The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW

by Irn Bru Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:12 am

A Conservative minister has suggested that disabled people are ‘not worth’ the minimum wage.

Ed Miliband called on Lord Freud to resign from his post as work and pensions minister after his disparaging remarks, made while answering questions at a meeting of the Resolution Foundation, a living standards think-tank, during the Conservative Party conference.

The comments, which were recorded, came after a question by a Conservative councillor relating to the disabled and the National Minimum Wage.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/15/tory-work-and-pensions-minister-disabled-people-not-worth-minimum-wage-4906892/

This is just typical of the Tories. It all seeps out bit by bit of what they really are all about.

Get them out.

by Frazzled Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:17 am

An outrageous thing to say The Tory party never has, and never will have my vote.

by Fluffyx Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:39 am

And despite the grovelling apology that resulted I believe this is the real mentality of the Tory party.

They despise people they perceive to be 'weaker'. They are just nasty bigots with seemingly zero empathy for others.

It is such an offensive comment that the gentleman really should resign, but he won't.

by nicko Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:14 pm

The Tory's are not all like that so why lump them all the same? How about Browns "Bigot" remark are Labour all the same? How about Muslims are they all the same?

vote UKIP

by Original Quill Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:07 pm

nicko wrote:The Tory's are not all like that so why lump them all the same? How about Browns "Bigot" remark are Labour all the same? How about Muslims are they all the same?

vote UKIP

I disagree. The one thing that Tories subscribe to, and thus which defines them, is their dedication to selfishness and wealth. This is the central thesis that spawns all of these kinds of sentiments.

Tories have no compassion for fellow human beings...they are all seen as competition. Disabled people vs. personal profit...not a tough choice for Tories. All they have to do is "frame" the disabled as crooks stealing our profits, and their you have your Tory perspective.

This is what happens when you turn individual egoism, otherwise known as capitalism, into a religion.

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:51 pm

At first I thought he meant that a disabled person might not be able to work full time, so they could boost their wages with benefits. Then he said that stuff about working for £2 an hour. The quote doesn't finish though, so it's not clear how it ended.

Re minimum wage in general, it's absurd that there are different rates depending on your age. I think that those on minimum wage are likely to work with others who are also on minimum wage, and are doing exactly the same job, so how is it fair that one person could earn £6.50 per hour, and another could earn £5.13 or even less just because they're under 21? If people are doing the same job, they should be paid the same - unless of course they get increments for length of service or they have better qualifications, but that doesn't usually apply to minimum wage jobs anyway.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:42 pm

You are talking about differences between 18 and 21-years.

GOV.UK wrote:National Minimum Wage rates

The National Minimum Wage rate per hour depends on your age and whether you’re an apprentice - you must be at least school leaving age to get it.

Year 21 and over 18 to 20 Under 18 Apprentice*

2014 (current rate) £6.50 £5.13 £3.79 £2.73
2013 £6.31..............£5.03 £3.72 £2.68
2012 £6.19..............£4.98 £3.68 £2.65
2011 £6.08..............£4.98 £3.68 £2.60
2010 £5.93..............£4.92 £3.64 £2.50

*This rate is for apprentices aged 16 to 18 and those aged 19 or over who are in their first year. All other apprentices are entitled to the National Minimum Wage for their age.

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:You are talking about differences between 18 and 21-years.

GOV.UK wrote:National Minimum Wage rates

The National Minimum Wage rate per hour depends on your age and whether you’re an apprentice - you must be at least school leaving age to get it.

Year 21 and over 18 to 20 Under 18 Apprentice*

2014 (current rate) £6.50 £5.13 £3.79 £2.73
2013 £6.31............£5.03 £3.72 £2.68
2012 £6.19............£4.98 £3.68 £2.65
2011 £6.08............£4.98 £3.68 £2.60
2010 £5.93............£4.92 £3.64 £2.50

*This rate is for apprentices aged 16 to 18 and those aged 19 or over who are in their first year. All other apprentices are entitled to the National Minimum Wage for their age.

