AquaineBay wrote:
munstead wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Joe90 wrote:
I'm not saying people on the mild end of the spectrum don't need support or shouldn't deserve support, but they are the least affected on the spectrum. The reason we don't often get much support is because of lack of funding and government finances, which is why a lot of us mildly affected Aspies have to exaggerate our symptoms to get any support these days. But really, we shouldn't have to exaggerate our symptoms. So anyone here who is mild but gets support by exaggerating their symptoms on the application form aren't cheating the system, it's just that the government only believes that if one can walk, talk, drive, dress themselves, etc, then they are capable of working and don't need any support.
On the other hand, I receive no support, because I feel I don't really need it. The only time I'm going to need some support is if I was out of work or not earning enough money to keep my head above water. All I'll need is an advisor or someone to help me keep on track of looking for work, maybe find jobs for me, although I am capable of doing it myself I still find it daunting and struggle to keep myself on track due to ADHD. But according to the government, stress, anxiety, depression and ADHD are "no excuse" and so they aren't going to be sensitive when it comes to emotional states. According to the government only people with no legs or something like that have an excuse. I'm not saying having physical disabilities like no legs is easy or less of a disability than anything else, but having emotional/developmental problems can actually affect a person's functioning in employment in more complex ways and it should be addressed more.
What support do us level one folks need?
I never needed to exaggerate mine to get any help. I still get my SSDI and I still work for a company that employs people with disabilities.
Are things different in the UK where people with level one ASD are denied disability payment or employment services for those with disabilities?
On the support question, for people on the milder end of the spectrum having a time-limited financial safety net for when we (inevitably?) get sacked or have to resign from a job because it is so difficult is key, with as few questions/hurdles as possible, would help a lot I think. Many even milder autistics struggle with the application forms in the UK and so loads are missing out on financial support when they need it and it would make a real difference to their lives.
Personally, the support that would help the most isn't from government, or at least not directly from government, but from workplaces. More understanding of autism, patience with autism, and workplace accommodations without fear of stigma or reprisals or a subtle sacking would make a huge difference. There are some laws in place in the UK in this area but in practice they make bugger all difference it seems. Need more protection and more incentives to hire and retain autistic staff. Even small changes would help, like quiet areas, low-lit areas, right to WFH. World definitely getting better on these things since pandemic started but still long way to go. Tax breaks for companies that employ X% disabled people, and for companies with more than say 250 employees across all or some rep sample of recognised disability conditions? Some kind of punitive step for high turnover of disabled staff too, to prevent mistreatment and a conveyor belt approach. That would make workplace accommodations more affordable and provide an incentive for hiring. Just some ideas off top of head.
And this is what I mean by unrealistic standards. Say a government were to give tax cuts to companies that hire disabled people, where would the taxes go? Taxes help more than just disabled people, they provide medical services, police force, firefighters, businesses to run in the first place(because of Banks and loans), etc. If you gave buisnesses tax cuts for hiring disabled people what would prevent them from just firing all the other people and taking advantage of these tax cuts? Now a time-limited safety net I will give because we have it in the US and it works but I think it's only 5 years and then you are cut off(if you're making enough money to support yourself.) Then after that you are pretty much treated like any other person if you get fired or lose your job.
Now the one that grates me the most with these "better for disabled people" is accommodations when we get to "quiet-areas" "low-lit areas" and "right to WFH". That is an individual issue that the person who has it has to deal with not the people who hired you. It is up to YOU to do the research and find jobs that fill those conditions for you not the corporations and businesses hiring you. If these places allow for these accommodations then great, you are a lucky person! But, to expect a world to cater to things that aren't "rights" is asking too much. Some places require said things for a reason and wouldn't put them in place if they served no purpose. Some things you just have to file under the category of "Life Sucks" and move on. People that are disabled have to tackle life differently and come up with a compromise just like everyone else. And just like everyone else people ARE going to draw the line somewhere whether you like it or not. Also most places do not have the time or money to invest in understanding disabilities and all that comes with it. Psychologists do that and that's their area of expertise, a buisness would be foolish trying to sink money into something with an undefined amount of time it would take for said thing to succeed.
Hi. Are you OK? You seem a bit angry? Hope all is well with you.
A couple of responses on specific points you make, below.
1. "Say a government were to give tax cuts to companies that hire disabled people, where would the taxes go? Taxes help more than just disabled people, they provide medical services, police force, firefighters, businesses to run in the first place(because of Banks and loans), etc."
So as someone else said, it is a dynamic. You're thinking here in a static framework: less tax (because of tax break) means less gov revenue so that's a bad thing. The dynamic aspect is that the tax break leads to greater employment due to more disabled people being hired, fewer frictions because of no conveyor-belt hiring firing of disabled people which are costly to employers, and as a result there is less need for welfare spending by the government to look after disabled people. So there should be a net gain; a Pareto improvement.
2. "If you gave buisnesses tax cuts for hiring disabled people what would prevent them from just firing all the other people and taking advantage of these tax cuts?"
You've misunderstood the policy proposal. Once the requirement is met, the (say profit) tax break comes into force. So firing non-disabled staff makes no sense and would just reduce your profits and probably end up in a massive loss.
3. "Now the one that grates me the most with these "better for disabled people" is accommodations when we get to "quiet-areas" "low-lit areas" and "right to WFH". That is an individual issue that the person who has it has to deal with not the people who hired you. It is up to YOU to do the research and find jobs that fill those conditions for you not the corporations and businesses hiring you."
Again, you are thinking in a static framework. Minor tweaks to business practices would create more disabled employment, reducing government welfare spending. The tweaks would also increase the productivity of existing disabled workers, clearly offsetting the costs of the minor tweaks being suggested. Good for individuals, good for firms, and because higher productivity means higher profits, more tax revenues for the government.
4. "Also most places do not have the time or money to invest in understanding disabilities and all that comes with it."
See point 3. And it doesn't need to be all places, just enough to achieve the dynamic discussed above. Also, guess what? I had a conversation with work last week and we now have a small quiet area on one floor. I have had my most productive few days in the office for a long time. The area is also being used by NTs that need to do a load of drafting in quiet, so it's benefiting many types. You don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here, just small changes which can make a huge difference. These small things won't solve every issue disabled people face, but by themselves result in net benefits.
02 Mar 2022, 8:36 am
