Remploy
MaxwellBygraves
Posts: 1,353
Anyone else saddened to hear of the closure of over half of the Remploy factories?
Essentially they provide work for disabled people who might not otherwise be able to find it. Estimates suggest that up to 1700 people will be made redundant, of those 1500 with disabilities. According to the government, it's "no longer financially viable" as they are making a loss - roughly £68m a year.
Deeply troubling. In our country it seems bizarre that a nationalised bank (RBS) clocks losses of over £2 billion and is still allowed to hand out bonuses of millions, business as usual, yet Remploy is ordered to close.
Essentially they provide work for disabled people who might not otherwise be able to find it. Estimates suggest that up to 1700 people will be made redundant, of those 1500 with disabilities. According to the government, it's "no longer financially viable" as they are making a loss - roughly £68m a year.
Deeply troubling. In our country it seems bizarre that a nationalised bank (RBS) clocks losses of over £2 billion and is still allowed to hand out bonuses of millions, business as usual, yet Remploy is ordered to close.
"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer
0
Comments
-
ddraver wrote:Is this going to be 5 pages of labour propaganda or do you actually want a discussion?
Why do you want to portray me as a Labour supporter? I am nothing of the sort.
ETA: And you'd know that if you read any of my posts."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
£68m loss with 1700 employees - that works out at a loss of £40,000 per person per annum employed. Whilst sad that 1500 disabled people who might not otherwise get jobs will be out of work, do you really think £40k per person loss is acceptable in any climate, let alone the current economic climate?? The Income tax for maybe 8-10 people all going into covering the losses of each and every person employed by Remploy to put it another way - hardly where I want my taxes to go!!
An inevitable and understandable decision to be fair!!0 -
Wirral_Paul wrote:£68m loss with 1700 employees - that works out at a loss of £40,000 per person per annum employed. Whilst sad that 1500 disabled people who might not otherwise get jobs will be out of work, do you really think £40k per person loss is acceptable in any climate, let alone the current economic climate??
An inevitable and understandable decision to be fair!!
As I said in the post, it's just over half the employees. So not as bad as that. However, I would rather take positive steps to help improve the situation rather than make these people redundant. As I stated in my post, they employ people who otherwise wouldn't be able to work so they're working and contributing. What are they gonna do now, join the mass army of the unemployed and start claiming benefits?"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
yeah I saw this on the news - shocking news - I've got a few disabled friends and they are being hit so hard by the tories at the mo. Claiming benefits may not even be an option if der fuehrer has his way. One mate of mine went for the atos test - was offered a seat, he sat down, offered a cup of tea, he took it, drank some put it down and was deemed fit for work becuase he was seen to classed as 'able to do manual work'. The guys on sticks - if theres a job going as tea drinker though he's going to be first in the queue.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:Anyone else saddened to hear of the closure of over half of the Remploy factories?
It seems fitting that for a number of years Remploy's motto (on all their signage) has been "putting ability first". No-one at Remploy has ever seemed conscious of the absurdity of this; after all, if you put ability first you put disability second. I suppose given the latest news their motto turns out to be quite appropriate.0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:Wirral_Paul wrote:£68m loss with 1700 employees - that works out at a loss of £40,000 per person per annum employed. Whilst sad that 1500 disabled people who might not otherwise get jobs will be out of work, do you really think £40k per person loss is acceptable in any climate, let alone the current economic climate??
An inevitable and understandable decision to be fair!!
As I said in the post, it's just over half the employees. So not as bad as that. However, I would rather take positive steps to help improve the situation rather than make these people redundant. As I stated in my post, they employ people who otherwise wouldn't be able to work so they're working and contributing. What are they gonna do now, join the mass army of the unemployed and start claiming benefits?
Ok so its maybe £20k loss per person per annum employed. So what positive steps would you suggest that i'm sure those running Remploy havent already tried? If they arent profitable then they simply cant keep having money thrown at them indefinitely. Yes its sad but a fact of life i'm afraid in this climate0 -
It's very sad news indeed.
Losing your employment is crap, but to lose your employment and actually know your chances of re-employment are all but non-existent is unimaginable.
It is said, the measure of a civilized society is how well it looks after its most vulnerable!Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Embodied human vulnerability is a second rate consideration in our world. Socially and legally. Capital/Economic vulnerability is the primary consideration and receives the most attention from policy makers and protection from the law.
Ain't anything new. We just need to get used to it.... right?
The implied message from our Govt. to disabled people is far too offensive to post in a public forum.0 -
EKIMIKE wrote:Embodied human vulnerability is a second rate consideration in our world. Socially and legally. Capital/Economic vulnerability is the primary consideration and receives the most attention from policy makers and protection from the law.
Ain't anything new. We just need to get used to it.... right?
The implied message from our Govt. to disabled people is far too offensive to post in a public forum.
+ lots."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
LABOUR set the wheels in motion for the closure of Remploy factories when they were still in the hot seat, so no Labour propaganda here please...0
-
LeicesterLad wrote:LABOUR set the wheels in motion for the closure of Remploy factories when they were still in the hot seat, so no Labour propaganda here please...
