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 Irn Bru Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:00 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
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.

Well I think you should go and find out a bit more about him to see the prejudice and the barriers he had to overcome to be given the chance to prove he would have been worth the NMW.

He's as good an example as you will ever find.

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:10 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

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.

Well I think you should go and find out a bit more about him to see the prejudice and the barriers he had to overcome to be given the chance to prove he would have been worth the NMW.

He's as good an example as you will ever find.

So you want to discuss whether or not disabled people can do a job as well as a person who is not disabled?

This is really about disabled people who can't do a particular job quite as well as a non-disabled person though, is it not?

by nicko Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:33 pm

Lone cub is disabled,so he says.It really makes me sad to know he's suffering. Cheer up cub I'm thinking about you. [not]

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:17 pm

Brasidas wrote:
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

Again dodge, we are not talking about disabled people who CAN do the required work, we are talking about those who CAN'T do the required work.

Employers CAN'T pay them any less, so what happens is that willing disabled people are just not offered the work.

this is a barrier to some disabled people who want to work.

Are you suggesting that employers should have to employ them and suffer the loss?

Because in the real world that does not happen.

But what I'm suggesting is a way that means the disabled person does get a job, the employer doesn't have to suffer a loss and costs to tax payer are greatly reduced.

When you get off this 'discrimination' bullshit and actually start to think about things rationally then you might start to understand.

My suggestion is about giving some disabled people more opportunity and enhancing their lives by being able to engage in the wider work environment/society where they are currently excluded because they are not able to meet the productivity needed to justify being paid the min wage.

And thanks rags, the thing with lefties is they get stunned by logic and reason and then when they start to realise they are wrong they start trying to change the argument.

by nicko Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:40 pm

have been disabled for some years now, most of the time sitting in the house bored stiff. If an Employer had offered me a job at £3 an hour with the government making it up to the minimum wage I would have jumped at it, and I have no doubt that a lot of others would too.

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:55 pm

Common sense nicko is lost on a leftie....

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:58 pm

nicko wrote:

have been disabled for some years now, most of the time sitting in the house bored stiff. If an Employer had offered me a job at £3 an hour with the government making it up to the minimum wage I would have jumped at it, and I have no doubt that a lot of others would too.

I don't think I would. I'd rather do voluntary work.

by nicko Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:11 pm

don't understand that rags, what would you live on?

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:27 pm

nicko wrote:don't understand that rags, what would you live on?

What do disabled people live on now? I guess if they worked full time and had the pay made up, they could get more than they get in benefits. However, I just wouldn't like to be under that pressure and feel that I was having allowances made for me.

by Guest Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:37 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

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

Again dodge, we are not talking about disabled people who CAN do the required work, we are talking about those who CAN'T do the required work.
Employers CAN'T pay them any less, so what happens is that willing disabled people are just not offered the work.this is a barrier to some disabled people who want to work.
Are you suggesting that employers should have to employ them and suffer the loss?
Because in the real world that does not happen.But what I'm suggesting is a way that means the disabled person does get a job, the employer doesn't have to suffer a loss and costs to tax payer are greatly reduced.When you get off this 'discrimination' bullshit and actually start to think about things rationally then you might start to understand.
My suggestion is about giving some disabled people more opportunity and enhancing their lives by being able to engage in the wider work environment/society where they are currently excluded because they are not able to meet the productivity needed to justify being paid the min wage.

And thanks rags, the thing with lefties is they get stunned by logic and reason and then when they start to realise they are wrong they start trying to change the argument.

So I see Tommy has just repeated himself for the hundredth time without addressing any single point, failing to show how it is even workable.

Try again

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:22 pm

Looks like Didge has missed the point again....

Could be easily done by govt offering to pay a set percentage of min wage rate to employers, say somewhere between 20-40% maybe.

Obviously this would be aimed at disabled people who currently want to work but can't because their disabilities make them unable to be productive enough to warrant being paid full min wage.

This is about giving them more opportunity, not about lowering wages for others who can already be productive enough to justify minimum wage.

by Guest Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:26 pm

Nope, still not addressed a single point or able to show it is workable.

Try again

by Irn Bru Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:42 pm

nicko wrote:

have been disabled for some years now, most of the time sitting in the house bored stiff. If an Employer had offered me a job at £3 an hour with the government making it up to the minimum wage I would have jumped at it, and I have no doubt that a lot of others would too.

