Is it OK to pay disabled workers less than the minimum wage?

[Magilla]

Pay them for roles that are more suitable for...

 

Clearly there's an abundance of these roles where you can do less work but get the same pay around then, I wasn't aware of that

 

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...

 

Topped up from what? They don't have a job because most employers won't hire someone who can't do as much as someone else for the same money.

 

Hence, what is the real point?

 

The point is they stand a better chance of getting a job, and all the benefits that having a job entails, not all of which are financial.

[Stan Tamudo]

No it is not okay to treat disabled people in a less favourable manner.

 

God knows why Blair employed a wealthy city banker to look at wefare reform. What experience has he got? Does he even know what he is talking about? Apparently not....

 

How dare you Mister M. He's a rich Lord and therefore we should all doff our caps and not ask any questions!

[Stranza]

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?

 

---------- Post added 15-10-2014 at 16:33 ----------

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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?

 

Not my analogy it's her own.

 

She can't do court representation and other bits because her condition is unreliable so she sticks to what she can do.

In her own words she quite likes being the bond villian behind the screen scuppering slum landlords.

 

Put simply we had a system where people who needed support could continue working.

 

With Remploy and Enable type places.

 

They were costing money so were pared down.

 

Lo and behold now we should consider paying the less able less money....

The less able who were previously catered for by Remploy etc.

And top them up with benefits?

 

It stinks of horse poo.

[Magilla]

Not my analogy it's her own.

 

She can't do court representation and other bits because her condition is unreliable so she sticks to what she can do.

In her own words she quite likes being the bond villian behind the screen scuppering slum landlords.

 

OK, all things being equal, if in the future she could only do half the work she's doing now, do you think she should still get the same pay? Do you think she would expect to?

 

 

Put simply we had a system where people who needed support could continue working.

 

With Remploy and Enable type places.

 

They were costing money so were pared down.

 

Lo and behold now we should consider paying the less able less money....

The less able who were previously catered for by Remploy etc.

And top them up with benefits?

 

It stinks of horse poo.

 

Freud is suggesting a system that would enable employers themselves to do *exactly* what Rempoly did!!!

 

Why does that "stink of horse poo"?

Edited October 15, 2014 by Magilla

[BoyFromSmoke]

OK, all things being equal, if in the future she could only do half the work she's doing now, do you think she should still get the same pay? Do you think she would expect to?

 

 

 

 

Freud is suggesting a system that would enable employers themselves to do *exactly* what Rempoly did!!!

 

Why does that "stink of horse poo"?

 

It doesn't and I am disabled, there are just too many do gooders out there that do not know all the facts. Try and keep it concise and to the point without scoring any eh ?

[muckymurphy]

i know of someone who made promises he could not keep and overstated his skills during his interview. despite this, he was taken on through the selection process and became leader of his team and that of another department. however during one of his progress reports he claimed credit for the achievements of the other department. in his next report he shamefully backstabbed all the members of the other department and it's leader. surprisingly he is retaining his position until May 2015. his name?? Nick Clegg.

[Stranza]

OK, all things being equal, if in the future she could only do half the work she's doing now, do you think she should still get the same pay? Do you think she would expect to?

 

 

 

 

Freud is suggesting a system that would enable employers themselves to do *exactly* what Rempoly did!!!

 

Why does that "stink of horse poo"?

 

If she could only do half the work (for whatever reason) I would expect her to get paid for half the work.

Obviously she gets more than minimum wage but I wouldn't expect her to drop below minimum wage just to make employing her more attractive to employers.

 

Wage should be paid according to the job.

 

Not adjusted because of some disability, apprentices or youngsters there is an argument for because they are learning/ training but to pay someone below minimum wage because it makes it more attractive to employers is wrong.

 

I think the whole thing stinks because as you said (as did I in my first post on page 1) we had Remploy which we couldn't afford. Now an idea gets floated where the end result is the same for everyone but employers benefit in reduced cost labour.

 

If we can afford to subsidise these below min wage workers why couldn't we afford to keep their safe, purpose built Remploy factories open?

[Stan Tamudo]

The comments have been taken out of context, unsurprisingly.

 

The Adam Smith Institute have come out in support of Freud:-

 

"Lord Freud has been shamefully mistreated by Ed Miliband. His point was that the market value of some people’s wages is below the minimum wage. This is often true of the severely disabled and can have appalling consequences for their self-esteem and quality of life. Fixing this problem was the justification for Remploy, a government-funded firm that gave jobs to disabled people who could not find work elsewhere.

 

To point out that someone’s market value is less than minimum wage has nothing to do with their moral value as human beings. Freud’s point was that we should help people in this situation by allowing them to find jobs paying below the minimum wage and topping up their pay directly to make up the difference.

 

Even if you don’t agree with this method, it is motivated by compassion for the disabled and an understanding of the unpleasant side-effects of our minimum wage laws. Freud’s only crime was to speak bluntly: it is disgraceful to use his words against him in the way Miliband has."

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/ed-milibands-attack-on-lord-freud-is-shameful/

 

That was a surprise!

[Mister M]

A good account of Lord Freud's contribution to British politics here:

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/disabled-people-not-worth-minimum-wage-says-lord-fraud-time-for-this-nasty-****ing-clown-to-go/

[Zamo]

Some people are unemployable but that is another matter and not limited to the 'disabled' (depending on how loosely you want to define it).

 

Got to say that the General Election campaign is already descending into gutter politics. If you don't hate politicians already then you by May 2015.

 

Don't we all listen to other people putting forward ideas and sometimes think "there might be something in that" to then go away, think it through, listen to counter arguments and then decide "actually that is complete crap"? Are politicians any different? I hate all this digging for dirt and demanding people are sacked. Imagine if 'normal' people were sacked for daring to give a moments consideration to a bad idea... nobody would be in employment! We need to get a grip and climb out of the gutter. Let's judge the politicians on the policies they have thought through and adopted... and the political tactics they deploy.