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.

Brasidas wrote: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

Wow.

For once didge you have surprised me. I never thought you would be that uh wrong through failing to get a basic understanding of the subject being discussed.

The Lord in question is Lord Freud.

You might find my points make more sense if you read back knowing that.

Again this is you thinking that was being discussed, no, to me was debating against your discriminating view point proving it wad flawed and discriminating. What Freud views off your view had utterly no relevance to what is practical to achieve and as seen, which is what I was debating, was showing your view to pay more to employees ho do more productivity was unworkable, based around not factoring in anything.

So Freud had no relevance to the point I was making,

Seriously, just go out and buy some straws.

Brasidas wrote:Again this is you thinking that was being discussed, no, to me was debating against your discriminating view point proving it wad flawed and discriminating. What Freud views off your view had utterly no relevance to what is practical to achieve and as seen, which is what I was debating, was showing your view to pay more to employees ho do more productivity was unworkable, based around not factoring in anything.

So Freud had no relevance to the point I was making,

Seriously, just go out and buy some straws.

Yeah I get Freud had no relevance to the points you were making - that is because the points you were making had no relevance to what Freud said which is what this thread is about.

Anyway haven't you said you were leaving a couple of times?

Oh my, so Sphinx thinks she is in charge again.
No the debate was you using two views and now trying to merge them, where the main one you went with on money decreases has been shown to be utterly flawed, the other was no more than a distraction, your escape hatch if you like.
Please spare me on Freud, as if that is now your benchmark I shall happily sit back on that and wait to see if you can figure out why

I thought the subject of this thread was the remarks made by some tory mp. I had alook at his remarks and I thought he was tossing around the idea that disabled people could be paid a low wage to get them into work and the government would make up that wage to the minimum rate. I can't see much wrong with that.

nicko wrote:I thought the subject of this thread was the remarks made by some tory mp. I had alook at his remarks and I thought he was tossing around the idea that disabled people could be paid a low wage to get them into work and the government would make up that wage to the minimum rate.  I can't see much wrong with that.

So did I as well.
Already explained about how the other points is not a reality and unequal and have given my reasons to why.

nicko hates Disabled people ? NO surprises there, peeps ~ always knew he was a despicable little twerp..
He just happens to be even more intent on proving that point this past week.


GOVERNMENT subsidies (as mentioned by veya early on in the piece..) and suitable tax breaks can help employers to provide a "living wage" for disabled employees..

EXCEPT for those mongrel-gutted idealogues who would rather abuse the disadvantaged even further, through arrogantly claiming that paying 'slave wages' would somehow be "helping" the disabled, the poor and the long term unemployed == EVEN IF it means insulting, devaluing, disenfranchising and further abusing their fellow human beings...

Lone Wolf wrote:

nicko hates Disabled people ?  NO surprises there, peeps ~ always knew he was a despicable little twerp..
He just happens to be even more intent on proving that point this past week.


GOVERNMENT subsidies (as mentioned by veya early on in the piece..) and suitable tax breaks can help employers to provide a "living wage" for disabled employees..

EXCEPT for those mongrel-gutted idealogues who would rather abuse the disadvantaged even further, through arrogantly claiming that paying 'slave wages' would somehow be "helping" the disabled, the poor and the long term unemployed ==  EVEN IF it means insulting, devaluing, disenfranchising and further abusing their fellow human beings...    

So in other words if the money is called a subsidised minimum wage you are all for it

But if the same amount of money is called a £2 minimum wage plus top up you consider it abuse of the disadvantaged?

"nicko hates disabled people" you stupid mongrel thick headed cnut, i am disabled myself you fcuking brainless twat. i am in a wheelchair, my legs don't work, god, i'd have loved to meet you 30 yrs ago you useless excuse for a human being. i'd have beat the shit out of you!

Ps ben, do something about this brainless idiot, all he can post is insults.

Okay seriously calm down.

Nicko, I'm sure wolf didn't know you were disabled and wolf, please be aware that sometimes, people get heated and don't know what another's story is.

Take five guys x

NICKO isn't the only disabled  person on here...

