Are Disabled People Going to Be Winners or Losers - Essay Example

Introduction The government published a white paper in December of 2008 that talked about reforming the welfare system to place more burdens on vulnerable groups, such as carers, disabled, and the sick, who are trying to receive benefits (Lawson). Those who are receiving benefits and have been without a job for two or more years will be required to work fulltime, thus contributing to the community. James Parnell, the secretary of work and pensions as well as the author of the white paper, says that these changes will enable more disabled people to be a part of the workforce, as they will be judged according to their abilities rather than being judged according to the limitations that their disabilities place upon them (Action for Blind People). On the other hand, organizations that represent the disabled are very concerned about these changes, as they feel as though disabled people will be left out in the cold. This is due to the fact that people who are too sick to work will be forced to get a job. What’s more, employers are not ready to handle employees who are disabled or who live with a chronic illness. Some employers want no dealings with the disabled and sickly at all. Therefore, this dissertation will analyze the promises made by the white paper and see whether or not they will be beneficial to the disabled population. Furthermore, the dissertation will establish whether or not the concerns of organizations that represent the disabled are valid. Aims The initial aim of this dissertation is to find out if the white paper will really do what is promised. In order to do this, it is vital to closely analyze every detail of the white paper to see what provisions it is offering to those currently receiving benefits. Then, we must compare the proposals to academic literature to best determine whether or not the proposals will be helpful or hurtful. On the surface, the white paper seems very promising, as there is a strong argument that work is extremely helpful in improving the overall emotional and physical health of an individual. According to an article titled “Work is Good for Your health,” work is good for maintaining mental and physical health. It has been found that working individuals have a higher self-esteem and suffer less from mental illness. What’s more, working individuals do not require as many visits to their GPs as do those who are not employed. Those who are unemployed are at higher risk for health problems, as well as mental illness. These individuals have a shorter life expectancy than those who are working, and they account for a high number of visits to the emergency room, as well as to their primary doctors. But if the unemployed can return to work, these negative conditions can be improved dramatically; hence the reason that disabled persons who are able to work should be properly supported so that they may continue working (Wadell and Burton). Therefore, we will see whether or not the white paper will actually support the disabled and deliver these benefits. We will also look for any gaps or loop wholes in the new plan of reformation. The second aim is to carefully consider the objections to the reform and whether or not there is truth to the statements made by those who are on the opposing side. There are quite a few objections to the reform, and each of them will be carefully considered. The first objection is that the white paper will not be able to deliver what it has promised, as these employers will not see any benefit to hiring people with chronic health problems or long term disabilities. They say that employers feel that profits will be lost, due to the support that is required by the chronically ill and the disabled. They say that it is not their responsibility to support the health needs of their workforce and that their only responsibility is to give people jobs. Employers feel that if the person is not healthy enough to fulfill the requirements of the position, it is their problem. Should the employer be facing financial difficulties, the disabled will be the first ones to be let go. The second objection to the reformation is that money will be taken away from the sickly and disabled to pay government departments and private companies that only care about who can make them the most profit rather than caring about the needs of the sick and disabled. In this section, we will see how much this will really be a problem through the use of detailed references made in the white paper, as well as those in outside sources. The third objection is that the government is relying too much on the recommendations that are made by wealthy bankers and integrating these recommendations into the welfare reform process. David Freud, the government’s new benefits adviser has displayed little knowledge of the system and is supporting the involvement of private sectors, which will result in more of the sick and disabled being put to work. Furthermore, there are mixed feelings about the involvement of Unum Provident’s Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research, which played a major role in devising the new criteria that one must meet in order to qualify for receiving benefits. In this section, we will take a look at how the sick and the disabled will be affected by the various ways in which the reform is carried out. Those on the opposing side feel that this reform will be a disaster for the sick and disabled, as their needs for support and care will not be valued. The