Try thinking out of the box Nicko and get away from the negativity and the box that you have been conditioned to accept as what you are capable of.

What if the BAA offered you a job manning one of those scanning machines examining passengers baggage going through the airport gateway. You could do that couldn't you?

How about a job with the UK Border Agency examining passports of immigrants entering the UK. You could do that couldn't you? - and you'd love it.

That's just a couple of examples of thousands of jobs that disabled people can do without relying on anyone else for support. Nothing less than the NMW will do.

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:03 pm

If they can do the work then they deserve the going rate like anyone else.

If they can't do the required level of work to warrant the min wage then they are simply not employed at all.

If the govt were to subsidise part of The rate then the ones who can't will be more employable and thus giving them more opportunity.

Surely that is a good thing?

by Irn Bru Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:21 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If they can do the work then they deserve the going rate like anyone else.

If they can't do the required level of work to warrant the min wage then they are simply not employed at all.

If the govt were to subsidise part of The rate then the ones who can't will be more employable and thus giving them more opportunity.

Surely that is a good thing?

You're one of those locked in a box and tied up in negativity at what the disabled can do in the workplace. There are loads of jobs that they can do so try thinking out of the box and look towards the huge pool of talent and creativity that the disabled can offer.

You just want to focus on jobs in a physical production and handling environment instead of looking beyond that to jobs where physical disablement are not a factor in what they can do.

Try looking in on the Business Disability Forum and have a look around to see what's possible and what can be done in terms of training and engagement with disabled people.

http://businessdisabilityforum.org.uk/

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:28 pm

No I don't Irn, and you are forgetting mental disabilities.....

If a disabled person can do the required work then they should be paid the going rate.

How many times do I have to say that....

But there are disabled people out there who want to work and can do something but just not at a productivity rate that is enough to justify min wage, so they remain unemployed and unemployable.

Do you think that is good for anyone?

Solution, govt pays part of The min wage rate.

Disabled person then gets job, working, earning money to support themselves, engaging with wider society in a happier and more fulfilling way.

They still end up earning the same min wage.

Employer is then not employing them at a loss.

Taxpayer is not picking up all the cost of looking after them.

Everyone is a winner!

by Irn Bru Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:No I don't Irn, and you are forgetting mental disabilities.....

If a disabled person can do the required work then they should be paid the going rate.

How many times do I have to say that....

But there are disabled people out there who want to work and can do something but just not at a productivity rate that is enough to justify min wage, so they remain unemployed and unemployable.

Do you think that is good for anyone?

Solution, govt pays part of The min wage rate.

Disabled person then gets job, working, earning money to support themselves, engaging with wider society in a happier and more fulfilling way.

They still end up earning the same min wage.

Employer is then not employing them at a loss.

Taxpayer is not picking up all the cost of looking after them.

Everyone is a winner!

People with mental disabilities require the protection of the state and need to managed by people who know what they are doing and how to deal with the type of problems they have and not be thrust into a production type environment for a couple of quid an hour and be looked after by workmates and a business that probably doesn't have a clue in to how to deal with or look after them. They're as much a danger to themselves as they are to the others around them in the type of production environment where you want to place them.

We had the ideal solution with Remploy until the Tories shut what was left of the factories. TBF Labour's hands are not that clean on what happened either but the rot set in when Michael Portillo ordered that Remploy would lose their protected status and they would have to compete in the competitive tendering process for government contracts which resulted in their order intake going down from 18 million a year to 3 million over 18 months and which put around 10000 disabled people out of work and on the dole.

And I see you have now fallen back into that box again with productivity again your focus. You didn't read the Disability Business Forum or understand the examples I gave Nicko, did you?

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:07 pm

I understand what you're saying but try to understand what I'm saying.

I'm not looking at this as a way to start paying disabled people who are equally capable of doing work as abled people less money.

I am looking at this as a way to give more opportunity to those who aren't as able.

And mental disability has a wide range of conditions. Not all require specialist care.

I would rather see a less abled disabled person who is willing and keen to engage in work actually being given more opportunity to actually be in work.

If making that happen means that part of their pay is made up with some govt subsidy then I think that is a good idea.

Please don't think I am supporting the exploitation of anyone, especially not someone who is already faced with a harder life already through disability.

