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

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

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.

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:33 pm

@TM
your argument is irrelevant as it is MINIMUM wage.
If employees are performing beyond the MINIMUM they should be paid more than the MINIMUM. the BEST preforming does not become the MINIMUM standard.

If an employer employs someone that would have otherwise been on a pension than a fair argument could be made that the employer can be compensated by the state since they are saving the state a Pension and the state is still financially better off.

It should not be put on the Employee but up to the Employer to do the paper work, really it is even easier as you just take it off their tax bill... seriously what would be a major headache for a disabled person(plus greater administration cost as they still need to do benefit forms etc) would be a simple taxation deduction for an employer, and the admin cost would be negligible as they already need to do their tax and it is just adding a couple of lines to the tax declarations.

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:03 pm

But the argument is about existing min wage jobs and required level of productivity.

If you are an employer with ten staff on min wage all packing ten boxes an hour for that money.... why would you employ someone else on same rate for less productivity?

If the disabled person is meeting level of productivity required, same as other existing staff then there is no argument.

This is about less productive people getting same level of pay.

It's not fair on employer, it's not fair on other employees.

I know a lot of charities that run as businesses, but you can't expect businesses to run as charities.

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:21 pm

AGAIN ALL YOUR POINTS IRRELEVANT LOOK UP THE MEANING OF THE WORD MINIMUM... it means the LOWEST you can go below, Not he Average or the Top it is the LOWEST.

Tommy Monk wrote:But the argument is about existing min wage jobs and required level of productivity. IRRELEVANT MINIMUM WAGE DOES SPECIFICALLY MEAN THAT YOU CANT REQUIRE A LEVEL OF PRODUCTIVITY!!!
Employers that Want to pay on productivity CAN but that pay has to be ABOVE minimum wage. Because it is the MINIMUM wage

If you are an employer with ten staff on min wage all packing ten boxes an hour for that money.... why would you employ someone else on same rate for less productivity?
Because of Tax cuts

If the disabled person is meeting level of productivity required, same as other existing staff then there is no argument.
well then they are NOT disabled and the employer Should NOT get the tax cuts

This is about less productive people getting same level of pay.
Yeah the MINIMUM

It's not fair on employer Yes it is they are paying the MINIMUM , it's not fair on other employees. Yeah their Employer is an asshole if they are working at beyond Minimum and he is still only paying them the absolute legal MINIMUM

I know a lot of charities that run as businesses, but you can't expect businesses to run as charities.
If a business cannot meet the MINIMUM requirements they should be out of business so a more efficient one can take their place in the Market. a Disabled person has more right to a minimum wage job than and Inefficient employer has to a profit. IF the Employer is NOT good enough at running a business to meet minimum standards than they can go get a job from someone that is.

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:28 pm

No wonder UK and Europe Economy is in the toilet, Stupid Ideas about protecting inefficient and incompetent corporations just because.

Free market global economy if they cant hold their own in the local economy what hope do they have in global.... you don't need employers that need the system to change to keep them a float, you need to change the employers to ones that can succeed with the Modern System.

just because a business has been around a 100 years is not a good reason for it to be around another 10 if it is in capable of keeping up.

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:50 pm

Veya, there has to be a certain sort of expected productivity to reflect the min wage, otherwise that level of productivity could be argued to be almost none at all.

Go back to my box filling example....

For this business to operate successfully it needs to be competitive and profitable.

And to do that then a certain level of productivity is needed from employees to make the figures work.

A less productive employee will always be told that they need to up their work rate to match required level, while a more productive one may warrant a pay rise or bonus etc.

But whatever way you look at it, a certain level of productivity is still required to justify that minimum wage rate.

And we are not talking about people (disabled or not) who meet this required level, we are talking about those who fall way short of It.

And with this lower level of productivity there would normally be a lower rate of pay offered.

But with min wage The employer has no option to offer less, and in many cases can't afford to keep paying that set rate for a sub standard level of productivity.

Meaning end of work for that person.

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:54 pm

While you are advocating making a business less efficient by having to pay less productive people the same as others who are meeting the set minimum requirements of productivity.

Simple maths.

Do you pay one person to fill ten boxes or pay two people the same amount each, ie double the money as the one gets, who are much slower to fill ten boxes in the same time?

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 22, 2014 12:11 am

There are a lot of things that are a drag on our economies at the moment.

