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

[Member]

A Tory Lord told activists last month that some workers were "not worth the full wage".

Lord Freud, a former banker, suggested there should be a way to pay disabled people less than the National Minimum Wage but top their pay up in benefits.

 

Would more people with disabilities get jobs if employers were allowed to pay them less?

 

From an employers point of view, disabled people can be a hassle. Modifications and adaptations have to be made in lots of instances costing money, in many instances disabled people arent as productive as able bodied people are and disabled people are more likely to take time off sick or for appointments. Saying they should be paid less than the NMW is a joke though but then so is the NMW.

[Magilla]

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

 

What a surprise!

 

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.

 

Assume she was in the min wage category, what do you think her chances of employment would be?

 

Wage should be paid according to the job.

 

Regardless of whether you do as much as someone else in the same position?

 

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.

 

A valid point, but regardless, it still doesn't devalue the idea under discussion since it is, in essence, the same idea.

 

Now an idea gets floated where the end result is the same for everyone but employers benefit in reduced cost labour.

 

There are no reduced labour costs, 0.5+0.5 still only equal 1. The job still needs doing in full.

 

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?

 

Presumably factories have costs other than just wages?

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2014 at 15:01 ----------

 

I think the politico PC brigade would rather try to make capital out of the situation than actually face up to that reality.

 

It does seem that it's not what was said, but who said it that seems to have upset people.

[postagestamp]

It's an interesting discussion.

If a disabled guy took over your local window cleaning round but only washed the downstairs windows because he couldn't climb ladders would you still pay the usual amount?

[Mister M]

Indeed we do. Has that helped the 50% of disabled people who don't have a job? You cannot claim someone is being discriminated against if they cannot actually do the job. But it seems it is better for the PC bigrade to shout about equal rights etc rather than actually face up to reality.

 

Have the 50% of disabled people you quoted who don't have a job, want a job?

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2014 at 15:30 ----------

 

It's an interesting discussion.

If a disabled guy took over your local window cleaning round but only washed the downstairs windows because he couldn't climb ladders would you still pay the usual amount?

 

Take a guess

[tomwatly]

But then an employer is prevented from giving a job to a disabled person who could do the job but produce less just because it wouldn't be economical.

But in such a case it could be possible for the wage to be made up to parity by a subsidy paid to people prepared to give such people jobs.

 

The problem is that to say such a thing is to be condemned by political points scorers.

 

After listening to the full unbiased story on the news I now think the idea is worthy of consideration. It looks like the political opposition have twisted the story for political gain and made the comments out to be much worse than they are.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2014 at 14:59 ----------

 

Would be interesting if those on here calling for him to be sack could tell us if they think employers should generally be able to sack people for considering a bad idea that they later reject?

 

What is the point of politicians going to meetings with members of the public, parties members, different groups etc if they are not going to listen to their ideas and feedback? Do we really want politicians who automatically reject anything that does not adhere to the party line? How do we ever improve things if we cannot discuss all options, tactics and strategies before taking a decision?

 

He phrased something badly that was said off the cuff. He has apologies for any offence caused. He has clarified his position after reflection. That should be an end to the matter. We shouldn't pander to the lynch mobs who follow their enemies around looking for an mistake to justify a hanging. It is nasty politics and it creates a culture of robotic conformance that stifles debate and innovation.

 

Well said, unfortunately it will be ignored by the lynch mob.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2014 at 15:09 ----------

 

It's an interesting discussion.

If a disabled guy took over your local window cleaning round but only washed the downstairs windows because he couldn't climb ladders would you still pay the usual amount?

 

That's a good point.

 

For the people opposed to the idea.

 

You need a tradesmen, so you ring round and make appointments for several to come out and give you a quote.

 

Several give you a figure close to £100 and say it will take them a day to do the work. One says because of his disability it will take two days but the work will be of equal quality to the work done by the other tradesmen. Would you offer him double the money because he will be working for two days instead of just one day, or would you expect the price to be about the same despite the fact that it will take longer to complete.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Tending for self-employed work is not the same as being an employee. Moot point.

[barleycorn]

Tending for self-employed work is not the same as being an employee. Moot point.

But the issue is the same. The question should really be:

Should an employer take on someone who cannot fully fulfil the role for which they are required in place of someone who can, on the same or a different rate of pay?

Bear in mind there is the implied assumption that if they do take on said person they will then need to take on an additional employee to take up the slack. Any disability said person may have is a red herring to the central issue.

 

jb

[ubermaus]

It would be illegal to pay under the NMW so it's all moot. From experience I know employers are put off both culturally and practically from employing those with disabilities. Personally I wouldn't have a problem employing a disabled person if they can do the job. Age discrimination is similar - in practice it happens although in law it shouldn't.

 

The comments were insensitive and offensive though, just another pea-brain tory MP thinking aloud. The real issue for me is this is the welfare minister speaking so he should go really.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2014 at 16:29 ----------

 

But the issue is the same. The question should really be:

Should an employer take on someone who cannot fully fulfil the role for which they are required in place of someone who can, on the same or a different rate of pay?

Bear in mind there is the implied assumption that if they do take on said person they will then need to take on an additional employee to take up the slack. Any disability said person may have is a red herring to the central issue.

 

jb

 

Pay is hugely dictated by market rates - not employers. The NMW on the other hand is a minimum living wage (we all know it's not, but for the sake of argument) enshrined in law.

 

Also, why would a second person needed to be taken on to 'pick up the slack'. TBH worked with plenty and employed plenty of able bodied people who don't pull their weight or / and or incompetent, never had to employ a second person to 'pick up the slack'.

 

Same rules apply to those who are disabled. If employers are forced to take on people just on some PR / positive discrimination stunt that's another matter.

Edited October 16, 2014 by ubermaus
edit

[barleycorn]

It would be illegal to pay under the NMW so it's all moot. From experience I know employers are put off both culturally and practically from employing those with disabilities. Personally I wouldn't have a problem employing a disabled person if they can do the job. Age discrimination is similar - in practice it happens although in law it shouldn't.

 

The comments were insensitive and offensive though, just another pea-brain tory MP thinking aloud. The real issue for me is this is the welfare minister speaking so he should go really.

There could be ways to work around that, see below for tzijlstra's post. Fact of the matter is employers aren't going to employ someone who can't do the job unless the slack can be taken up without hitting them in the pocket. If ways can be found to get these people into the workplace then they should be explored.

I've had a think about this and can now relate better to the point he made. An example is an assistant I had in a library in the Netherlands, she had been long term unemployed due to a physical disability and nobody wanted to hire her as she had struggled badly with confidence as well as having mobility issues.

 

She got placed in the library with a government funded project to help people like her gain employment, the library paid a nominal fee (I believe it was around 3000 euro a year) with the government topping up her income to 11000 euro a year. After three years in the scheme she managed to secure a full-time job as teaching assistant: her confidence had grown enormously and she realised that her mobility was not an issue for working all day.

 

The scheme worked really well for her - if this is what Freud was talking about (in a one-liner) than I agree with him that this might well be a good initiative. The context of how this story broke is relevant as well.

 

jb

[Chris_Sleeps]

Any disability said person may have is a red herring to the central issue.

Tell that to Lord Freud. He is the one that wants to pay them less.