I'VE been personally carrying a couple of disabilities for as long as I care to remember (congenital dislocated hip; deafness on one side..); as well as having a couple of much more seriously disabled persons among my cousins ~ so I really don't have much time for fascist little turds insulting and abusing the disabled and the disadvantaged, and then attempting to excuse or dilute their abusive tone, cruel ideas, and even hatemongering because they carry a couple of disabilities themselves.
That's no different in concept from moral and ethical viewpoints to a cyber-bully who makes racially-based attacks on people, only to be exposed later on as a "coloured" person themself..

OR somebody like Tommy, as another example, who makes completely stupid, inane and OTT statements against others, and then one day in the future could well fall back on his lack of intelligence and poor comprehension and analytical skills as an excuse...

AND what about those cruel and irreligious criminals, politicians, drug pushers and warmongers over the centuries who hoped that a deathbed confession and a few million lira to their preferred religion might procure them a speedy trip to their mythical paradise..

THE magnitude may be increasingly worse for these varied activities, but the philosophical intent behind the actions remains quite similar !    

nicko wrote:I thought the subject of this thread was the remarks made by some tory mp. I had alook at his remarks and I thought he was tossing around the idea that disabled people could be paid a low wage to get them into work and the government would make up that wage to the minimum rate.  I can't see much wrong with that.

Although it sounds great in principle That idea would simply result in exploiters ahem....employers "taking the piss"

yeah we will employ the guy with one leg ......on a bench job.....for 10p per hour....and the state...(thats you and me) ...can subsidise him. (actually me the exploiter) to the tune of the rest of the minimum wage.

suddenly moderately disabled people will become the hottest thing in employees.....

meanwhile the really disabled STILL wont get a look in....and the idle rich will get fatter still.....

Its all very worthy...but utterly impractical and wide open to abuse....especially since a Tory is proposing it, clearly its NOT for the good of the disabled, but for the 1% who have 90%

eddie wrote:Okay seriously calm down.

Nicko, I'm sure wolf didn't know you were disabled and wolf, please be aware that sometimes, people get heated and don't  know what another's story is.

Take five guys x

Why are you posting as if Nicko is at fault for taking umbrage?

A better way to do it is for employers to pay a disabled person the going rate - minimum wage if that's what everyone else is getting. Then the employer could claim some money off the State if necessary. If you pay a disabled person less, how is that going to make them feel equal?

Raggamuffin wrote:A better way to do it is for employers to pay a disabled person the going rate - minimum wage if that's what everyone else is getting. Then the employer could claim some money off the State if necessary. If you pay a disabled person less, how is that going to make them feel equal?

Well, you bring up a good point.  Any state intervention due to disability is going to stigmatize the individual.  The advantage to a minimal wage is that it applies to everyone, not just to the disabled person, thus removing the stigma.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:A better way to do it is for employers to pay a disabled person the going rate - minimum wage if that's what everyone else is getting. Then the employer could claim some money off the State if necessary. If you pay a disabled person less, how is that going to make them feel equal?

Well, you make a good point.  Any state intervention due to disability is going to stigmatize the individual.  The advantage to a minimal wage is that it applies to everyone, not just to the disabled person, thus removing the stigma.

Exactly. The employer could perhaps apply for some money to make up for any lack of productivity or something. Of course that could be open to abuse, but perhaps if it was just for people who were registered disabled that wouldn't happen.

nicko wrote:I thought the subject of this thread was the remarks made by some tory mp. I had alook at his remarks and I thought he was tossing around the idea that disabled people could be paid a low wage to get them into work and the government would make up that wage to the minimum rate.  I can't see much wrong with that.

Seems the Question Time audience agree Nicko.
Also worth bearing in mind that the comment was in response to a question.

http://order-order.com/2014/10/17/eagle-crash-landed-watch-question-time-audience-turn-on-labour-over-freud/

Raggamuffin wrote:A better way to do it is for employers to pay a disabled person the going rate - minimum wage if that's what everyone else is getting. Then the employer could claim some money off the State if necessary. If you pay a disabled person less, how is that going to make them feel equal?

that's right ... the business should get a 'refund' from the state rather than the disable have to apply for a partial pension to make up the difference.

If a disabled person can do the required work and at an acceptable rate of productivity then there is no reason not to give them the job.


But if they are going to be less productive then who is The employer going to choose?


If an employer could take on the disabled person at a lower rate reflecting this lower productivity level with the govt topping this up to make up the difference then everyone is a winner!

