The UK government, under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, last week proposed reforms to the welfare system aimed at reducing long-term sickness benefits. These reforms encourage those deemed capable to return to work, particularly through flexible or remote working arrangements, and involve social prescribing activities like gardening or jogging clubs.
Here Jamie McAnsh, Head of Inclusion at business growth consultancy Champions (UK) plc, an expert who advises businesses in this area, explains the potential pros and cons of these reforms from an Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) perspective.
Pros
Increased Workplace Flexibility
Benefit: The emphasis on flexible and home-based work may actually create more opportunities for individuals with disabilities, chronic illnesses and social anxiety conditions who can work in adapted environments. But this also means organisations have to be able to understand how to work with these people to support them in the right way.
From an EDI Perspective this could, if managed correctly, lead to greater inclusion in the workforce, allowing people who traditionally face barriers to participation to contribute economically and socially.
Social Prescribing
Benefit: It is scientifically proven that activities aimed at improving well-being can aid the process of improving mental health. They have even been known to create a foundation for a structured way that can help people better integrate into the community and acquire a stronger work life balance.
EDI Perspective: By addressing holistic health needs, it appears that the government acknowledges the varied support required by individuals, potentially by reducing workplace stress and improving overall job satisfaction. This will also improve morale and productivity of the teams.
Coordinated Support Systems
Benefit: Collaboration is always the best form of approach in building a relationship among healthcare providers, employers, and job centres. It can help support individuals as they work towards a return to work. And it could very well lead to a much more tailored and supportive approach thus creating better work environments. But it is crucial the individual is respected within that approach.
EDI Perspective: This approach also fosters a more inclusive environment where individual needs are recognised and accommodated, aligning with EDI principles.
Cons
Potential Pressure on Vulnerable Individuals:
Drawback: If this drive leads to organisations and medical institutes forcing individuals to work it could create more issues that what it resolves, especially for those with severe disabilities or mental health issues. This needs to be considered as it might lead to adverse outcomes if not properly managed
EDI Perspective: This could be seen as neglecting the very real limitations and challenges faced by these individuals, potentially exacerbating inequalities and overlooking the need for genuine support.
One-Size-Fits-All Approach Risks:
Drawback: Although the policy aims to be inclusive we all know that at the end this will be managed by people, there is a risk that it might not fully consider the specific needs of all disability types or individual needs of the person involved. There is a very high risk that this incentive could end up becoming a tick box exercise and as a result lead to inappropriate job placements or insufficient accommodations.
EDI Perspective: This could result in a disconnect between the policy intentions and actual outcomes. It could also lead to a situation where not all individuals feel supported or are able to benefit from the proposed changes.
Economic and Social Pressure:
Drawback: I am never a fan of creating any approach, which combines incentives with potential penalties. This policy may actually end up placing a lot of pressure on individuals who are already struggling. This has been seen in the past where those who need real support are put into the same box as everyone else and led to a catastrophic demise in the needs of this individual. The outcome is an image where we potentially see increased poverty and social exclusion for those unable to meet the new criteria.
EDI Perspective: This approach may contravene principles of fairness and equality, particularly impacting those who are economically and socially vulnerable.
My final conclusion:
The proposed welfare reforms by PM Rishi Sunak aim to integrate more people with long-term health issues back into the workforce, leveraging modern work practices and community support. However, while these reforms have the potential to foster greater inclusion and diversity, they must be carefully implemented to ensure they do not inadvertently marginalise or pressure those they aim to help.
“It is crucial that these policies are continuously evaluated and adapted to meet the diverse needs of everyone so that we truly align with EDI principles. I think the greatest risk we may face is a place where unfair employers put on high levels of pressure to get staff back in to work and where disabled people who are already struggling with many unseen challenges end up being even further let down by the system. Unfortunately there is a stronger risk of this policy being used as a tool of force rather than a product of support.”
