"Positive Health Statement" - Job Centre Plus

"You may find it helpful to use official diagnostic terms, unless we have decided those official diagnostic terms are on our arbitrary list of terms we don't like, where you can use an obfuscating euphemism that makes it sound like something else instead"

Genius. What's the purpose of this exercise in doublespeak? Is it to trick employers into hiring you?
 
Barry said:
Just seen this on facebook, and to me it looks appalling.

Is this even legal?

In preparation for their JCP appointment someone with ME has to prepare a Positive Health Statement. In it the are 'advised' to avoid words like Chronic, or ME.

As per:

View attachment 8619
Click to expand...
#1 says to be generally less precise, #2 says use precise terms and #3 says don't use precise terms.

Galactic brain in here.
 
"Avoid words that sound worse than they are, e.g. chronic, degenerating, etc."

What does this mean? The words are what they are. Do they think some words sound better than they are?

Looks like the Dorset Pain Service has a version of this up: http://www.dorsetpain.org/Docs/Creating a positive health statement.pdf

I feel like this should be a satire. How many officials do you think approved this approach?

edit: I've uploaded a copy of the document in case it goes off-line. Archive sites seemed to get redirected away from it.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
legally speaking suggesting clients of the joke centre deliberately lie on application forms would be akin to inciting fraud . they still want to have their cake after all if some poor fool writes out a job application negating their own illness experience then the joke centre has all the evidence to deny any benefits to that person we are definitely living in the land of newspeak it makes me so angry that morons can end up in positions way above their pay grade and get away with this tripe .
 
Since when does the word 'degenerative' "sound worse than it is"? I feel I can say for certain that anyone who is experiencing a degenerative condition finds that it 'is' a very great deal worse than the word can possibly convey.

Orwell would be proud

ETA well not Orwell himself obviously but ykwim
 
To be fair, this isn't necessarily a bad approach - depending on the job seeker's circumstances. It fits with current UK equalities legislation (Equality Act 2010) which prevents employers asking about an applicant's disabilities or health conditions prior to offering them a job, with a few specific exceptions. This rule is intended to prevent assumptions being made about the job applicant based on their disability (or health condition).

The legislation for employers is quite complex around this. See for example [links ordered to give increasing detail]:

https://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5620

https://beta.acas.org.uk/hiring-someone

https://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1859

https://www.acas.org.uk/media/4504/...isability_discrim_keypoints_workplace_Nov.pdf

The problem is that the current UK 'Work Capability Assessment' is so flawed that a high proportion of claimants who should be deemed unable to work are being found 'fit for work'. Many have died within months of this happening to them. For example (in particular, to help non-UK members understand the UK situation):

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...ggesting-fit-for-work-deaths-may-have-fallen/

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...ve-benefit-claimants-from-harm-or-even-death/

So, for a disabled person or a person with a long-term health condition that would be able to do the job they are applying for with 'reasonable adjustments' from their employer, or with additional help from the 'Access to Work' scheme (see link below), then it is sensible to ensure they word their application in a positive way - and leave discussing their requirements for accommodations until after they have been offered the job.

https://www.gov.uk/access-to-work

However, if reasonable adjustments and additional access to work support are not going to allow the person to be able to fulfil the job criteria and/or the applicant knows that their disability or health condition is going to lead to increased absence from work, then it is completely inappropriate to 'reframe' health conditions or disabilities to make it seem that you are fit and able to do the job being applied for. For most people with M.E., the latter situation is likely to be the case.
 
Last edited:
Sly Saint said:
What if you were officially diagnosed with M.E. ?

Speaks volumes as to what the DWP/Jobcentre Plus really think about M.E.
Click to expand...

And depression! Does make me wonder if they've bought the "ME is depression" narrative, and think they're both made up or hammed up for the sake of the fantastic secondary gains of having to deal with the DWP and Job Centre.
 
Sly Saint said:
What if you were officially diagnosed with M.E. ?

Speaks volumes as to what the DWP/Jobcentre Plus really think about M.E.

so much for the recent 'training' from AfME
https://www.actionforme.org.uk/news/action-for-me-hosts-dwp-spotlight-training/
Click to expand...

I'm still working my way through the DWP ESA/UC assessors manual, but my impression is that the only way for a person with M.E. (with no other health conditions or disabilities) to get into the Support Group of ESA (or the UC equivalent) is if the Health Care Professional (HCP) accepts that they are unable to reliably, safely and repeatedly mobilise more than 50 metres (including using aids or a manual wheelchair). The HCP would probably make this judgment if they agreed that claimant had 'severe M.E.'

I think the only chance a PWME would have of the DWP accepting that work (or work related activity) would lead to a 'substantial risk' to their health, would be if they could get their GP or a consultant to make a statement to that effect and submit this with their other medical evidence. The DWP dissuades the health care professional from using this recommendation except in very extreme circumstances, and even if they do, the DWP Decision Maker (DM) can still choose to ignore it. The DM can still ignore medical advice, but if they did and the claimant suffered as a result, the DWP could have a legal case to answer.

All of this means that many PWME who have what the DWP would consider 'moderate' M.E. are likely to fail the WCA, as obviously are those who are 'mild'. A person with moderate M.E. might be able to make up the 15 points needed for the Work Related Activity Group (or UC equivalent) if they get their 'rapid muscle fatiguability', PEM and cognitive problems accepted by the HCP, but then they would still find themselves subject to the ignorance of the Job Centre advisors and all that entails.

What is needed is for the DWP to be educated about the severe and cumulative effects of Post Exertional Malaise on a person with M.E., and that PEM is part of the condition across all severity levels, including mild and moderate. I think we are a long way off that.
 
Last edited:
chrisb said:
Changing the language may help one get a job. Would it actually help one to do it?
Click to expand...
This. Having had a job I couldn’t do anymore and had some time from my employer to try to work out what I could do and tried taking on a new role which I also couldn’t my experience was that managers say they will be flexible but in practice they don’t have any understanding or acceptance of the fluctuations and the limitations. Unless you have some very specific in demand skills and knowledge people will not give carte blanche to work around ME.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom