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

First topic message reminder :

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.

sphinx wrote:So as far as you lot are concerned disabled people can do just as good just as much as non disabled people - and there is no difference between them in the employers eyes.  Or if there is the employer is just discriminating without reason.

Really?

Answer the questions as if you do, I can then help you understand better what you failed to grasp on this.

Try again

Original Quill wrote:

Raggs wrote:Why shouldn't I argue re examples? Didge said that it actually happens, and I think it's a stupid way to monitor someone.

You argue the point.  If you wander off on the example, you effectively change the subject.

You can use the example over again, but only if you maintain the metaphor aspect.  Too often, one just goes off on the example without seeing that it is merely a reflection of the real issue.

Well it was Didge who introduced the example so have a go at him. It's a valid point anyway as we're talking about measuring people's value at work, and if their only value is to have as few people at their till as possible, then it's not a good way of measuring it.

sphinx wrote:So as far as you lot are concerned disabled people can do just as good just as much as non disabled people - and there is no difference between them in the employers eyes.  Or if there is the employer is just discriminating without reason.

No sphinx, I think you are presenting a perfectly valid argument. But it is a meta-statement...analysis reduces the whole down to parts. In the real world, life is not just about the parts. When Didge says your analysis is too simplistic, he's not being critical of you. He is saying your model has too few factors.

To be fair Quill, Ragga is backing the view this is wrong with the majority of us.

How else can anyone talk about it without examples anyway? It's not a theoretical issue, it's real and it's to do with real jobs.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You argue the point.  If you wander off on the example, you effectively change the subject.

You can use the example over again, but only if you maintain the metaphor aspect.  Too often, one just goes off on the example without seeing that it is merely a reflection of the real issue.

Well it was Didge who introduced the example so have a go at him. It's a valid point anyway as we're talking about measuring people's value at work, and if their only value is to have as few people at their till as possible, then it's not a good way of measuring it.

But he didn't misuse or misunderstand the example. You did.

The issue of too few people at the till, could be a valid point. But you have to make the connection yourself.

Anyway, we are all misusing the example by getting off the point of the example itself.

Let's get back to analysis.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well it was Didge who introduced the example so have a go at him. It's a valid point anyway as we're talking about measuring people's value at work, and if their only value is to have as few people at their till as possible, then it's not a good way of measuring it.

But he didn't misuse or misunderstand the example.  You did.

The issue of too few people at the till, could be a valid point.  But you have to make the connection yourself.

I didn't misuse it at all. It's a real scenario according to Didge.

WTF are you talking about - a connection to what? We're talking about measuring people's value to the employer, and that was an example of a way to measure it. I don't care for the way you talk about things in a theoretical manner - it's too wishy washy.

Original Quill wrote:Anyway, we are all misusing the example by getting off the point of the example itself.

Let's get back to analysis.

No, let's get back to the real world where people are paid very little in many jobs, and where some people think that some of them should be paid even less.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:So as far as you lot are concerned disabled people can do just as good just as much as non disabled people - and there is no difference between them in the employers eyes.  Or if there is the employer is just discriminating without reason.

I've said that people bring different skills to a job, and that your worth shouldn't be measured just on how much of something you produce. I've also said that there's no reason for disabled people to be paid less if they're employed to do a job. The only thing which might be an issue is that other employers might resent having to do more to make up for what the disabled person can't do.

I really don't see that someone should be paid less for being disabled - that makes a mockery of the equality laws.

Peoples worth is measure in lots of different ways by lots of different people.

How do you expect an employer to measure their employees worth?

He (freud) was not talking about paying people less for being disabled he was talking about finding a way to help employers give jobs to disabled people who because of their disabilities were not able to do those jobs fully with one suggestion being the employer pays the first £2 and the government make up the difference between what the employer pays and minimum wage.

What makes a mockery of equality laws is trying to insist that 2 thing patently unequal are equal.
Are disabled people as individuals equal to non disabled people as individuals? Yes.
Are disabled people as employees equal to non disabled people as employees? Not all of them.

Sorry Sphinx you are still looking at this in a simplistic way and judging by your last reply, I am more than convinced that the rhetoric from UKIP is going to be their undoing.
If this is the propaganda they are drumming into people, when you yourself have failed to factor in many points on the working industry, it shows how people are being very easily misled.
You need to step out of that box and take a critical look and what is being stated to you, and this debate is a perfect example of this.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I've said that people bring different skills to a job, and that your worth shouldn't be measured just on how much of something you produce. I've also said that there's no reason for disabled people to be paid less if they're employed to do a job. The only thing which might be an issue is that other employers might resent having to do more to make up for what the disabled person can't do.

I really don't see that someone should be paid less for being disabled - that makes a mockery of the equality laws.

Peoples worth is measure in lots of different ways by lots of different people.

How do you expect an employer to measure their employees worth?

