Disability & Work: Bullying

A contribution the BrokenofBritain campaign: DWP45: Fit For Work

On March 23rd 2011 during Prime Minister's Question Time imediately before the Budget, Ed Miliband, - who had previously not said one word about this in public despite repeated requests from voters, - asked David Cameron why he is removing the mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance. Although it has been common knowledge that the coalition government intended to do this almost from the point they were elected Cameron, in his usual patronising and sneering manner, said the government had never said they were going to do that.

 

This interaction, and in particular Cameron's role in it, will not have surprised anyone who, like me, has studied the psychology of those who bully and abuse others. Cameron and his colleagues in the Cabinet are all experts at using two of the most disarming and frustrating tactics of the bully. "I didn't do that" or "I didn't say that" are powerful weapons. What is the other person to do? the only logical way of dealing with this would be to use the word "liar" but that's not so easy to do because the challenger knows that if they attempt to do this they will just hit further frustrating walls of denial.

 

I have been observing Cameron's build up to the use of this tactic for several weeks and I am glad that on this occasion I had the confidence to tell my colleagues three days before thatI believed Cameron's denial was imminent, although, I must confess, as Cameron prefers to get others to be his bully boys, I expected it to be channelled through George Osborne in his budget speech. Who knows? Perhaps it would have been if Ed Miliband hadn't come up with this question an hour earlier.

 

As cruel and damaging as the use of abusive language against the disabled has been during discussion of the DLA mobility component, it is more damagingly being used in discussion of the Employment Support Allowance, which has replaced Unemployment Benefit.

Most dishonest is the suggestion that it is the right thing to do to bring under the umbrella of the Employment Support Allowance those who would previously have been placed on what was known as Invalidity Benefit. These people are unable to work because their long-term, often terminal, illness, or some form of disability, has, in the opinion of Doctors and other specialist medical personnel charged with their care, left them unfit, and sometimes incapable, of undertaking paid work because the demands of the commercial “workplace” will be injurious for them.

 

Finding the right terminology to use in order to fight some of the cruel and downright dangerous things that are happening to "the disabled" at this time has been exceptionally difficult because of the “doublethink” that has been initiated by government to justify their actions. This weekend, at about the same time as the real rationale of Cameron and Co's DLA/ESA game hit me, I realised why.

 

The previous benefit for those who could not obtain paid employment was "Unemployment Benefit". But Chris Grayling talks about "Jobseekers Allowance", I'm not sure if this label is his own, whether it was originated by Ian Duncan Smith, or whether it is a hangover from the previous New (old Tory) Labour lot. Whichever it was, my point is that a word which is not applied in the context of the cash benefit is "WORK".

 

The politicians have been very clever. By substituting the word work for employment or job, whenever justifying their bullying of the disabled they have left us feeling both tongue tied and impotent when trying to argue an alternative point of view. They knew, after we have spent years campaigning otherwise, that none of us would feel comfortable saying that people with disabilities (a) cannot work (b) should not work or (c) might be harmed by work.

Having cleverly slipped this ambiguous terminology into the vocabulary regarding disability benefits they have further castrated us (if that's possible) by using the vocabulary of caring, (i.e. work is beneficial to self-esteem), to justify their vile intentions. I know from personal experience and from working for 20 years with adult survivors of childhood abuse, and with children who were describing abuse that had been perpetrated against them, that the most damaging abuse, and the abuse that it is hardest to counter while it is occurring, is abuse perpetrated by someone who claims to be doing what is in the best interest of the person they are abusing, i.e. that they are "caring" about them, that, "this hurts me more than it hurts you".

While the government promotes the view that "any work is better than none", recent research from Australia proves that doing the wrong sort of work is unhealthy and can harm people.The propaganda of Ian Duncan Smith and Chris Grayling has left me and many others feeling driven to despair in the belief that unharmful, unpaid,  “work” we have found, which has a positive effect on our self-esteem and general feeling of well-being, will automatically be used against us at our WCA, the Work Capability Assessment, where someone will decide whether we can continue receiving the equivalent of our current incapacity benefit or whether we will be placed on the lower "jobseekers" allowance.

The cynicism of the government is clearly demonstrated through their manipulation of disability rights history.

20 years ago various campaigning disability rights groups introduced the world to a "Social Model of Disability" to demonstrate that many disabled people who wanted to work were unable to do so because of the barriers society placed in their way. Their ideas were taken on board and became enshrined in the Disability Discrimination Act.

In a callous and dishonest manner consecutive governments have manipulated the underpinning values of the social model of disability, reconstructing it as something called the Psychosocial Model of Disability (see what they did there, clever eh?), A model which distorts psychological theory to come up with definitions of sickness and illness that claim these things are a figment of people's imagination. Basically that you are only sick or ill because society has told you that you are. Presumably, because it is not dealt with adequately by the new theory, we are to assume that our disabilities are figments of our imagination also.

