As if being disabled wasn't bad enough

Frank the tank

According to tory welfare minister Lord Freud some are not worth being paid the minimum wage.

Grovelling apology followed once made public, but we now know what he really thinks.

arran77

He needs to loose his job for saying that :shock:

ballysmate

Just seen the article. Indefensible.

supersonic

He should take the lead. Smash his knees in, give him a dose of M.E. and pay him 80 quid a week.

Sleeper Cell

Frank the tank wrote:

According to tory welfare minister Lord Freud some are not worth being paid the minimum wage.

Grovelling apology followed once made public, but we now know what he really thinks.

Have you got the full transcript? I feel unable to comment based purely on hyperbolic newspaper reports. Rather than flush out these views for a full understanding, the torch-burning mob have achieved an apology which adds nothing to what might have been an interesting debate.

To be honest, I'm not sure I'm worth the minimum wage, I just guess it depends on ones definition of worth (i.e. economic or social or moral).

pblakeney

Sleeper Cell wrote:

Have you got the full transcript?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29631573

Pross

He was asked the question 'would it be better for disabled people to be paid less than the minimum wage with the difference being made up through benefits in order to help get more disabled people into work and raise their self-esteem' or something very close to that i.e. they would still earn at least as much. I haven't heard his actual response but if the answer was 'yes' then I'm not sure it is entirely a bad thing. There is a real difficulty for disabled people to get employment as employers can perceive them (rightly or wrongly) to be more likely to require more time off work etc. and that employing someone without disablities will be more cost effective so effectively this suggestion by the journalist would be the government subsidising the employer to get them to give more consideration to employing the disabled person. This is effectively what happened with the old Remploy factories which, ironically, the Tories closed down as part of their original cuts. Unless the Minister's response went beyond a straight yes to the question he was asked I can't help feeling this is another case of something being taken out of context and blown up. Of course, that doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of it coming from a person in the Government that closed the Remploy factories in the first place!

Sleeper Cell

Pross wrote:

He was asked the question 'would it be better for disabled people to be paid less than the minimum wage with the difference being made up through benefits in order to help get more disabled people into work and raise their self-esteem' or something very close to that i.e. they would still earn at least as much. I haven't heard his actual response but if the answer was 'yes' then I'm not sure it is entirely a bad thing. There is a real difficulty for disabled people to get employment as employers can perceive them (rightly or wrongly) to be more likely to require more time off work etc. and that employing someone without disablities will be more cost effective so effectively this suggestion by the journalist would be the government subsidising the employer to get them to give more consideration to employing the disabled person. This is effectively what happened with the old Remploy factories which, ironically, the Tories closed down as part of their original cuts. Unless the Minister's response went beyond a straight yes to the question he was asked I can't help feeling this is another case of something being taken out of context and blown up. Of course, that doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of it coming from a person in the Government that closed the Remploy factories in the first place!

The trouble is that you're applying reason, logic and a sense of proportion. You're supposed to be heading for the pitchfork shop and leading the charge against this animal without knowing any of the detail (the lack of detail coming from the fact it appears to be an off-the-cuff response and not part of a holistic political solution). Had the lynchmob not demanded his immediate death (resulting in him going quiet after a short apology), we may have gained more evidence from him to allow the lynchmob to lynch him legitimately, or even a rational argument that actually makes sense within a wider context.

And the trouble is that the 'offended parties' never learn to give these people enough rope to hang themselves before they are aware they are walking towards the gallows. As soon as there's a media storm, they drop the rope and walk away.

Sleeper Cell

PBlakeney wrote:

Sleeper Cell wrote:

Have you got the full transcript?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29631573

Followed the link. No transcript.

ugo.santalucia

Have you ever been framed?

I've got the feeling the Lord in question, who might qualify for a disability himself, being a small person (is dwarf a PC word?) was deliberately framed by some clever idiot... most likely someone of the opposition.
I am pretty sure he didn't mean it, but in the situation he ended up saying something completely idiotic... should he lose his job? As a general rule I would say no, but given he is a Lord, so someone who should know better than talking nonosense, then maybe yes... but for being a poor idiot, rather than some kind of Hitler as he is being depicted

pblakeney

Sleeper Cell wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Sleeper Cell wrote:

Have you got the full transcript?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29631573

Followed the link. No transcript.