You'll say I have red tinted spectacles on but I seriously don't see any labour propaganda, just comments made by posters who seem to be more sensitive to the plight of others less fortunate than ouselves.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Frank the tank wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:LABOUR set the wheels in motion for the closure of Remploy factories when they were still in the hot seat, so no Labour propaganda here please...
You'll say I have red tinted spectacles on but I seriously don't see any labour propaganda, just comments made by posters who seem to be more sensitive to the plight of others less fortunate than ouselves.
I know, i was just getting in there quick before it started...
PS. there are references to 'The Government' in a context that suggests 'This Bloody Government'.0 -
There is more than a touch of irony in the fact that a government which claims it is trying to get people off disability benefits and into employment is actually putting disabled people who are working onto benefits :?
Remploy may have an outdated model of employment for people with disabilities but I wonder how much effort went into trying to find the 1700 employees alternative employment.0 -
random man wrote:There is more than a touch of irony in the fact that a government which claims it is trying to get people off disability benefits and into employment is actually putting disabled people who are working onto benefits :?
Remploy may have an outdated model of employment for people with disabilities but I wonder how much effort went into trying to find the 1700 employees alternative employment.
Bangs Head On Wall...
Anyhow, while we are on the subject and i am in the mood for ranting...
Noticed many Anti-Tory threads on here lately, theres clearly a Labour majority on this forum, and theres lots of 'oh they are cutting this, they are cutting that, they are ruining that etc' but i am yet to hear a single Labour politician provide a REALISTIC* alternative to how the coalition are playing things...
*realistic - not just saying 'we wouldn't do that' to everything.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:random man wrote:There is more than a touch of irony in the fact that a government which claims it is trying to get people off disability benefits and into employment is actually putting disabled people who are working onto benefits :?
Remploy may have an outdated model of employment for people with disabilities but I wonder how much effort went into trying to find the 1700 employees alternative employment.
Bangs Head On Wall...
I hope you're wearing a helmet
Go on, explain. 0 -
My own reference to 'the Government' has no left/right, labour/conservative basis. I don't care for such dogmatic b0llocks. Bores me to death and almost always leads to detraction from the point.0
-
LeicesterLad wrote:random man wrote:There is more than a touch of irony in the fact that a government which claims it is trying to get people off disability benefits and into employment is actually putting disabled people who are working onto benefits :?
Remploy may have an outdated model of employment for people with disabilities but I wonder how much effort went into trying to find the 1700 employees alternative employment.
Bangs Head On Wall...
Anyhow, while we are on the subject and i am in the mood for ranting...
Noticed many Anti-Tory threads on here lately, theres clearly a Labour majority on this forum, and theres lots of 'oh they are cutting this, they are cutting that, they are ruining that etc' but i am yet to hear a single Labour politician provide a REALISTIC* alternative to how the coalition are playing things...
*realistic - not just saying 'we wouldn't do that' to everything.
Where in my post have I said I'm anti-Tory or pro-Labour?0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:random man wrote:There is more than a touch of irony in the fact that a government which claims it is trying to get people off disability benefits and into employment is actually putting disabled people who are working onto benefits :?
Remploy may have an outdated model of employment for people with disabilities but I wonder how much effort went into trying to find the 1700 employees alternative employment.
Bangs Head On Wall...
Anyhow, while we are on the subject and i am in the mood for ranting...
Noticed many Anti-Tory threads on here lately, theres clearly a Labour majority on this forum, and theres lots of 'oh they are cutting this, they are cutting that, they are ruining that etc' but i am yet to hear a single Labour politician provide a REALISTIC* alternative to how the coalition are playing things...
*realistic - not just saying 'we wouldn't do that' to everything.
Trust me, although I didn't use the forum at the time, I was busy banging on about New Labour at the time
Just because you're anti-Tory doesn't make you pro-Labour."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
That last edit was for the conversation in general, not aimed at your post. The head bang is for the consistent blame of the current government for anything and everything. Nobody asking why we ended up where we are, what Labour spent the money on, what they would do to fix it etc.random man wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:random man wrote:There is more than a touch of irony in the fact that a government which claims it is trying to get people off disability benefits and into employment is actually putting disabled people who are working onto benefits :?
Remploy may have an outdated model of employment for people with disabilities but I wonder how much effort went into trying to find the 1700 employees alternative employment.
Bangs Head On Wall...
Anyhow, while we are on the subject and i am in the mood for ranting...
Noticed many Anti-Tory threads on here lately, theres clearly a Labour majority on this forum, and theres lots of 'oh they are cutting this, they are cutting that, they are ruining that etc' but i am yet to hear a single Labour politician provide a REALISTIC* alternative to how the coalition are playing things...
*realistic - not just saying 'we wouldn't do that' to everything.