The "Social Model of Disability" has been bastardised to provide the fictional and stereotypical "descriptors" used during the WCA process to assess whether people are really as ill or disabled as they "think they are", - regardless of medical opinion - Those who have formulated the WCA have relied on fictional, stereotypical case studies, often provided by Charities who claim to act in the best interest of “The Disabled”.

Here, I would like to begin to illustrate what an inhuman, demoralising, bullying and potentially dangerous process the WCA is through drawing on the experiences of some real people who have given me permission to do so.

For some the fear, the stress, and the anxiety that bullying brings begins not that the WCA itself but at the very thought of it.

 

A colleague of mine told me the following about her son who is autistic.

“My own son has today asked me to seek help for him and his increasing levels of anxiety. I will of course attempt to do this for him. However I already know that there is no autism specific mental health service from our LA for my son because his IQ is over 70, which is why he has seen no one since leaving Children's Services when he was 16. 8 years is a long time to be left isolated and without provision. It also means that we have no in depth reports to produce as evidence. There are points that have got to be made.”

In a follow-up e-mail she also told me that, although he does not know when it will take place, her son spends several hours each day rehearsing what he might say at his WCA because he is very fearful of making a mistake.

 

There are other areas where this pre-WCA anxiety is particularly cruel and unwarranted. Firstly: there are those persons with disability who have sought stimulation and self-respect through undertaking the many opportunities for voluntary work that the social model and subsequent legislation advocated. Secondly: there is a group, mainly people with psychiatric illnesses, who undertake what was once known as Therapeutic Employment and is now called Permitted Hours. This scheme was implemented because it was recognised that many people with psychiatric illness would achieve a level of "recovery" if they undertook a limited amount of paid employment.

In both of these cases, voluntary work and permitted hours work there has always been an implicit understanding that although these people could "work", that they were highly unlikely to ever obtain "employment" and that even if they achieved "employment" it was highly unlikely that they would sustain it, either because of their impairment or because of the attitude of employers and other workers towards them.

So what about voluntary work? I guess you could say that I'm doing voluntary work now; I probably would not be writing this blog if I had not been approached and asked if I would like to assist with the work of the BrokenofBritain Disability Rights campaign group. I have colleagues and friends who work for other voluntary organisations and charities such as The Samaritans and the Citizens Advice Bureau. We are all extremely afraid at this time that when we are called for our WCA our ability to do these things will be held against us and used to categorise us as suitable for employment.

Because the person carrying out the assessment is not allowed to deviate from the questions on a computerised form we will not be given the chance to explain what adaptations we use to make it possible for us to do these things. I will not be given the opportunity to explain that writing this blog will take me several hours during which I will need to adjust my physical position several times, I will need to combat the side-effects of my medication, and, I will need to alternate between conventional typing (albeit with one finger) and using my dictation software.

Those who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids know they will be channelled into certain “mobility friendly” occupations, and that these occupations may cause them physical and emotional distress in ways that their chosen voluntary work does not. They also know, whether from experience, like me, or from hearsay, that many of the concessions and allowances made for their benefit in their voluntary work place will not apply in the commercial world of "employment".

 

Those who work "Permitted Hours" also fear the pressure that will come in a "commercial employment" environment. The following is contributed by another colleague of mine. Her son lives with the exhausting pressures that result from Schizophrenia.

“Try the question out on my son as an example. Is he able to work or unable to work? He has schizophrenia. Even a psychiatrist can’t say whether my son can work or not. It depends on how the condition develops which he can probably make an educated guess at but also the impact of the stress of trying to work which is less well predicted and the employer/labour side of fear of schizophrenia and tolerance to my son not turning up on bad days and getting hallucinations while he is at work and acting in a bizarre way around other employees and customers.

You can’t say if my son is able or unable to work. The only thing you could say is that my son has considerable barriers to overcome but he might be able to work. That is all you can say for most people with disability. My solution is to help and encourage them and leave them in control. The government solution is to harass them and put pressure and sanctions on them.

Would you say my son could work or couldn’t work?

The answer is that at the moment he does permitted work of eight hours a week but can’t increase the hours because the stress makes the symptoms worse. The DWP don’t like you to do permitted work on benefits for any length of time. The DWP say that this makes you comfortable on benefits. I think it is a triumph of a compassionate system that he is this comfortable. They don’t look at it that way.

At eight hours he needs an earning discount and still needs benefits. He goes in for a few hours on days he can manage. He works in a small firm run by a family friend who understands. If he lost that job it is highly unlikely he could find another.