He (freud) was not talking about paying people less for being disabled he was talking about finding a way to help employers give jobs to disabled people who because of their disabilities were not able to do those jobs fully with one suggestion being the employer pays the first £2 and the government make up the difference between what the employer pays and minimum wage.

What makes a mockery of equality laws is trying to insist that 2 thing patently unequal are equal.
Are disabled people as individuals equal to non disabled people as individuals?  Yes.
Are disabled people as employees equal to non disabled people as employees?  Not all of them.

I do get what you're saying, but how do you make a judgement on how much the disabled person should get? Do you assume they can do half the job? Do you assume they can work for half the time? How do you measure how much they're worth to the employer?

Also, it doesn't address the issue of the other employees. In a lot of minimum wage jobs, there is an issue with understaffing as it is. How do you deal with the resentment that someone is not doing a whole job? Do you employ two disabled people instead of one or what?

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:So as far as you lot are concerned disabled people can do just as good just as much as non disabled people - and there is no difference between them in the employers eyes.  Or if there is the employer is just discriminating without reason.

No sphinx, I think you are presenting a perfectly valid argument.  But it is a meta-statement...analysis reduces the whole down to parts.  In the real world, life is not just about the parts.  When Didge says your analysis is too simplistic, he's not being critical of you.  He is saying your model has too few factors.

I know my model has 2 few factors but I know of no other way to get didge to face up to some of lifes nasty realities.

The brutal fact is that some disabled people have little or no value as employees because their disabilities reduce their productivity (disabled people are aware of this and do not apologise for it). This means that lots of employers will not even consider employing disabled people because they would have to pay them more than their productivity was worth (not more than they are worth). A way around this would be to allow employers to pay disabled people according to their productivity and have the government make up the difference between that and minimum wage. Then employers could look at disabled peoples value as a whole person and not worry about losing money on their productivity.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No sphinx, I think you are presenting a perfectly valid argument.  But it is a meta-statement...analysis reduces the whole down to parts.  In the real world, life is not just about the parts.  When Didge says your analysis is too simplistic, he's not being critical of you.  He is saying your model has too few factors.

I know my model has 2 few factors but I know of no other way to get didge to face up to some of lifes nasty realities.

The brutal fact is that some disabled people have little or no value as employees because their disabilities reduce their productivity (disabled people are aware of this and do not apologise for it). This means that lots of employers will not even consider employing disabled people because they would have to pay them more than their productivity was worth (not more than they are worth).  A way around this would be to allow employers to pay disabled people according to their productivity and have the government make up the difference between that and minimum wage.  Then employers could look at disabled peoples value as a whole person and not worry about losing money on their productivity.

Please show me where I stated or claimed any of what you are accusing me of?

In your own time

As I said you are using the victim arguent now, because we both know you had no argument to start with, this was evident the moment your argument was so simplistic, if it had value you would have factored in many points, which shows you have no understanding of a working industry. That is not having a go, but point out what you failed to understand, so you now make false claims, knowing your only hope is to divert onto me.

Bravo to that and very much you have conceded your points.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Peoples worth is measure in lots of different ways by lots of different people.

How do you expect an employer to measure their employees worth?

He (freud) was not talking about paying people less for being disabled he was talking about finding a way to help employers give jobs to disabled people who because of their disabilities were not able to do those jobs fully with one suggestion being the employer pays the first £2 and the government make up the difference between what the employer pays and minimum wage.

What makes a mockery of equality laws is trying to insist that 2 thing patently unequal are equal.
Are disabled people as individuals equal to non disabled people as individuals?  Yes.
Are disabled people as employees equal to non disabled people as employees?  Not all of them.

I do get what you're saying, but how do you make a judgement on how much the disabled person should get? Do you assume they can do half the job? Do you assume they can work for half the time? How do you measure how much they're worth to the employer?

Also, it doesn't address the issue of the other employees. In a lot of minimum wage jobs, there is an issue with understaffing as it is. How do you deal with the resentment that someone is not doing a whole job? Do you employ two disabled people instead of one or what?

Firstly I make each call on a case by case basis - who is worth more the guy with no arms or the guy with no eyes ? Working in a job involving reading or a job involving lifting?

If an employer can pay a disabled person £2 a hour with the government making up the rest firstly why should the other employee have a problem - they will know he is only getting £2 wages and will no doubt be deserving of them. An employer could employ 3 disabled people for less than one full wage - between them they should do the work of one able employee.

The value to the disabled person is beyond that of money - it is being out of the home, being with people and doing something. At the end of the day they can point to something and say "I did that" - and trust me that is sometimes worth more than any amount of money.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I do get what you're saying, but how do you make a judgement on how much the disabled person should get? Do you assume they can do half the job? Do you assume they can work for half the time? How do you measure how much they're worth to the employer?