Excessive costs is a major one which makes us fundamentally uncompetitive in global trade.

These excessive costs are down to a multitude of reasons which I won't start going into on this thread as is not relevant to OP.

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 22, 2014 12:41 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Veya, there has to be a certain sort of expected productivity to reflect the min wage, otherwise that level of productivity could be argued to be almost none at all.
NO that would be the Opposite of the point of the MINIMUM wage. AGAIN it is the MINIMUM employers are Free to reward productivity BY PAYING MORE THAN THE MINIMUM. The Minimum wage exist to protect exploitable people NOT to protect Shitty business people!!!!

Go back to my box filling example....
IRRELEVANT
AGAIN IF THE BUSINESS SUCKS SO HARD THEN IT SHOULD BE OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!
For this business to operate successfully it needs to be competitive and profitable.
Again They DON'T have a RIGHT to success if they are too shit then they fail!!! GOOD that is how capitalism works if you don't let the Shit business fail then you have a whole bunch of inefficient shit business like you do in the UK !!!!!
And to do that then a certain level of productivity is needed from employees to make the figures work.
Again Not the States Problem that and employer is Highly inefficient, MINIMUM IS MINIMUM.

A less productive employee will always be told that they need to up their work rate to match required level, while a more productive one may warrant a pay rise or bonus etc.

Exactly the MINIMUM is the MINIMUM someone is paid if they are productive they get MORE THAN THE MINIMUM

But whatever way you look at it, a certain level of productivity is still required to justify that minimum wage rate.
No because it si the MINIMUM if an employer cant deal with they should not be in Business

And we are not talking about people (disabled or not) who meet this required level, we are talking about those who fall way short of It.
Fired!!!! Business Don't get to pay LESS THAN THE MINIMUM ever, an employer than is legitimately doing a public service by employing people that would have otherwise been on a pension can get a tax break, they do NOT get pay a person with a disability LESS than the MINIMUM.

And with this lower level of productivity there would normally be a lower rate of pay offered.
NOT BELOW THE MINIMUM again do you know what the word MINIMUM means

But with min wage The employer has no option to offer less, and in many cases can't afford to keep paying that set rate for a sub standard level of productivity.
YES BECAUSE IT IS THE MINIMUM IF AN EMPLOYER IS TOO INEFFICIENT THAN THEY CAN GO OUT OF BUSINESS Literally you just said IF an employer can not achieve the productivity of the Minimum standards for a successful business we should lower the bar!!!! Fuck that Tommy, we can lower the bar for disabled people before employers!!! Cause Despite the RW rhetoric Employers are a dime a dozen cause an entrepreneur will always fill the niche in a NORMAL capitalist society that doesn't give unfair and unreasonable protection to inefficient and incompetent employers just because they have traditionally been employers,

Meaning end of work for that person.
AND???? it also means end of tax break for employer

I am gonna rename you "Tommy the Commie" since you hate Capitalism so much Cool

Although really you are using the exact logic defined as Fascist... You know who ALSO had a policy of letting employers pay certain groups Under Minimum??? why not just argue for slavery Suspect

let the employer feed and house them I mean if they actually have to afford them rights and a MINIMUM wage it could "Mean end of work for that person." Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 22, 2014 2:25 am

So you are effectively saying that minimum wage should be payable by employers to employees just for turning up?

And then they should be rewarded with more for actually doing something?

And then the more they do then the more they should get?

You moan about UK and EU economies being shit then you advocate forcing employers to pay people for just turning up And doing nothing?

Well once you admit that people are paid to actually do something, then you must also recognise that a certain level of doing is required to justify that position of work and the rate of pay too.

Which is what happens in the real world now.

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:11 am

Tommy Monk wrote:So you are effectively saying that minimum wage should be payable by employers to employees just for turning up?
YES that is the point.... what are you struggling with the concept of MINIMUM wage

And then they should be rewarded with more for actually doing something?

NO you are an idiot.

And then the more they do then the more they should get?

NO you are an idiot.