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:A better way to do it is for employers to pay a disabled person the going rate - minimum wage if that's what everyone else is getting. Then the employer could claim some money off the State if necessary. If you pay a disabled person less, how is that going to make them feel equal?

that's right       ... the business should get a 'refund' from the state rather than the disable have to apply for a partial pension to make up the difference.

Yes!

Tommy Monk wrote:If a disabled person can do the required work and at an acceptable rate of productivity then there is no reason not to give them the job.


But if they are going to be less productive then who is The employer going to choose?


If an employer could take on the disabled person at a lower rate reflecting this lower productivity level with the govt topping this up to make up the difference then everyone is a winner!

Except the other employees who will have to work harder, and the disabled person, who might be happy to have a job at first but would soon feel that they were not valued or that they were being humoured.

The disabled person could always sit at home getting paid for doing nothing....

I think you actually both have interesting points, Rags & Tommy. I could see a disabled person taking on a job under these circumstances in order to be more productive, only to get a new set of problems when their co-workers resent them through no fault of their own.

I'd just add that in the U.S., disabled workers are exploited horribly. There's a grocery store nearby that brags about how many disabled workers they hire -- but none of them has had a raise since they started, some of them for a decade or more.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think you actually both have interesting points, Rags & Tommy. I could see a disabled person taking on a job under these circumstances in order to be more productive, only to get a new set of problems when their co-workers resent them through no fault of their own.

I'd just add that in the U.S., disabled workers are exploited horribly. There's a grocery store nearby that brags about how many disabled workers they hire -- but none of them has had a raise since they started, some of them for a decade or more.

Yes, it's a difficult situation really. I would say that most minimum wage type jobs are the sort where you have to be physically fit in order to do the job, and in a lot of cases mentally robust as well. Look at retail or the fast food industry. You get customer complaints and targets to meet, and all that stuff - and you need to be able to cope with that. A co-worker may well resent it if they have more put on them, and that doesn't make them a horrible person or anything - they have enough stress of their own to deal with.

He said they are not worth it and that's the mindset that exists within many of the Tory party. They see the poor, the sick and the disabled as a drag on the economy and they hate the welfare state and they have now brought in a low wage economy where people are worse off.

If he had been talking about bankers and CEOs who get paid lottery winning salaries and bonuses then I would have given him a big cheer for saying that but picking on the disabled just sums up where their priorities lie. The disabled didn't cause the problems or the recession and they don't stash any cash away offshore or hide what little they have because they don't have anything.
And now we see George Osborne resisting attempts to control bonuses despite saying he will do something about it.
There are many large businesses and multi-nationals that can take on disabled people without any noticeable difference to their profits. Many of them fly the Investors in People flag over their premises as well so let them prove it.

According to this poll the general public would appear to agree that the NMW should be the same for everyone.

Pay everyone the same minimum wage say voters

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/17/pay-everyone-same-minimum-wage-say-voters/

To an employer, some maybe aren't worth the same rate as others available.


But If rate is set at certain level then all that will happen is that the disabled person will be far less likely to get the job.


An employer will not take on a less productive disabled person when others more productive and without disability are available.



I would like to see more disabled people able to get into employment but this is an obvious barrier.


If a disabled person can be equally productive then it is not an issue and they should be equally likely to get the job.


But if less productive then is It really for the employer to subsidise them at a loss?


And for others to see someone doing much less for The same money?

Tommy Monk wrote:To an employer, some maybe aren't worth the same rate as others available.


But If rate is set at certain level then all that will happen is that the disabled person will be far less likely to get the job.


An employer will not take on a less productive disabled person when others more productive and without disability are available.



I would like to see more disabled people able to get into employment but this is an obvious barrier.


If a disabled person can be equally productive then it is not an issue and they should be equally likely to get the job.


But if less productive then is It really for the employer to subsidise them at a loss?


And for others to see someone doing much less for The same money?

You're right of course. It would be nice to think that there are employers out there who will think of something other than profit, but to be fair, they do have to think about that in order to keep jobs safe for all their employees.

That's why I think it would be good for the Government to pay a subsidy to an employer who takes on someone who perhaps isn't as productive as others.