Also, it doesn't address the issue of the other employees. In a lot of minimum wage jobs, there is an issue with understaffing as it is. How do you deal with the resentment that someone is not doing a whole job? Do you employ two disabled people instead of one or what?

Firstly I make each call on a case by case basis - who is worth more the guy with no arms or the guy with no eyes ?  Working in a job involving reading or a job involving lifting?

If an employer can pay a disabled person £2 a hour with the government making up the rest firstly why should the other employee have a problem - they will know he is only getting £2 wages and will no doubt be deserving of them. An employer could employ 3 disabled people for less than one full wage - between them they should do the work of one able employee.  

The value to the disabled person is beyond that of money - it is being out of the home, being with people and doing something.  At the end of the day they can point to something and say "I did that" - and trust me that is sometimes worth more than any amount of money.

The other employees won't care what the disabled person is getting paid, they'll only care about what extra work they'll have to do for the pay they're getting. If they employed two disabled people, that would make a difference I guess.

What if someone is only slightly disabled? How do you come up with this figure of £2?

It all sounds a bit patronising to me tbh.

Brasidas wrote:As I said you are using the victim arguent now, because we both know you had no argument to start with, this was evident the moment your argument was so simplistic, if it had value you would have factored in many points, which shows you have no understanding of a working industry. That is not having a go, but point out what you failed to understand, so you now make false claims, knowing your only hope is to divert onto me.

Bravo to that and very much you have conceded your points.

It does not matter how many points you factor in - some disabled people cannot meet employers requirements for productivity because of their disability. Whether it is a simple argument or takes every point under the sun the fact remains that if Timmy cannot (and I mean cannot not will not - no matter what training what assistance given he cannot do it) manage to do what Tommy does no employer is going to give him the same job as Tommy and pay him the same.

For many thousands of severely disabled people this means that they will not be able to get a job full stop. They had more chance of getting a job before minimum wage came in because employers would pay them at comparative value. If employers can employ these people for less than minimum wage with the difference made up by the government then these people stand a chance of getting work again.

What do you prefer - a world where employers will not touch a significant portion of disabled people because doing so will cost more than they are worth or a world where they are employed for less than minimum wage with their income subsidised by government?

I can't believe anyone would advocate paying less than minimum wage to anyone.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Firstly I make each call on a case by case basis - who is worth more the guy with no arms or the guy with no eyes ?  Working in a job involving reading or a job involving lifting?

If an employer can pay a disabled person £2 a hour with the government making up the rest firstly why should the other employee have a problem - they will know he is only getting £2 wages and will no doubt be deserving of them. An employer could employ 3 disabled people for less than one full wage - between them they should do the work of one able employee.  

The value to the disabled person is beyond that of money - it is being out of the home, being with people and doing something.  At the end of the day they can point to something and say "I did that" - and trust me that is sometimes worth more than any amount of money.

The other employees won't care what the disabled person is getting paid, they'll only care about what extra work they'll have to do for the pay they're getting. If they employed two disabled people, that would make a difference I guess.

What if someone is only slightly disabled? How do you come up with this figure of £2?

It all sounds a bit patronising to me tbh.

I did not come up with the £2 figure - Freud did in response to a question from a man whose daughter was profoundly learning disabled and blind but who had before her death 6 years previously wanted to experience as much of life as she could. As Freud was personally familiar with the gentleman asking the question and his circumstances leading to his question his answer was framed to that specific group.

He has never suggested those slightly disabled be paid that low - his suggestion is to create a way that the disabled, their carers, employers, and the government can work together so that those who are so seriously disabled that no employer could be expected to take them on level terms can still get a job if they want one.

Raggamuffin wrote:I can't believe anyone would advocate paying less than minimum wage to anyone.

Why does it matter if a persons income is made up of wages of £2 and government top up of £4.50?

We are talking of someone with severe learning difficulties who needs constant supervision and can only manage the most basic of tasks done very slowly. Of people who are too disabled to live completely independently but need group homes with 24 hour staffing. Of someone who nobody would expect to be giving a job at all.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I can't believe anyone would advocate paying less than minimum wage to anyone.

Why does it matter if a persons income is made up of wages of £2 and government top up of £4.50?

We are talking of someone with severe learning difficulties who needs constant supervision and can only manage the most basic of tasks done very slowly.  Of people who are too disabled to live completely independently but need group homes with 24 hour staffing.  Of someone who nobody would expect to be giving a job at all.

It would matter to me if I was disabled.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Why does it matter if a persons income is made up of wages of £2 and government top up of £4.50?

We are talking of someone with severe learning difficulties who needs constant supervision and can only manage the most basic of tasks done very slowly.  Of people who are too disabled to live completely independently but need group homes with 24 hour staffing.  Of someone who nobody would expect to be giving a job at all.

It would matter to me if I was disabled.

But it is that group of disabled people who are asking for this to be explored. They are disabled and what matters to them is getting to experience work.

