Many posters here premise their thoughts on a perception somewhere between a "culture of denial" and an outright conspiracy from the top down pressuring adjudicators to deny, neither of which is consistent with my experience. However, I'd be interested in hearing thoughts from that perspective on the increase in beneficiaries despite the decrease in staff and budget needed to adjudicate. I assume the RSI increase is primarily due to the retirement of baby boomers. Does this mean the DIB roles should actually have increased even more than they did, but for institutional prejudice?
1 comment:
Many posters here premise their thoughts on a perception somewhere between a "culture of denial" and an outright conspiracy from the top down pressuring adjudicators to deny, neither of which is consistent with my experience. However, I'd be interested in hearing thoughts from that perspective on the increase in beneficiaries despite the decrease in staff and budget needed to adjudicate. I assume the RSI increase is primarily due to the retirement of baby boomers. Does this mean the DIB roles should actually have increased even more than they did, but for institutional prejudice?
Post a Comment