As if being disabled wasn't bad enough
Comments
-
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?
At present, employers of supported employees with a disability receive a %age of their wage up to 100% to compensate the support needed to the employee for as long as the support is needed. In some cases this payment will be reduced to zero and the employee will become non-supported and free up a place for another supported employee.
Financial assistance is available to employers to take on staff with disabilities but the adjustments required in the workplace and support required puts many off.
Bullying in the workplace is also a real problem for disabled employees, so it isn't just a case of how much should people with a disability be paid, it's a case of finding work to start with.
The other story, of 'therapeutic wages' is a strange one. This kind of payment became illegal when the minimum wage came in AFAIK.0 -
Firstly its a great shame that Millipede stooped so low and threw this hand grenade at PMQs, rather than acting like the statesmen he aspires to be. And sadly typical of any party in opposition especially Labour to try and score points through sneeky recordings and out of context comment. And even more suspicious to have gone public on the day the unemployment figures were announced. Why couldn't Ed Millipede instead raise the issue of employment for the disabled as a priority topic that is worthy of a parliamentary committee to investigate?
Lord Freud's faux pas was to use the word 'worth' in the same sentence as £2 per hour. Obviously this to his great regret and ultimately may cost him his job. His overseeing of the closure of Remploy is however unforgivable. Those employed within that organisation benefited so much from being fully included into society and undertook very worthwhile jobs. A tragedy.
The whole topic from the employers aspect needs to be looked at. As stated by commentary on tv and radio, those with varying degrees of disability may require costly supervision and support structures to be in the workplace. Therefore they are overlooked for employment as the 'able bodied' alternative would be a cheaper option at the minimum wage.
BTW I am not a Tory.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
CiB wrote:
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.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?
And you conveniently missed off the bit about using benefits to top up his pay to the minimum wage.
Bit of a condescending statement.
the state didn't demand he go to afgan for £2, so why offer him or any one else a demeaning wage?
As Mr Goo said, the closure of Remploy is a utter disgrace.
Why should highly profitable companies expect the state to pick up the tab between £2 and the min wage? how long before employers would want more state subsidy for obese employees or women of child baring age?
as someone said, we should look beyond whether someone has a disability or not and look at ability instead.0 -
Sleeper Cell wrote:
Who said this? You make it sound like all the Directors have been paying all disabled employees £2 per hour.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?
Surely the company director of a local business employing 3 people also gets paid the same as the MD of a FTSE company? Directors are money grabbing, overpaid wastes of space and it's not like they do anything like create jobs in most cases is it - you haven't been around Bike Radar long enough to realise this (or have you
). 0 -
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?
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?
Do you really think that's how it works, that it just needs a little heart from the director?
Nope, either the not particularly well paid store managers who hire less competitive staff get fired (most likely), or the director does after shareholder revolt. Either way they're replaced with someone who'll quickly fire all the uncompetitive employees.
That's why we have relatively broad government - to act as uber-director, accepting and exploiting the selfish nature of a company for the greater good.0 -
A straw poll ... Does anyone here actually work with disabled people and spend lots of their time trying to find suitable and appropriate employment for them? I do0
-
No.Mikey23 wrote:A straw poll ... Does anyone here actually work with disabled people and spend lots of their time trying to find suitable and appropriate employment for them? I do0 -
Mikey23 wrote:A straw poll ... Does anyone here actually work with disabled people and spend lots of their time trying to find suitable and appropriate employment for them? I do
No, however I have been disabled and have liaised with good people like yourself.0 -
Fair nuff... Just reading some posts from the politically correct pov which of course we would all buy in to. I think the good minister was expressing an opinion about the practical realities of it ... Clumsily worded i agree. Millipede of course goes for the tired old tories bad cos they dont care about the disabled told you so and vote for me ticket and everyone piles in with mock righteous indignation...
If youve never tried to break the chains of welfare dependency, negative stereotypes, unwilling employers etc etc then let me tell you its hard and unrewarding. Easier to go bowling and swimming. Fascinating debate on R4 this morning so at least it gets the issues in the open to be debated although of course nothing will be done...0 -
I assume it would be an extension of Working Tax Credits so the system already exists. 40 hours at £2/hour= £80/week. Jobseekers allowance what, less than £50/week. I don't know where the £2/hour figure came from but that's still better than being unemployed. In reality it might not be if you lose other welfare options, i'm not sure.
There is a flaw with minimum wage in that there could be a job that would be worthwhile for both parties but it can't be offered unless the employer can afford to pay minimum wage. It's a real problem for small businesses looking to hire someone.0 -
Benefit system does provide a ceiling that is difficult to break through. Not much incentive for folks tto try to reach whatever potential they have..0
-
barrowmatt wrote:I assume it would be an extension of Working Tax Credits so the system already exists. 40 hours at £2/hour= £80/week. Jobseekers allowance what, less than £50/week. I don't know where the £2/hour figure came from but that's still better than being unemployed. In reality it might not be if you lose other welfare options, i'm not sure.
.
JSA is £82pw for most adults. And £80pw isn't much if your paying all your bills yourself and aren't being looked after by anyone.0 -
Single person rates of JSA are 57.35 if under 25, 72.40 if older.
Esa is:
Up to £101.15 a week if you’re in the work-related activity group.
Up to £108.15 a week if you’re in the support group.
However you can do permitted work ie earn £20 a week on top of this, or up to £90 a week as long as you don't work more than 16 hours a week.
Oh, and we have people still on Incapacity Benefit, then there is the new Universal Credit. Add to that income and contribution based entitlements. DLA. It's a minefield.0 -
All i know is that one of the guys i support was actively seeking work until he got £110 per week for sitting on his fanny at home with his parents... Now hes retired at 21. But hes been asked to contribute £28 towards his care costs... Yes, there is a god!0
-
The only problem with this guy is that he does not have the foresight to see where his depressed and poor quality albeit long retirement is taking him. Cue depression, feeling of no self worth, no girlfriend, etc. etc. Much as sitting at home on your butt might be entertaining for the first week thereafter i would imagine it would become mind numbingly boring. Added to that you would have to hang out with the dregs of society probably taking drugs and drink to get them through the misery of their lives without committing suicide. This is what 50 years on benefits would be like in my mind however as always I could be wrong.0