Where in my post have I said I'm anti-Tory or pro-Labour?0 -
-
LeicesterLad wrote:
That last edit was for the conversation in general, not aimed at your post. The head bang is for the consistent blame of the current government for anything and everything. Nobody asking why we ended up where we are, what Labour spent the money on, what they would do to fix it etc.random man wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:random man wrote:There is more than a touch of irony in the fact that a government which claims it is trying to get people off disability benefits and into employment is actually putting disabled people who are working onto benefits :?
Remploy may have an outdated model of employment for people with disabilities but I wonder how much effort went into trying to find the 1700 employees alternative employment.
Bangs Head On Wall...
Anyhow, while we are on the subject and i am in the mood for ranting...
Noticed many Anti-Tory threads on here lately, theres clearly a Labour majority on this forum, and theres lots of 'oh they are cutting this, they are cutting that, they are ruining that etc' but i am yet to hear a single Labour politician provide a REALISTIC* alternative to how the coalition are playing things...
*realistic - not just saying 'we wouldn't do that' to everything.
Where in my post have I said I'm anti-Tory or pro-Labour?
Oh dear - start here: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/files/factsh ... eficit.pdf"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
Falseeconomy.org? I'm sure that's an unbiased group:MaxwellBygraves wrote:Oh dear - start here: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/files/factsh ... eficit.pdf
Guy Aitchison, openDemocracy
Kate Belgrave, Hangbitch
Alison Charlton, Unison
Nishma Doshi
Deborah Grayson, Mutiny
Sunny Hundal, Liberal Conspiracy
Chaminda Jayanetti, A Thousand Cuts
Becky Luff, The Cuts Won’t Work
Adam Ramsay, No Shock Doctrine for Britain
Clifford Singer, The Other TaxPayers’ Alliance
Nigel Stanley, TUC
Duncan Weldon, Duncan's Economic Blog
Stuart White, Oxford Save our Services0 -
bompington wrote:
Falseeconomy.org? I'm sure that's an unbiased group:MaxwellBygraves wrote:Oh dear - start here: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/files/factsh ... eficit.pdf
Guy Aitchison, openDemocracy
Kate Belgrave, Hangbitch
Alison Charlton, Unison
Nishma Doshi
Deborah Grayson, Mutiny
Sunny Hundal, Liberal Conspiracy
Chaminda Jayanetti, A Thousand Cuts
Becky Luff, The Cuts Won’t Work
Adam Ramsay, No Shock Doctrine for Britain
Clifford Singer, The Other TaxPayers’ Alliance
Nigel Stanley, TUC
Duncan Weldon, Duncan's Economic Blog
Stuart White, Oxford Save our Services
I love this sort of argument. Your biased! You have vested interests! You're of the left. You care about people and stuff. Witchcraft! As opposed to politicians. And right-wing thinktanks. Who definitely don't lie. Or have vested interests. Ever. They tell us the truth. "That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
hehe
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Having devoted most of my adult life to making a real difference for young people with life chances at least as shitty as the average disabled person, I think I can in all honesty say that my political views are an unusual mixture, but probably average out somewhere in the middle for the environment I live and work in - I might point out that Dundee West is the posh part of town, and the tories got about 3,000 votes here at the last election.MaxwellBygraves wrote:bompington wrote:
Falseeconomy.org? I'm sure that's an unbiased group:MaxwellBygraves wrote:Oh dear - start here: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/files/factsh ... eficit.pdf
Guy Aitchison, openDemocracy
Kate Belgrave, Hangbitch
Alison Charlton, Unison
Nishma Doshi
Deborah Grayson, Mutiny
Sunny Hundal, Liberal Conspiracy
Chaminda Jayanetti, A Thousand Cuts
Becky Luff, The Cuts Won’t Work
Adam Ramsay, No Shock Doctrine for Britain
Clifford Singer, The Other TaxPayers’ Alliance
Nigel Stanley, TUC
Duncan Weldon, Duncan's Economic Blog
Stuart White, Oxford Save our Services
I love this sort of argument. Your biased! You have vested interests! You're of the left. You care about people and stuff. Witchcraft! As opposed to politicians. And right-wing thinktanks. Who definitely don't lie. Or have vested interests. Ever. They tell us the truth.
It's just something about your link that made it seem like you were posting the ultimate authority that would explain to all the poor benighted unbelievers the true facts, rather than just another load of selective, biased tendentiousness - in other words politics as normal.
Has it ever occurred to you that a signature referencing a classic example of embittered, closed-minded, prejudiced political hatred, presumably approvingly, might slightly undermine any post discussing political bias? ;-)0 -
bompington wrote:Has it ever occurred to you that a signature referencing a classic example of embittered, closed-minded, prejudiced political hatred, presumably approvingly, might slightly undermine any post discussing political bias? ;-)
Can I give you a high five for that?
0 -
What next ?? :- Eugenics??0
-
The talk this morning was of trying to turn Remploy into a social enterprise which is probably the best course for this type of business model but the financial side would have to be looked into closely to ensure it was viable.0