You moan about UK and EU economies being shit then you advocate forcing employers to pay people for just turning up And doing nothing?
NO you are an idiot

Well once you admit that people are paid to actually do something, then you must also recognise that a certain level of doing is required to justify that position of work and the rate of pay too.
Again you are an idiot

Which is what happens in the real world now.
NO what happens in the REAL world is that companies pay the MINIMUM fucking wage... the Whole OP is someone suggesting a very bad world where employers are allowed to discriminate and pay below what society has deemed the Minimum someone deserves for a full weeks employment. AND if you allow that then just FIRE every Anglo and employ Eastern Europeans for less, again by your logic this is what Business should be allowed to do because they can pay some less and get just as much

Again if You expect the Disabled person to meet some sort of Minimum Standard Why don't you think the employer Should?

You're economy is on the toilet because too many fools like you keep giving inefficient companies excuse to continue to be inefficient
AGAIN if they cannot meet the minimum they should get out of Business... Lets take you box business, you say someone should be allowed to pay less because they are inefficient and made an arbitrary measure they decided was the Minimum, Even thought the MINIMUM is decided by society NOT the fucking business!!!!
Well the Competing Box Business is making a profit and meeting minimum standards... In the UK Fools like you are keeping the inefficient one in business which stopping the one that is actually efficient from growing. the one that can't meet minimum standards need to go out of business so the more efficient one can grow and create greater overall efficiency in the economy.
The young Entrepreneur that has a far more efficient method that never gets off the ground and creates new jobs because your too busy letting some inefficient dinosaur discriminate against the disabled...

JUST SO YOU REALISE WHY YOU ARE SO Stupidly Dangerous
you are suggesting exactly what Hitler let VW and Mercedes DO!!!! You are literally Promoting Nazi Policy for the UK Evil or Very Mad

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:19 am

The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 Carrying-groceries-meme-one-trip

New Minimum as decided by Tommy's box company... if you cant do the same everyday you must be disabled and therefore do not deserve to earn the Minimum wage.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:41 am

Employers do meet a minimum standard, it's called minimum wage, and for that wage they also expect a set minimum standard of work done.

If you think you should be paid just for turning up as you said above, then you are clearly deluded.

Employer will always define work role and expectations for The pay reward offered.

They will ask if the person is able to fulfil this criteria.

If the answer is yes then job may be offered on that basis.

If the answer is no then job not offered.

I'd like to see you run a business where you pay all your staff just for turning up And doing fuck all....

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:59 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Employers do meet a minimum standard, it's called minimum wage, Your saying they should not have to pay that and for that wage they also expect a set minimum standard of work done. then can expect All the fuck they want but they have NO LEGAL repercussion they can issue except termination of employment

If you think you should be paid just for turning up as you said above, then you are clearly deluded.
NO the law is that IF you are on the clock you have to be PAID the MINIMUM WAGE, If your employer is unhappy they can terminate your employment NOT make up an excuse to pay you LESS than the Minimum, Or they pay you by productivity but THAT IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN MINIMUM WAGE.. Again these are the Laws to prevent Unscrupulous Business people from discriminating against disabled(or others)

Employer will always define work role and expectations for The pay reward offered.
NO they do not!!! the LAW does specifically MINIMUM WAGE LEGISLATION, an employer can choose to offer more to attract better staff but they CAN IN NO CIRCUMSTANCE PAY LESS

They will ask if the person is able to fulfil this criteria.
irrelevant

If the answer is yes then job may be offered on that basis.
irrelevant if the person didn't lie on the resume in a manner that constitutes fraud

If the answer is no then job not offered.
AND!!!!! what is your point????

I'd like to see you run a business where you pay all your staff just for turning up And doing fuck all....
AGAIN YOU ARE STUPID , I would fire them as is the LEGAL OPTION I would not go whine and cry as suggest I should be allowed to BREAK THE LAW and pay them under the Minimum wage

by Guest Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:23 am

Tommy Monk wrote: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.....

I never made any such claim in regards to levels of pay based on skills, qualifications etc, what I said is you wish to discriminate based on one factor, disabilities as if this is now a contributing factor to pay, of which disabilities is a wide broad category. Where there are countless more not even deemed disabled yet have conditions that affect them at times or permanently, which is discrimination on your part, where as stated even worse you wish to label them as abnormal, which you have failed to answer at every turn, being as you always try to worm your way out of answering. There is no fact, a disabled person can be and are better at some jobs than others, where you wish to blanket them over just having a disability, let alone never factoring each disability itself, let alone factoring any of the job roles themselves.

