wonder why not?

The first is are there jobs out there? The UK figure for unemployment stands at 2.67m. I didn't realise there were so many disabled benefit scroungers out there.

Oh, silly mistake to make.

Many of the disabled do not add into this figure. They are excluded from this figure because the state does not believe they are fit to work. I am not in this figure. I want to work, I am able to work, I am depressed because I am not working but am on ESA and in the Work Related Activity group. This means I am not unemployed. Presumably I am just scrounging? Don't worry, I get nothing.

So that means that on top of the 2.67m you can add the disabled.

But, don't worry, there are jobs out there.

But, if you do find a job to apply for what are your chances?

This brings up the second issue. I am different. But, I look "normal". This is important. If you see somebody in a wheelchair or on crutches you visually confirm the disability. Some people don't believe I am disabled. Straight away, some people label me a scrounger. Starting from the position of being "normal" any external clue to my disability (ie. slurred speech when answering a question, pausing before answering a question whilst my facial ticks show how hard I am trying to remember the answer, lack of empathy so I find it difficult to pick up on non-verbal communication) just labels me as strange and "would not fit in here"

Positive About Disability (2 Ticks) is a scheme I've mentioned before. I have just received a reply about my complaint about Livability. The basic point behind my complaint is that based upon the role advertised I should have been interviewed. If you read the whole reply carefully you see that the Disability Employment Advisor at jobcentreplus agrees with that. However, below is an extract of the letter that explains their thought process:
As you may know we are ready to work with an employer who actively and quickly rectifies errors in their process .Our intention is to maximise the opportunities for disabled applicants to have access to a guaranteed Interview scheme where this can be delivered robustly .You are currently the only person to complain about Livability . On one occasion you were interviewed after a decision by Livability .On the second occasion Livability say your cv did not support the essential or minimum requirements but those requirements were not at all adequately communicated to you .They have apologised for this . Both the situations you raise revolved round the use of agencies which is not an integral part of their recruitment process .We do not feel this matter on balance supports withdrawing the Symbol from Livability

So to summarise,

  1. It is OK to discriminate against disabled people as long as you only do it one at a time. I am the only person to complain about Livability so it doesn't matter.
  2. The scheme does not offer a guaranteed interview. "Our intention is to maximise the opportunities for disabled applicants to have access to a guaranteed Interview scheme where this can be delivered robustly". Is it or is it not a guaranteed interview? Does this start to remind you of the Tesco's Workfare job where 8 weeks of slave labour wins you an interview. Do you think that interview is guaranteed?
  3. My cv did not show I met the minimum job requirements. However, we accept that you were told that this job had a completely different set of minimum job requirements which you did meet. I suppose this means that I am not proactive enough in identifying the advert was wrong and anticipating what the real minimum requirements were?
  4. They have apologised. Well that's OK then, isn't it. Apologies put money in my pocket; apologies give me self respect; apologies allow me to feel that I am of value?
  5. We do not feel that this matter on balance supports the withdrawal of the symbol from Livability.

This leaves me with one message to convey to anybody reading this.

Society does not want or value the disabled and is just paying us "lip service"

Positive About PR.

1 comment:

  1. Forgive my Anglo-Saxon, but how much more sh-t can this sh-tstorm rain down on us?