If you are severely disabled you do know your ability. You do know that at the moment a whole section of life - doing work for reward is closed off to you because no matter how hard you try you cannot be as productive as employers need and they cannot afford to let you work.

Lets turn Freuds Language around.

"Government and employers explore way to offer paid work experience to severely disabled by splitting the costs so the government covers 3/4 and employers 1/4. Government will pay employers to take on severely disabled people covering the cost of their wages and allowing those taking part to keep extra money on top of their benefits"

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It would matter to me if I was disabled.

But it is that group of disabled people who are asking for this to be explored. They are disabled and what matters to them is getting to experience work.

If you are severely disabled you do know your ability.  You do know that at the moment a whole section of life - doing work for reward is closed off to you because no matter how hard you try you cannot be as productive as  employers need and they cannot afford to let you work.

Lets turn Freuds Language around.

"Government and employers explore way to offer paid work experience to severely disabled by splitting the costs so the government covers 3/4 and employers 1/4.  Government will pay employers to take on severely disabled people covering the cost of their wages and allowing those taking part to keep extra money on top of their benefits"

I'd rather do voluntary work for Oxfam or something. There wouldn't be so much pressure then. I'd hate to have to ask for allowances to be made for me. I have to do that sometimes now, and I don't like it.

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:As I said you are using the victim arguent now, because we both know you had no argument to start with, this was evident the moment your argument was so simplistic, if it had value you would have factored in many points, which shows you have no understanding of a working industry. That is not having a go, but point out what you failed to understand, so you now make false claims, knowing your only hope is to divert onto me.

Bravo to that and very much you have conceded your points.

It does not matter how many points you factor in - some disabled people cannot meet employers requirements for productivity because of their disability.  Whether it is a simple argument or takes every point under the  sun the fact remains that if Timmy cannot (and I mean cannot not will not - no matter what training what assistance given he cannot do it) manage to do what Tommy does no employer is going to give him the same job as Tommy and pay him the same.

For many thousands of severely disabled people this means that they will not be able to get a job full stop.  They had more chance of getting a job before minimum wage came in because employers would pay them at comparative value.  If employers can employ these people for less than minimum wage with the difference made up by the government  then these people stand a chance of getting work again.

What do you prefer - a world where employers will not touch a significant portion of disabled people because doing so will cost more than they are worth or a world where they are employed for less than minimum wage with their income subsidised by government?

That shows you have no comprehension again of the working environment, because many people have similar  jobs and roles, though what they are tasked to do in this industry will rotate dependent on where their skills are best placed. You seem to think again wrongly that productivity from one person is a good sign for the company, in many cases, it may not be, this individual maybe be creating the environment, that is making the others uncomfortable, why productivity is down and because of his now elevated status with pay, believes his job is secure and abuses position to be nasty to them. But because your policy is in place, the nasty one stays and yet he loses productively from the rest of the team, thus production is overall down. It could be that John, who is not only an amputee but dyslexia, maybe slower, but instills a warm friendly atmosphere within work and actually stems people from leaving because of Timmy's nastiness. Also helps out on any task, yet Timmy, is a stickler for his contract and only does the roles he is contracted to.

You see, I could go on, but you really are so long out of work Sphinx, and that is not a knock, you really have no idea as to what makes the best employees when you base the most absurd point without looking further deeper you would see your view point is not only absurd, but basically discriminates, because you think one factor should supersede all other factors surrounding the abilities of employees, based on making  profit. So lt take this a step further, like with my question, 6 people all employed as pickers and packers and when I looked into whether the two claimed were the most production, it was a false viewing and actually, the fourth most was the most productive and made the most profit for the company., which without my root cause analysis, they would have been paid better under your logic, with the Manger wrongly thinking they were the best based solely off higher numbers, another factor you miss Now the orders given out to these staff, is in the region of around 80-150 a day to pick and pack and each new job is rotated fairly, except no one job is the same, they come in a variety of sizes, weights, quantities, locations etc, all can make a vast difference to the time it takes to pick and pack an order, so the first point is chance. With chance, if this not factored in, you cannot pay a variance on if one or another gets more. Second, locations, with shared use of fork lifts and pallet trucks, where these two were basically hogging the equipment. Thus you see more factors in the amount of equipment to employee. You need to factor in again that stock levels are not always correct and orders have to be sidelined as incomplete, again another factor, where you are reliant on a system with the main point here shortages of parts, you cannot always factor for an supplier being late. I can go on and on and on, to the point there was actually 37 factors that played a part in the disparity and when there was the least amount of disparity, thy all did basically the same amount of jobs even based on job sizes To last but least one of the slowest ones, never had a single order that was delivered wrong, another factor, because errors cost unnecessary money.

