How many DDA's

[wookie]

5 dda's at the moment. We did have well over 10 at one point, Office total just over 100. We had one person who had a bad back, over the 7 months he/she was off for 3, then the last 4 he/she was worked up from 3 hrs a day up to the full 8 hrs. He/she now runs his/her arse off (like before the injury) and without the trolley. He/she finishes around 12 every day and gets someone else to bring their stuff back. The line manager knows but as long as there is no cut off he does not care. I just find the situation demoralising. And yes, this person does take the piss out of other posties.

[rhino49]

Yeah let's have a disability bashing thread.
It's been a while.

I'm not bashing the disabled but some people are taking advantage of the system....Have they really got that much of a disability?? They'd be claiming benefits surely??

With that mentality some people can't win. They called benefit scroungers by Ian Duncan Smith, ATOS say they are fit for work, and some die shortly after their assessment, and then people like your good self who appear to think disabled people should be hidden away.

You do of course realise that some of the conditions that come under the equality act are not immediately apparent, and that they may not stop people from working, its just that they need a few adjustments.

Its illegal for anyone to divulge personal medical details of anyone. So whilst you may think there is nothing wrong with them, they have been thorough a process of being assessed and graded by people with more medical knowledge than both you and I, who have come to a decision. We should live with it.

Yes people take advantage, but that doesn't mean that all do, or even that most do. If any do its a small minority and they should looking at their own conscience as well as some on here.

Also I think your understanding of the Equality Act is seriously flawed and perhaps a little research before commenting would correct some of your assumptions and give you a better appreciation of why some people are on it.

Excellent summary TBT, too many people do not know or fully understand the DDA situation. Unfortunately neither do many managers ! Reasonable adjustment in many cases can be done - if enough effort/interest and compassion is shown towards genuine claimants.

People with genuine needs, disabilities or medical conditions should be accommodated as a matter of course in any business where they are willing to work to the best of their ability although within their limitations. What is unacceptable is making the so called "able" workforce do more to cover those problems. We are all paid the same rate for the job and if a duty cannot be fulfilled adequately by someone covered by DDA, then the unit should have it's staffing structure altered to support that need. Unfortunately this is often not the case and as a result people unable to accomplish a standard duty are perceived as causing problems for their colleagues and so do not get the consideration their condition may be entitled to.

[Thehair]

Excellent TBT. My understanding of DDA is if reasonable adjustment CAN be made, then it is. If this impacts on the repick of the office duties then so be it. If it cannot be made then IHR is the normal couorse of action. If I was in the position of being covered under the DDA act, then thats exactly the stance I'd like the business to take.

[dvbuk55]

I think one of the points he was making was that all these DDA cases suddenly appeared after a revision, now either the revision was crap, they are trying to protect the delivery they are already on or they have a genuine case which they didn't see fit to report previously.

[Thehair]

I think one of the points he was making was that all these DDA cases suddenly appeared after a revision, now either the revision was crap, they are trying to protect the delivery they are already on or they have a genuine case which they didn't see fit to report previously.

Point taken, however there is a due process to be covererd by DDA, I don't think its dished out willy nilly, certainly not in our office. The people I'm aware of all have genuine disabilities/illnesses, hence their adjusted duties.

[bennny7]

thought all walks were meant to be the same after revision so why is there dda walks

[bigcol]

thought all walks were meant to be the same after revision so why is there dda walks

They've knocked down several blocks of flats in one of our areas so there are no steps like the area next to it.

[tommyrep]

Yeah let's have a disability bashing thread.
It's been a while.

I'm not bashing the disabled but some people are taking advantage of the system....Have they really got that much of a disability?? They'd be claiming benefits surely??

With that mentality some people can't win. They called benefit scroungers by Ian Duncan Smith, ATOS say they are fit for work, and some die shortly after their assessment, and then people like your good self who appear to think disabled people should be hidden away.

You do of course realise that some of the conditions that come under the equality act are not immediately apparent, and that they may not stop people from working, its just that they need a few adjustments.

Its illegal for anyone to divulge personal medical details of anyone. So whilst you may think there is nothing wrong with them, they have been thorough a process of being assessed and graded by people with more medical knowledge than both you and I, who have come to a decision. We should live with it.

Yes people take advantage, but that doesn't mean that all do, or even that most do. If any do its a small minority and they should looking at their own conscience as well as some on here.

Also I think your understanding of the Equality Act is seriously flawed and perhaps a little research before commenting would correct some of your assumptions and give you a better appreciation of why some people are on it.

Excellent summary TBT, too many people do not know or fully understand the DDA situation. Unfortunately neither do many managers ! Reasonable adjustment in many cases can be done - if enough effort/interest and compassion is shown towards genuine claimants.