It's all a bit demeaning really whichever way you look at it. I think I'd rather do voluntary work where people aren't expected to be as productive as someone who's being paid.

Tommy Monk wrote:To an employer, some maybe aren't worth the same rate as others available.


But If rate is set at certain level then all that will happen is that the disabled person will be far less likely to get the job.


An employer will not take on a less productive disabled person when others more productive and without disability are available.



I would like to see more disabled people able to get into employment but this is an obvious barrier.


If a disabled person can be equally productive then it is not an issue and they should be equally likely to get the job.


But if less productive then is It really for the employer to subsidise them at a loss?


And for others to see someone doing much less for The same money?

You get a +1 from me Tommy. Or what I call a:

You are right, that it's about productivity and competition in the labour market.

By actually accepting the logic that a disabled person 'might not' be as productive than an abled person for a particular job, by paying the disabled person less than the NMW improves their competitiveness in the labour market.

The benefits system can compensate the disabled worker through tax credits and benefits, so that their actual earnings are comparable to NMW or the average salary.

This also reduces the burden on the benefit system, by every hour they work.

It's actually about levelling the playing field in the Labour market, on favour of disabled people.

TRUTH of the matter...

ALL them redneck R.W. extremists are a sick bunch of puppies..

A good dose of ol' faithful worm medicine would do them the world of good !

Lone Wolf wrote:

TRUTH of the matter...

ALL them redneck R.W. extremists are a sick bunch of puppies..

A good dose of ol' faithful worm medicine would do them the world of good !    

At least try to post in the right thread.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:It's actually about levelling the playing field in the Labour market, on favour of disabled people.

Yes, but it's how to do it without making disabled people feel they're being patronised, and without other employees feel put upon.

Thank you rags and Zack, that is what I've been trying to say all along.


I'm sure a willing Disabled person would rather be doing some work and engaging on a lesser rate but with govt making up the difference.


An employer will then be much more likely to take them on.


And govt will be spending less in supporting them if they were earning part of their money through employment.



Everyone is a winner!

And I'm sure a Disabled person would be the first to know that they may not be as productive as someone abled, that's why they are called 'disabled'.



If they can meet the productivity rate of others then not an issue.


But if they are obviously less productive then they will know this too and will surely realise that their work rate is of a lesser value.


But as long as govt tops up their overall earnings to meet a set NMW equivalent then I don't see that there is any real issue.



Other workers would have respect for their colleague for The effort, An employer will not have to suffer a loss in subsidising a less productive worker, and there would be much more opportunity for The disabled person wanting to engage in normal life as much as possible.

But uhh, would have to have safe guards that disabled people were not exploited as cheaper labour for The employers with govt funding too much and subsidising business.


A rate would have to be based on reflective productivity and comparable to other workers level.


ie, if productivity level was 70% oe other workers then rate should be 70% of this with other 30% being made up by govt through benefits or credits etc.



I don't see this as being in any way aimed at punishing or exploiting disabled people but to give them more opportunity in getting work should they want to do so.

yeah tommy, and who is going to decide what the disabled workers "productivity" is

are you going to have govt inspectors in every factory/workplace "monitoring" EVERY workers output.
other wise of cours the exploiter employer will simply lie to gain yet more profit...

and of course once the govt gives itself the power to monitor everyones output individually (on the excuse that it has to do this to protect the disabled, which will be the ONLY time you EVER see tories "protecting" disabled) then whats next, what dirty stinking trick will they put that info to ?

victorisnotamused wrote:yeah tommy, and who is going to decide what the disabled workers "productivity" is

are you going to have govt inspectors in every factory/workplace "monitoring" EVERY workers output.
other wise of cours the exploiter employer will simply lie to gain yet more profit...

and of course once the govt gives itself the power to monitor everyones output individually (on the excuse that it has to do this to protect the disabled, which will be the ONLY time you EVER see tories "protecting" disabled) then whats next, what dirty stinking trick will they put that info to ?

Well said Victor.
They still have not grasped what factors mean, they label as one, if you are disabled to then define wages off productivity, where no such scenario exists for many, and not on what disability they have, just that they are disabled. Using their logic this some how means being disabled will make you perform less, based only on they have a disability, not what it is that restricts.

Talk about making people who are disabled feel even more disabled, when they want people to treat them normally, rightly as normal people.