I could go on, but to claim I do not understand about disabilities, it is just another deflection from the points where again to set up such system to award others, could cost far more to implement, because every single one of the employers I mentioned challenged any rulings as discriminating, because all have had factors affect the level of their work, It is basically impossible to implement as seen for pay in the industrial and minimum wage industry and plus the fact you ignore what else each individual brings. last but not least many roles are not the exact same, so to set a precedent to where it would only work for  very small group of people is inpractical

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

But it is that group of disabled people who are asking for this to be explored. They are disabled and what matters to them is getting to experience work.

If you are severely disabled you do know your ability.  You do know that at the moment a whole section of life - doing work for reward is closed off to you because no matter how hard you try you cannot be as productive as  employers need and they cannot afford to let you work.

Lets turn Freuds Language around.

"Government and employers explore way to offer paid work experience to severely disabled by splitting the costs so the government covers 3/4 and employers 1/4.  Government will pay employers to take on severely disabled people covering the cost of their wages and allowing those taking part to keep extra money on top of their benefits"

I'd rather do voluntary work for Oxfam or something. There wouldn't be so much pressure then. I'd hate to have to ask for allowances to be made for me. I have to do that sometimes now, and I don't like it.

For this group voluntary is often beyond them because voluntary work does call for quite a high level of autonomy.

This thing of being paid £2 an hour is the opposite of making allowances - it is saying that the person can do work or same value - not the same value as non disabled maybe but still of some value. An accurate assessment and reward is the opposite of making allowances. It says this person may not be able to do that but they are not useless. I cannot express how wonderful that recognition is - the difference between being told in words that you have value and having it your efforts recognized through reward.

Maybe disabled people should be employed on a 'price work' basis where they get paid set amount per unit of production and if not earning past certain threshold then govt makes up the difference.


This is good all round as employers still get an employee who is paid for actual level of work done, disabled person gets to be in the work environment and experience etc, and although govt may still be supporting financialy, is at a lesser rate/cost as employment wages then makes up part of this cost.



What is so wrong with that?


It's better than seeing disabled people not getting any work because of more productive and able competition.

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe disabled people should be employed on a 'price work' basis where they get paid set amount per unit of production and if not earning past certain threshold then govt makes up the difference.


This is good all round as employers still get an employee who is paid for actual level of work done, disabled person gets to be in the work environment and experience etc, and although govt may still be supporting financialy, is at a lesser rate/cost as employment wages then makes up part of this cost.



What is so wrong with that?


It's better than seeing disabled people not getting any work because of more productive and able competition.

lol is there two Tommy's?
Everything was covered yesterday including your question which discriminates, before disabled people have started a days work according to your logic, they will now earn less pay, thus being stigmatized.
Even most people do not have the same jobs and because of countless factors, your question is rendered redundant. it has no sound reasoning behind it...


Even though you have no idea what each disability people have you have requested the law to be changed to deny them equal pay rights, based off no more than your perception that people disabled should thus be branded and they all cannot work in most jobs. Yeah I am sure many disabled people are going to be so please they have just been stigmatized by Tommy.

We're not just talking about jobs on a production line where widgets get made or packing biscuits in tins. In fact most jobs nowadays are not measured in that way.

I'm sure Stephen Hawking would be worth more than a couple of quid an hour. Give them a chance and pay then what is considered enough to preserve their dignity. Anything less is unnacceptable.

Ah yes disabled peoples favourite argument from the non disabled - Stephen Hawking.

Stephen Hawking - who is beyond a hero and more incredible than most people even begin to realize, is not any sort of argument on any sort of disabled point because the man is unique - he is a singularity. About all you can use him to demonstrate is that there is an exception to every rule.

So back to what Freud was talking about. Maybe if we try taking this in single simple steps.

Can you conceive of a person who is so disabled (for whatever reason) that no employer would give them a job?

sphinx wrote:Ah yes disabled peoples favourite argument from the non disabled - Stephen Hawking.

Stephen Hawking - who is beyond a hero and more incredible than most people even begin to realize,  is not any sort of argument on any sort of disabled point because the man is unique - he is a singularity.  About all you can use him to demonstrate is that there is an exception to every rule.

So back to what Freud was talking about.  Maybe if we try taking this in single simple steps.

Can you conceive of a person who is so disabled (for whatever reason) that no employer would give them a job?

lol, you just proved your own view wrong on this whole thread, where already we know of countless factors you are missing and the singularity of each individual person defined as having a disability, of whom the disability is different  within many.
The example of Stephen Hawkins and other who have over come many obstacles because people claimed they would never be able to perform  in the same capacity as able bodied people, shows the bench mark also in this 3d picture is off the charts wrong. You need to then factor in how many people you are talking about here Sphinx, if it will affect, being as they all go for different roles and no doubt based off something they can do, even if they are hindered. Which is Stephen being posted is very valid.
Who cares about Freud? He would have laughed at your approach and methodology, pointing out the vast flaws, all of which you bases this off singularity, failing to the many factors that happen daily within the work place, are needed to provide and fair and balanced view made off this claim.
As seen on all fronts, it promoted discrimination.
Use your own mind and not the answers provided to each of my points from UKIP party headquarters.