That would be quite wrong and I would be angry at anyone who wanted to do such a thing.

by Raggamuffin Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I understand what you're saying but try to understand what I'm saying.

I'm not looking at this as a way to start paying disabled people who are equally capable of doing work as abled people less money.

I am looking at this as a way to give more opportunity to those who aren't as able.

And mental disability has a wide range of conditions. Not all require specialist care.

I would rather see a less abled disabled person who is willing and keen to engage in work actually being given more opportunity to actually be in work.

If making that happen means that part of their pay is made up with some govt subsidy then I think that is a good idea.

Please don't think I am supporting the exploitation of anyone, especially not someone who is already faced with a harder life already through disability.

That would be quite wrong and I would be angry at anyone who wanted to do such a thing.

I don't get why some people don't get what you're saying. It seems perfectly clear to me. The whole point of this thread is that some disabled people cannot do as much as someone who is not disabled. If they get a job where they can, the pay is not an issue.

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:52 pm

I know rags, it's as if they are deliberately misunderstanding just to portray me and others in a bad light, when in fact I am trying to suggest a way that opens up doors of opportunity to some of The more severely disabled who currently find themselves consigned on the scrap heap and totally disengaged from wider society.

by Irn Bru Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:42 am

Tommy Monk wrote:I understand what you're saying but try to understand what I'm saying.

I'm not looking at this as a way to start paying disabled people who are equally capable of doing work as abled people less money.

I am looking at this as a way to give more opportunity to those who aren't as able.

And mental disability has a wide range of conditions. Not all require specialist care.

I would rather see a less abled disabled person who is willing and keen to engage in work actually being given more opportunity to actually be in work.

If making that happen means that part of their pay is made up with some govt subsidy then I think that is a good idea.

Please don't think I am supporting the exploitation of anyone, especially not someone who is already faced with a harder life already through disability.

That would be quite wrong and I would be angry at anyone who wanted to do such a thing.

Well if some mental disability people do not require specialist care then what evidence do you have that they can’t match the output of someone who is supposed to be abled bodied?

Jeez, I know people who are deemed as normal but are slow in what they do just because they are not as sharp as some others or as quick on their feet.

Some people are considered mentally impaired because they are suffering from depression or anxiety attacks but that doesn’t mean that they can’t function as well as any of their colleagues at work. If you are going down the road of performance related pay then just be careful because you can’t just relate that to disabled people. Someone has been a bricklayer all his life but he’s now approaching his 60s and he can no longer keep up with the younger guys. What are you going to do – dock his pay and ask the government to make up the difference because he doesn’t measure up in his productivity?

You’re just going back to what you were doing before in trying to place people in the wrong jobs instead of looking at the wider picture by considering what type of jobs that they can do without support and I have given several examples of these - there are many more.

I do understand what you are saying and that it is well intentioned but I think your overall view on the contributions that disabled people can bring to the workplace is wrong and wide of the mark.

by Irn Bru Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:47 am

Tommy Monk wrote:I know rags, it's as if they are deliberately misunderstanding just to portray me and others in a bad light, when in fact I am trying to suggest a way that opens up doors of opportunity to some of The more severely disabled who currently find themselves consigned on the scrap heap and totally disengaged from wider society.

I'm not here to try and do what you say. And now the two of you are huddled together for some sort of comfort to each other by trying to say that people are being nasty in trying to show you up as uncaring and in a bad light.

Not me chap. I just think you are going down the wrong road by not looking at the wider possibilities rather than state support to make up the difference in what people should be paid.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:38 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I know rags, it's as if they are deliberately misunderstanding just to portray me and others in a bad light, when in fact I am trying to suggest a way that opens up doors of opportunity to some of The more severely disabled who currently find themselves consigned on the scrap heap and totally disengaged from wider society.

I'm not here to try and do what you say. And now the two of you are huddled together for some sort of comfort to each other by trying to say that people are being nasty in trying to show you up as uncaring and in a bad light.

Not me chap. I just think you are going down the wrong road by not looking at the wider possibilities rather than state support to make up the difference in what people should be paid.

