Liz Sayce Report

[Sally44]

I don't know if anyone is aware of this report.

 

Liz Sayce (Chief Executive of RADAR), was commissioned by the Government to produce a report into the cost effectiveness of government grants to sheltered workplaces such as Remploy.

 

RADAR is an organisation that trains disabled people for the mainstream workplace.

 

Her report recommended that the government should not subsidise sheltered workplaces, and that all disabled people want to work in mainstream jobs. The idea being that the disabled should retrain and move into those job vacancies which are available.

 

If you google for this report you should be able to find it and download it.

 

My sister works at Remploy. It is one of the few sheltered workplaces were the adults produce real work.

 

If a disabled person wishes to work in the mainstream workplace that is already an option.

 

However, I am sure you will all agree that you do not see a multitude of disabled workers when you go into any shop or office.

 

And in the same way that we need educational options (mainstream or special school), I think we need employment options of mainstream or sheltered workplace.

 

If any of you feel strongly that your child would be able to be productive and work, but would need a sheltered workplace environment, this might be a good time to write to your MP about it.

 

This appears to be another short sighted cost cutting exercise. However those employed in sheltered workplaces are more vulnerable, and are more likely to struggle to be retrained and gain mainstream employment. If they became unemployed they would be living on benefits, it would mean they lost their independence. They would also need housing benefit. Many would need social workers to organise their day. And all this would cost more than subsidising a sheltered workplace.

 

Inclusion in the workplace sounds great. But for any parents out there of adults on the spectrum, you will know how hard it is to find anything suitable, and long term unemployment is often the reality.

 

Just wanted to raise this report, as it has gone under the radar.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Sally44

[ScienceGeek]

While I think that getting disabled people who can work in the mainstream work environment is a great thing, it isn't necessarily for everyone. To try to force people who aren't suited to the mainstream work environment without the necessary help would be negligent. I keep hearing mixed messages when it comes to policy about disabled employment. The government wants more disabled people in work and off benefits yet is cutting the lifelines that disabled people rely on to be able to work (cuts in disabled support going from DLA to PIP, cuts to access to work, social care cuts). Also they want more disabled people in work yet there aren't any jobs, even non-disabled people are struggling to find work at the moment, when faced with the choice between 2 equally qualified people one disabled one not, it doesn't take much thinking to figure out who most employers will choose. If the sheltered employment schemes are financially viable then why not, I've got a feeling though that they aren't and rely heavily upon government subsidies.

[baddad]

Hi sally -

 

As a huge cynic generally, I'm going to go the other way here and say that there is probably a bit more going on here than just cost-cutting. I 100% agree that the conclusions of this report are flawed (to say the least) but because the people contributing to the report have fallen into the trap of speaking FOR disabled people rather than representing the views of disabled people. That happens all the time (and makes me very , but never moreso than when it's 'experts' doing it) and is a big issue in disability 'politics'...

 

In an ideal world all disabled people probably would want the opportunity to work in a 'mainstream workplace', but the key issue is that they would want to work in a mainstream workplace where their needs were considered, responded to, and where they would not flounder and where they were not marginalised etc etc etc. The reality is, as we know, that we don't live in an ideal world and most mainstream workplaces don't offer those things and aren't likely to in the forseeable future no matter how much legislation is thrown at them, and that people shoved into ill-fitting employment 'holes' like that are going to fall out of them and fail.

 

The other side of the coin is that supported working environments CAN be completely patronising - churning out substandard, mawkish, over-priced tat that people then buy out of guilt, embarrassment or holier-than-though sanctimoniousness - exactly the point I think you were making about Remploy and real work - and providing disabled people with 'jobs' that are little more than occupational therapy and an extension of their dsaibled social club.

 

The reality, IMO and as both you and sciencegeek have stated, is that mainstream employment will never be an option for all disabled people, either in practical terms of the working environment or economic terms of the job 'marketplace' and levels of unemployment.

 

I think any white paper on disability and employment needs to tackle the problem from both ends, by making mainstream employment prospects more realistic and by addressing the issues of patronisation and employment 'warehousing' in the supported sector. It would also make a huge difference if governments stopped targeting disabled people as if they were just another 'sector' of the unemployed that need to be squeezed out in terms of access to benefits, because they are - 'scroungers' aside (and sadly there are some) - by definition the very members of society that the benefits system was created to protect.

 

L&P

 

BD

Edited July 16, 2011 by baddad

[Sally44]

From my own families experience, my sister tried two other jobs before beginning work at Remploy. Both those other jobs lasted less than a week. My sister has worked 25+ years at Remploy and during that time has become as independent living and working as she could be.

 

Yes I think that more could be done for people with disabilities to support them as part of the mainstream workforce. But what I found, even in Remploy, is that there is a big difference between "physical" disabilities, and neurological or cognitive difficulties.

 

Liz Sayce's report reminds me very much of Norman Tebbits advice to get on your bike and look for work. It talks about re-training and not expecting a job for life. For those people capable of that okay. But what about the others?

 

I wish someone would come up with a realistic formula that demonstrates how much it costs to provide sheltered workplaces as opposed to a life on benefits and the repurcussion of that. Because it does affect families too. Sheltered work isn't a baby sitting service (well not where my sister works anyway). But if she were unemployed she would need someone to put together some structure. She would need someone to keep an eye on her, and if that couldn't be done by family members that would mean the cost of a Social Worker or paid carers.

 

It just makes me wonder what is the point of getting all these SEN children through school if we don't have anything to offer them at the other end?

[philipo]

I worked for Remploy in Halifax for a fe eeks to see if i was suitable in 2001.The factory was involved in bookbinding and did a lot of work for libaries and some private work.I could'nt do it.I was un dx'd then an completly oblivious.I lived 20 miles away and got the bus at 6.35 to get there for 8.I had to walk 3/4 of amile from the bus stop.The main reasons I could'nt do it was because the severe pains in my legs got worse,the walking was the main problem as well as three hours on the bus causing anxiety.What was stark was how hard everybody worked.Previously i was working at Muller Yoghurts in Market Drayton ,we worked hard their.At the remploy factory the employees seemed to have a mostly physical disability.I was overawed at how hard everyone worked as if to deny their diasbilities and to prove to themselves and the management that they could work as well as non disabled people,they worked much harder than 'abled ' people i had worked with.It was sick,really sick,as everybody worked as fast as slaves under juress.I learnt a lot about bookbinding.

different factories,Remploy ones ,will have different criteria but at Halifax there was no room for slackers,quite the opposite it was almost slavery,and the diabled workers worked much harder.So to find out the Goverment wants to chop remploy is brutal.I would propose making cuts in the civil service as most of them would'nt last one day at halifax Remploy.So it confirms what i've seen for years that the Goverment pay lip service to disability and are far more concerned about their unhealthy overpaid and lazy civil service.The holocaust contiues.

[Adam Mars]

 

Liz Sayce, Chief Executive of RADAR...an organisation that trains disabled people for the mainstream workplace...recommended that the government should not subsidise sheltered workplaces, and that all disabled people want to work in mainstream jobs

 

 

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked, stunned and not a little amazed.

 

In other news, a report from the Pope has found that Roman Catholicism is probably the best religion in the world.

[philipo]

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked, stunned and not a little amazed.

 

In other news, a report from the Pope has found that Roman Catholicism is probably the best religion in the world.

 

If left to goverment and vested interest groups I'm sure they'll say that the perfect jobs for asd/as/autys would be manual labour planting trees and digging ditches as they are not very mentally demanding and they wont have to 'waste' any money on unrealistic expectations.How many of us get a sweat on at work?At Remploy in Halifax they literally sweat all day.