Try again, are you happy to label disabled people who wished to be treated normally as abnormal?
So based off your logic you wish injured British soldiers (thus being disabled) to receive less pay than those not injured and able?

by Raggamuffin Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:38 am

What about employment specifically for disabled people - like Remploy? I'm not sure how it worked, and the factories have been closed now anyway, but could there be a way to resurrect that kind of job?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/30/remploy-factories-close-disabled-workers

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:05 pm

I am talking about giving disabled people more opportunity in getting the work in the first place if govt were prepared to contribute towards the rate paid.

If disabled person is obviously not going to be able to perform at the required productivity rate then they will never get the job.

But if employer was able to pay 75% with govt making up the rest then it is much more likely the disabled person will get the job.

I said already I am looking at this purely from the angle that it Would give disabled people more opportunity.

Not as A way to discriminate.

What I'm suggesting will still result in disabled person getting the same money.

by Raggamuffin Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:32 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I am talking about giving disabled people more opportunity in getting the work in the first place if govt were prepared to contribute towards the rate paid.

If disabled person is obviously not going to be able to perform at the required productivity rate then they will never get the job.

But if employer was able to pay 75% with govt making up the rest then it is much more likely the disabled person will get the job.

I said already I am looking at this purely from the angle that it Would give disabled people more opportunity.

Not as A way to discriminate.

What I'm suggesting will still result in disabled person getting the same money.

The employer would still have to recruit another employee to cover what the disabled person can't do though - or make the other employees do more.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:49 pm

Not necessarily.

Employer might be happy to have the extra disabled person there to just that extra bit.

by Guest Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:35 pm

Still unable to factor anything here and still not grasping how such a view is flawed based off a view that now it seems all people with disabilities have the same disabilities.
They should be given the job because at the end of the day, if they are able to carry out the job. You are stipulating an employer thus can discrminate yet again based on now an assumption you are making, where all disabilities are different, and why should the Government pay, when it is the duty of the employer. You are basically allowing an employer to discrminate on pay, when you have no idea how capable some people with disabilities are, but they will be placed into the bracket of some who cannot, which again shows how badly flawed your view is.

Again you failed to answer:

Are you happy to label disabled people who wished to be treated normally as abnormal?
So based off your logic you wish injured British soldiers (thus being disabled) to receive less pay than those not injured and able?.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:42 pm

Dodge, we are not talking about disabled people who can do the required work, but ones who are not able to meet the requirements.

Ones who fall short of the expected level of productivity.

by Guest Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge, we are not talking about disabled people who can do the required work, but ones who are not able to meet the requirements.

Ones who fall short of the expected level of productivity.

That is even worse, how do you define this, based on what?

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:09 pm

Ability and performance I would suspect....

These people are currently excluded from the workplace because they are too unproductive and employers can't pay them less than min wage so just don't employ them at all.

You would rather see them remaining unemployed because of this.....

But if employers could pay them a bit less with govt topping up rate then they would be much more likely to employ them and it opens up opportunity.

Are you starting to hear what I'm saying yet????

by Lone Wolf Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
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.

THERE IS nothing quite so delusional as a couple of empty, spineless and clueless little English maggots trying their best to "defend the indefensible" !

Especially those spineless little "keyboard warriors" like nicko == berko litlle mong couldn't fight his way out a wet paper bag if his life depended on it ! Lying little brainless piece of shit that he is.. The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 2418298

The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 2418298

AS for Raggs' once again showing her regular and repetitious clueless brand of xenophobia, just what IS this "jealousy" that she talks of ?

* Britain isn't anywhere as rich and wealthy as the USA, or even China, India or Brazil, these days;
* Britain isn't anywhere near as free and democratic as Oz, NZ and Canadia, either - especially the way that Cameron and Murdoch have dragged them even further down;
* What wealth Britain has ever had to it's name was plundered from other countries; Evil or Very Mad

* Worst bunch of slimy little foreigner-bashing newspapers to be found anywhere;
* Bland food, and even more boring beer..

AND those couple of worthless, aimless and useless little twats above actually BELIEVE that Americans and Australians should be "jealous" of them ?

NOTHING MORE than two more worthless whinging fools.. The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 4233679493

The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 4233679493

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:56 pm

Lone wolf.... what a ----!

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:57 pm

I said c u n t......

by Original Quill Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:11 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I said c u n t......

But ya didn't procounce it well: cunt!