I don't think you're being nasty, but I think a couple of other people have been a bit hard on Tommy. I actually think that it would be unworkable to pay disabled people less, but I can see why some people think it's a good idea in principle.

by nicko Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:18 am

People who think this is a bad idea are NOT disabled. would they like to sit in the house all day`going slowly mad with nothing to do and no one to talk to? You see some people don't really know what they are talking about,if you are not disabled and able to get out and mix with other people, you don't know what it's like. £3 an hour and made up to minimum wage by Government,bring it on.

by Guest Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:46 am

nicko wrote:People who think this is a bad idea are NOT disabled. would they like to sit in the house all day`going slowly mad with nothing to do and no one to talk to? You see some people don't really know what they are talking about,if you are not disabled and able to get out and mix with other people, you don't know what it's like. £3 an hour and made up to minimum wage by Government,bring it on.

To many disabled people, of whom some of us awork with they would be horrified to be paid less based only on them being disabled with a view they may not be able to produce as much even though able people vary within their work load.
You can priase it, that is your choice, as I say others would be horrified and rightly so, as it opens up a can of worms to avbuse and discrminate against many of them.
The fact is Tommy has failed to take on the view points of many factors and makes a very simplistic claim, which is very much unworkable, after repeatedly asking him to show how it would work. It shows he is not in a position of knowing how the infrastructure of companies work, hence his flawed view points.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:29 am

nicko wrote:People who think this is a bad idea are NOT disabled. would they like to sit in the house all day`going slowly mad with nothing to do and no one to talk to? You see some people don't really know what they are talking about,if you are not disabled and able to get out and mix with other people, you don't know what it's like. £3 an hour and made up to minimum wage by Government,bring it on.

I really understand that. I'm just wondering how it would work and I did a post about that on the previous page. How would you find such a job in the first place?

If you don't need money, have you thought about voluntary work? I worked for Oxfam once and you do get to meet a lot of people.

by nicko Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:45 pm

Raggs, this is what the argument's about, this was only suggested as a way to help disabled people get work, I, and many others can not leave house without help from others and could only do a job sitting down. i'v met many other disabled and to a "man" they are all in favour of this suggestion,indeed ,some have said they would work for less than the minimum wage if they could just get out and have some kind of a"" life "" most of these people are careful of there money,they don't expect to smoke, drink, play Bingo or go on holidays abroad. they just want to feel useful in the workplace. I hope you and others can see what I'm trying to get across.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:08 pm

nicko wrote:Raggs, this is what the argument's about, this was only suggested as a way to help disabled people get work, I, and many others can not leave house without help from others and could only do a job sitting down. i'v met many other disabled and to a "man" they are all in favour of this suggestion,indeed ,some have said they would work for less than the minimum wage if they could just get out and have some kind of a"" life "" most of these people are careful of there money,they don't expect to smoke, drink, play Bingo or go on holidays abroad. they just want to feel useful in the workplace. I hope you and others can see what I'm trying to get across.

I think that if a lot of disabled people are in favour and don't mind being paid less, then there's something to be said for it. I don't think I'd like it, but that's just me. I think it would have to be a proper scheme so that employers are aware of it properly, and they can factor in all the issues that will need to be addressed.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:38 pm

I'm not saying they should be paid less, just that some of it is paid by govt.

And then only the nor

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:45 pm

I'm not saying they should be paid less, just that some of it is paid by govt.

And then only the ones who would struggle to do enough work to justify being paid full rate by employer.

The end result is they get the same NMW but just some of it is made up by govt.

I don't see why this is so hard for some people to understand....

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not saying they should be paid less, just that some of it is paid by govt.

And then only the nor

I mean paid less by the employer Tommy. I know it would be the same in the end. I still think a better way would be for the employer to pay the going rate and then claim it back off the Government if necessary.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:53 pm

That's basically the same thing but just a slightly different way round.

The current system means that disabled people who would struggle to do enough work to justify min wage are just not employed at all.

by Guest Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:04 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not saying they should be paid less, just that some of it is paid by govt.

And then only the nor

So you want the company to benefit and all tax payers to take the burden instead, when he company should pay them the full wage in the first place.
Again your idea has not been thought through, where again you are justifying a lesser wage for the company to pay, only that their benefits increase to accommodate the employer discriminating against them, showing how unworkable it is and allowing only the employer to benefit.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:17 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not saying they should be paid less, just that some of it is paid by govt.

And then only the nor

So you want the company to benefit and all tax payers to take the burden instead, when he company should pay them the full wage in the first place.
Again your idea has not been thought through, where again you are justifying a lesser wage for the company to pay, only that their benefits increase to accommodate the employer discriminating against them, showing how unworkable it is and allowing only the employer to benefit.