I don’t think he could tolerate conditionality. He has paranoia. The DWP induce paranoia in me. I don’t think there is any answer to whether he is able or unable to work. And I think most people are in the same position. It is not the right question.

The question should be - does he have sufficient barriers to overcome that it is unreasonable to require him to work. That is in fact the definition in the act of a person on ESA.

So all that needs changing is that help not conditionality like the support group is extended to everyone."

(The "conditionality" and "support group" my colleague refers to are an intermediate step between the WCA and "employment" for those who have been "unemployed" long-term. With entrance to the group comes an automatic reduction in benefits to the "jobseekers" allowance. The conditionality she refers to are progress indicators which the candidate must achieve in order to continue receiving benefit. One of the conditions is that if employment has not been achieved after 12 months the benefit will be further reduced)

So, my colleague's son benefits from his "Permitted Hours” and other colleagues benefit from their voluntary work, while I and others benefit from the work we undertake through our campaigning. But would we benefit in the same way in the structured, pressurised and competitive world of the "Employed". Would we be able to obtain employment, or, perhaps more importantly, would we be able to sustain employment.

 

Most of us who have been employed have tales like this to tell:

The rules for blind reassessment have changed. It is now done on how we navigate ourselves around familiar/unfamiliar places and manage crossing the road! That has been written by a sadist.

I did go to work, briefly, some years after I lost my sight. It took me a long time to come to terms with what had happened to me. It hits different people in so many different ways taking some longer and others never.

For temp work for Christmas money at a turkey factory I had to clock in. I got someone else to find my card and I put a big black cross on it. Reminded me of the sign of the plague. We had to check the dead turkeys for any feathers and I found myself scraping the skin just in case. We had to check sell by dates and I would peer in vain trying to see where the sticky label should be. I bluffed my way for 6 weeks until one day the supervisor called me into her office. She asked me if I had a problem as she got the impression I couldn’t see and I was no use to them if I couldn’t. It was horrible and I left with as much dignity as I could muster asking her to open the door for me. She laughed, told me to “find it yourself you freak” and I tried. It was only when someone else came in that I was able to leave. I was totally humiliated. I walked to a friends house, and I never remember how, and cried my eyes out. I was 40. I tried various other menial jobs but is was always the same. If I told them I couldn’t see they didn’t want me and if I didn’t I was asked to leave when they found out."

My colleague Patricia who wrote that is also full time carer to her husband:

 

I have a similar tale to tell. Patricia’s story reminded me of the time just after I returned to work as a teacher following the loss of another disc.

My walking, not good before that occurrence, was now very slow but, more importantly, I had lost the ability to raise my feet more than about three quarters of an inch from the ground meaning that I shuffled from place to place. At that time I shared an office with four other people and the communal kettle and tea making facilities.

I never found out who was responsible but suddenly the office floor would become strewn with box files, piles of books, empty cardboard boxes, wastepaper bin, etc etc which meant I needed to navigate a very hazardous path from the office door to my desk. I suspected it was a member of staff who resented the fact that the college had provided me with an orthopaedic chair because she, "had backache too". This minefield would always appear between the beginning of my first lecture and my first break on days when she did not teach during that first session. She was never in the office when it was in the state I described and the debris had always remarkably melted away by the time we, as a group of lecturers, came back together for the lunch break. Consequently, whenever I mentioned it, no one else had ever seen it.

In another phoney act of caring, the cynical nod towards human rights through the integration of disability rights into the "Equality Act 2010", the government tells potential employers that they must not ask specific questions about a person's disability at interview (I imagine workplace health and safety officers might have view about that). But, they can ask questions following the interview or if the person is placed on a shortlist for the post (I suspect the number of jobs requiring a shortlist is about to increase dramatically). Applicants are told that they "should be honest" when answering questions about their disability. It is left to the applicant to decide whether the question they have been asked contravenes the terms of the equality act 2010 and to do something about it if they believe this to be the case.

My own post interview conversation would go something like this:

“Well, my spinal injury prevents me from twisting, bending, lifting or carrying. If I cough, laugh, or sneeze while there is pressure on my spine a disc may burst and you will need to send for an ambulance. You must not attempt to pick me up or move me because that might paralyse me from the waist down. If I fall down because the strength goes from my legs you must not move me for the same reason. You will need to bring a chair or something substantial that I can use to lift myself up from the floor in stages.

The painkillers I take come with a warning about driving and using machinery. The driving problem only occurs if pain wakes me during the night and I need to take extra pain relief to get back to sleep. When this occurs the level of painkilling medication interacts with the medication I take for my diabetes and my depression and it may be several hours before my mind is clear enough to drive.

