How we can hijack the media, in four easy lessons
Love it, hate it, good story, bad story... the media are going to keep reporting on ME/CFS no matter what. But isn’t it time that we saw that coverage as an opportunity?
Discuss the article on the Forums.

UK Work Capability: Update on joint efforts by ME Charities to influence change in assessments

Discussion in 'Finances, Work, and Disability' started by Firestormm, Jun 25, 2013.

  1. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Cornwall England
    Morning :)

    Y'all are probably aware of the ongoing work that has been taking place between several representatives of ME organisations, other groups representing fluctuating conditions (and mental health charities) and the DWP to try and change the current WCA to make it fairer and more relevant.

    These - largely unsung efforts - are bearing fruit. At the recent Forward ME Group meeting, the following was revealed by way of progress:

    So it looks to me like they will be trialling these new assessment methods, and then the results will be analysed by a host of experts.

    I thought the attempt to define 'work' is also a positive move. Hadn't encountered that one before and it should be part of any assessment i.e. can this person actually work for 16 hours a week.

    Of course I suppose it then means they would be looking at a 'model job'. Any thoughts?
    Simon, Valentijn and Sasha like this.
  2. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    I think it's the usual problem: an employer doesn't want to hire someone who can work sometimes 3.2 hours per day (16 per week) under ideal conditions. I probably could work that much per day if it's 1) from home, 2) broken into half-hour chunks throughout the day with hour-long rests between, and 3) I pace so awesomely (never leave the house, cook for myself, clean up at all) that I never crash again.

    And I think even mild-moderate cases will have the same problem. If they're crashing at all, they are an unreliable employee, and they'll be performing best with lots of accommodations. Why hire a likely liability when there's plenty of unemployed healthy people with the same training and skills?
    John Mac, Simon, maryb and 2 others like this.
  3. Simon


    Monmouth, UK
    Like Fire, i thought the move to define what is 'work' is a step forward. Up til now, there has been no attempt to justify the WCA in terms of real life.
  4. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    How about they calibrate it based on the actual results of their work programme?

    If less than 50% of those in the WRAG group are able to find some paid employment in a year, then they should loosen the levels of disability required to qualify for support and wrag group. I think it's currently around 5%.
    Simon and Valentijn like this.
  5. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Cornwall England
    Apparently the 16 hours comes from something already attached to ESA (according to Dr Shepherd). I hadn't come across it before; but it gives me a better idea of what might be expected.

    He also said on Facebook yesterday:

    Not that I would like to test this in any assessment of course: 'I can't possibly work for 16 hours a week!' It's never really come up. Must be one of those 'unwritten' 'unasked about' rules that may/may not be applied - bet you couldn't win an appeal based on it. Wouldn't know how to go about winning an appeal on it.


    I would have said 'repeatability' i.e. the fluctuating degree of disability - but I think he means the same thing.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page