 |
 |
There has been some coverage on the news of left MPs making the point that this is the worst possible moment to move to a work-based welfare system. As Frederic makes clear, this would require a suply side rather than demand side intervention from government and should be part of an urgent rethinking of the relationships btween work, community, production, resources and ecology. We can think aboutthis in terms of the three economic systems: a) the financial services bubble that has just crashed, b) the real production economy that is unsustainable and c) the earth's capacity to renew its resources and sustain human life - which is currently gong critical on us. I doubt if psychologists have much to say about any of this but it would help to make interventions that link the distress and exclusion that this new welfare policy makes to the unsustainability of the current economic system. Solutons have to be found outside the current frame of reference. > Hi everybody. > > I haven't seen the article in the paper but heard the radio news. In > relation to the White Paper, this will not have been released until the > official announcement is made to the Commons (which I believe was > taking place as I typed this message). The articles in "The Guardian" etc. > are because the Government is downgrading parliament as usual with > "official" leaks. > > The best that can be said for this White Paper is that it predates the > recent economic crisis. Many of us will think that the real reason for > it will be to reduce the budget of the Department of Work and Pensions. > > The only way to deal with unemployment is to create jobs. This can only be > done by people with resources, i.e. Government and business, including the > banks. People going into self-employment almost always need to be > financed. > > The Government has spent many billions bailing out the banks. It could and > should have spent such money before on creating jobs in environmentally > sustainable industry located where people live. Given that there are > currently desperate needs to spend, on a scale similar to the financial > expenditure on the Second World War. on the creation of facilities to > create energy by renewable, non-pollution emitting, means, and on > transport systems to use such energy, there is plenty of scope to create > genuinely worthwhile jobs. > > Unemployment is psychologically devastating; but so is forcing people to > take useless actions to look for work when they know full well there is > no work. And when the people charged directly to interface with the > jobless on behalf of the Government know full well they are being told to > bully people into doing pointless things. The Government is setting up a > situation with similarities to the famous warders and prisoners experiment > that Zimbardo ran at Stanford. > > If truth be known, hundreds of thousands of students are studying as a way > of reducing the workforce. Even psychology students, when less than ten > per cent of psychology graduates enter the profession, and a large > number don't even get relevant graduate level work. (Incidentally, we > ought to be protesting about this. The BPS is probably accrediting courses > in lesser universities, the ones people from disadvantaged backgrounds > tend to apply to, from which few if any people go on to actually become > psychologists.). Why is it acceptable for officialdom to bully disabled > people and single mothers into pointless activities, and threaten them > with even greater economic hardship, whilst letting middle class students > study as a means of reducing the numbers unemployed? > > The case of Professor Stephen Hawking shows that in theory occupational > psychologists can design work even for people who can literally only > bat one eyelid. But for severely disabled people the costs of support are > more than the amount of work that will result (except in the case of a > mathematical genius). In other words, the decision as to who should be > unable to work because of physical disability is primarily an economic > one, not a medical one. In the emerging economic climate where there will > be far fewer opportunities for productive employment than people able to > work, I think we should be much more frank, and accepting, that > marginal members of the labour force such as the disabled and single > mothers, who can do things other than work whilst retaining respect, > should be supported to live modestly but in dignity and without poverty, > given that there are insufficient jobs for all of working age. At the > moment, such people are having their > lives made a misery so that politicians can pamper the prejudices of > those who do not understand. > > The Occupational Psychology Branch of the Employment Service was severely > damaged by pushing too large a proportion of its grossly inadequate > number of psychologists onto the assessment of people who might be denied > benefit instead of onto schemes to give positive assistance to help > people work. Doctors as well as psychologists involved with such > assessment loathed it. The Government appears to be dealing with this > situation by pushing medical GPs to assess their patients. In my view, > it will be unprofessional if the medical profession considers such > Government needs that conflict with the interests of their patients. > The medical profession in my opinion have been pusillanimous in relation > to ethical issues such as the loss of confidentiality due to > computerising records. I think this is due to the Government abusing the > NATIONAL Health Service, whose insurance basis they treat with contempt, > whereas insurance based schemes overseas > retain a more proper client-professional relationship. I > think psychologists should clearly and publicly warn doctors about the > dangers of taking over dirty work we have been exposed to in the past, > and criticise them if they fail to stand up for the primacy of their > patients' rights. Similar issues apply to clinical psychologists. > > There are simple things that could be done to help those in sink social > housing. For instance:- > 1. Prevent addresses and school names from appearing on job > applications. > 2. Cut down the job creation scheme for civil servants that > is the Criminal Records Bureau, which almost certainly contravenes > international human rights legislation anyway. I am of course in favour > of careful checking out people for a reasonable number of sensitive jobs, > although the most effective way of preventing problems is good job > design. However, the current explosion of bureaucracy, and > over-inclusive checking, simply perpetuates and exacerbates social > exclusion with all the dangers that implies. In the real world, we need to > provide employment for people in deprived areas where large numbers of > people have criminal convictions, e.g. for drugs offences, or prejudicial > social or medical issues. > 3. Above all, more must be done to fit jobs to hard-to-place claimants > rather than force them to submit endless job applications for > vacancies offered without any thought as to who needs employment. > But these things don't happen because they tread on the toes of those who > enjoy (and I mean enjoy, in the sense of "get kicks out of") exercising > power by rejecting job applicants. > > I first met David Fryer, our Convenor, at a day conference on the > Psychology of Unemployment. This is a topic that requires action, not > research, as the psychological implications of unemployment > were conclusively established in the 1930s, and confirmed in the 1980s. I > don't think the psychological issues involved in dealing with the > emerging work and welfare situation can be dealt with by on-line > discussion alone. We need to have a special meeting (conference) to > consider current developments relating to unemployment and to ensure that > action on the ground arises on this issue. > > Frederic Stansfield > > > > > --- On Wed, 10/12/08, John McGowan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: John McGowan <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Welfare Reform White Paper > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Wednesday, 10 December, 2008, 11:32 AM > > Hi, > > I don't know if anyone picked up on this on the news this morning. > > Its summarised in this Guardian article. > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/10/jamespurnell-welfare > > > And in this DWP press release last week. > > http://www.dwp.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/2008/dec/drc120-021208.a > sp > > > I can't find the white paper itself on the DWP website. Am particularly > struck by the following phrase from the press release. "The review > recommends that from now on nearly everyone on benefits should be > required to take steps towards finding employment". > > I was wondering what this might mean in terms of IAPT and the > possibility (am I imagining this) that benefits could potentially be > contingent on accessing therapies. This would (to me at any rate) > certainly shift something fairly fundamental in the nature of therapies. > > I was hoping that David or someone who knows a bit more about these > developments might be able to say more about possible implications of > this? > > Many thanks > > John McGowan > > ___________________________________ > COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK. > To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK > For any problems or queries, contact the list moderators: Rebekah Pratt > ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask]) > > ___________________________________ > COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK. > To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK > For any problems or queries, contact the list moderators: Rebekah Pratt > ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask]) > ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For any problems or queries, contact the list moderators: Rebekah Pratt ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])