The embedded video takes a few seconds to load up.

Sleeper Cell

PBlakeney wrote:

Sleeper Cell wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Sleeper Cell wrote:

Have you got the full transcript?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29631573

Followed the link. No transcript.

The embedded video takes a few seconds to load up.

I can't see it at work. Does he stand in the Lords and re-state everything he originally said? What a d1ck.

pblakeney

Try this link then....
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10 ... 88374.html

Interestingly, it gets cut off as he is about to make a point. Maybe that point did not suit the agenda of the person leaking the recording. Or maybe it just wasn't interesting.

airbag

So, a standard political really dumb mistake really?

Can't say I'm bothered, an expected part of being a politician is you're expected to be careful with words.

ugo.santalucia

airbag wrote:

So, a standard political really dumb mistake really?

Can't say I'm bothered, an expected part of being a politician is you're expected to be careful with words.

Yep,

it is a problem as the system promotes those who are very good with words and know how to live on the edge without falling, like Boris Johnson... whilst someone who might be less good with words but had better ideas would be slaughtered

CiB

Personally I thought it was extremely lucky that the day after the low inflation figures came out and on the day that the unemployment figures had dropped by a massive amount, someone managed to find a non-story (see pross's reply) that the media could run as headline news and which would also give the Tory-haters an erection and or the chance to wet themselves with glee at someone in the party being caught giving what in reality is a reasonable reply to the question being asked of him in a private conversation. I suppose it was even luckier that someone happened to be recording the moment when the question was asked.

Lovely.

ballysmate

Watched the Daily Politics show on BBC today and it would appear that not is all that it seems.
There was mention of Patricia Hewitt of the caring sharing Labour Party accepting some radical scheme to pay mentally ill workers £4 a day.

http://order-order.com/2014/10/15/labou ... -disabled/

Paulie W

I absolutely accept that the response has been widely reported out of the context of the discussion and that Labour have take maximum advantage of it. But I think his comments are not just an example of an ill-thought out clumsily worded answer to a loaded question. At the heart of the response is an acceptance by Freud that there are disabled people (not all but a recognisable group) who are not employable at minimum wage because employers wouldnt feel like they were getting their money's worth. I find it hard to believe that this acceptance is purely about him not thinking through what he said. I think it is more likely that it reflects what he thinks and that is an issue because rather than pulling down barriers for disabled people it is re-inforcing them.

graham.

Presumably if an employer was to get away with paying £2.00 ph (Or whatever was decided.) then that would preclude the employee from any chance of promotion or progression through the company that would normally result in a pay increase. If the employee was to earn an increase of, say, an extra pound an hour, would the government contribution be reduced accordingly.
As is so often the case, minimum wage actually means maximum wage.

Lookyhere

So, these directors who have paid themselves 200x the avg uk wage (about 25k) and last year awarded another 20% on top, cant find it in within themselves to pay the min wage to a tiny % of disabled workers?
sometimes I think some people in power, labour and tory, wont be happy until we have the poor house in every town and city in England.

We seem to have sunk to such a moral decline that everyone regardless of their health, is seen as just a commodity with a monetary value stamped on their forehead - I wonder what a soldier with severe disabilities - from say injuries received in service of his country, would make of being offered £2 per hour?

CiB

Lookyhere wrote:

I wonder what a soldier with severe disabilities - from say injuries received in service of his country, would make of being offered £2 per hour?

The soldier you describe may be unemployable in the real world but might be happy to work for a nominal wage despite being very unproductive, but having the benefits that being at work brings; routine, human contact, respect, a bit of independence.

And you conveniently missed off the bit about using benefits to top up his pay to the minimum wage.

ballysmate

A sad but unpalatable truth is that some people are too seriously disabled to compete in any jobs market. As CiB says, it is a way of giving people some self respect and an opportunity to experience a workplace environment. The State picks up the tab for the wage differential.

veronese68

So, if a hypothetical able bodied person can work at 100% productivity and is getting minimum wage in a menial job and this hypothetical injured soldier can manage 60% productivity at best the company would pay him 60% of minimum and benefits would make up the shortfall?
The advantages of this that I can see are the disabled person gets out to work so isn't sat at home getting more depressed. The government is paying out less in benefits as his wages are covering some of his expenses. The company would be getting a similar level of productivity per pound so is not losing out.
Is this what we're getting so hot under the collar about?

