The Welfare We Need

 

“I don’t want your face looking like that while I’m talking.”  (Face was ‘bland neutral.’)
“People here don’t like you, because you’re too negative.” (Used very light sarcasm to defuse workplace tension.)
“I think it’s a bit inconsiderate to overshare the way you do…everyone is struggling here, and they don’t need to be worried about you.” (Had responded to “How’re you doing?” with “Okay, I think…it’s been a bit tough at home, but I’m getting through. How’s everything with you?”)
“We need happy, bubbly team players here - if that’s not how you feel, every day, then I’m sorry, but we’re just not the right place for you to thrive.” (Person was behaving normally, being professionally welcoming, supporting their colleagues.)

Employers don't want to employ people with "mental health problems" (or disabilities), but the government don't want those people claiming welfare.

Yes, depression and anxiety are natural, normal responses to life, especially life as it is currently being experienced by many people.  But employers don’t allow them. You’re not allowed to be unhappy, even if you’re not customer-facing. You’re not allowed to have a ‘neutral’ facial expression. You’re not allowed to answer “How are you?” honestly (not even when your “fine, thanks”) is followed by “No - how are you really?”, and an intense stare.)

The recruitment process itself is stressful and exhausting at the best of times. Now imagine you’re dealing with a voice in your head that is constantly telling you you’re “useless”, that “no one likes you”, that you’re just “a burden, and would be better off dead.”  Now imagine that the voice’s assertions are literally backed up by every job you apply for, by the media, and by your own government.

Companies don’t give useful feedback - “we went with a candidate whose skillset was a better match” does not help the candidate who spent three days agonising about exactly how to prove their skillset was an exact match for what was being asked.

I’ve personally lost two jobs directly because I’m registered blind, and a third indirectly because of that. (The bus service was scrapped. The job was six miles along an unlit, unpaved road, from the city centre - it wasn’t safe for me to walk, especially at the end of my shift, when it was dark in winter, and the company refused to allow me to work remotely, even though the job could have been done remotely.)

I didn’t choose to lose my sight.

But We Can’t Just Keep Paying for People on Welfare!

Then the government needs to take over assessing job applications from disabled candidates. Every single application, to every single company, that comes from a disabled applicant is forwarded to an external, government-appointed review committee.

No disabled applicants? Then that company is barred from trading, and mandated to undergo intervention support regarding their work culture, their hiring and recruitment process, and the biases of both staff and management; they are permitted to resume trading when an independent EADI professional considers that the environment is one in which disabled, neurodivergent, and socially marginalised individuals would feel safe, and be supported to succeed.

Employers would need to be required to bring in additional leave, separate to both sick leave and holiday leave, to facilitate people attending medical appointments - these tend to happen in working hours, and can overrun. People also need time to get to their appointments, and sometimes to decompress after them. (This is especially the case with people receiving therapy.)

Individuals with chronic health conditions and disabilities will need to be supported in the same way as those who are able to become pregnant are; with negotiated extended leave, if required, and their job kept open for them. People choose the actions which lead to pregnancy, in most cases; they do not choose to deal with complex health challenges.  It can feel exceptionally unfair to someone who is forcing themselves to keep going, through severe pain, constant malaise, and extreme emotional turbulence, to just calmly have to accept that they’ll be taking on more work for six to nine months, with three months notice, because a colleague has “discovered they’re pregnant, and will be taking maternity leave…”

Accommodations will need to be viewed, whatever they are, as equivalent to someone having to wear glasses at work - not something for which an ‘application’ has to be made, or ‘permission’ given.  The one obvious way to make this affordable for companies is to take the yearly ‘cap’ of Access to Work Grants - currently £66,000 per claimant - and simply split it 50/50 between companies and applicants with disabilities which make finding and maintaining work more challenging. Companies are credited based on their hiring plans for the year, with an assumption that at least 30% of their new hires will be people in need of accommodations.  Individuals will simply present medical recognition of a disability, and evidence that it is causing undue challenges in finding or maintaining employment, in order to receive their share.  They are then not entitled to any further welfare assistance from the State.

With £33,000 per year from their share of Access to Work, people with disabilities and health challenges are able to take more risks. They are able to accept part-time and temporary roles without worrying about the affordability.  They would potentially be able to establish viable businesses, which could go on to employ others, and, most importantly, they would be able to live a ‘decent’ life - to afford the purchases which return money to the Exchequer.  To support tourism and hospitality industries. Potentially, to move out of social housing, freeing up that stock for others who are in need, but do not receive the share of Access to Work.

With money paid directly to them, in advance of even interviewing a disabled applicant, companies can afford to make their workplaces accessible by default. They can purchase consultative time with specialists, so that they can identify what processes, policies, culture mindsets, and equipment needs to be in place so that applicants experiencing disabilities and health challenges do not have to ask for accommodations - they can just come in and do their best work, the same privilege abled workers have always had.

But That’s Ridiculous!

Is it? If it’s ‘ridiculous’ because it would be ‘too expensive’, then a comparison study has to take place; how much would these suggestions cost to implement, and how much is currently being spent via the welfare budget supporting individuals with long-term, persistent conditions and disabilities? 

Which number is higher?

Follow the other course of action.

If you're a UK employer worried about how to ensure applicants with disabilities, chronic health challenges, and those facing systemic barriers are included and made genuinely welcome in your company, we can help - email us at theproductivepessimist@yahoo.com, or call us on 0748 2017 927 (we're available by phone Tues-Sat, 8.30am-6.30pm, and by email 7 days a week, with a typical 24hr maximum response time.)