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.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Hmmmm, I'm not sure about that Tommy. It does depend on the individual of course, but lots of people don't feel like part of the "team" at work for many reasons. I believe that birds of a feather flock together, but maybe that's just me.

Agree Raggs
Also If they are that disabled there is also a point where it is either dangerous or legitimately too difficult for them to work

not everyone should be expected to work if they are legitimately that bad

True, but those people who want to and could do should be given some assistance in getting the work.

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Agree Raggs
Also If they are that disabled there is also a point where it is either dangerous or legitimately too difficult for them to work

not everyone should be expected to work if they are legitimately that bad

True, but those people who want to and could do should be given some assistance in getting the work.

Maybe there could be a dual scheme then Tommy.

The danger of course is that this might lead to positive discrimination in favour of disabled people.

Tommy Monk wrote:Bricklayers normally work on price, if on day work and not doing the required work then they are either pumped or wages dropped.



A 60 year old brick layer would be doing some of The more technical parts of The work that some of The younger ones might not be able to do or be very good at.



Not a very good example.



And as I keep saying, if they can do the work then they justify the rate that everyone else gets.


I'm talking about those who can't do the required amount of work and purely because of disability.

Substitute bricklayers for any jobs and try and look at it again. What happens when someone gets too old to keep up? Do you dock their wages and let the government make up the difference?

And if someone can't keep up because of a disability then they have been placed in the wrong job. They need trained to do a job where they can make a full contribution and I have now given you several examples of that. You're really just writing off a disabled person as NEVER being able to contribute fully in the workplace and I don't believe that is the right approach in this day and age of modern working practices.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nems wrote:

You have already said it thought Irn. Remploy worked perfectly. In my area we had Create. They would collect furniture electricals and household stuff that people wanted rid of. They would dump what wasn't salvageable and recondition what they could. When the items were fit for sale they were sold for buttons or given to those in need. All of their workforce, drivers, admin manager everyone had some form of disability. But of course that and other schemes went in the first round of tory cuts.

I looked up Create in Liverpool and I see that they went into liquidation back in 2012 right enough. We had similar schemes here in Edinburgh in addition to Remploy like Blindcraft who made quality bed furniture. They went the same road and 149 employees lost their jobs and were put on the scrapheap. The factory had been operating since the late 1700s and was the oldest supported workshop in Europe - gone in a flash of cuts.

Some people realise the potential of disabled people even if the government doesn't. They just have to think out of the box and support new projects that utilises their talent and their ability.

An example...

http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2014/august/our-new-making-project

Why were these places closed though? Was it because the productivity couldn't cover the costs? This is what Tommy is talking about - there are jobs which can't be done as quickly or efficiently by someone who is disabled - depending on the disability of course.

I'm very much in favour of these schemes though. It shouldn't all be about profit, and if these schemes need to be subsidised, I think that's good use of public money. That is the purpose of paying tax after all - to make life better for people.

Remploy was started in 1945 to support soldiers who came back from WWII disabled. It was there to train them with skills which would provide them with a pathway into employment where they could make a full contribution to an employer. Although it wasn't just used for soldiers it was used for civilians as well and what it was intended to do then remained what it was intended to be before it was shut down. It was never meant to be a profit making business.

And remember, Remploy wasn't run by disabled people, they just worked in the factories. The employer was the government and it was run by people employed by the government who never marketed Remploy products or invested in it in the same way as a private sector business would. Did you ever see an advert in the papers or on TV for a Remploy produced product?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Disabled people who are currently excluded from work because they can't meet the min requirements in any min wage job are going to feel part of any team that they become part of The work force with if my proposal makes them employable rather than current system that doesn't offer any incentive to employers and results in many not being able to get any work at all.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure about that Tommy. It does depend on the individual of course, but lots of people don't feel like part of the "team" at work for many reasons. I believe that birds of a feather flock together, but maybe that's just me.

You're right not to be sure about that. Many studies have shown that disabled employees experience ill-treatment at work more so that any other group.

Here's an academic study from research carried out by the Cardiff School of Social Studies which goes into a lot of detail.

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/newsandevents/news/disabled-employees-more-likely-to-experience-illtreatment-at-work.html

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Hmmmm, I'm not sure about that Tommy. It does depend on the individual of course, but lots of people don't feel like part of the "team" at work for many reasons. I believe that birds of a feather flock together, but maybe that's just me.

You're right not to be sure about that. Many studies have shown that disabled employees experience ill-treatment at work more so that any other group.

Here's an academic study from research carried out by the Cardiff School of Social Studies which goes into a lot of detail.

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/newsandevents/news/disabled-employees-more-likely-to-experience-illtreatment-at-work.html

It's dreadful if disabled people are ill-treated, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to treat them badly. I was thinking more about the fact that they might feel they just don't fit in. I'm thinking about stuff like other employees always worrying about if they're OK or not, or the disabled person worrying that they can't do things the others can do. I think I'd prefer to work with people who were pretty much like me - that applies to issues other than disability of course.

All this is just how I feel about it, and others might feel completely differently. Nicko has indicated that he would not feel the same way as I do.

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why were these places closed though? Was it because the productivity couldn't cover the costs? This is what Tommy is talking about - there are jobs which can't be done as quickly or efficiently by someone who is disabled - depending on the disability of course.

I'm very much in favour of these schemes though. It shouldn't all be about profit, and if these schemes need to be subsidised, I think that's good use of public money. That is the purpose of paying tax after all - to make life better for people.

Remploy was started in 1945 to support soldiers who came back from WWII disabled. It was there to train them with skills which would provide them with a pathway into employment where they could make a full contribution to an employer. Although it wasn't just used for soldiers it was used for civilians as well and what it was intended to do then remained what it was intended to be before it was shut down. It was never meant to be a profit making business.

And remember, Remploy wasn't run by disabled people, they just worked in the factories. The employer was the government and it was run by people employed by the government who never marketed Remploy products or invested in it in the same way as a private sector business would. Did you ever see an advert in the papers or on TV for a Remploy produced product?

No, I've never seen an advert. I only knew about Remploy when I read about a factory closing.

I think it's a good idea. How did they recruit people in the first place though?