Brasidas wrote:

sphinx wrote:Ah yes disabled peoples favourite argument from the non disabled - Stephen Hawking.

Stephen Hawking - who is beyond a hero and more incredible than most people even begin to realize,  is not any sort of argument on any sort of disabled point because the man is unique - he is a singularity.  About all you can use him to demonstrate is that there is an exception to every rule.

So back to what Freud was talking about.  Maybe if we try taking this in single simple steps.

Can you conceive of a person who is so disabled (for whatever reason) that no employer would give them a job?

lol, you just proved your own view wrong on this whole thread, where already we know of countless factors you are missing and the singularity of each individual person defined as having a disability, of whom the disability is different  within many.
The example of Stephen Hawkins and other who have over come many obstetrical, because people claimed they would never be able to perform  in the same capacity as able bodied people, shows the bench mark also in this 3d picture is off the charts wrong. You need to then factor in how many people you are talking about here Sphinx, if it will affect, being as they all go for different roles and no doubt based off something they can do, even if they are hindered. Which is Stephen being posted is very valid.
Who cares about Freud? He would have laughed at your approach and methodology, pointing out the vast flaws, all of which you bases this off singularity, failing to the many factors that happen daily within the work place, are needed to provide and fair and balanced view made off this claim.
As seen on all fronts, it promoted discrimination.
Use your own mind and not the answers provided to each of my points from UKIP party headquarters.

Uh you are confusing you UKIP obsession. This is not a UKIP policy, it is not any parties policy. It was a thought of Lord Freud when asked a question and UKIP have expressed condemnation of the idea - I do not agree with that.

Now lets see if you can answer a straight question - can you conceive of an individual who is so disabled no employer would ever give them a job?

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

lol, you just proved your own view wrong on this whole thread, where already we know of countless factors you are missing and the singularity of each individual person defined as having a disability, of whom the disability is different  within many.
The example of Stephen Hawkins and other who have over come many obstetrical, because people claimed they would never be able to perform  in the same capacity as able bodied people, shows the bench mark also in this 3d picture is off the charts wrong. You need to then factor in how many people you are talking about here Sphinx, if it will affect, being as they all go for different roles and no doubt based off something they can do, even if they are hindered. Which is Stephen being posted is very valid.
Who cares about Freud? He would have laughed at your approach and methodology, pointing out the vast flaws, all of which you bases this off singularity, failing to the many factors that happen daily within the work place, are needed to provide and fair and balanced view made off this claim.
As seen on all fronts, it promoted discrimination.
Use your own mind and not the answers provided to each of my points from UKIP party headquarters.

Uh you are confusing you UKIP obsession.  This is not a UKIP policy, it is not any parties policy.  It was a thought of Lord Freud when asked a question and UKIP have expressed condemnation of the idea - I do not agree with that.

Now lets see if you can answer a straight question - can you conceive of an individual who is so disabled no employer would ever give them a job?

I never once stated it was a UKIP policy, but I can see when someone is going seeking help of others in your The Mothers UKIP tea party , when that poster, you know to be intelligent has no response to points and then detracts to again Freud.


To answer your question.

Yes, a person in a coma.
You fell into that one.

Brasidas wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Uh you are confusing you UKIP obsession.  This is not a UKIP policy, it is not any parties policy.  It was a thought of Lord Freud when asked a question and UKIP have expressed condemnation of the idea - I do not agree with that.

Now lets see if you can answer a straight question - can you conceive of an individual who is so disabled no employer would ever give them a job?

I never once stated it was a UKIP policy, but I can see when someone is going seeking help of others in your The Mothers UKIP tea party , when that poster, you know to be intelligent has no response to points and then detracts to again Freud.


To answer your question.

Yes, a person in a coma.
You fell into that one.

OK a coma.

Can you conceive of a person so disabled while being concious and aware?

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


I never once stated it was a UKIP policy, but I can see when someone is going seeking help of others in your The Mothers UKIP tea party , when that poster, you know to be intelligent has no response to points and then detracts to again Freud.


To answer your question.

Yes, a person in a coma.
You fell into that one.

OK a coma.

Can you conceive of a person so disabled while being concious and aware?

lol, no need to answer, when the point is on whether someone is disabled, I proved someone in this disabled state, would be unemployable..
You move the goal posts now to try and get out of your mistake and thus thinks this will save you here, it doesn't
Sorry, you have to live with it.

So you are saying every disabled person that is conscious is employable?

Or more likely you know how I am constructing this argument which means you are already aware of my point so I dont need to bother.

sphinx wrote:So you are saying every disabled person that is conscious is employable?

