Is it OK to pay disabled workers less than the minimum wage?

[Stranza 10]

OK, all things being equal, if in the future she could only do half the work she's doing now, do you think she should still get the same pay? Do you think she would expect to?

 

 

 

 

Freud is suggesting a system that would enable employers themselves to do *exactly* what Rempoly did!!!

 

Why does that "stink of horse poo"?

 

If she could only do half the work (for whatever reason) I would expect her to get paid for half the work.

Obviously she gets more than minimum wage but I wouldn't expect her to drop below minimum wage just to make employing her more attractive to employers.

 

Wage should be paid according to the job.

 

Not adjusted because of some disability, apprentices or youngsters there is an argument for because they are learning/ training but to pay someone below minimum wage because it makes it more attractive to employers is wrong.

 

I think the whole thing stinks because as you said (as did I in my first post on page 1) we had Remploy which we couldn't afford. Now an idea gets floated where the end result is the same for everyone but employers benefit in reduced cost labour.

 

If we can afford to subsidise these below min wage workers why couldn't we afford to keep their safe, purpose built Remploy factories open?

[Stan Tamudo 10]

The comments have been taken out of context, unsurprisingly.

 

The Adam Smith Institute have come out in support of Freud:-

 

"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."

 

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

 

That was a surprise!

[Mister M 1,625]

A good account of Lord Freud's contribution to British politics here:

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/disabled-people-not-worth-minimum-wage-says-lord-fraud-time-for-this-nasty-****ing-clown-to-go/

[Zamo 10]

Some people are unemployable but that is another matter and not limited to the 'disabled' (depending on how loosely you want to define it).

 

Got to say that the General Election campaign is already descending into gutter politics. If you don't hate politicians already then you by May 2015.

 

Don't we all listen to other people putting forward ideas and sometimes think "there might be something in that" to then go away, think it through, listen to counter arguments and then decide "actually that is complete crap"? Are politicians any different? I hate all this digging for dirt and demanding people are sacked. Imagine if 'normal' people were sacked for daring to give a moments consideration to a bad idea... nobody would be in employment! We need to get a grip and climb out of the gutter. Let's judge the politicians on the policies they have thought through and adopted... and the political tactics they deploy.

[roosterboost 10]

No.

 

An employer should set a minimum amount of work to achieve the wage being paid, if someone can't do the required amount of work then they can't expect to keep the job, if someone exceeds the minimum amount of work they should get a bonus to compensate them for working harder than their coworkers.

 

The answer for your last question is yes more people with disabilities would get jobs if employers were allowed to pay them less, but the point of a minimum wage is that it is the minimum.

 

But then an employer is prevented from giving a job to a disabled person who could do the job but produce less just because it wouldn't be economical.

But in such a case it could be possible for the wage to be made up to parity by a subsidy paid to people prepared to give such people jobs.

 

The problem is that to say such a thing is to be condemned by political points scorers.

[Stan Tamudo 10]

But then an employer is prevented from giving a job to a disabled person who could do the job but produce less just because it wouldn't be economical.

But in such a case it could be possible for the wage to be made up to parity by a subsidy paid to people prepared to give such people jobs.

 

The problem is that to say such a thing is to be condemned by political points scorers.

 

What the bloody hell does that mean?

[damageandy 10]

The coward should grow some balls and stick by what he said.

 

It just shows you the attitude the Tories have to people who are less fortunate, there will be party condemnation of what he said but we all know its whatt they really think.

[Stan Tamudo 10]

Let's not forget who first brought this bloke into government; New Labour in 2006 to review the benefits system. He described social security as "a multi-billion industry" and soon after A4e, Atos and the other parasites got in on the act.

[Mister M 1,625]

This discussion feels a bit odd. There seems to be an automatic assumption from some that disabled people aren't going to be as good at their job than somebody who isn't disabled. In many cases that isn't true - I think it's about judging people on what they can do, and the contribution they can make.

It stinks that Freud thinks there are people who worth less than the minimum wage - but then he didn't know how much people got on social security, in spite of being in charge of reforming it.

If we're talking about people who aren't up to their jobs, look no further than Lord Freud

 

Here is how it happened, apparently:

 

Freud revealed his rancid opinions at a conference fringe meetings when Tory Councillor, David Scott (@David ScottW) said: “I have a number of mentally damaged individuals, who to be quite frank aren’t worth the Minimum Wage.”

 

Lord Fraud agreed saying: “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…”

 

The comments came to light after Ed Miliband challenged David Cameron about Lord Fraud’s comments at Prime Minister’s Question Time today. What Miliband didn’t mention is that this very same ******* was at the heart of Labour’s own Welfare Reforms such as the shambolic and cruel Atos run Work Capability Assessment.

 

(From JohnnyVoid blog)

Edited October 15, 2014 by Mister M

[firemanbob 10]

..........................

[Stan Tamudo 10]

..........................

 

Interesting is that Smithy?

[Mr Bloom 10]

He's a disgrace. The minimum wage is a joke anyhow, and he says some disabled workers are 'not worth' this insult of a wage. There are laws to protect disabled people. Wellfare Minister? - wouldn't pay him in washers! Mind you, he probably thinks a pint of milk still costs 12p. He needs to go now.