The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRImaTtoLUNiAjg8PF3DnUe9gGI5US8Q9U6hIOCZpEngUEVPMFJ

The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRImaTtoLUNiAjg8PF3DnUe9gGI5US8Q9U6hIOCZpEngUEVPMFJ

I lov ya Brits. But LW is right. Y'all belong to yesterday.

by Raggamuffin Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:19 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

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

THERE IS nothing quite so delusional as a couple of empty, spineless and clueless little English maggots trying their best to "defend the indefensible" !

Especially those spineless little "keyboard warriors" like nicko == berko litlle mong couldn't fight his way out a wet paper bag if his life depended on it ! Lying little brainless piece of shit that he is..

AS for Raggs' once again showing her regular and repetitious clueless brand of xenophobia, just what IS this "jealousy" that she talks of ?

* Britain isn't anywhere as rich and wealthy as the USA, or even China, India or Brazil, these days;
* Britain isn't anywhere near as free and democratic as Oz, NZ and Canadia, either - especially the way that Cameron and Murdoch have dragged them even further down;
* What wealth Britain has ever had to it's name was plundered from other countries;
* Worst bunch of slimy little foreigner-bashing newspapers to be found anywhere;
* Bland food, and even more boring beer..

AND those couple of worthless, aimless and useless little twats above actually BELIEVE that Americans and Australians should be "jealous" of them ?

NOTHING MORE than two more worthless whinging fools..

Haha! You so wish you were English. cheers

You don't have the breeding and decorum though. rabbit

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:01 pm

by Lone Wolf Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:01 am

Raggamuffin wrote:................................

Haha! You so wish you were English.

You don't have the breeding and decorum though.

I'M still waiting for someone, somewhere, to present just one single, clear, logical and irrefutable reason as to WHY any sane, intelligent, aware (and conscious..) individual could possibly wish that they were English in this day and age !

AND AS for "breeding and decorum" ~ the value of those traits are grossly overrated and overblown as well, if the likes of such useless oxygen thieves as Tommy "the commie" Monk and that little pinko mate of his 'nicko' are put up as examples ! clown

by Eilzel Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:16 am

Ok guys I get tommy is a tremendous knobhead and that but seriously what is with the Brit bashing. He doesn't speak for all of us, just a sadly large minority who read what most of us would consider toilet paper....

by Lone Wolf Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:23 am

JUST think of it as Tommy and nicko baiting, and it will start to make more sense...

Especially with their heightened sense of xenophobia..

tongue

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:00 am

Lone wolf showing his anti English racism and xenaphobic tendencies....

And prime example of the hypocrisy that is inherent throughout all lefties.....

If he had his way, we would be treated the same as the Jews in Nazi Germany....

But while he may pretend to support freedom and democracy etc, what he and other lefties really want is jackboot control over everyone and everything and for a dictatorship where it is only their way that is right and everyone has to abide by it or else.....

Oh, the irony.....

by Guest Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:23 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Ability and performance I would suspect....
These people are currently excluded from the workplace because they are too unproductive and employers can't pay them less than min wage so just don't employ them at all.
You would rather see them remaining unemployed because of this.....
But if employers could pay them a bit less with govt topping up rate then they would be much more likely to employ them and it opens up opportunity.
Are you starting to hear what I'm saying yet????

That again does not answer my questions based on what?
Job roles?
Define the disabilities?
How do you determine what a disabled person can achieve on performance when each will be different?

Again you are excusing an employer to pay what they should be paying.
An employer should look to make a role accommodating to the needs of those with a disability, for example they are in a wheel chair and thus to move boxes as an able person would need to would slow down their work, where packing the boxes would have no affect. Thus you accommodate them needing to move the boxes, which is where your view is utterly flawed, as you are setting a precedent on a simplistic view point, not seeing if the disability can be accommodated.
What is it on performance the company requires, all of which you are failing to outline here.
The reality is if more companies did make allowances and accommodate to the needs of disabilities more would be employed and is the area that needs addressing, not looking to cut pay, which is as seen discriminating. You then fail to accommodate if a person becomes disabled whilst in employment, where a company would look to find other work to accommodate their disability.
Again your view is so simplistic it fails to factor in anything and why as seen it is easy to show how utterly flawed it is.

I would love you to tell men who have served as soldiers they should be paid less for doing the same job as someone else, let me know how you get on.

Try again

by Lone Wolf Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:48 am

TOMMY MONK has a disabled brain...

THAT'S the most logical excuse for the empty-headed and often fallacious nonsense he has been passing off as his personal opinions since this thread started..

