Disabled people "not worth the minimum wage"

Pap seems to be slow off the mark in starting a thread on this one, so I'll take the honours.....

http://news.sky.com/story/1353507/lord-freud-accused-over-disabled-comments

Welfare minister Lord Freud was under pressure to resign after Labour leader Ed Miliband disclosed he claimed that disabled people were "not worth" the minimum wage.Welfare charities joined politicians in calling for the Conservative minister to go over comments he made at a think-tank event where he suggested mentally disabled people should only be paid £2 an hour and not the full £6.50.

Mr Miliband ambushed David Cameron with the revelations at Prime Minister's Questions saying it proved the Tories had returned to their "nasty party" past.

Lord Freud, the great grandson of Sigmund Freud, made the comments on 30 September after being questioned on disabled people and the minimum wage by a Conservative councillor.

He said: "Now, there is a small … there is a group, and I know exactly who you mean, where actually as you say they're not worth the full wage and actually I'm going to go and think about that particular issue, whether there is something we can do nationally, and without distorting the whole thing, which actually if someone wants to work for £2 an hour, and it's working can we actually ..."

And the obligatory alternative point of view....

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/ed-milibands-attack-on-lord-freud-is-shameful/

Lord Freud has been shamefully mistreated by Ed Miliband. His point was that the market value of some people’s wages is below the minimum wage. This is often true of the severely disabled and can have appalling consequences for their self-esteem and quality of life. Fixing this problem was the justification for Remploy, a government-funded firm that gave jobs to disabled people who could not find work elsewhere.

 

To point out that someone’s market value is less than minimum wage has nothing to do with their moral value as human beings. Freud’s point was that we should help people in this situation by allowing them to find jobs paying below the minimum wage and topping up their pay directly to make up the difference.

Even if you don’t agree with this method, it is motivated by compassion for the disabled and an understanding of the unpleasant side-effects of our minimum wage laws. Freud’s only crime was to speak bluntly: it is disgraceful to use his words against him in the way Miliband has.

Its probably fair comment. Caring for disabled people is society's job. We shouldn't be forcing companies to pay people at the same rate IF they aren't equally as productive as someone recruited from the open market.

Its probably fair comment. Caring for disabled people is society's job. We shouldn't be forcing companies to pay people at the same rate IF they aren't equally as productive as someone recruited from the open market.

And caring for them is paying them £2 a hour? Tory cvnts

Difficult one. I see what he is trying to say, but that's the wrong way to say it. If you only get 40% productivity out of someone that is mentally disabled, then companies will not take them on paying the minimum wage. This way they may well get employment, instead of not getting anything at all.

Difficult one. I see what he is trying to say, but that's the wrong way to say it. If you only get 40% productivity out of someone that is mentally disabled, then companies will not take them on paying the minimum wage. This way they may well get employment, instead of not getting anything at all.

If there is a situation whereby a firm would not emply someone of disability due to them deeming the individual not worth the costs at minimum wage level, but both parties would be happy at a level below the minimum wage, should there be some sort of allowance to keep the individual in work?

It opens up the whole question of minimum wage's validity anyway.

I'm going to go and think about that particular issue, whether there is something we can do nationally, and without distorting the whole thing, which actually if someone wants to work for £2 an hour, and it's working can we actually ..."

What? Like a Remploy factory, you mean? Perhaps he should think about solutions before opening his big, privileged mouth.

The quotes are very badly worded, but he has a clear point.

 

If there is a situation whereby a firm would not emply someone of disability due to them deeming the individual not worth the costs at minimum wage level, but both parties would be happy at a level below the minimum wage, should there be some sort of allowance to keep the individual in work?

 

It opens up the whole question of minimum wage's validity anyway.

Exactly. It is actually a way into work for some people, rather than the opposite.

What? Like a Remploy factory, you mean? Perhaps he should think about solutions before opening his big, privileged mouth.

This is a solution to people not being employed on mental health grounds :confused:

No it doesn't. Just so many right wing sorts convinced society is all about money and that drives the agenda. Meanwhile all the time edging in favour of exploitive bosses such a Mike Ashley.

Would expect most people on here probably wish the trade Union movement never happened.

Exactly. It is actually a way into work for some people, rather than the opposite.

Bless them as long as you give them a bit of food they should be grateful

Bless them as long as you give them a bit of food they should be grateful

We are talking about privately owned companies not wanting to pay a full wage for people that may not be able to do a job competently. They certainly don't have to, and a lot don't currently. Of course, some will do the job just as well, and it's important to ensure they get the correct wages to reflect that.

judging by main bbc headline being he has apologised rather than trying to justify. Feel free to keep defending him though

What? Like a Remploy factory, you mean? Perhaps he should think about solutions before opening his big, privileged mouth.