Yes I am, and it's even less if they're under 18.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:46 pm

Well, I think that is a different story. It is based upon an incentive to stay in school, is it not?

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:Well, I think that is a different story. It is based upon an incentive to stay in school, is it not?

I doubt it. You wouldn't be at school if you were over 18 or 19 anyway.

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:48 pm

So anyway, if a disabled person is doing the same job, they should be paid the same. If they can't do the job, well there's not much point them being there really.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Well, I think that is a different story. It is based upon an incentive to stay in school, is it not?

I doubt it. You wouldn't be at school if you were over 18 or 19 anyway.

Well, you might be in university.

But, you make my point for me. The fact is that school age coincides with a period of neoteny, or education that society wants to preserve for extended learning. Beyond 18, the child is released so to speak, to go on to a job.

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I doubt it. You wouldn't be at school if you were over 18 or 19 anyway.

Well, you might be in university.

But, you make my point for me. The fact is that school age coincides with a period of neoteny, or education that society wants to preserve for extended learning. Beyond 18, the child is released so to speak, to go on to a job.

I don't think pay is based on what someone should be doing instead, it's based on what you do to earn the money. I suppose the Government thinks that a young person doesn't have as many bills, but pay has never based on that either.

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:13 pm

Oh, and you can leave school before you're 18.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:33 pm

Well, you keep making my point for me. The 'end' is to keep you in school; the 'means' is to create incentive. The incentive in this case is to make working at an age under 18 less attractive.

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 16, 2014 8:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:Well, you keep making my point for me. The 'end' is to keep you in school; the 'means' is to create incentive. The incentive in this case is to make working at an age under 18 less attractive.

They earn even less if they stay at school.

by veya_victaous Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:42 pm

Unfortunately it is actually true in some cases, but obviously 'disability' is a HUGE and Extremely diverse group and many are fully capably of being 'worth their wage'.

BUT we have the solution Smile

If it is someone that would be entitled to a disability Pension if they were not working and they do work, their employer can get reimbursed some of the value of the pension the state has saved. So the disabled person Still gets the full wage and the employer is compensated for any reduction in efficiency.

by Irn Bru Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:51 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Well, you keep making my point for me. The 'end' is to keep you in school; the 'means' is to create incentive. The incentive in this case is to make working at an age under 18 less attractive.

They earn even less if they stay at school.

And they learn more by staying at school. Apprenticeships used to be a five year stint where you started off with a low wage rising each year until you got your trade papers and at that point you were on a full wage.

Some people leaving school didn't take up an apprenticeship and went for higher pay right at the start but they lost out at the end of the day.

My first pay was £3 11s 5d (roughly £3.50) and that was for a full week. My mum got the £3 quid and I got what was left Laughing

by Guest Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:So anyway, if a disabled person is doing the same job, they should be paid the same. If they can't do the job, well there's not much point them being there really.

What if a non disabled person has a productivity rate of 200 units in an 8 hour shift and a disabled person can only manage 150?
If the disabled person says they want to work and are willing to accept 75% of the wage of the non disabled person.

by veya_victaous Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:34 pm

sphinx wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So anyway, if a disabled person is doing the same job, they should be paid the same. If they can't do the job, well there's not much point them being there really.

What if a non disabled person has a productivity rate of 200 units in an 8 hour shift and a disabled person can only manage 150?
If the disabled person says they want to work and are willing to accept 75% of the wage of the non disabled person.

which is why our system works
because they are working and not getting a disability pension, the gov't is still financially better off paying the 25% difference and neither employer or disabled lose out.

by Guest Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:03 am

veya_victaous wrote:
sphinx wrote:

What if a non disabled person has a productivity rate of 200 units in an 8 hour shift and a disabled person can only manage 150?
If the disabled person says they want to work and are willing to accept 75% of the wage of the non disabled person.

which is why our system works
because they are working and not getting a disability pension, the gov't is still financially better off paying the 25% difference and neither employer or disabled lose out.