The company wouldn't really benefit because if the person is doing less work, they're less productive, and the company may well have to take on another person too.

What the disabled person would get in benefits wouldn't be more than what they get on ESA anyway would it?

by Guest Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

So you want the company to benefit and all tax payers to take the burden instead, when he company should pay them the full wage in the first place.
Again your idea has not been thought through, where again you are justifying a lesser wage for the company to pay, only that their benefits increase to accommodate the employer discriminating against them, showing how unworkable it is and allowing only the employer to benefit.

The company wouldn't really benefit because if the person is doing less work, they're less productive, and the company may well have to take on another person too.

What the disabled person would get in benefits wouldn't be more than what they get on ESA anyway would it?

Less productive to what point in turnover?
How much less is going to make a difference to the point they pay a person less in the region of half the pay? Yes they would get more in benefits than they are already on, because now you go into new avenues like travel, if they are parents etc, which again the view here is so simplistic it fails to factor in many points as already stated.
Basically this is what is all wrong here, nobody has defined how much less in productivity is justifiable to then pay at half the wages or even a quarter, to the point where do you draw the line on this where people have medical conditions not covered by disabilities.
As I say nothing as been factored here or placing people with disabilities into positions which there productivity is going to make little difference to those able.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:29 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The company wouldn't really benefit because if the person is doing less work, they're less productive, and the company may well have to take on another person too.

What the disabled person would get in benefits wouldn't be more than what they get on ESA anyway would it?

Less productive to what point in turnover?
How much less is going to make a difference to the point they pay a person less in the region of half the pay? Yes they would get more in benefits than they are already on, because now you go into new avenues like travel, if they are parents etc, which again the view here is so simplistic it fails to factor in many points as already stated.
Basically this is what is all wrong here, nobody has defined how much less in productivity is justifiable to then pay at half the wages or even a quarter, to the point where do you draw the line on this where people have medical conditions not covered by disabilities.
As I say nothing as been factored here or placing people with disabilities into positions which there productivity is going to make little difference to those able.

I've already said that I think it's probably unworkable, and I've already asked the same question about how they would work out what a person was "worth".

However, if it's something that a majority of disabled people want, and if they find it hard to get a job otherwise, then it might be worth thinking about as a national scheme.

by Guest Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Less productive to what point in turnover?
How much less is going to make a difference to the point they pay a person less in the region of half the pay? Yes they would get more in benefits than they are already on, because now you go into new avenues like travel, if they are parents etc, which again the view here is so simplistic it fails to factor in many points as already stated.
Basically this is what is all wrong here, nobody has defined how much less in productivity is justifiable to then pay at half the wages or even a quarter, to the point where do you draw the line on this where people have medical conditions not covered by disabilities.
As I say nothing as been factored here or placing people with disabilities into positions which there productivity is going to make little difference to those able.

I've already said that I think it's probably unworkable, and I've already asked the same question about how they would work out what a person was "worth".

However, if it's something that a majority of disabled people want, and if they find it hard to get a job otherwise, then it might be worth thinking about as a national scheme.

I very much doubt it is what a majority of disabled people want, being as they want to be treated equally just like the rest within the pay in the work place.
The point is this is not taking away the problem faced by people with disabilities by employers is it? Which is the the problem and that is where the problem should be tackled and not demean them to feel of any less worth because of their disabilities.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:40 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not saying they should be paid less, just that some of it is paid by govt.

And then only the nor

So you want the company to benefit and all tax payers to take the burden instead, when he company should pay them the full wage in the first place.
Again your idea has not been thought through, where again you are justifying a lesser wage for the company to pay, only that their benefits increase to accommodate the employer discriminating against them, showing how unworkable it is and allowing only the employer to benefit.

No I want the disabled people who want to work but can't currently get work because they would struggle to be productive enough to benefit from this.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:42 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I've already said that I think it's probably unworkable, and I've already asked the same question about how they would work out what a person was "worth".

However, if it's something that a majority of disabled people want, and if they find it hard to get a job otherwise, then it might be worth thinking about as a national scheme.

I very much doubt it is what a majority of disabled people want, being as they want to be treated equally just like the rest within the pay in the work place.
The point is this is not taking away the problem faced by people with disabilities by employers is it? Which is the the problem and that is where the problem should be tackled and not demean them to feel of any less worth because of their disabilities.

