Last Night’s TV – Benefit Busters
This episode was every bit as controversial and entertaining as its two predecessors. In it, we saw the work of the Shaw Trust in Oldham whose remit is to get thousands of people who are on sickness benefits back into work.
The main protagonist in the show was Sherrie, a Shaw Trust employee who clearly has a will of steel. The one thing that’s become apparent in this series is that women like Sherrie and Hayley – from the first episode – are perfect for their jobs. They’re hard women who don’t necessarily have a great deal of sympathy for their ‘customers’.
They’re the sort of women you dread being your boss; they’re focussed, they’re goal orientated, they’re officious and demanding, and you don’t want to cross them. They have steely gazes and their tenacity and unwillingness to put up with BS is writ large on their faces and in their stern expressions.
Sherrie is one of Shaw Trust’s best in that she often “smashes” her target of getting 12 people per month off sickness benefits and into work, which, to be fair, is no mean feat at a time when jobs for the masses are as rare as rocking horse poo, and even more elusive for the afflicted masses.
Last night, we met 20 year old Kieran who was being “re-evaluated” in order to establish whether his claim for long-term sickness benefits was justified. Kieran fell from a balcony while on holiday aged 18 and suffered broken bones and a crushed vertebrae for which he had an operation to strengthen his spine.
He hadn’t worked since and claimed that he had to take painkillers throughout the day and night to make his back pain tolerable. I was rather torn over what to think of Kieran; in the first few moments of the programme, we saw him rather deftly and seemingly painlessly rising from a chair and then apparently recalling that the camera was on him when he dropped something and almost bent down to pick it up.
That said though, it’s nigh on impossible to know the extent of someone else’s pain – maybe Kieran was just full of painkillers at that moment of filming – and that’s arguably the most contentious issue when debating the government’s decision to employ outside agencies to decide who’s swinging the lead and who’s not. And even for those who are clearly not – such as a painter and decorator with osteoarthritis who was featured – is it right that he’s effectively being guilt-tripped, after a lifetime in work and paying taxes and NI, into getting a job?
I guess that’s a subjective thing, but I personally don’t think it’s right. However, for people who are in the ‘grey’ areas of the long-term sick, such as those with depression, migraines, addictions or impossible to prove back pain, it’s always going to be a judgement call. But in the case of the Shaw Trust, bonuses are issued to those operatives who, like Sherrie, get more than 12 people per month into work and off benefits. Therefore, they have a vested interest – which is almost an imperative if they want to keep their own jobs – to err on the side of assuming everyone’s exaggerating their illness to some extent.
But even some of the people who are in the aforementioned grey areas in the ranks of the long-term sick are clearly not going to be employable. One such person who we saw in the programme was Mandy who has depression, anxiety problems and who battles with alcohol addiction. Her Shaw Trust advisor suggested she try some volunteer work before launching herself on the jobs market, but frankly, I suspect she’d struggle to even be taken on as a volunteer worker.
I think the best thing about Benefit Busters is that it does make clear arguments for both sides of the equation and hears testimony from the same, all of which leads to much thought provoking material. However, for me anyway, the main message to have come out of Benefit Busters as a whole is that it’s increasingly a dog eat dog culture that we’re living in…
Those charged with getting people off benefits have targets to achieve if they want to keep their own jobs, and there’s the added incentive of a hefty bonus if those targets are reached. Therefore, they are far less likely to judge individuals on merit and more inclined to see them just as numbers on a spreadsheet and notches on the bonus bedpost.
Loading ...
…and that’s an extra £2k a month on just one member of staff being paid out of the taxpayers money..for someone to struggle in poverty on a minimum wage job until they are sacked because they will utimately become unwell again (especially in the case of depression!).
I watched this with concern really.. the amount of money that has been ploughed into these profit making companies is shocking when there are voluntary and charitable ones out there who actually put the people first rather than see it as just another step closer to ANOTHER £300 of tax payers money – £60 more than someone on Jobseekers allowance to pay for bills etc.
And they will get their wages whether those people stay in employment or not.
You’re right about that woman getting a volunteer job too, not unless they have a good support system in place for people with additional needs (support needs).