But that is exactly what happens with the universal credit - in fact with the universal credit the disabled person does not necessarily just get it topped up to minimum wage they get to keep more of it.

The Tories want to bring in a system which sees people take home more money for every single hour they work - and in a discussion group exploring ideas responds to a question about some disabled people not being "worth minimum wage" by considering that they may not only be willing but positively want to work for less than minimum wage and that this could be possible using the universal credit system.

He was incredibly uncouth in the way he phrased it but this was not at a policy launch or some press conference for official announcements it was an unscripted unexpected question in a fringe meeting at the party conference and he thought on his feet.

To say it means the whole party is nasty and despises disabled people is shallow unintelligent reactionary thought.

I am not a tory supporter (in case someone did not know) but the fact is like a lot of other topics this one needs to be bought out into the light and discussed and there are a lot of people trying to stop that happening by making out that to even consider that this topic needs discussion is somehow wrong and evil.

by veya_victaous Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:24 am

@sphinx
well it actually sounds like a realistic solution then.
Ultimately being in the work force is often good for the disabled emotional and mental well being too, so the gov't covering the loss in productivity is worth it in the reduction in other social care costs.

by Irn Bru Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:42 am

sphinx wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So anyway, if a disabled person is doing the same job, they should be paid the same. If they can't do the job, well there's not much point them being there really.

What if a non disabled person has a productivity rate of 200 units in an 8 hour shift and a disabled person can only manage 150?
If the disabled person says they want to work and are willing to accept 75% of the wage of the non disabled person.

Typical Tory ideology. Pay people as little as possible and if they are disabled and have got something wrong with them and their output is not quite as high then tell them that you'll give them a job but they're not worth as much as an able bodied person so they won't be paid as much.

Works wonders for their self-esteem doesn't it.

There's a lad who works on the checkout at Asda who only has one arm and he even asks the customers if they want a hand to pack. He's not quite as fast as the other checkout operators but I'm just glad that he has a job and is treated in same way as everyone else. I'm sure Asda can bear the cost and I'm sure the customers don't mind one little bit and are happy that the lad has made the effort.

Well done Adsa.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:53 am

Irn Bru wrote:
sphinx wrote:

What if a non disabled person has a productivity rate of 200 units in an 8 hour shift and a disabled person can only manage 150?
If the disabled person says they want to work and are willing to accept 75% of the wage of the non disabled person.

Typical Tory ideology. Pay people as little as possible and if they are disabled and have got something wrong with them and their output is not quite as high then tell them that you'll give them a job but they're not worth as much as an able bodied person so they won't be paid as much.

Works wonders for their self-esteem doesn't it.

There's a lad who works on the checkout at Asda who only has one arm and he even asks the customers if they want a hand to pack. He's not quite as fast as the other checkout operators but I'm just glad that he has a job and is treated in same way as everyone else. I'm sure Asda can bear the cost and I'm sure the customers don't mind one little bit and are happy that the lad has made the effort.

Well done Adsa.

@ Irn - (but everyone should watch this.....)

Def Leopard drummer......

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DNElq-qUsY

In case you didn't notice..... he's only got one arm!!!

And Irn, the lad you're talking about is probably just as good as others and maybe even better than some other more abled on same wage and doing less for it.

And good on him!

It's great that disabled people are given every opportunity and are able to participate/engage in life and society as everyone else, and should definately have equal opportunity and consideration for available work.

But I agree with rags and sphinx earlier posts.

The media reporting of OP is completely sensationalist and doesn't tell the whole story or give context.

Business are there to make money, they have to do this to survive, jobs are created for work that needs doing and pay reward based on skills/ability/productivity etc, with the ability to vary rate accordingly.

Except where minimum wage is concerned (and yes I do appreciate the concept of why this is!).

But take disability out of the equation for a moment.

You are running a business and have a small team of workers doing the same thing on same minimum wage.

One is consistently performing considerably less then all the others but being paid the same.

Who is being exploited?

The one doing less for the same?

The other employees who are doing considerably more for no extra reward?

