The proposed new rules will basically say that after a medical if you are deemed able to do ''something'' then you should do it and not be allowed to claim the new incapasity benefit. Fair enough you might say but employers don't employ people with bad health records that's why they send potential employees for medicals. At their medicals they assess your fitness for work but the criteria for their medical and the one given by the government that would deem you fit for ''something'' would be totally different. The employers medical asseses you for sustainability and reliability, the governments medical wouldn't
It is also worth while pointing out when you are employed the employers conditions generally say that if you have any more than two to three weeks off on sick leave in a twelve month period you are deemed inefficient due to ill health and given a warning and then paid off if your ''time keeping'' does not improve within a pre determined time scale . The government should know this as this is most certainly the case in all government departments. (Even although the cost of the sick pay scheme is calculated in comparability studies as approximately 8% of pay. In comparability study you get 92% of the findings of the study)
So you are then deemed fit to ''something'' but if you can't do ''something'' for at least forty eight weeks of the year nobody wants you. There are many illnesses that do not affect the sufferers every day of the year but because they strike frequently and indiscriminately throughout the year it makes the sufferer unsuitable due to ill health in the eyes of the employer but not in the eyes of the government.
Please leave your comments on this and let me know your thoughts and or your firms regulations on this.