The programme left me with a very unsettled feeling about this system!
I am presently making a claim for ESA, as I am a qualified teacher who has struggled with various multiple sclerosis symptoms(balance, fatigue, optic neuritis, bladder problems) since diagnosis in 2001 and have now been retired by the Teachers Pensions company. Hopefully, this Shaw Trust will not see it as their duty to give me a minimum wage job, which i will find stressful and impossible to do. Bear in mind that I have paid my taxes, have an illness that is not my fault and tried to keep working for seven years in spite of my illness. Unfortunately, though, in the end, I have had several relapses which have not been helped by the stresses of the education system. My neurologist, gp and an occupational health specialist have retired me. What work do the Shaw trust sensibly think I should do, for their financial gains?
I am totally shocked that anyone can think this organisation is ok? Government backed? to target vunerable and sick! My own story is I am a 57 years old mother, my daughter died less than a year ago! sounds simple? it isnt, i looked after her for 28 years of serious illness whcih left me of exhausted also she had a personality disorder that meant she couldnt help but call me up to 10 times a day when i was trying to rest. I also looked after a dying brother and a mother who died all in last 10 years. I had battle after battle to get them thier rights/ I knew Heidi was terminal in last 3 years, the horrendous strain that put on me to hold her up while my heart was breaking, no one can imagine. Then my husband had a heart attack! Hence wen she died i collapsed from grief and sheer exhaustion. Im now on high level anti depressants, sleeping tablets becouse i have serious insomnia which has even meant no sleep for 2 nights in a row. This is just brief outline ok? So how do you think I feel when this unfeeling person trys to tell me how I should be feeling by now? Why? becouse the government has decided in my view to save money at the exspence of the sick. Its totally immoral and wrong, by all means help those that are at stage were they feel they can cope etc but for me the experience has actually added to my anxieties, i just need peace and time to get better, not be made to feel small for my suffering. I find the shaw trust quite sinister, no one tells you about your rights in there? do we have any? are we going to be targeted for being ill? Its disgusting to me. Thank you
Just to add, I agree with Tracy Shave! so thank you Tracy as i also had this nagging feeling like you that something is not right about this system and like you it has made me feel uneasy also? Not becouse of myself but becouse of the idea the a Doctor decides someone is ill, then this organisation totally sweeps that aside! I am hoping that eventually the will be a test challenge to this in the courts!As this surely must be an abuse of human rights for the ill? ……..
Eileen I am with you. I am lucky enough to have a lump sum from teaching as part of my pension, and I am willing to take these idiots to court, if necessary. I thought a while ago that another friend of mine with ms was treated so badly by the Shaw Trust that the European court of human rights should know about this. This government is rotten to the core. We cannot rely on them. Go above them, I say.
Are we the only 3 who are going to leave any comments here? maybe your programme should point that out very clearly at the end? I also think you have done a very good job at documenting this issue, which also quite clearly shows the total lack of respect for human beings who r vunerable or ill! I once read ina DWP book i found in the library! anyway not sure were but it clearly said that anyone on benifets had a human right to have them if they met the criteria and that they also had the right to have them in peace without harrasment from any quarter? this is clearly documented as a legal right, so when a case does hit the courts which i am sure it will, I have no doubt that the human rights court would uphold the rights of an individual to be ill! yes right to be ill! as we all at some time in our lives will be ill! No one chooses to be unwell, so is the shaw trust trying to say that the isnt anyone who is ill in the country? how crazy are they? Oh yes! hmm I forgot haha large bonuses………..
Im so sorry but I completrly forgot to tell you all this? The shaw trust probably in error let me know that they had actually called a termially ill woman into thier offices! she had multiple cancer tumours when I asked the lady on the phone and re asked in thier office did they know? guess what? yes they did and she still had to turn up! If your programme needs to know which office this was? please do ask me. How much more does anyone need to realy say aboput the morales of this organisation and the length they go to in order to achieve thier bonuses! My regards to you Mr Cottrel, you are an educated man so dont be afraid to stand up to them, my friend has just won her case after seeing Doctors from the DWP who she said were very biased. She took it all the way to tribunal blah hum bugs She won!