Or the employer for paying the one doing less for same money?

Either the one has to do more, the others start doing less or the employer either gets rid of the one for someone more productive, or wages have to be less to reflect productivity.

If one won't/can't do more and wages don't change to lower amount, then either business has to sack them or this lower level of productivity will be seen as benchmark of work requirement and reduce output.

If disabled people are fulfilling work requirements to justify reflected wages then this is not an issue, and good on them!!!

But if they are not then it's not for employers to keep them at extra costs, as much as they might like to.

I thought there was already some staggered/subsidised benefits arrangement for disabled people and employers to cover this...?

by Guest Fri Oct 17, 2014 4:05 am

Wow, discrimination is live and well based around a belief of profits, not the well being of people.
The belief to discriminate against people based on who is able bodied is in essence absurd, because you are basing your bench mark off the able bodied person, when the bench mark should be set at what is reasonable for any person no matter their condition.
You open this door and you are also basically discriminating against people who have medical conditions from asthma to arthritis etc, where in these two examples because they are prone to a condition, they are discriminated against, as at times they will never hope to achieve the same levels of output, through no fault of their own. It also opens up the view to an employer being able to sack people based off their condition or disability, because they cannot hope to achieve the same levels as an able bodied person. If a company wishes to have bonus incentives to each category, able and non able, who produces the most of each category, then that is fine, to disadvantaged people based off a level that is unequal in the first place is discrimination.

Basically what people are saying is sorry you were involved in a car crash not of your fault and you have lost your arm, but we are now going to make you suffer further and decrease your wages, based on the reality you will not be able to produce as much.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 17, 2014 4:43 am

You wouldn't employ a blind person as a lorry driver any more than a dustman to do open heart surgery.

So why should any other job be given to anyone else who cannot fulfil required level of achievement and productivity?

Is it discrimination to say that someone with no arms can't pursue a boxing career???

If I'm running a business and I need to employ someone to fulfil specific tasks, then they have to be able to fulfil those tasks and at a required performance rate for the money set at that rate of achievement.

If they don't have the required skills/knowledge/expertise/ability to do this then they are not suitable for The job.

Why should someone who can be paid the same as someone who cant?

by Guest Fri Oct 17, 2014 4:59 am

Tommy Monk wrote:You wouldn't employ a blind person as a lorry driver any more than a dustman to do open heart surgery.
Absurd perception, you are now basing a view point to be discriminate of people because they cannot do a specific job at all, a person with one arm can drive a car for example, which proves the limitations of your ability to understand anything, where a dustman could be trained to be a surgeon
So why should any other job be given to anyone else who cannot fulfil required level of achievement and productivity?
As seen above your views are cock handed and absurd, you are basically saying countless people are unemployable based now off they suffer or are born or later unluckily have an accident that leaves them unable to achieve the level of requirement you are setting again wrongly off able bodied people. When you set the precedent you are making you are making their choices or chances of employment limited to non existent

Is it discrimination to say that someone with no arms can't pursue a boxing career???
A person cannot pursue such a career, but may well be a kick boxer, showing again the limitation of your thought process.
If I'm running a business and I need to employ someone to fulfil specific tasks, then they have to be able to fulfil those tasks and at a required performance rate for the money set at that rate of achievement.
Then you are of the belief to enable within society inequality, because you are again thinking that profit outweighs human well being, it does not. Again many people do not get any disability benefits yet suffer from medical conditions that can affect their performance, all of which you are discriminating them off nothing they have done wrong but have been born or later contracted and thus wish to seek setting back this nation where equality has been fought so hard to achieve

If they don't have the required skills/knowledge/expertise/ability to do this then they are not suitable for The job.
No you are making an absurd view point, you are making a precedent to deny people work if they have a condition, or at least disadvantage them over pay because of this, stating who can and cannot carry out a role based on performance, not on whether they can do the job, of which many can. Using your logic we could then deny you may roles that require people skills, because of your level of view on equality.

Why should someone who can be paid the same as someone who cant?

