Having read this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6673527.stm) it sounds like a good idea to me, but maybe the people themselves would prefer to work in their own 'community' ? So I'm not sure whats best :confused:

From what I've heard their rate is very low and am not sure if it's even on the hourly minimum wage.

I don't know about their factories but their white collar services seem to pay higher than minimum to their employees. Anyway...back to the gist of teh argument.

This sort of reflects one of my major concerns about 'big charities' is that they get so much in to seeing the 'big picture' that they fail to see that the dots that picture is made up of are living, breathing human beings.

In a perfect world, it woudl be great for these people to be able to integrate fully in to the mainstream work force, but realistically it will depend upon their particular problems and whether the mainstream employers are able to accomodate them.

""Of course, for some people this will be difficult and quite frightening, I imagine, but they're not going to be abandoned."

Why not leave the existing facilities in place and let peopelwork out their time - perhaps closing factories when worker numbers fall....or....bringing in able bodied workers to keep the places running. And as a separate project work on getting disabled people in to the mainstream workforce? Then when the last disabled person retires, either leave this places to run on, or close them then?

I think closing the factories is wrong, and agree with what Joe has said above. For anyone, losing your job because the workplace is closing is a very stressful thing, but when you have the additional challange of being disabled, finding another job will be difficult. We have laws designed to give disabled people rights, but I'm sure in reality, it's much more difficult for someone with a disability to get another job, particularly factory/manual work, than someone who has no disability. It may be illegal to discriminate on grounds of disability, but is a boss really going to give a disabled person a job over someone who doesn't have the disability and can therefore work quicker/learn the job quicker/have less time off sick (these may not be reality, they are my prejudices, I admit that, but they are also probably the prejudices of many of the employers interviewing people for factory work). You just find another reason to justify not giving them the job - lack of experience or whatever.

I suspect, in the medium term, many of the people from Remploy factories will end up claiming benefits (which they are entitled to do), so this move will actually cost the taxpayer money.

I'm sure Rich will be along shortly to explain the challanges he's faced in getting a job. I don't think he'll mind me saying that while he desperatly wants to work, actually finding someone who'd give him a chance wasn't easy.

I understood that the point of remploy was that it was set up to provide supported employment to people with disabilities.

not so much sheltered employment, but where there was support.

I feel that there is a place for this sort of environment. It's sad that there is still discrimination going on in the workplace, where employers are reluctant to see a PWD as someone who can be a productive and useful member of the workforce. Even with current anti-discrimination legislation, it's still very hard to persuade a prospective employer to see beyond the disability.

From what I have heard in the past Remploy do not pay anything like the NMW (I am prepared to be corrected on this if I am wrong). That is the whole point of NMW. It is honourable to offer SUPPORTED employment to those with disabilities (and I presume here that the workers would not be able to fit into an ordinary working situation). However, if as a result of the work there is an end product from which a profit can be made then the workers involved - disabled or not - should get the going rate for the job. And that means at least the NMW....nothing less. If Remploy offer less than NMW then it only means they are concerned about their own profit margins and couldn't care less about who does the work. And if that is the case then SHAME on them.

From what I've heard their rate is very low and am not sure if it's even on the hourly minimum wage.

It isn't.

A few years ago I did a week at the Reclaim recycling place at Wadsley Bridge, hated it, and the pay at the end of the week was a paltry £6! I'm sorry but what the hell?! 6 lousy quid for working in a noisy, messy recycling plant?! :rant:

I understood that the point of remploy was that it was set up to provide supported employment to people with disabilities.

not so much sheltered employment, but where there was support.

I feel that there is a place for this sort of environment. It's sad that there is still discrimination going on in the workplace, where employers are reluctant to see a PWD as someone who can be a productive and useful member of the workforce. Even with current anti-discrimination legislation, it's still very hard to persuade a prospective employer to see beyond the disability.