opposing side feels that this reform is nothing more than a way to save money, not to improve the quality of life of the sick and the disabled, as it so claims. So, what will be the outcome for the disabled? Will these new changes cause them to be winners or losers? If individuals are too ill to work, how hard will it be for them to get benefits? It will be fitting to evaluate both sides of the argument—those who are in support of the reform and those who fear that the sick and the disabled will be left out in the cold. Valuable Sources Some assume that because a source comes from the internet, it will not possess enough credibility to be considered. However, there are Internet sources that are authoritative on the subject, and they possess the necessary credentials to be considered a valuable source. Government sites, for example, can provide a great deal of information regarding the opinion of individuals on both sides of the argument. Official government websites discuss the government’s opinion on the matters of the new welfare reform. The Working for Health website publishes reports on the health of the working population, while the Department of Work and Pensions provides a great deal of valuable information on matters pertaining to government activities, as well as gives individual reports on health reform. One report titled “Lessons to be learnt from the US experience of providing return-to-work support for people with disabilities” presents the problems that can be found in such a reform. This report is an invaluable source, despite the differences between the two healthcare systems, as it can outline the shortcomings of the program. The Official Labor website also contains a plethora of information about the proposed reform along with commentary from James Parnell. On this website, there are also opinions from the public concerning the reform. For a fair representation of both sides of the argument, transcripts from the radio show “You and Yours” contains opinions from both government representatives and the public. Along with the radio show, there are a number of other sources in regards to opinions of the public concerning the proposed reform. For instance, there are charity sites that give their take on the matter. The RHID website, which belongs to a charity organization that assists the deaf, talks about how the reform will affect those of the death community. Action for the Blind also expresses their concerns for those of the blind community. The Family and Parenting Institute’s website responds with their concerns as to how the reform will affect families, while on the other hand, the Association of Disabled Professionals welcomes the reform with caution while at the same time, they argue why the reform will not be effective in solving economic problems. The Bradford Alliance for Community Care also deeply analyzes the paper and presents an interesting take on matters. For more opinions from the public, newspapers, such as the guardian, contain a variety of useful articles on the subject. One article that has proven to be useful is “Working Model” provides the opinions of a number of different charities concerning the reform. Furthermore, the “Compass Online” is another very useful resource that will contribute very much to this dissertation, as many academic articles can be found, as well as articles featuring the opinions of senior workers who have largely contributed to the construction of the white paper. In addition, Steve Donnison wrote an analysis on the actions of the government, which may also prove to be very useful for this dissertation. Academic sources, such as journals and periodicals, also need to be considered for the analysis of the government’s promise. Richard Crisp closely analyzes “No-one written off: Reforming welfare to reward responsibility.” Bitlet & Hoynes have also published an in depth analysis on the welfare reform and how it will indirectly impact on health. This will serve as a major help in predicting how the white paper will affect the individuals that it targets. Wim Van Oorschot published a great deal of research on the subject of conditionality, which is a chief concern of this research. The work may not pertain to citizens in the UK, as it is concerning governmental affairs of the Netherlands; nevertheless, this research is very useful, as it enables us to see what is deemed acceptable by the public, as far as the requirements for receiving incapacity benefits is concerned. It is this criteria that will enable us to understand why the public is so immensely opposed to the white paper and its promises. What’s more, we will be able to understand where the differences in opinion lie. An article, published by Deacon, on the topic of justifying conditionality, will also be a useful tool, as it will enable us to make a comparison of the arguments of Wim Van Oorschot. Chapters 1. White Paper potential health benefits In this chapter, we will discuss the benefits that are outlined in the white paper, as well as make an assessment as to whether or not the government will actually be able to deliver what it has promised. 2. White Paper Potential Economic Benefits In this chapter, we will talk about the proposed economic benefits offered by the white paper. If there are any clashes with the first chapter, they will be discussed here. 3. Criticisms: Employer Responsibility This chapter begins the objections to the white paper. Here, we argue how employers feel that it is in no way, shape, or form their responsibility to ensure the health and wellbeing of their workers. 