People are payed based upon experience, level of service and qualifications, what you are saying is people should be paid based upon nothing they can alter their conditions or disabilities, which is not equal, when a person who works to obtain a qualification or level of service etc is through choice, nobody in many cases has a choice on a condition, disability etc and thus to treat them as of less worth is discrmination.
Jesus wept, some people really are clueless

by Original Quill Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:01 am

In America workplace discrimination against the disabled is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended, or the Rehabilitation Act, as amended. Any employer who treats a qualified individual with a disability who is an employee or applicant unfavorably because she has a disability is in violation. Pro rata compensation on any basis is a form of discrimination, and is illegal.

That said, I do like the store that hires and puts to work the young man Irn mentions. I agree it is a self-esteem measure...or to put it another way, there is no artificial imposition of shame for his disability...the formula that you suggest Sphinx The point of the ADA is to treat an employee as a 'whole' person (yea, I intended that adjective), because that's what s/he is.

And Didge, damn it, we're gonna make a good socialist out of you yet. You recognize that one system is a penalty system, the other is a merit system. Now we just have to recognize that the latter is simply a disguise for the former. Smile

by Guest Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:03 am

Original Quill wrote:In America workplace discrimination against the disabled is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA), as amended, or the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, treats a qualified individual with a disability who is an employee or applicant unfavorably because she has a disability. Pro rata compensation on any basis is a form of discrimination, and is illegal.

That said, I do like the store that hires and puts to work the young man Irn mentions. I agree it is a self-esteem measure...or to put it another way, there is no artificial imposition of shame for his disability...the formula that you suggest Sphinx The point of the ADA is to treat an employee as a 'whole' person (yea, I intended that adjective), because that's what s/he is.

And Didge, damn it, we're gonna make a good socialist out of you yet. You recognize that one system is a penalty system, the other is a merit system. Now we just have to recognize that the latter is simply a disguise for the former.

lol I will always be between many ideas Quill. Laughing

by Original Quill Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:24 am

Tommy Monk wrote:You wouldn't employ a blind person as a lorry driver any more than a dustman to do open heart surgery.

So why should any other job be given to anyone else who cannot fulfil required level of achievement and productivity?

Is it discrimination to say that someone with no arms can't pursue a boxing career???

If I'm running a business and I need to employ someone to fulfil specific tasks, then they have to be able to fulfil those tasks and at a required performance rate for the money set at that rate of achievement.

If they don't have the required skills/knowledge/expertise/ability to do this then they are not suitable for The job.

Why should someone who can be paid the same as someone who cant?

We all recognize the concept of being able to do the job, Tommy. The laws are written with that distinction in mind.

But there is a difference between being categorically unable to perform, and standards or levels of performance. I doubt that any quantitative measure is going to be able to distinguish between employees that finely. Perhaps one employee can out-produce another, but the other has people skills that please the customers and keep them coming back. The question is, should the government or the courts be put in the position of making those decisions?

The point of discrimination in employment laws is to prohibit unlawful discrimination, not determine who is the better or most favored employee. Thus the law leaves to the employer the leeway to determine what qualities he or she prefers in an employee. Once that determination is made, however, the employer can't skip around and change it for a best friend, or because it is a male employee rather than a female...or in this case, because the employee is disabled.

Of course, if an employer wants to pay per measure of productivity, s/he can do that too. However, you'll find that most employers don't want to be locked in that way. They want to go with whom they like the best, regardless of production measures. That kind of merit, after all, takes the control out of the hands of the employer, and s/he doesn't like that.

(And no, I haven't just contradicted myself from my previous post. Pro rata measures that uniquely disenfranchise the disabled employee, are going to be per se discriminatory. To explain further would lead us into a lengthy discussion about the difference between intentional discrimination, and adverse impact discrimination...if anyone wants to go there, I'm willing. But I fear it would bore most.)

by veya_victaous Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:44 am

Of course, if an employer wants to pay per measure of productivity, s/he can do that too.