I'm looking at this from the perspective of giving disabled people more opportunity rather than at the moment an employer is most likely to take on an abled person who may be more productive at that minimum wage level.



I have worked as an electrician before on a set price per job, ie wiring a one bed flat might pay a set £200, if I could do that in a day then that is what I earn that day, if a slower person or maybe a slightly disabled person dodgy leg for example took two days then they earn £100 a day over two days.


Keeping the minimum wage set and inflexible to accommodate a Disabled worker being much less productive will just result in less opportunity for work for willing disabled people.


As an employer will always opt for The most able person who will be most productive for that minimum wage.



Meaning disabled person remains unemployed, taxpayer picks up all the bill rather than disabled person employed and taxpayer only picking up small part.



What's wrong with more people paid on price basis which would result in all getting paid for all they do, with incentive to do more for more etc?

Then everyone just gets paid for what they actually do and there's no arguments.



Say for example that a job exists on minimum wage filling boxes.

The employer expects about 80 boxes a day each person in an 8 hour day.


That means they need to do 10 boxes an hour to get their £6.30 or whatever it is.


Would be sensible to just say that each gets 63p a box etc.


Those who do more get a couple quid more an hour, those who do less or less productive disabled person gets couple quid less an hour....

Still not able to factor anything, again an argument from singularity, you need to answer and factor in many points you are missing Tommy to see why such a view is utterly flawed and is why your argument has hit a brick wall.

Why it flawed?

If 10 boxes are being done by some people already, at hourly rate of min wage, why would an employer take on someone who could only do 5-6 at same rate when they can get someone else who does 10 as well?


Either employer has to take on less productive person on lower rate or immediately pay everyone else more if takes them on.

Why is it flawed?
It fails to factor many things as seen, you place a base argument on a singularity, when disabilities are all different, let alone why a role might not have continuity based around varied production roles , thus try again, your view is based off a set parameter, and thus is flawed.
If a person is disabled he is discriminated from the start, as not being normal, when the objective is to be treated as normal, your view declares them as abnormal, by paying them less. Productivity, is now the bench mark for wages using this logic, where we only benefit the strongest and discriminate against the weak.
Is that what you are really arguing for Tommy?

Take your time on this, because you will need it.

Night

The strongest youad already be doing better more highly paid dodge, this include disabled people already too who are more capable.



We are talking about min wage jobs where able people are already doing and expected to achieve a certain level of productivity.


If a disabled person can meet this level then there is nothing to debate, we are talking about disabled people who can't meet this level of productivity.


In the name of equality, If it is acceptable do a disabled person to do less for this set rate then it will then mean it is ok for everyone to do that level of productivity for that rate too.


Basic economics dodge.


A disabled person might be less productive because of their disability, no fault of their own, but it is also not the fault of an employer who will simply just refuse to employ someone of less productivity.


This is a barrier to disabled people getting into productive employment.

Equality you say?


Read back on what you say, there is no equality, you make them disabled.

Think about it and why you fail to even comprehend any point addressed to you. A person ill might be less productive for a short time. Can of worms.

When people set a level of pay based on performance, it will always fail, why? Because all people cannot achieve the same, where some are advantaged over others on attributes, just as they themselves are disadvantaged on others.

Oh one last question before I go.
Tommy, do you think a person with a disability, wants to be defined by their disability?

When you understand that, then you will know what you propose has no logic.

That's why people should do work they can and are good at.

People are paid in work for what they can do, not what they can't do.

You just made them abnormal.

Think about it.

They wanna work, but get paid less because you decided they were abnormal.

Think about it.

So you think everybody should be paid the same regardless of ability, productivity, skills, qualifications etc...?




It may not be the disabled persons fault that they are disabled but it certainly isn't the employers fault and they don't have to employ anyone less productive regardless of productivity and face a subsequent loss either.



Fact is that any low paid minimum wage job should be low skilled and expecting a low rate of productivity anyway, but our young people and our disabled people are no longer getting those jobs because of high immigration of other slightly older and more able people from east Europe and elsewhere.....



And fact remains that if an employer can get someone to fill 10 boxes an hour for min wage, they are not going to employ anyone on same rate who can only fill 5 or 6.



So yeah, keep things as they are and see more young and disabled consigned to a life on benefits.....