Remploy

CiB

Didn't I see a spokeswoman for a disabled charity on the news last night arguing in favour of this cutback to Remploy, on the basis that it's a pretty inefficient way of funding anyway? No? Just me then I expect.

The figure of £40,000 per person was shown, and whichever way you look at it that's quite a way off the norm for funding per head for any deserving group.

Cleat Eastwood

CiB wrote:

Didn't I see a spokeswoman for a disabled charity on the news last night arguing in favour of this cutback to Remploy, on the basis that it's a pretty inefficient way of funding anyway? No? Just me then I expect.

The figure of £40,000 per person was shown, and whichever way you look at it that's quite a way off the norm for funding per head for any deserving group.

You could be right CiB, like i said i've got a few disabled friends, one of whom this move affects and all have said remploy was well meaning but a bit of a mistake - one solution one of my mates suggested was to used the monies saved to fund start ups - that i slet the people themselves start social enterprises rather than fund a body to oversee the disabled unemployed. As a side note they said on the news it 25 thou per head - but who knows.

Cool4catz

Being fortunate enough to have a job it gives me a lot more than money; friendship, a reason to get out of bed, structure, purpose. self esteem and a love of weekends.
Whether you have a physical of mental health problem work is a huge aspect of personal recovery and independance. Remploy however is an 18th century institutional model and long past time to move on. So whilst I'm not overly concerned by the closures I am concerned about the absence of incentives and support to help excluded people back into the workplace. Sad yes, progressive, probably.

alan_sherman

Never heard of remploy before this post, but from reading here have I got this correct?
A state funded employer that was supposed to be a business was actually losing 20 to 40k per year per employee. It has closed because it was not economically viable. The irony being that it was supposed to provide a route for the employees into other normal jobs. With such poor productivity on their cv no one would want to employ them! Sounds like a classic case of poor management. Shame about those now jobless, but sounded inevitable. The disabled angle isn't really relevant in the story though is it?

inkyfingers

There are several examples of commercially well run enterprises which also provide work and training for disabled or disadvantaged people, sadly Remploy was not one of them. To me it looks like a classic case of how inneficient state backed enterprises tend to be.

rick_chasey

inkyfingers wrote:

There are several examples of commercially well run enterprises which also provide work and training for disabled or disadvantaged people, sadly Remploy was not one of them. To me it looks like a classic case of how inneficient state backed enterprises tend to be.

Samsung's doing alright .

LeicesterLad

It comes down to this:

The government continueing to back/provide funding for workshops/business/enterprise/organisations that make massive losses and provide limited service is what led us to be in so much debt in the first place. It clearly doesn't make sense to plough money into something that loses millions each each year...

Frank the tank

When the government run anything and decide to sell it off, invariably they break it up and private enterprise "cherry pick" the profitable bits that in effect subsidise the less well performing bits and the tax payer gets left with the lame duck. Then it's a case of everything the state runs is sh1t in some peoples eyes, well it will be won't it.

The railways are a rip roaring success under privatisation (not).

rick_chasey

There are plenty of examples, good and bad, of private and public efficiencies.

To argue about one always being better than the other is pointless.

There's a time and a place for both.

verylonglegs

They are not all being closed, the one in my area has been deemed to be comercially viable and will be kept open.

waynej

I have an uncle who works at Remploy.

The factory he works at is profitable and may escape the axe but who knows.

What I do know is that him and many others are crapping themselves about this. He is very skilled and a bloody hard worker and feels that if he loses this job he will have practically no chance of getting another - he's probably right and he's not the only one.

I have always felt that a society should be judged on how it treats its less fortunate members. People are becoming less and less tolerant of those who are 'different' for any reason. Bullying and attacks on the disabled and handicapped are increasing and this is just an extension of it in my opinion. Workplaces can be brutal places to those who don't or can't conform and don't for one second think that companies will put in policies to prevent the bullying of handicapped or disabled workers. If they will even give them the chance of a job.

Labour did start this process a couple of years ago - the Tories just want to complete the job.

Yes, Remploy loses money. But maybe, in some cases, that is acceptable. Or do we need to 'save' this money in order to give it to those who are more deserving i.e. the bankers?

Matt the Tester

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

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.

thats pathetic!! it's madness to a point of idioticy (if that's a word!) LOL

Frank the tank

Matt the Tester wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

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.

thats pathetic!! it's madness to a point of idioticy (if that's a word!) LOL

Proper tests would take time and cost the public purse money, and we can't have that, can we?

Squaggles

Atos are an absolute disgrace , the way we are treating disabled people makes me wonder exactly where this country is heading

inkyfingers

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are plenty of examples, good and bad, of private and public efficiencies.

To argue about one always being better than the other is pointless.

There's a time and a place for both.

You are right, the difference is that if a private company is run badly it will go bust.

rick_chasey

inkyfingers wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are plenty of examples, good and bad, of private and public efficiencies.

To argue about one always being better than the other is pointless.

There's a time and a place for both.

You are right, the difference is that if a private company is run badly it will go bust.

Who are you, Mitt Romney? ;

inkyfingers

Rick Chasey wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are plenty of examples, good and bad, of private and public efficiencies.