4. Criticisms: Benefit distribution This is the chapter that discusses how the proposed reform will result in money being taken away from the sick and disabled. 5. Criticisms: How change will happen In this chapter, we will examine the advice that the government is receiving in regards to the new reform and whether or not this advice is compatible with the benefits system that is currently in place. 1. White Paper Potential Health Benefits There are some wonderful potential health benefits that are outlined in the welfare reform white paper. One notable benefit is that making provisions that will enable the sick or disabled to return to work will increase their self-esteem which will, in turn, contribute to the betterment of their mental and physical health. According to "You for yours," a radio show that is broadcasted on the BBC, McGuire states that more opportunities will be created for the disabled, as they will be judged according to what they are able to du versus being judged for the things they are not able to do (McGuire). An increased opportunity to work will enable those who are sick and disabled to improve mentally and physically, as there is strong scientific evidence that suggests that there is a link between working and good overall health. 1.1 How Work improves Mental health Working improves an individual’s mental health, as he is able to rise in the status quo and provide proper support for himself and his family. He feels wonderful that he is productive in society and that he is remaining busy. If he is good at his job, then he will be enthusiastic about working, thus he will view himself in a wonderful light which will, in turn, improve his self-esteem. If he is jobless, he has an increased risk of suffering from mental illness, since excessive unemployment accounts for as much as 86% of the mentally ill population (black, “Mental Health and work,” 2,3). Knowing that the high number of people suffering from mental illness is de to lack of employment, it is advantageous for one to remain working. 1.2 How Work improves Physical Health According to “Work is Good for Your Health,” it is beneficial that a person remains at their job, as working helps to improve a person’s overall wellbeing. If a person is healthy mentally, he will also have a better chance at being healthy physically, since mental illness can sometimes cause a person to suffer physical symptoms, such as fatigue. When a person experiences excessive fatigue, he is then not motivated to care for his other obligations. If his other obligations are not cared for, then his physical health will deteriorate, as he does not have the strength or motivation to care for his needs. He could neglect his health by not exercising good hygiene, which could cause a person to become ill: or, he could not want to eat, which could lead to more severe health problems. If he is working, on the other hand, he will be motivated to care for is other obligations, which includes caring for personal needs In one of their articles, Waddell and Burton state that if a person returns to work after being unemployed for quite some time, poor mental and physical health can be improved. The person will feel renewed and have a sense of accomplishment, thus they will be able to heal physically (Waddell and Burton). In order for the sick and disabled to effectively hold a job, employers must be well educated so they can offer the proper support and understanding for such workers. To date, many employers fail to provide such support, which will cause major problems for the government to be able to follow through with its promise. 2. White Paper Potential Economic Benefits The potential economic benefits that are offered by the white paper are numerous. For instance, the Freud review states that if more people in the community are given the opportunity to work, child poverty will be eradicated. This means that children will have the chance to grow up in homes where they do not lack the bare necessities. The article goes on to state that ethnic disadvantages will be tackled, as people of minority groups will have the opportunity to work jobs that will enable them to increase their skills, thus becoming more prosperous. Those who are inactive in the community that are still able to work but don’t want to will be able to contribute monetarily to society and give back to the people. In order for this to be able to happen, rights and responsibilities must be determined, and we need to figure out who is of they won’t work versus they can’t work groups (Waddell and Burton). What’s more, there needs to be proper support to help these individuals to BECOME achievers Criticisms: Employer Responsibility As far as the responsibilities of employers ensuring the health and wellbeing of their workers is concerned, there are numerous problems. This is due to the fact that employers feel that it is not their responsibility. Most employers are only concerned about their profits. The concern for their staff is the furthest thing from their minds. Workers must work jobs that are either high stress or nonstimulating, and the work environment can be one of hostility. The conditions that the workers are subject to aren’t any better. For example, employers do very little to ensure that the work environment is free from hazards that could cause potential health problems, accidents, or even death in some cases. To take things even further in the wrong direction, employers demand that those working