Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Fit for work tests penalise poorer people
Article by Dr Frances Ryan in today’s Guardian reports -
‘Analysis of more than a million incapacity benefit claimants who have been re-assessed for employment and support allowance (ESA), the benefit for people too disabled or ill to work, shows the controversial work capability assessment is disproportionately removing benefits from people in more deprived regions.
At the same time, it found claimants in wealthier areas are more likely not only to retain their sickness benefits – and avoid being declared fit for work – but to be placed in the support group of ESA, in which claimants are not required to undertake any form of work preparation and receive the highest benefit rate.’
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/09/biased-fit-for-work-tests-poorer-disabled-people
I wonder if the data includes people who fail to attend. If so the explanation could be as simple as poorer people not having cars to get there.
I think it may have more to do with greater confidence in articulating conditions and subsequent issues and more success in requesting medical evidence. I’ve certainly seen that to be the case in more affluent clients that I’ve advised.
There are plenty of possible explanations…
1 - People in wealthier areas less likely to claim benefits until they become extremely unwell.
2 - People in poorer areas doing more manual jobs so unable to work due an illness which wouldn’t necessarily have prevented a ‘white collar’ worker from continuing to work.
3 - (following on from 2) former manual workers who were on IB for many years falling foul of the tougher criteria for ESA.
The point I was trying to make is that the study would be less relevant if it contains FTAs.
There are plenty of possible explanations…
1 - People in wealthier areas less likely to claim benefits until they become extremely unwell.
2 - People in poorer areas doing more manual jobs so unable to work due an illness which wouldn’t necessarily have prevented a ‘white collar’ worker from continuing to work.
3 - (following on from 2) former manual workers who were on IB for many years falling foul of the tougher criteria for ESA.
The point I was trying to make is that the study would be less relevant if it contains FTAs.
I certainly think point 3 is pertinent and posted a comment to that effect below the article. Someone asked me a few questions why I thought that, then said I was odd for doing so…..
I have no numbers to back me up but I’d hazard a guess that there have always been proportionally way more lower paid workers than higher paid workers on sickness benefits just because lower paid jobs tend to be more physical and so place more stresses on the body. This means people feel ‘unfit for work’ regardless of whether or not they’re likely to pass the WCA.
I’m sure the WCA discriminates indirectly against less well off people in lots of different ways (but so most things). I’ll be interested to see the actual report but I think it’s a stretch to say that the WCA (flawed as it is) directly discriminates against people in poorer areas.