To argue about one always being better than the other is pointless.

There's a time and a place for both.

You are right, the difference is that if a private company is run badly it will go bust.

Who are you, Mitt Romney? ;

No, I pay a lot more tax than he does!

rick_chasey

inkyfingers wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are plenty of examples, good and bad, of private and public efficiencies.

To argue about one always being better than the other is pointless.

There's a time and a place for both.

You are right, the difference is that if a private company is run badly it will go bust.

Who are you, Mitt Romney? ;

No, I pay a lot more tax than he does!

Proportionally, or absolutely? . (you'll like this)

inkyfingers

Proportionally unfortunately. But that wouldn't have made such a good one liner..

By midday on January 2nd Mitt has earned my years salary...

Jez mon

inkyfingers wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are plenty of examples, good and bad, of private and public efficiencies.

To argue about one always being better than the other is pointless.

There's a time and a place for both.

You are right, the difference is that if a private company is run badly it will go bust.

Like that time in 2008 when all those badly run banks went bust...

The thing here is, however you slice it, 20k is a lot to lose per person on what is meant to be a profitable business . OTOH, reading up about what Remploy is meant to do, there's definitely a place for this type of thing, much more so then work experience shelf stacking at a supermarket.

rick_chasey

inkyfingers wrote:

Proportionally unfortunately. But that wouldn't have made such a good one liner..

By midday on January 2nd Mitt has earned my years salary...

(You know it's in Dollars right?)

inkyfingers

Rick Chasey wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

Proportionally unfortunately. But that wouldn't have made such a good one liner..

By midday on January 2nd Mitt has earned my years salary...

(You know it's in Dollars right?)

No, I thought they used Euro's?

EKIMIKE

£90-95K per year. You are very well paid!

"You are right, the difference is that if a private company is run badly it will go bust."

This is not the whole truth. Maybe it's true for most small/medium sized businesses in the UK but considering Remploy is the leading employer of disabled people in the UK you have to consider the position in terms of 'private companies who are the leading employers of ______ people/profession in the UK'. The govt. track record, particularly in recent years, seems to be that they'll stump up the cash to keep them in business.

rick_chasey

inkyfingers wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

Proportionally unfortunately. But that wouldn't have made such a good one liner..

By midday on January 2nd Mitt has earned my years salary...

(You know it's in Dollars right?)

No, I thought they used Euro's?

inkyfingers

EKIMIKE wrote:

£90-95K per year. You are very well paid!

"You are right, the difference is that if a private company is run badly it will go bust."

This is not the whole truth. Maybe it's true for most small/medium sized businesses in the UK but considering Remploy is the leading employer of disabled people in the UK you have to consider the position in terms of 'private companies who are the leading employers of ______ people/profession in the UK'. The govt. track record, particularly in recent years, seems to be that they'll stump up the cash to keep them in business.

I'm not that well paid, think you need to recheck your $/£ exchange rate.

My problem with Remploy is that there are other enterprises doing a similar thing that do so in an economically viable fashion, Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for the Disabled being a good example.

MattC59

Zingzang wrote:

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.

Wooooosh !!!
:roll:

rick_chasey

inkyfingers wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

£90-95K per year. You are very well paid!

"You are right, the difference is that if a private company is run badly it will go bust."

This is not the whole truth. Maybe it's true for most small/medium sized businesses in the UK but considering Remploy is the leading employer of disabled people in the UK you have to consider the position in terms of 'private companies who are the leading employers of ______ people/profession in the UK'. The govt. track record, particularly in recent years, seems to be that they'll stump up the cash to keep them in business.

I'm not that well paid, think you need to recheck your $/£ exchange rate.

My problem with Remploy is that there are other enterprises doing a similar thing that do so in an economically viable fashion, Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for the Disabled being a good example.

The nub of the matter is, looking after the disadvantaged, whether disabled or otherwise, is never 'economically' viable.

I don't know the ins and outs of Remploy so won't comment on that, but as far as I am concerned, the cost of looking after those who can't look after themselves, rightly or wrongly, should be carried by those who can.

MattC59

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

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.

Oh FFS !!! In the time I typed what I thought was good input to this discussion (for once ) the f*cking site had signed me out !!! What's that all about !?!?!?!?! :evil:

Highly precied: Bottom line, it is sad, but business is business. Remploy aren't a charity. Comparing them to RBS is irrellevant as they're not a bank. The RBS banking issue is a whole other discussion.

EKIMIKE

inkyfingers wrote:

By midday on January 2nd Mitt has earned my years salary...

148,000USD takes the counter to 2 days 11 hours 51 minutes and 8 seconds (midday Jan 2nd)

Google has 148,000USD as 93,772GBP. Am i wrong? (Sorry totally off topic)

rick_chasey

EKIMIKE wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

By midday on January 2nd Mitt has earned my years salary...

148,000USD takes the counter to 2 days 11 hours 51 minutes and 8 seconds (midday Jan 2nd)

Google has 148,000USD as 93,772GBP. Am i wrong?

Got it wrong by a day.

Think about it...