Or more likely you know how I am constructing this argument which means you are already aware of my point so I dont need to bother.

I am saying a person with disabilities, can sometimes not be employable, what you stated is your words, again in some poor attempt to get around disabled people sometimes being unemployable.
The point is on disabilities, that is one area, with sub areas like with being conscious, an amputee etc, thus you cannot then decide to move the goal posts and move conscious into the same main group as Disabled itself, as to do so would mean also having to move those unconscious into the main group for balance. No system works off distorting what each area is rightly defined as, you are tying to now make an argument based off a sub group of disabilities which by doing so, then must propose that people in coma's are then not disabled, as that is what essentially you are stating,

So you concede that it is possible for a person to be so disabled they are unemployable.

Can you conceive of a person who is so disabled they are unemployable wanting to have a job and do work?

sphinx wrote:So you concede that it is possible for a person to be so disabled they are unemployable.

Can you conceive of a person who is so disabled they are unemployable wanting to have a job and do work?

Seriously is this all you have left now to debate with, just deflection points?
Remember, where you went wrong in the rape thread, what is the first choice, what is the first precedent, not change the rules because you cannot beat the methodology.
You failed to even answer my questions yesterday and I had to spell them because you have no basic working understanding of many industries, again no insult, but a fact.
So when you base your argument around every conceivable scenario that can be factor in and break down it is then fair, I am all ears, but if you keep using this singular approach to such a massive area, again your view is flawed and unworkable.

Let me know how you get on

So that will be your standard response to a question you do not want to answer - to accuse me of your own tactics.

Again the fact that you will not answer does indicate you know exactly where I am going and just dont want me to get there in public. No matter - I am not concerned whether you get there in public or private so long as my directions are clear enough you get there.

Me answer?
Seriously you avoided many answers here from not only myself but Quill ha ha.
Do me a favour, you are clutching at straws Sphinx, and you are intelligent enough to know you have no case here, the points have been raised all of which you have not addressed any of my points or Quills on these, you avoided them and failed to answer many questions and think some poor game of making out I am not going to answer questions, is your bench mark?
All I can say to that is oh dear. .
So best you go back and answer our points and than before asking a question which is made redundent by people in comas, you come back with a plausible counter, not on you keep changing to desperately get out of a hole.
Your Question again needs to factor in many things, can you think as to what?

Brasidas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe disabled people should be employed on a 'price work' basis where they get paid set amount per unit of production and if not earning past certain threshold then govt makes up the difference.


This is good all round as employers still get an employee who is paid for actual level of work done, disabled person gets to be in the work environment and experience etc, and although govt may still be supporting financialy, is at a lesser rate/cost as employment wages then makes up part of this cost.



What is so wrong with that?


It's better than seeing disabled people not getting any work because of more productive and able competition.

lol is there two Tommy's?
Everything was covered yesterday including your question which discriminates, before disabled people have started a days work according to your logic, they will now earn less pay, thus being stigmatized.
Even most people do not have the same jobs and because of countless factors, your question is rendered redundant. it has no sound reasoning behind it...


Even though you have no idea what each disability people have you have requested the law to be changed to deny them equal pay rights, based off no more than your perception that people disabled should thus be branded and they all cannot work in most jobs. Yeah I am sure many disabled people are going to be so please they have just been stigmatized by Tommy.

Not asking for any law to be changed, just suggesting they work 'on price', like many self employed tradesmmen do, and not on a set hourly rate.


With a fixed price to be earned per task.


Then they are only claiming money for actual work done.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


lol is there two Tommy's?
Everything was covered yesterday including your question which discriminates, before disabled people have started a days work according to your logic, they will now earn less pay, thus being stigmatized.
Even most people do not have the same jobs and because of countless factors, your question is rendered redundant. it has no sound reasoning behind it...


Even though you have no idea what each disability people have you have requested the law to be changed to deny them equal pay rights, based off no more than your perception that people disabled should thus be branded and they all cannot work in most jobs. Yeah I am sure many disabled people are going to be so please they have just been stigmatized by Tommy.

Not asking for any law to be changed, just suggesting they work 'on price', like many self employed tradesmmen do, and not on a set hourly rate.


With a fixed price to be earned per task.


Then they are only claiming money for actual work done.

You mean pay off inequality policies, as that is not working off price.