That is exactly what I've been saying for years PT! I mean come on, about 10 years ago I even set myself an interview up for a shelf stacking job at the Middlewood Road Co Op in Hillsborough, Manageress took one look at my CV and collection of various certificates, and told me to my face I was over-qualified for a minimum wage shelf stacking job! That's because I've spent half my adult life in and out of College gaining qualifications in computers etc so I can try and get a half decent Office job or something, comes to something when I can't even get a lousy 2 bit shelf stacking job though doesn't it?! :rant:

I wouldn't mind but at the time I'd just left Loxley College from an NVQ retail course and wanted a job in shop work, Meadowhall didn't want me cos they apparently weren't "insured" to have disabled people on their premises or some other BS so I applied local.

As far as I'm concerned, if people are up to working then they should be supported to the best of our ability in that work and paid a proper wage for doing it.

If they aren't up to working (and I'm not being disrespectful or derogatory here) then there should be no pretence of 'they're doing a proper job'. I'm all behind the idea that having a purpose is therapeutic, but paying a pittance is an insult to anyone, whether able bodied or not.

If there is anyone else out there who is disabled and/or has autism and wants to work in a supported environment, please give Glynis Beck of the supported employment project at The Source near Meadowhall a call on 2635635.

I've been on a placement from them doing admin in the Meadowhall Management Suite 2 months to the day tomorrow, and it's great, the work's hard but they're really supportive and don't make out that you're "different" just because you're disabled, cos you're not. Despite the opinions of the Daily Mail and Guardian readers (I had to, I'm sorry) not every unemployed person is a lazy good-for-nothing scrounger who sponges off the State.

Some of us are unemployed for a reason.

Despite the opinions of the Daily Mail and Guardian readers (I had to, I'm sorry) not every unemployed person is a lazy good-for-nothing scrounger who sponges off the State.


I'm not sure many Guardian readers would think that.

I didn't realise Remploy paid so low. I understand they're subsidised by the government, therefore surely can't make a profit? How exactly does this work, are they a government agency, or are they a private company who recieve money from the government?

Either way, I don't think anyone should be expected to work a full week for £6. That wouldn't even pay the bus fare to get there each day (I realise this was 10 year ago, but even so, it's a disgrace). If they are really paying people such a pittance, then the managers should be sacked and replaced. There is no reason it cannot be a profitable concern and pay at least minimum wage.

Andy, part of the problem of places like reclaim (or Crown Hill/ adsetts st training centres) is that the attendees are on benefits. If they earn more than X amount, it affects their benefits. And get them into all sorts of messes with the DWP (dss as was) and housing benefits etc etc.

It's a fine line. It is also possible that the monies given may be their out of pocket expenses, like fares etc, and that the position is voluntary (which may not affect benefits in the same way)

Either way, yes, staff should be given the dignity of being paid a decent wage, and not exploited.

just to add, actually, six quid as expenses, ten years ago, was not a bad amount!

Andy, part of the problem of places like reclaim (or Crown Hill/ adsetts st training centres) is that the attendees are on benefits. If they earn more than X amount, it affects their benefits. And get them into all sorts of messes with the DWP (dss as was) and housing benefits etc etc.


But if the jobs paid a proper wage (which I thought they did) then people wouldn't need to claim benefits and there wouldn't be a problem. I wasn't aware these places treated their workers as volunteers.

I voted not sure! in this poll when the thread first appeared. I've now read a report in The Guardian, and feel I would support the proposed closures.

The newspaper reports that each Remploy worker receives a government subsidy of £20,000 a year! Remploy places 5,000 disabled workers a year in mainstream employment at a one-off average cost of £5,300.

The leaders of six charitable organisations have written to The Guardian in support of the proposed closures, in which they state "disabled people are far more likely to have fulfilling lives, and to reach their full potential, by working in the inclusive environment which the rest of us take for granted".

Remploy is guaranteeing no compulsory redundancies of disabled workers.

These arguments alone have persuaded me that I am now in favour of the proposed closures.