If enough of them want that then. Nicko has said he would like that, and that others would too. I've said that I wouldn't like it, but people are all different aren't they?

The problem is that there are jobs that cannot be changed enough to accommodate disability - depending on the disability of course.

by Guest Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

So you want the company to benefit and all tax payers to take the burden instead, when he company should pay them the full wage in the first place.
Again your idea has not been thought through, where again you are justifying a lesser wage for the company to pay, only that their benefits increase to accommodate the employer discriminating against them, showing how unworkable it is and allowing only the employer to benefit.

No I want the disabled people who want to work but can't currently get work because they would struggle to be productive enough to benefit from this.

Which is not solving the problem of employers discriminating, in fact it enhances them discriminating. There are many types of work, which disabled people are abled to do, what you should be looking at is why they are being denied these roles and discrminated against. Not allow for more discrmination.

by Guest Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

I very much doubt it is what a majority of disabled people want, being as they want to be treated equally just like the rest within the pay in the work place.
The point is this is not taking away the problem faced by people with disabilities by employers is it? Which is the the problem and that is where the problem should be tackled and not demean them to feel of any less worth because of their disabilities.

If enough of them want that then. Nicko has said he would like that, and that others would too. I've said that I wouldn't like it, but people are all different aren't they?

The problem is that there are jobs that cannot be changed enough to accommodate disability - depending on the disability of course.

There are jobs that cannot be changed, but vastly many more that need little accommodation, which is where the problem should be centered on, which they would be able to do, but they are not getting these roles. You see the problem here is with the employers where some are discriminating, which this would not solve the problem by paying less and to me those conceding to be paid less are not in fact helping many other people with disabilities who should have been given jobs and were not due to discrimination. It is in fact endorsing the discrimination, because it ignores the fact people with disabilities who can do the job just as well as others are being denied many jobs.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:52 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If enough of them want that then. Nicko has said he would like that, and that others would too. I've said that I wouldn't like it, but people are all different aren't they?

The problem is that there are jobs that cannot be changed enough to accommodate disability - depending on the disability of course.

There are jobs that cannot be changed, but vastly many more that need little accommodation, which is where the problem should be centered on, which they would be able to do, but they are not getting these roles. You see the problem here is with the employers where some are discriminating, which this would not solve the problem by paying less and to me those conceding to be paid less are not in fact helping many other people with disabilities who should have been given jobs and were not due to discrimination. It is in fact endorsing the discrimination, because it ignores the fact people with disabilities who can do the job just as well as others are being denied many jobs.

There are also premises which can't be changed to accommodate a wheelchair, for example, or to put in a disabled toilet or whatever. If changes can be made, that's great, but you can't expect companies to completely change their premises, especially if it's an old building.

by Guest Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

There are jobs that cannot be changed, but vastly many more that need little accommodation, which is where the problem should be centered on, which they would be able to do, but they are not getting these roles. You see the problem here is with the employers where some are discriminating, which this would not solve the problem by paying less and to me those conceding to be paid less are not in fact helping many other people with disabilities who should have been given jobs and were not due to discrimination. It is in fact endorsing the discrimination, because it ignores the fact people with disabilities who can do the job just as well as others are being denied many jobs.

There are also premises which can't be changed to accommodate a wheelchair, for example, or to put in a disabled toilet or whatever. If changes can be made, that's great, but you can't expect companies to completely change their premises, especially if it's an old building.

Yes you can, why not?
Do they not have disabled visitors or clients now as well?
They are not going to do well in the business world if they do not.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:56 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

No I want the disabled people who want to work but can't currently get work because they would struggle to be productive enough to benefit from this.

Which is not solving the problem of employers discriminating, in fact it enhances them discriminating. There are many types of work, which disabled people are abled to do, what you should be looking at is why they are being denied these roles and discrminated against. Not allow for more discrmination.

How many times before the penny drops....

If they can do the work at the same rate as others then they justify the same money.

If they can't then employers simply won't employ them or pay them less.

With minimum wage jobs they can't pay them less so they simply don't employ them at all leaving them consigned to a life disengaged from the wider working society.

The taxpayer picks up ALL the financial costs.

If the govt were to offer part payment of kid minimum wage or some sort of subsidy another way then the employer is much more likely to employ them and get their moneys worth, ie not pay full price for half the work.