People with genuine needs, disabilities or medical conditions should be accommodated as a matter of course in any business where they are willing to work to the best of their ability although within their limitations. What is unacceptable is making the so called "able" workforce do more to cover those problems. We are all paid the same rate for the job and if a duty cannot be fulfilled adequately by someone covered by DDA, then the unit should have it's staffing structure altered to support that need. Unfortunately this is often not the case and as a result people unable to accomplish a standard duty are perceived as causing problems for their colleagues and so do not get the consideration their condition may be entitled to.

Rhino,
I take your point that management will take the view that for them to accommodate anyone on dda, they will only consider it if that extra work can be conveniently put onto the other staff. That is when the buck is then passed back onto the other staff with the resultant ill feeling put onto those genuine dda categorised staff and make them feel incompetent. My point is, any reduction on work load for a dda claimant should not be seen as having to be " absorbed " by others. It should be a case of extra resource made available. Not all staff with the variance in age/ etc, can perform to a "standard workload" regardless whether they are dda or not. Proper testing of outdoor workload is well overdue, geo-route is far from a fair tool to be used while doing revisions ! management/planners hide behind " the comuter says...................."

[welshy808]

Those that constantly run down other members who fall under the Equality Act only do so when they have no issues, as soon as an issue arises they seem to be the first on the bandwagon.
I've heard members say "If you can't do the job you shouldn't be in the job." But as soon as Their knees start to play up it's straight to the rep with"Can't I do this duty, cos of my knees".
Remember, every case is on merit and every case is different, therefore "reasonable adjustment" must be applied. someone with severe extima, may require slightly different uniform, someone with epilepsy might be required not to do driving duties, someone with a heat condition might be required to do locker work. every condition that falls under "DDA" does not automatically mean a light duty. These figures of 10 in an office of 50 etc. are either being used by management to turn member against member or completely made up, as each individual is entitled to privacy and the numbers/percentages should not be known.

as Adam Yauch once wrote "You Gotta Fight for Your Right"

I have only known a couple of new starters who came in with conditions that fell under the EA, and none of those conditions required a light duty. Most members that I have met that need a flat duty, indoor duty or a driving duty, have put time into RM and deserve RM to treat them with the dignity and respect that is due, Managers in my opinion seldom complain its the grass is greener staff that raise issues.

[mailman71]

I know a guy who has worked for Royal Mail for over 40 years,he has 3 illness,he is covered under the dda he has to work inside for a while then goes out on a 3 hour plus delivery while others are on indoor duties while covered by the dda.
What we have to remember is we are all getting older and don't know what's in front of us health wise.

[fishtank]

I would imagine it's pretty stressful having a disability in Royal Mail knowing that the business would like to get rid of you,knowing that some of your colleagues are undermining you to management and knowing that if you do end up out of work you face the prospect of the DWP,Atos and the farcical disability denial tool...the Work Capability Assessment.

[chillifingers]

After reading all of the posts it certainly seems to cause a big divide between the staff but maybe that is what's wanted. I was just interested to see how many were in each office with the number of staff there.

These figures of 10 in an office of 50 etc. are either being used by management to turn member against member or completely made up, as each individual is entitled to privacy and the numbers/percentages should not be known.

I agree with the privacy part as nobody knows the complete facts of anybody's condition but the fact that 18 people have there names against jobs that have been ring fenced for them suggests that is the DDA list.

[dvbuk55]

After reading all of the posts it certainly seems to cause a big divide between the staff but maybe that is what's wanted. I was just interested to see how many were in each office with the number of staff there.

These figures of 10 in an office of 50 etc. are either being used by management to turn member against member or completely made up, as each individual is entitled to privacy and the numbers/percentages should not be known.

I agree with the privacy part as nobody knows the complete facts of anybody's condition but the fact that 18 people have there names against jobs that have been ring fenced for them suggests that is the DDA list.

Or family friendly, which seems more likely!

[Pinky 1]

After reading all of the posts it certainly seems to cause a big divide between the staff but maybe that is what's wanted. I was just interested to see how many were in each office with the number of staff there.

These figures of 10 in an office of 50 etc. are either being used by management to turn member against member or completely made up, as each individual is entitled to privacy and the numbers/percentages should not be known.

I agree with the privacy part as nobody knows the complete facts of anybody's condition but the fact that 18 people have there names against jobs that have been ring fenced for them suggests that is the DDA list.

Or family friendly, which seems more likely!

Or even Specialist Skills .........

[dvbuk55]

After reading all of the posts it certainly seems to cause a big divide between the staff but maybe that is what's wanted. I was just interested to see how many were in each office with the number of staff there.

These figures of 10 in an office of 50 etc. are either being used by management to turn member against member or completely made up, as each individual is entitled to privacy and the numbers/percentages should not be known.

I agree with the privacy part as nobody knows the complete facts of anybody's condition but the fact that 18 people have there names against jobs that have been ring fenced for them suggests that is the DDA list.

Or family friendly, which seems more likely!

Or even Specialist Skills .........

Or their job hasn't changed and doesn't need to go in the pot - bit previous really to suggest they're all DDA