NOPE they cant, minimum wage laws..... Wink

this is specifically talking about the Minimum you can pay someone (I believe Uk is about 50% higher than the USA after conversion, Aussies is a little over double)

So an example from near me is a packaging factory (imports good put correct labels, covers false claims made on packaging) since the work is pretty easy but very low profit they employ mainly disabled people they only pay about half the minimum wage but the gov't pays the other half, since the disabled employees are not on a full pension any more it is still cheaper, and the employer is not out of pocket and can be competitive. They also employ some fairly severely disabled people, including mentally handicapped, wheelchair bound and blind people.

If the employer was to set a performance indicator then most of their disabled employees not achieve the same as an able bodied employee, but since they only cost half the as much they only need to achieve half as much to be worth employing.

IF you are talking about people in Above minimum wage employment than the whole thing is moot as the disabled person is fully productive to get that role... the provision are specifically for the disabled on very the bottom of the wage scale (often those with learning difficulties etc and multi issue disabilities)

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:09 am

You are deluded.

Would you employ a blind person to drive a lorry...?

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:12 am

veya_victaous wrote:Unfortunately it is actually true in some cases, but obviously 'disability' is a HUGE and Extremely diverse group and many are fully capably of being 'worth their wage'.

BUT we have the solution
If it is someone that would be entitled to a disability Pension if they were not working and they do work, their employer can get reimbursed some of the value of the pension the state has saved. So the disabled person Still gets the full wage and the employer is compensated for any reduction in efficiency.

It's not just about the employer though, or it shouldn't be. People on minimum wage often work in retail, factories, fast food joints, etc. If there's a person there who can't do the job properly, the other employees will suffer. For example, they might have to do more work to make up for it.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:13 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Of course, if an employer wants to pay per measure of productivity, s/he can do that too.

NOPE they cant, minimum wage laws.....
this is specifically talking about the Minimum you can pay someone (I believe Uk is about 50% higher than the USA after conversion, Aussies is a little over double)

So an example from near me is a packaging factory (imports good put correct labels, covers false claims made on packaging) since the work is pretty easy but very low profit they employ mainly disabled people they only pay about half the minimum wage but the gov't pays the other half, since the disabled employees are not on a full pension any more it is still cheaper, and the employer is not out of pocket and can be competitive. They also employ some fairly severely disabled people, including mentally handicapped, wheelchair bound and blind people.

If the employer was to set a performance indicator then most of their disabled employees not achieve the same as an able bodied employee, but since they only cost half the as much they only need to achieve half as much to be worth employing.

IF you are talking about people in Above minimum wage employment than the whole thing is moot as the disabled person is fully productive to get that role... the provision are specifically for the disabled on very the bottom of the wage scale (often those with learning difficulties etc and multi issue disabilities)

That's right...the minimum wage is the one hard and fast bottom in wage scales. I did think to mention that, but then forgot when I started writing.

In law we run into that all the time. I should have included that. It was an oversight.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:19 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Of course, if an employer wants to pay per measure of productivity, s/he can do that too.

NOPE they cant, minimum wage laws.....
this is specifically talking about the Minimum you can pay someone (I believe Uk is about 50% higher than the USA after conversion, Aussies is a little over double)

So an example from near me is a packaging factory (imports good put correct labels, covers false claims made on packaging) since the work is pretty easy but very low profit they employ mainly disabled people they only pay about half the minimum wage but the gov't pays the other half, since the disabled employees are not on a full pension any more it is still cheaper, and the employer is not out of pocket and can be competitive. They also employ some fairly severely disabled people, including mentally handicapped, wheelchair bound and blind people.

If the employer was to set a performance indicator then most of their disabled employees not achieve the same as an able bodied employee, but since they only cost half the as much they only need to achieve half as much to be worth employing.

IF you are talking about people in Above minimum wage employment than the whole thing is moot as the disabled person is fully productive to get that role... the provision are specifically for the disabled on very the bottom of the wage scale (often those with learning difficulties etc and multi issue disabilities)

I thought the employer had to pay minimum wage regardless.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:21 am

sphinx wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So anyway, if a disabled person is doing the same job, they should be paid the same. If they can't do the job, well there's not much point them being there really.