CiB

Veronese68 wrote:

Is this what we're getting so hot under the collar about?

No. A Tory has said something that gives the regulars an excuse to jump up & down pointing at him as if he's a mad starey-eyed frothing-at-the-mouth nutjob, and enough people don't see beyond that to be able to stop themselves from joining in the fun. Facts are an irrelevance.

solosuperia

I think you will find that "Mencap" and "Scope" both backed the idea when it was first mooted by under a Labour government in 2000 and again in 2003...........
Both Charities attacked it yesterday!!!!!!
Now I wouldn't say they were acting politically would I?
Scope, their patron being Cherie Blair, their trustees including former Labour adviser Agnes Fletcher and Brent Labour member Jacqui Penalver, and their Director of External Affairs Mark Atkinson being a former Labour candidate.

Sleeper Cell

Lookyhere wrote:

So, these directors who have paid themselves 200x the avg uk wage (about 25k) and last year awarded another 20% on top, cant find it in within themselves to pay the min wage to a tiny % of disabled workers?

Who said this? You make it sound like all the Directors have been paying all disabled employees £2 per hour.

Anonymous

I have been thinking about this since it was said and was originally foaming, but now it does make sense.

The issue is getting the balance right between
- giving someone some independence, routine, human contact, respect etc to those otherwise stuck at home
- not making everyone feel like a only commodity (although there are probably limited barriers to disabled people doing voluntary work, I imagine)
- not making disabled people feel like they don't 'deserve' full pay (this to me is where someone will ALWAYS be offended)
- ensuring there is scope for promotion, so that there is scope to come of benefits altogether and see that their input is appreciated

To be honest, this is what sounds like was was proposed to those 'layabout benefit scroungers' but again, it kind of removes the point of the minimum wage if they can get away with paying someone less and for the gov't to top it up.

florerider

Pretty 2 faced after Remploy.

I have seen some pretty dismal jobs given to disabled people, and not in environments that gave back companionship etc

and guys - try to see ability not disability

pliptrot

Wow. There is some real cynicism and churlishness in this one. We have a Lord of the realm espousing some very ugly views and most of you defend him? I fail to see how anyone would enjoy being patronised and paid 2 quid an hour, as has been proposed in so many posts above. As usual, corporate greed leads to the state picking up the tab for giving someone a living wage. Oddly enough someone mentioned the new unemployment figures, without alluding to the figures for those in low paid work and "self employed", nearly all of whom rely on the state for top ups. All those new jobs are not well paid nor skilled, they are anything but. No wonder Government borrowing is going up. Which will go up again to fund those tax cuts for the better-off.
The words for those who think the Conservatives are trustworthy re: the economy (re: everything, actually) are economically illiterate, which is what the current front bench are too, evidently.

Frank the tank

Veronese68 wrote:

So, if a hypothetical able bodied person can work at 100% productivity and is getting minimum wage in a menial job and this hypothetical injured soldier can manage 60% productivity at best the company would pay him 60% of minimum and benefits would make up the shortfall?
The advantages of this that I can see are the disabled person gets out to work so isn't sat at home getting more depressed. The government is paying out less in benefits as his wages are covering some of his expenses. The company would be getting a similar level of productivity per pound so is not losing out.
Is this what we're getting so hot under the collar about?

They have promised to freeze benefits for many claimants whether in work or not, being paid the minimum wage or less.

In answer to "Ballysmate" who posted :- Watched the Daily Politics show on BBC today and it would appear that not is all that it seems.
There was mention of Patricia Hewitt of the caring sharing Labour Party accepting some radical scheme to pay mentally ill workers £4 a day. That is every bit as despicable, as I've said though I carry no torch for the tories with red rosettes.
Politicians who advocate things like the nature of this thread and also zero hours contracts,well, I have nothing in common with them.

Anonymous

Frank - what would be a reasonable proposition to encourage employers then?

Assume no disabled man wants to be at home, but has something to contribute.
An able bodied man can and wants to do the job at 100%, the disabled at, say 60%.

How do you encourage the employer to recruit the disabled man without being patronising, yet financially viable?

Actually - thinking about that more - pay them full wage but offer tax breaks elsewhere could be a solution?