The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 1780941361

The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 1780941361

by Original Quill Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:19 am

Eilzel wrote:Ok guys I get tommy is a tremendous knobhead and that but seriously what is with the Brit bashing. He doesn't speak for all of us, just a sadly large minority who read what most of us would consider toilet paper....

Yea...I'm not going to stand for a Brit bashin' binge. Brits are cool...so's the UJ...

And we got cake...

The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 Wedding-tea_union-flag-cake

by nicko Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:29 am

you fancy me wolf? you seem to think of me every time you open your pc. tell the truth wolf, I'm beginning to fancy you as well,you are so macho, so big and strong and so knowledgable about world affairs, your beginning to turn me on. I do wish we could meet up, do you think there is any chance?

by veya_victaous Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:33 am

Eilzel wrote:Ok guys I get tommy is a tremendous knobhead and that but seriously what is with the Brit bashing. He doesn't speak for all of us, just a sadly large minority who read what most of us would consider toilet paper....

it's Fun

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:30 am

Lone Wolf wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:................................

Haha! You so wish you were English.

You don't have the breeding and decorum though.

I'M still waiting for someone, somewhere, to present just one single, clear, logical and irrefutable reason as to WHY any sane, intelligent, aware (and conscious..) individual could possibly wish that they were English in this day and age !

AND AS for "breeding and decorum" ~ the value of those traits are grossly overrated and overblown as well, if the likes of such useless oxygen thieves as Tommy "the commie" Monk and that little pinko mate of his 'nicko' are put up as examples !

Well obviously someone like you would say that breeding and decorum were overrated. That's because because you have none yourself. Are vulgarity and ignorance valued where you come from?

Now please be quiet, otherwise I shall sing Rule Britannia to you, and you wouldn't like that. The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 3986371719

The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 3986371719

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:34 am

Lone Wolf wrote:

TOMMY MONK has a disabled brain...

THAT'S the most logical excuse for the empty-headed and often fallacious nonsense he has been passing off as his personal opinions since this thread started..

His posts have been perfectly reasonable, whether one agrees with him or not. Your problem is that you're very narrow minded, as well as extremely rude and obnoxious.

by Ben Reilly Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:46 am

Eilzel wrote:Ok guys I get tommy is a tremendous knobhead and that but seriously what is with the Brit bashing. He doesn't speak for all of us, just a sadly large minority who read what most of us would consider toilet paper....

He doesn't, but boy-howdy does he act like he does! Typical right-wing tactic. Here, the Republicans are always giving interviews where they state their positions and then baldly claim that "the American people" agree.

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:51 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Ok guys I get tommy is a tremendous knobhead and that but seriously what is with the Brit bashing. He doesn't speak for all of us, just a sadly large minority who read what most of us would consider toilet paper....

He doesn't, but boy-howdy does he act like he does! Typical right-wing tactic. Here, the Republicans are always giving interviews where they state their positions and then baldly claim that "the American people" agree.

What's wrong with his posts in this thread? Quit your griping about the "right wing" and talk some sense for a change.

by Ben Reilly Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:54 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Ok guys I get tommy is a tremendous knobhead and that but seriously what is with the Brit bashing. He doesn't speak for all of us, just a sadly large minority who read what most of us would consider toilet paper....

He doesn't, but boy-howdy does he act like he does! Typical right-wing tactic. Here, the Republicans are always giving interviews where they state their positions and then baldly claim that "the American people" agree.

What's wrong with his posts in this thread? Quit your griping about the "right wing" and talk some sense for a change.

What's wrong with my post? My job is to tell it like it is ...

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:57 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What's wrong with his posts in this thread? Quit your griping about the "right wing" and talk some sense for a change.

What's wrong with my post? My job is to tell it like it is ...

So you hate people generalising, but you like to do it yourself - bleating on and saying things like "typical right wing tactic". I asked you what was wrong with his posts on this thread, and you can't tell me. You don't tell it like it is at all.

by Ben Reilly Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:05 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What's wrong with his posts in this thread? Quit your griping about the "right wing" and talk some sense for a change.

What's wrong with my post? My job is to tell it like it is ...

So you hate people generalising, but you like to do it yourself - bleating on and saying things like "typical right wing tactic". I asked you what was wrong with his posts on this thread, and you can't tell me. You don't tell it like it is at all.