The pay is the same for all for good reasons, of which if you factor in many points, you will understand why, so I will ask, do you understand why?
If you say yes, you would have never asked to decrease the money, knowing full well, to place who does the most work not including many factors, to carry out the jobs, which will vary greatly would allow for people to wrongly obtain money they did not deserve and others discriminated on because they did actually work harder, though because certain factors did not even enter the bench mark, they lose out to someone who never deserved. .
Your view proposes, that people with disabilities should receive less, even though one of the reasons they do receive is because they have "disabilities" extra money is needed to help them better cope financially with the challenges they face off their own disability.
I will wait for that one to sink in and next bring into the equation.
Now as stated to Sphinx you both need to form a much better comprehensive view to prove to me it works, where as present, it fails, because it fails to factor in hardly anything

Laters

Brasidas wrote:Me answer?
Seriously you avoided many answers here from not only myself but Quill ha ha.
Do me a favour, you are clutching at straws Sphinx, and you are intelligent enough to know you have no case here, the points have been raised all of which you have not addressed any of my points or Quills on these, you avoided them and failed to answer many questions and think some poor game of making out I am not going to answer questions, is your bench mark?
All I can say to that is oh dear. .
So best you go back and answer our points and than before asking a question which is made redundent by people in comas, you come back with a plausible counter, not on you keep changing to desperately get out of a hole.
Your Question again needs to factor in many things, can you think as to what?

You are the one refusing to answer and I am the one with no case? Right.

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Me answer?
Seriously you avoided many answers here from not only myself but Quill ha ha.
Do me a favour, you are clutching at straws Sphinx, and you are intelligent enough to know you have no case here, the points have been raised all of which you have not addressed any of my points or Quills on these, you avoided them and failed to answer many questions and think some poor game of making out I am not going to answer questions, is your bench mark?
All I can say to that is oh dear. .
So best you go back and answer our points and than before asking a question which is made redundent by people in comas, you come back with a plausible counter, not on you keep changing to desperately get out of a hole.
Your Question again needs to factor in many things, can you think as to what?

You are the one refusing to answer and I am the one with no case?  Right.

I suggest you go back a page and see how you avoided points, posts and questions and then now clutch to demanding I answer something which is moot based upon the answer was given previously to the first question.
When you factor in all possible scenarios to equate for the fair benchmark, based around different roles, stock etc and show me it is fair based on every single company and prove it can work providing an equality policy then you will have something to actually debate back on, because your last posts where just deflections, avoiding all the points raised to you.

Again sub questions off a stand point, that being disabled when answered can then not have you move the goal post and try new tactic, where the original question that was answered, answers onto all other sub sect groups, being disability is the main point.

Right have to go, please post something that will actually be relevant to this debate.


Thanks

I avoided all the points you made attempting to divert attention away from what this thread is about.

Namely Freuds comments of possibly exempting some severely disabled people from minimum wage in order to allow them to have jobs - something that is not possible under the current system.

I will remain focused on that point by doing what I have been trained to do namely ignoring attempted diversions and repeating my central point.

I think Freud worded it badly but he was not making a policy statement he was answering an unexpected question at a fringe discussion. I think he does have some understanding of an issue which while it affects only a very small number is real and he is willing to consider possible solutions.

Again I do not care about Freud, twice I have told you, and he is not the only person in his field, showing how flawed your thinking is.
You failed to answer countless and you have now the tools to further this debate by obtaining the evidence you need to make a convincing case, of which at the moment your case is so cold, it flash froze.

The worst part is you do know you have nothing to build your argument on accept ignoring a vast amount of factors or possibilities to set your bench mark.

I am bored of saying this, which at every turn to keep explaining this to someone with no comprehension as you do on the hugely varied work place and  environment is exposed by your inaccurate answers.

Stop wasting my time with excuses Sphinx, work out the factors, because without them you have no case,

Right have fun people.

Brasidas wrote:Again I do not care about Freud, twice I have told you, and he is not the only person in his field, showing how flawed your thinking is.
You failed to answer countless and you have now the tools to further this debate by obtaining the evidence you need to make a convincing case, of which at the moment your case is so cold, it flash froze.

The worst part is you do know you have nothing to build your argument on accept ignoring a vast amount of factors or possibilities to set your bench mark.

I am bored of saying this, which at every turn to keep explaining this to someone with no comprehension as you do on the hugely varied work place and  environment is exposed by your inaccurate answers.

Stop wasting my time with excuses Sphinx, work out the factors, because without them you have no case,

PMSL.

You dont care about Freud while that is what this thread is about. Tell you want didge you might have more luck discussing the topics you do care about if you put them in their own thread and you make it really clear what the thread is about rather that jumping into other threads and trying to drag them off topic and acting like you making points when other posters refuse to be dragged off topic and insist on remaining with the subject the thread was opened about.

You want to go and talk about how varied work places are and how many factors can lead to different outcomes go open a thread on it - I will ignore it because it does not interest me. I will stay on this thread about what Freud said.

The thread is about Freud?

Really that will be news to Irn who posted it about comments made by a Lord. You brought in Freud, clearly off the back of some views you have read, but not all his works, so again no it is not about Freud, you want it to be about Freud and you have conceded the argument again by your over emotive responses.

Stop acting like a child, grow up, learn you need to present a far better counter, not the simplistic one I tore apart and then come back and debate like an adult, it is simple Sphinx.

On that I wish you luck