This is about giving the disabled people who would struggle more opportunity, not about discrimination or lowering wages for those who CAN do the work.

by Guest Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Which is not solving the problem of employers discriminating, in fact it enhances them discriminating. There are many types of work, which disabled people are abled to do, what you should be looking at is why they are being denied these roles and discrminated against. Not allow for more discrmination.

How many times before the penny drops....
Define the work rate, where it will be different with able bodied people, which is where your argument falls down each time, which you failed to answer after being asked 100 times?

If they can do the work at the same rate as others then they justify the same money.
Define the same rate, exactly? You see your view point is so simplistic, it is embarrassing to even wonder how you do not factor in also many jobs are not even equivalent to another, they are so minimal like a fruit picker
If they can't then employers simply won't employ them or pay them less.
So they thus can do the job to decent standard but are paid half the rate, and the tax payer has to pay more to advance their disability payments, thus benefiting the employer who already benefit off paying low wages, which shows how badly you fail to comprehend how poor and wrong that is
With minimum wage jobs they can't pay them less so they simply don't employ them at all leaving them consigned to a life disengaged from the wider working society.
So they discriminate again them, wow, based on no set parameter on what is achievable or a level that factors in roles, in other words justifying discrimination.
The taxpayer picks up ALL the financial costs.
And the employer benefits from being able to discriminate and pay out less
If the govt were to offer part payment of kid minimum wage or some sort of subsidy another way then the employer is much more likely to employ them and get their moneys worth, ie not pay full price for half the work.
That is just excusing the problem of discrimination in the work place and not solving the problem, again how many more times are you going to repeat the same crap without understanding a single point you are making?
How many more times have I asked you to break down how this is workable and to factor in many scenarios?
This is about giving the disabled people who would struggle more opportunity, not about discrimination or lowering wages for those who CAN do the work.

No its not, its justifying employers who are already discriminating to be covered by law to discriminate.
Now can we have something new actually answering my points and not the same drivel please.

Thanks

Try again

by Original Quill Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:35 pm

Hi Didge, Tommy,

If people because of disability cannot make as much money, the answer is simple:

Since trade and commerce is a bilateral matter, reciprocate. Simply charge them less for the goods and services they use.

No one has a right to profit by their misfortune.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:39 pm

The work rate would be whatever was expected by employer to be done for the money offered.

Employer says "here is a job, I will pay you x amount per hour and I expect you to do a, b and c every hour".

If x = min wage and all the other employees are doing a, b and c for the money but then a disabled person turns up and says they can only do a and b for the money, then they are not going to get the job because every hour the employer will only get 66% of The required work done by that person for 100% of The money.

If the disabled person says they can do 100% of The work, a, b and c for the money then there is no reason to not give them the job.

But we are not talking about disabled people who CAN do the required level of work, we are talking about those who may not be able to.

They simply won't get the jobs.

Unless the employer can hire them without making a loss.

If the employer wants a lorry driver they are not going to hire someone who can't drive a lorry so why would any employer hire a disabled person who could mold do 66% of The required work?

Of course they wouldn't, unless they could pay them 66% of The money.

This is not possible with min wage.

Leaving some disabled people effectively unemployable.

There is only one solution.

Let the employer pay them less with govt making up the difference.

I don't know why you keep finding this so hard to understand.

by Guest Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:41 pm

So Tommy repeated himself yet again and failed to address or answer any of my points

Debate over unless he stops being immature and starts to debate the points.

Try again

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:57 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

There are also premises which can't be changed to accommodate a wheelchair, for example, or to put in a disabled toilet or whatever. If changes can be made, that's great, but you can't expect companies to completely change their premises, especially if it's an old building.

Yes you can, why not?
Do they not have disabled visitors or clients now as well?
They are not going to do well in the business world if they do not.

If it's an old building there may not be room. There might not be a lift either with no way of putting one in. You have to be a bit practical when it comes to these things. A lot of shops don't have any customer loos, for example, let alone disabled toilets.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:Hi Didge, Tommy,

If people because of disability cannot make as much money, the answer is simple:

Since trade and commerce is a bilateral matter, reciprocate. Simply charge them less for the goods and services they use.

No one has a right to profit by their misfortune.

Are you being serious? Laughing

by Sponsored content