for them remain in good health in order to keep their jobs, and some will go as far as to ensure this. According to an article titled, “You Big fat Liars: Hazards 104,” many employers are very picky as to who they’ll hire. Some even go as far as to perform regular extensive health checks, which involve going as far as checking employees’ weights. Employers have been known to fire workers just for being over weight rather than trying to work along with them. It is as if the workers have to be near perfect in order to remain employed, which is not fair in the least bit. O’Neill tells us of one incidence where a worker was fired for not being close to perfection in the eyes of his employer. This particular incident involved a fire fighter who failed a yearly fitness test. Kevin Ogillivie had been faithfully fighting fires for 22 years, as it was one of his passions. One day, he was asked to take a fitness test, as his employer made this a requirement for all who worked for the company. Upon failing the test, he was dismissed on the grounds that he was not healthy enough to fulfill his position. Thankfully, the union was on his side. He was later given back his job (O’Neill). This one case alone enables us to see that there is a major flaw in the new reform that could affect the disabled and sick population for the worse. Some employers take things a step further by making the personal lives of their employees their business. O’neill states that they will try to regulate how much alcohol their employees consume, and they will chide them for smoking cigarettes. And if this isn’t bad enough, they’ll question them about their activities off the clock, such as their sex life. And why do these employers behave in this fashion? They claim it is for the good of the employees, when in all actuality, it is so they can save as much money as possible, as they will not have to put out any money for individuals whose health is substandard (O’Neill). Continuing on the topic that sickness is a cardinal sin that must never be committed and is punishable with the loss of a job, people are afraid to call out sick, even if they are too sick to be at work. They fear that if they do call out, they will receive heavy discipline from their employers. To prevent this, some use their days that are set aside for leave, covering up the fact that they are actually sick. This is not only terrible but frightening, as workers cannot be truthful about what is going on. It is horrific that these people must live in fear, as their jobs are being held over their heads. They fear that one wrong move will put them out of work which will, in turn, cause them to lack the means to provide support for themselves or their families, which will create a whole new set of problems. “You Big Fat Liars: Hazards 104” says that this immense fear of losing a job has caused people to not seek appropriate treatment for health problems that arise. For instance, one lady had an appointment to address some medical concerns, and she canceled it, as she was too scared to request the necessary time off. Others, who were legitimately very ill went to work despite their need to be resting. These workers did this, as they feared the consequences that would be dealt to them for not showing up for work. Then, there were those who let serious health problems go untreated, as they could not find the courage to face their employers to acquire the necessary support to care for their medical needs. Eventually, these people died) O’Neill). None of this ever would have happened if they were able to take the time off to address these health conditions while they were still in their early stages and wile there was still time to do something about it. And when these people died, they were quickly replaced. Nothing was ever thought of it. The employers couldn’t care less about their deaths. While there is a strong argument that working will improve the mental and physical health of a disabled person, and wile there is an immense amount of evidence to support this claim, these horrific conditions and strenuous demands on the part of employers will hardly be helpful in this regard. Such conditions will actually worsen the quality of life for the disabled or sick individual, as they will not receive proper support or understanding, which is necessary in order for them to be able to successfully remain in the workforce and not return to receiving benefits. What’s more, the work environment must accommodate their special needs. If their needs are not accommodated, and if employers are not understanding of their problems, this could actually cause immense distress to the sick and disabled, which could badly affect their mental and physical health. Eventually, the disabled and the sick will see an even further downturn, as their conditions worsen. This type of work is not helpful in improving the health of the sick and disabled, and there is also a significant amount of evidence that bad work environments and overbearing bosses can not only cause serious mental and physical health problems, they can worsen the conditions of those who are sick or disabled. Work Cited Black, Carol. "Mental Health and Work." Working for health. March 17, 2008. 21 Apr 2009 . Lawson, Neal. "Civil Society Urges Government to Rethink Welfare Reform." Compass. November 30, 2008. 22 Apr 2009 . McGuire, Anne. "You and Yours." BBC Radio 4. 2008. 21 Apr 2009 . "No one Written Off: Reforming Welfare to Reward Responsibility." Action for Blind People. 2009. 21 Apr 2009 Read More