I may be a bit grumpy or distracted on occasions because I am never pain free and I will be unable to numb the pain by taking extra pain relief while I am at work because if I do so I would not be fit to drive myself home. The nearest I ever got to total relief from pain was using the highest strength of the morphine patches that are usually used by people with terminal illness. Unfortunately, as we replaced my tablet regime with the patches we discovered that only the highest dosage would do. I was initially very pleased about this but the adhesive used to attach the patch literally burned my skin away and my immune system would produce fluid to wash the patch away from my skin.

I'm afraid I'll need special dispensation regarding your rule about turning mobile phones of in the workplace because there will be times when I am working alone here and if I fall I need to be able to let someone know that has happened.

Although I cannot drink alcohol because of the various medications that I take you may receive complaints that I am "drunk". This has happened before. It is caused because, depending which nerves became trapped during my sleep the night before, I might be clumsier than usual, I might "stagger" as I walk, and I may not be able to stop shaking. People have also thought I was drunk because my speech can become slurred; this is caused by dehydration, a side-effect of four of the seven different sorts of medication I take each day.

My depression! It is unlikely you will have to help me with that because it is unlikely that it will suddenly become chronic while I am here. The first you will know if my depressive cycle has returned is when I do not appear for work one day. I live alone and, as my mind will no longer be my own, I will not be able to telephone you. I will also be unable to answer any call you may make to me. I have a friend who contacts me every evening to see how I am and when I do not answer her call she will come round to see how I am. It will be her who contacts you the following day.”

And there you have it, an abusive end to an abusive process where I am obliged to expose the full extent of my vulnerability to a complete stranger who is highly unlikely to use that information to my advantage.

 

So, if we successfully negotiate the minefield of interview and shortlist, what next.

No matter how understanding, compassionate, and accepting the people who offered us employment might have been we now have to pass the work colleague test. The examples I quoted above from the experience of both Patricia and myself referred to callous and premeditated bullying by individuals, it is probably true that they would have happened regardless of the culture of those particular workplaces which might otherwise have been friendly, welcoming environments.

However, it is surprising how quickly friendliness, understanding, and goodwill can vanish when employment culture collides with disability culture. The interest that was initially shown whenever we needed to go early or start late because of our regular checkups, treatments, consultations, therapy etc, will disappear quite quickly once our need for a late start or an early finish clashes with the needs of other members of staff. There will also be unnecessary and unwarranted probing should we need to phone in because we have a cold, flu, toothache.

As soon as any of these things begin to impinge on the needs of our co-workers we will become aware of the conversations that stop as soon as we enter a room and of the whispering that begins whenever we are in the vicinity.

In my direct experience these things happen even faster if an employer has made modifications to the work environment or purchased special equipment to enable us to take up employment with them. I can remember withstanding a torrent of abuse and unwarranted criticism because I was perceived to be receiving special treatment when my employer, on the advice of an occupational health specialist, supplied me with an orthopaedic chair.

 

Bullying of the disabled is endemic in the world of "Employment". It begins with the knowledge that an invitation to a biased, insensitive, and for some, physically painful Work Capability Assessment interview, will be on its way at some unidentified point in the future. It will continue during the assessment where the disabled person will be humiliated, bullied, disbelieved, and asked to perform in ways that circuses have been outlawed from asking animals to do.

The "Equality Act 2010" appears to have removed some aspects of bullying and humiliation from the employment interview process but it allows these elements to be introduced immediately afterwards if the disabled person was successful at the interview.

Regardless of the willingness of an employer to provide a paid opportunity for a person with disability, unless all the staff in a particular workplace shares the mindset of the employer, the life of the employed person with disability can be miserable, abusive, and psychologically harmful.

Whenever the common illnesses such as stomach upset or the common cold afflict the disabled person they will be faced with an interrogation and an air of disbelief when they return.

The death knell will begin to ring when the employer, beaten into submission by the complaints and remarks of the rest of the employees, gives up the fight and leaves the disabled person to the mercy of those complaining colleagues in the hope that the disabled person will tire of the abuse and leave.

 

The differences between "Work" and "Employment" are numerous. The competitive world of paid employment is littered with hazards and traps that can drive persons without disability away from a particular workplace.

It is an unfair process that expects a person with significant impairment to survive in such an environment. It is a dangerous process that expects a person with significant impairment to daily face up to an environment which is hostile to their own coping strategies and which endlessly reminds them of the things they are unable to do. It is an abusive process which erodes resilience, self belief, and confidence.

In short, it is bullying.

Brokenbrian.

A contribution the BrokenofBritain campaign: DWP45: Fit For Work



 It works like this:-