Chelle-82 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Who knows what goes on in the minds of people Chelle. It seems the only point being made is to remind disabled people that they are somehow worth less. It's not on! Why not just pay people for the work they do, regardless of disabilities! If the person isn't fit for the job in the first place then you don't hire them. everyone should be paid a minimum! Can you imagine the mess in the benefits office trying to keep up with who's earning what, what hours they've done, how many times have they been to the toilet so they can dock them accordingly!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Apparently Lord Freud has previous when it comes to making stupid comments - a few years ago he rejected the the suggestion that the increase in demand for food banks was caused by austerity policies, but were in fact caused by food banks http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/07/minister-tries-to-blame-charities-for-increase-in-food-banks-lord-freud/ Perhaps Lord Freud should be on the assembly line at Remploy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stranza Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 It's not on! Why not just pay people for the work they do, regardless of disabilities! If the person isn't fit for the job in the first place then you don't hire them. everyone should be paid a minimum! Can you imagine the mess in the benefits office trying to keep up with who's earning what, what hours they've done, how many times have they been to the toilet so they can dock them accordingly!! And the convenient scape goat of the benefits bill because they have to subsidise employers who generously give disabled people jobs. How benevolent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) It's not on! What isn't, that disabled people should be helped to get jobs if thats what they want? I would have thought that would be a good thing. Why are you against it? Why not just pay people for the work they do, regardless of disabilities! What if your disablility means you can only get through half the work of an able bodied person in the same time? If the person isn't fit for the job in the first place then you don't hire them. Which is the point being made, they don't get hired, and this needs to change. everyone should be paid a minimum! Yet earlier in the same post you say "pay people for the work they do". Can you imagine the mess in the benefits office trying to keep up with who's earning what, what hours they've done, how many times have they been to the toilet so they can dock them accordingly!! So what you're actually saying isn't pay people for the work they do, it's pay people for the time they're there regardless of the work they do. This would seem to be a good reason for employers not to hire disabled workers, and why the issue has been raised. ---------- Post added 15-10-2014 at 16:10 ---------- And the convenient scape goat of the benefits bill because they have to subsidise employers who generously give disabled people jobs. So what's your suggestion for getting disabled people into the workforce? Edited October 15, 2014 by Magilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stranza Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 What isn't, that disabled people should be helped to get jobs if thats what they want? I would have thought that would be a good thing. Why are you against it? What if your disablility means you can only get through half the work of an able bodied person in the same time? Which is the point being made, they don't get hired, and this needs to change. Yet earlier in the same post you say "pay people for the work they do". So what you're actually saying isn't pay people for the work they do, it's pay people for the time they're there regardless of the work they do. This would seem to be a good reason for employers not to hire disabled workers, and why the issue has been raised. ---------- Post added 15-10-2014 at 16:10 ---------- So what's your suggestion for getting disabled people into the workforce? It's on page 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 It's on page 1. "How about paying them a fair wage for a job they can do instead of looking for excuses to pay people less." What is a fair wage for someone who can only do half the work of an able bodied person in the same role? On the face of it, what you're saying seems to tally with Freud, since he's saying if someone is only able to do half the work (through a disability), they should get half the pay and have it topped up by the state as a means to help the disabled into employment. Odd that you're indignant about your own point of view. No-one has suggested the disabled should be penalised, quite the opposite infact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) What isn't, that disabled people should be helped to get jobs if thats what they want? I would have thought that would be a good thing. Why are you against it? What if your disablility means you can only get through half the work of an able bodied person in the same time? Which is the point being made, they don't get hired, and this needs to change. Yet earlier in the same post you say "pay people for the work they do". So what you're actually saying isn't pay people for the work they do, it's pay people for the time they're there regardless of the work they do. This would seem to be a good reason for employers not to hire disabled workers, and why the issue that has been raised. My apologies but I think you are mistaking my point? if not then I can't explain it in any other way. Pay EVERYONE regardless of disabilities for the work they do, there should be a minimum wage for EVERYONE! Why should people with disabilities be treated any different when it comes to earning money for the job they do? If they are unable to do a certain job then they shouldn't be employed for it in the first place, just like any able bodied/minded person who is incapable of doing a certain job. Edited October 15, 2014 by Chelle-82 spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stranza Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 What is a fair wage for someone who can only do half the work of an able bodied person in the same role? On the face of it, what you're saying seems to tally with Freud, since he's saying if someone is only able to do half the work (through a disability), they should get half the pay and have it topped up by the state. Odd that you're indignant about your own point of view. No-one has suggested the disabled should be penalised, quite the opposite infact. No I'm saying that we should give people the help they need to do an achievable job. Not try to fit them into existing job roles and pay less. An aquaintance of mine is quadraplegic. She would make a rubbish life guard. Should we pay her a pittance to blow the whistle and then pay an able bodied person to do the swimming bit or should we find out what she can do and pay her properly so she can live without relying on benefits? As it is she works as a legal expert in Scottish property law and is bloody brilliant at it. And paid the going rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) My apologies but I think you are mistaking my point? if not then I can't explain it in any other way. Pay EVERYONE regardless of disabilities for the work they do, there should be a minimum wage for EVERYONE! No, I understood it perfectly, the point being made by Freud is that under those "rules", the disabled don't get a chance and don't get the job, for obvious reasons. Why should people with disabilities be treated any different when it comes to earning money for the job they do? Because disabled people have a disability, which means they are different to able bodied people. If they are unable to do a certain job then they shouldn't be employed for it in the first place, just like any able bodied/minded person who is capable of doing a certain job. What if they can do the job perfectly well, but due to their disability they can only do half the work in the same time as an able bodied person? What do you think the chances of them getting the job on the same terms are? ---------- Post added 15-10-2014 at 16:33 ---------- No I'm saying that we should give people the help they need to do an achievable job. If the job is achievable for a disabled person then there isn't an issue, they should be paid the same. The point being made is these are few and far between for the disabled, and thus the disabled person doesn't get the job. Not try to fit them into existing job roles and pay less. An aquaintance of mine is quadraplegic. She would make a rubbish life guard. Should we pay her a pittance to blow the whistle and then pay an able bodied person to do the swimming bit or should we find out what she can do and pay her properly so she can live without relying on benefits? A rather exreme analogy don't you think, do you think many swimming pools would hire her for that role even if she were paid less? As it is she works as a legal expert in Scottish property law and is bloody brilliant at it. And paid the going rate. Out of interest, if she could only do a fraction of the work of an able bodied person doing the same job, do you still think she'd be paid the same? Would you expect her to be? Edited October 15, 2014 by Magilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) No, I understood it perfectly, the point being made by Freud is that under those "rules", the disabled don't get a chance and don't get the job, for obvious reasons. Because disabled people have a disability, which means they are different to able bodied people. What if they can do the job perfectly well, but due to their disability they can only do half the work in the same time as an able bodied person? What do you think the chances of them getting the job on the same terms are? Pay them the same! Pay them for roles that are more suitable for... I'd rather take my able body and able mind over a disability any day! And the point I was making in my original post was they'd end up earning the same anyway because their benefits would be topped up so it'd be the equivalent... Hence, what is the real point? By the way, just to point out that my brother has cerebral palsy and he works 38hrs a week! the job he does is quite demanding and even though he tries to he probably never could keep up with the more able bodied people he works alongside, but to his absolute credit he gives it 100% and deserves to earn the same as the others due to his determination.. Edited October 15, 2014 by Chelle-82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now