What if a non disabled person has a productivity rate of 200 units in an 8 hour shift and a disabled person can only manage 150?
If the disabled person says they want to work and are willing to accept 75% of the wage of the non disabled person.

Hmmmm. Well there may be other non-disabled people who don't have that productivity rate and who get the full minimum wage, so I don't think that would work. It's also treating people like robots really.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:23 am

Tommy Monk wrote:You are deluded.

Would you employ a blind person to drive a lorry...?

Tommy, we have already answered that and moved on. Of course, if a person is categorically unable to perform the job, s/he effectively unavailable for consideration.

But short of being categorically unable to perform /1/, the point is that you cannot use discriminatory criteria for adverse employment decisions.

/1/ There is also another form of acceptable discrimination, known as the bona fide occupational qualification. That is when hard and fast qualifications required to do the job coincide with prohibited employment considerations/categories. Height and strength requirements fall into this category. The most common example is in acting...you wouldn't want a man to play a female role, Shakespeare notwithstanding. It is a bona fide occupational qualification that the role be filled by a woman, whereas gender discrimination is otherwise prohibited.

by Lone Wolf Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:31 am

TRUST Tommy M. to once again confirm just what a sub-human little little cnt he really is at heart...

NOT JUST the stupidest nutjob on this forum (just a couple of steps ahead of his fascist cohort nicko..).. BUT one of the cruelest-hearted and morals-free as well.

(I WOULDN'T even employ Tommy to drive his finger up his arse, let alone a truck !)

IT IS in the very essence of the traditional 'Tory mindset' that they consider the disabled, the poor, and unemployed persons, as being somehow of a lower stature to themselves [after all, the ultra-conservative viewpoint is that "it must always be their own fault - as 'bad' things only ever happen to 'bad' people - and they must be to blame !" ].

SO IT IS only the next (il)logical step to the cruel extreme fringes of all conservative parties (just look at the "tea baggers" intentions), to devalue people they consider less than worthy ~ EVEN IF they have to disenfranchise or segregate them to do so.. Evil or Very Mad

by nicko Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:48 am

Why are you insisting on bringing me into your nasty little posts? All you do is come on here and slag people off! get a life you miserable cnut .I am begining to think you fancy me. By the way Ben you can close my account on this forum i'v had enough of the left wing idiots on here!

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:03 am

Sorry wolf, but your idea that everyone is The same and worthy of the same pay reward is similar to communism and a race to the bottom..... everyone doing the minimum required to get by.

Then everyone suffers.

And the whole system collapses

I believe in meritocracy.

Why should I spend my time and money achieving the necessary knowledge and skills to be able to fly an aeroplane to be paid the same as the person loading the baggage?

Then why should the person loading the baggage with two arms be paid the same as the person with one arm loading half as much?

by Original Quill Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:07 am

nicko wrote:Why are you insisting on bringing me into your nasty little posts? All you do is come on here and slag people off! get a life you miserable cnut .I am begining to think you fancy me. By the way Ben you can close my account on this forum i'v had enough of the left wing idiots on here!

Fear is a big motivator, nicko. It inevitably urges you to run. But conservatives are always pushing up-hill, because they inevitably oppose fixing what is needed to be fixed. They should be afraid. It takes a sharp mind to oppose a leftie, because they are used to critical thinking.

But that's the way things progress. It's precisely the way we found out the world was not flat, or that god didn't make the universe in 7-days or where exactly are the Americas. You don't progress being a conservative. But I guess that's why they call them conservatives and progressives.

Unlike you, I hardly even noticed your miniscule mention in LW's post. I was more interested in his insight into the ideologies. Interesting ideas about Tories, and I think he's right. Are you sure it isn't that discussion you are running away from?