Grissom
Having read this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6673527.stm) it sounds like a good idea to me, but maybe the people themselves would prefer to work in their own 'community' ? So I'm not sure whats best
I agree with Grissom.
This is a very controversial decision, that I assume is being taken without actually involving or discussing it with the disabled people that it will affect.

Remploy receives £111m in government subsidy every year.
If Remploy does actually close its doors, then I would hope that this £111m is used to help employers, who would be prepared to have disabled people in its employ, to pay for any adaptations to the building/workspace that are required to accomodate a disabled person.

Remploy chief executive Bob Warner said each job in its factories costs an average of £20,000, and for the same money four disabled people could be helped into other roles.
I don't really get where these figures come from, but to my calculations, £20,000 divided by 4 = £5000 per person, multiplied by its 2,500 employees = £12,500,000, leaving over £90m for overheads. Looking at it another way, £20,000 X 2,500 employees = £50m still leaving £51m for overheads, divided by Remploys 83 plants = £6.1m each for overheads (roughly). Maybe I am wrong, but it just does not equate to me. The white collar workers must be on a good number at these plants.

"There is now an acceptance that disabled people would prefer to work in mainstream employment alongside non-disabled people rather than in sheltered workshops from which they do not progress or develop," he said.
I agree in part with this statement, disabled people may not be able to advance in terms of NVQ qualifications or promotion to a management role, but they certainly get to learn new skills in manufacturing and also social skills. It also gives the disabled person the feeling of having a role in life and the feeling of self achievement and self satisfaction of doing something worthwhile instead of being sat at home or in a day center all day.

Rich
I wouldn't mind but at the time I'd just left Loxley College from an NVQ retail course and wanted a job in shop work, Meadowhall didn't want me cos they apparently weren't "insured" to have disabled people on their premises or some other BS so I applied local.
I would have taken this further Rich. What did they mean by they didn't have insurance for disabled people? If everything is above board and they have the correct public liability insurance, then all members of staff are covered ( They let disabled people shop there ), So what was their problem with having a disabled person working there? Outright discrimination I would say, and it needs to be stopped.

I knew someone whose take home pay from Remploy was around £160 for a 4 day week, and on top of their DLA care/mobility components and DWA, their weekly amount to live on was actually a decent amount. Remploy don't pay their workers at the same level as Crownhill day centre.

I was put in touch with Remploy by some fool from an Agency the other day, thing was, I didn't even say anything to him, he just took one look at me and gave me Remploy's phone number! I'm sorry but what the hell?! This is supposed to be an equal opportunities Country for chuff sake! That guy literally proved to me that equal opportunites means sod all in reality, they just say it cos they have to, and that for want of a better word, Bosses of "normal" people's companies don't want disabled people.

I've worked for one of these disabled specific Charities before as well, about 4 years ago I did a week at the Reclaim recycling plant on Claywheels Lane, and hated it, noisy, mucky, stood up all day, 4 days work for not even HALF of the minimum wage, a paltry £6 for a week's work! What the hell?! It was insulting quite frankly.

The only reason I agreed to it was to shut the Daily Mail readers up and keep the damn job centre halfwits off my back about actively seeking work.

It isn't.

A few years ago I did a week at the Reclaim recycling place at Wadsley Bridge, hated it, and the pay at the end of the week was a paltry £6! I'm sorry but what the hell?! 6 lousy quid for working in a noisy, messy recycling plant?! :rant:


Six pound an hour ? or six pound on top of your conscionable state benefits ,either seems a good screw to me mate

No- not £6 an hour.

£6 a WEEK.

There's a world of difference between the two. As far as I'm concerned if the person with disabilities is able and willing to work, then they should be paid a living wage to enable them to come off benefits. If the jobs aren't 'real' but just invented to make them look busy then that's not a real job and we're far too evolved to patronise a whole sector of the community in that way.

I don't know if it's true now but the difference between workers on the shop floor and white collar workers was that they did not employ disabled people in management. I applied for a job after I graduated from University and after being the run around was more or less told they didn't have facilities for disabled people in management. Of course since the act they may have had to change policy.