Wow, so if I say it's typical for supermarkets to mark up prices in order to make profits, is that an unfair generalization? It's what happens. Right-wingers always, always, always pretend they speak for the majority; it's how they do business.

"Most people don't accept gay marriage. Most people think taxes are too high. Most people think global warming is a crock. Most people ..."

Don't tell me you don't see it. If you don't, you're just as biased as you're accusing me of being.

I guess "most people" think I'm biased? The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 1589716573

The 'Nasty Party' - Disabled people not worth the NMW - Page 5 1589716573

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:13 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So you hate people generalising, but you like to do it yourself - bleating on and saying things like "typical right wing tactic". I asked you what was wrong with his posts on this thread, and you can't tell me. You don't tell it like it is at all.

Wow, so if I say it's typical for supermarkets to mark up prices in order to make profits, is that an unfair generalization? It's what happens. Right-wingers always, always, always pretend they speak for the majority; it's how they do business.

"Most people don't accept gay marriage. Most people think taxes are too high. Most people think global warming is a crock. Most people ..."

Don't tell me you don't see it. If you don't, you're just as biased as you're accusing me of being.

I guess "most people" think I'm biased?

You do love that word "always" don't you?

Have you told me yet what's wrong with Tommy's posts in this thread? If so, I must have missed it. You also seem to have problems with answering straightforward questions.

I see you also missed the Brit-bashing in this thread.

by Ben Reilly Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:40 am

Raggs, I didn't jump in to comment on Tommy's posts, but how he (and every other right-winger, always) claims to speak for everyone, or at least the majority. It's a childish tendency, a playground tactic, and it's sad to see grown adults resorting to it.

Brit-bashing really needs to be taken in stride. You think people don't act like I'm responsible for America's misdeeds based on where I happened to be born?

When people are expressing their displeasure with America, we're all either George W. Bush or Paris Hilton. Australians and Kiwis are far too fond of their sheep, and British people conquer natives, spread disease and even that can't stop them from complaining (or "whinging," in that vernacular y'all like to dictate to the rest of us as the One and Only True English).

Just remember, there's a reason we bash one another rather than, say, Latvia Smile

And I do love the word "always." It reminds me of something else I'll always love:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JWTaaS7LdU

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:01 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Raggs, I didn't jump in to comment on Tommy's posts, but how he (and every other right-winger, always) claims to speak for everyone, or at least the majority. It's a childish tendency, a playground tactic, and it's sad to see grown adults resorting to it.

Brit-bashing really needs to be taken in stride. You think people don't act like I'm responsible for America's misdeeds based on where I happened to be born?

When people are expressing their displeasure with America, we're all either George W. Bush or Paris Hilton. Australians and Kiwis are far too fond of their sheep, and British people conquer natives, spread disease and even that can't stop them from complaining (or "whinging," in that vernacular y'all like to dictate to the rest of us as the One and Only True English).

Just remember, there's a reason we bash one another rather than, say, Latvia

And I do love the word "always." It reminds me of something else I'll always love:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JWTaaS7LdU

Have you not noticed that this is a thread about disabled people and minimim wage? Now if you want your forum to be a platform to bash Brits or to harass people for being right wing, regardless of the subject of the thread, that's entirely up to you, but please let me know.

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:03 am

Oh, and I hate that song. Razz

by Irn Bru Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:21 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Not necessarily.

Employer might be happy to have the extra disabled person there to just that extra bit.

Someone like Douglas Bader for example? I'm sure he would have been worth the NMW had he had the chance to prove it.

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:33 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Not necessarily.

Employer might be happy to have the extra disabled person there to just that extra bit.

Someone like Douglas Bader for example? I'm sure he would have been worth the NMW had he had the chance to prove it.

Well look, I don't know a great deal about Douglas Bader, but presumably he could fly a plane as well as anyone who had legs, so he would not have been paid any less for doing that. Therefore, it's not a very good example.

To me, the difficulty is how to approach this issue without sounding patronising or a bit bonkers. How would an employer approach disabled people? Would they advertise and say that disabled people are welcome as long as they don't mind being paid less?

How would a disabled person approach it? Would they apply for a job and then at the interview say that they can't actually do the whole job, but they will accept less money? What does the employer do then? Either they take them on and then get another disabled person to do the parts of the jobs that the first disabled person can't do, or they leave themselves short staffed.

by Sponsored content