Remploy was the proper solution

I thought Remploy was closed under the Tories?

judging by main bbc headline being he has apologised rather than trying to justify. Feel free to keep defending him though

Who was defending him? We were saying we understood his point?

Remploy was the proper solution

Is this a fairly balanced article? http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/30/remploy-factories-close-disabled-workers

I thought Remploy was closed under the Tories?

They were.

http://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/522486600492933120/photo/1

Hear hear good idea say Saintsweb

...

I thought Remploy was closed under the Tories?

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2007/11/29/peter-hain-backs-remploy-plan-to-close-28-factories/

And caring for them is paying them £2 a hour? Tory cvnts

Better than £4 a day though?

http://order-order.com/2014/10/15/labour-backed-4-a-day-pay-for-mentally-disabled/

I enjoyed watching Cameron's reply to the suggestion he doesn't care about disabled people (obviously referencing his dead disabled son Ivor...who he (as a millionaire and husband of an Astor remember) claimed Disability Living Allowance for, a benefit he's currently "modernising" (cutting an arbitory 20% of) for living disabled people). Guilt perhaps? the lady doth protest too much methinks.

Or should I mention the removal of the independent living fund? (a fund created by Thatcher to appease those who were worried about her closing down so many care homes). No, this is a very easy target for those against the conservative ideals and he's done himself no favours whatsoever especially considering there have regularly been disabled people protesting against the cuts this government have made with things like the bedroom tax (and before anyone says they were needed they need to examine the recent quantitative easing the federal reserve have just done...put simply, if you mention the deficit, you have no idea of how money works.)

Better than £4 a day though?

 

http://order-order.com/2014/10/15/labour-backed-4-a-day-pay-for-mentally-disabled/

Does this make labour a nasty party , a hypercritical party , or both?

Does this make labour a nasty party , a hypercritical party , or both?

Not forgetting Mencap's views on the minimum wage....

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/feb/04/davidbrindle

Mencap, which otherwise strongly supports the minimum wage, calls for an urgent revision of the rules to enable such low output work to be classified as "special placements" exempt from the statutory provision.

 

David Congdon, the charity's public affairs director, said people losing jobs or hours were facing social isolation. "Most people with a learning disability want to work and we urge the government to give them that chance [by allowing companies to pay below the minimum wage in certain circumstances]"

Remploy was the proper solution

Indeed it was, and the decision to effectively end this programme was I think a shockingly bad one.

There are a large number of people in society who for one reason or another can't compete effectively for jobs with their more mentally and/or physically able counterparts. These unfortunates are dumped onto the not-so tender mercies of the DWP's grim and oppressive Job Centre system and forced to undergo a depressing routine of cheap low quality training schemes followed by forced 'voluntary' work and a so called 'job search' burden that would challenge the best of us. Failure to jump through any of these hoops will naturally result in a loss of benefit. I know someone who once worked at a Remploy business has been trapped in this miserable cycle for many years now. I seriously doubt he will ever escape.

What this minister said was crass and insensitive, everyone who does their best deserves at least a living wage, but the truth that 'dare not speak its name' here is that there are people who may not be obviously seriously handicapped but are nevertheless on the margins of the mainstream working population - people whom the state now insists must find work and support themselves - but are more or less unemployable in today's economy. Without a organisation like Remploy, or some other form of long term subsidy, many of them are likely to remain out of work whatever happens to the unemployment rate.

It is exactly what is wrong with politics today. A sensible solution is proposed, the concept put forward by Mencap not that long ago and it is turned into a political football. As a result thousands of people rotting at home when they could be out in the workplace lifting their self esteem and feeling valued will have to continue to do so. Well done to the slick party machines and the spin doctors.

It is exactly what is wrong with politics today. A sensible solution is proposed, the concept put forward by Mencap not that long ago and it is turned into a political football. As a result thousands of people rotting at home when they could be out in the workplace lifting their self esteem and feeling valued will have to continue to do so. Well done to the slick party machines and the spin doctors.

His idea was reasonably valid but he should have realised, as I say, what with the current "deficit" climate and disabled people disproportionately taking the hit that this may not have been the wisest thing to say.

I've been away for much of this week, so many thanks to trousers for starting the thread

Lord Freud has scored a gratuitous own goal here. Consistent with many Tory gaffes, any logic in the point is dwarfed by the cruel way in which sentiments are expressed. There are ways to acknowledge the barrier of entry for disabled people without suggesting that they earn £2 an hour, whether that's grants for better access, or subsidies to employers.

The debate is well worth having, if there is a genuine problem in getting disabled people into work. Problem is, Freud's assessment is another nasty implementation which shows how out of touch the Conservatives are.

Before anyone starts, I left the Labour Party a couple of weeks ago. I've got no time for them either.