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:35 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU

by nicko Fri Oct 17, 2014 9:24 am

I am not"" running away " quill it's just that i have had enough of the Brit bashing and left wing snide comments,and have you ever noticed that know all Lone Wolf is all mouth and no trousers, [ old BRITISH saying]

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 17, 2014 9:38 am

nicko wrote:I am not"" running away " quill it's just that i have had enough of the Brit bashing and left wing snide comments,and have you ever noticed that know all Lone Wolf is all mouth and no trousers, [ old BRITISH saying]

Take no notice of him. Cool

Do you really think there's a lot of Brit bashing here?

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 17, 2014 9:40 am

If I was a disabled person I don't think I'd like to be paid less on the grounds that I'm not as good as others.

Anyway, aren't employers in the UK obliged to pay minimum wage without relying on the Government? I don't think they can decide that some people aren't worth it.

by nicko Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:06 am

Raggs, there is Brit bashing here, look a bit closer at quills, veya's bens and wolf's posts. They quite often slyly insert a little dig at us.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:52 am

nicko wrote:Raggs, there is Brit bashing here, look a bit closer at quills, veya's bens and wolf's posts. They quite often slyly insert a little dig at us.

Yes, Ben does it too. They're just jealous. Laughing

by nicko Fri Oct 17, 2014 11:28 am

The problem is Raggs, the yanks and Aussies have no history, they'v only been around for a few hundred years, where as we have a couple of thousand years behind us. As you say they are jealous. Never mind, they'l catch up eventually. [i think]

by nicko Fri Oct 17, 2014 11:31 am

PS except for wolf cub, he's lost in the bush looking for his boomerang!

by Guest Fri Oct 17, 2014 11:42 am

Irn Bru wrote:
sphinx wrote:

What if a non disabled person has a productivity rate of 200 units in an 8 hour shift and a disabled person can only manage 150?
If the disabled person says they want to work and are willing to accept 75% of the wage of the non disabled person.

Typical Tory ideology. Pay people as little as possible and if they are disabled and have got something wrong with them and their output is not quite as high then tell them that you'll give them a job but they're not worth as much as an able bodied person so they won't be paid as much.

Works wonders for their self-esteem doesn't it.

There's a lad who works on the checkout at Asda who only has one arm and he even asks the customers if they want a hand to pack. He's not quite as fast as the other checkout operators but I'm just glad that he has a job and is treated in same way as everyone else. I'm sure Asda can bear the cost and I'm sure the customers don't mind one little bit and are happy that the lad has made the effort.

Well done Adsa.

Great for that guy.

Now let me tell you something as a disabled person who is not as productive as non disabled people. I have a major problem with being given a job just because I am disabled when I do not perform as well as others and I have real issues about being paid the same amount as someone who does more than me.

You talk self esteem - well let me tell you about self esteem for a disabled person - and I am not alone in this just about every disabled person I speak to feels the same. Nothing but nothing kicks your self esteem into the gutter than knowing you are getting allowances made because you are disabled. Self esteem is being rewarded for what you are and what you do not being compensated because you cant do.

I would rather take 75% wage and 25% benefit top up for doing 75% of the work than I would be paid 100% wage for doing 75% of the work. If I do 75% work and get 75% wage I know I am being paid for my value and that my society is protecting with the benefit top up to allow me a "normal" life. If I get paid 100% for doing 75% I feel like a fraud and know I am getting paid more than my worth because people pity me.

I dont want make work. I dont want pity. I dont want to be paid more for doing less than some other guy who is working his tits off just because I have problems. I dont know of a disabled person that does want these things.

We want to be considered for jobs on our merits - not turned down because of false beliefs and not given it just because of the disability.
We want to be paid what we are worth - and if we find that by switching jobs we can hit 100% then we expect 100% wage. If we move to a more difficult job we expect the pay rise that goes with it. It we work where there are bonuses we expect our share - our earned share.
We do not want to spend our lives sat around on benefits doing nothing.
We do not want to be put in jobs knowing people around us are thinking "hes a bit slow but its good they gave him a job" because that is not being treated like everyone else that is being pitied and treated like a freak show.

by Sponsored content