To think he should be paid for his time?

[MargotRogers]

Name changed as this is very identifying.

DS is 24 and autistic, he's selectively mute, which means that although he can physically speak and understand, he also isn't able to make himself speak.

He's also a mechanic, this is all honestly down to my older brother who owns a garage. DS has always been good with cars, ever since he was little but after helping him apply for apprenticeships at 16, he just kept getting turned down as he can't actually handle people at all.

He doesn't like to be touched, rarely raises his head and won't communicate with anyone.

DBrother gave him an apprenticeship at his garage and then a job for two days a week. As it was his garage, no one bothered DS or gave him a hard time, it was close enough to walk too and I can tell he really likes it.

DBrother's garage is now going through a rough time and he may have to start letting people go, he's asked if instead of firing someone he could just not pay DS for a while until things get a bit better.

He said that DS is the only one that won't be negatively effected. He lives with us, we happily provide everything for him and he does get benefits as well, so he doesn't need Dbrother to pay him and he won't even realise it or properly understand.

Whereas the other people he employs, live pay check to pay check, they rely on the money to pay for their food and rent.

DS is unlikely to ever get another place as nice to work in, he enjoys going there but DBrother can't give me a definite date on when he may be able to start paying him, I don't know what right for DS, I don't want him taken advantage of but I don't want him to lose this job either.

would be quite surprised if he was a competent mechanic who wasn't able to understand the concept of observing.

He has ASD. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Only OP knows if her DB is just foing this to exploit a vulnerable adult or if he's callingvin a favour as a family member eho's gone out of his way to help.

If DS didn't jave autism might DB have said look mate, i need to let you go cos i need to cut back so i can either give you a good reference or i can keep you on for 3 months without pay, you can keep getting the experience and we'll look again say after Christmas. DS would then think how easy is it for me to get another job and how much to a love being here?

As his mom in that situation i'd say goven you really struggled to get anything prior and DB found a space for you and ypi're not financially reliant ln the money, do that and stay but with a deadline on the no pay deal

Soup: Well, the OP is the only one who knows the answer to that one. As I say, it would surprise me. He must have had to do a reasonable amount of watching whilst gaining qualifications that allow him to fix people's cars

Hiya, everyone, I've read through the thread and I'll try and answer some of the questions.

DS does valuable work that brings in revenue, he shows up, he gets shown a car, told what to fix and then gets on with it. DBrother makes money off the work, he's not just sitting around.

Training him was very difficult and I doubt another employer would have gone through the trouble

I don't want DBrother to get into trouble for letting him go or for not paying him, I do think I need to speak to DS' social worker before anything else happens to understand what the legal implications could be, will DS still be insured?

I'm not sure about renting out some space and letting DS fix cars as that may mean the insurance goes up for DB as he may not be covered.

I've looked at the grant link, thanks to the pp that linked it, this could be a way of getting DB some extra funds.

I want to go down to the job centre with DS and speak to someone about his chances of other employment, maybe they have some schemes he'd be eligible for and speak to DB about other garages that may consider him.

If DB asked for my help, I would give it without a second thought but he's not asking for my help, he's asking for DS' and yes he's helped DS but DS has also repaid that help by doing his job.

100% agree, OP. Protect everyone concerned by speaking to the social worker first.

Did he go to college the other 3 days. What kind of apprentiship was it does he get a qualification. That is what you should have looked into is whether he is employable after. Your brother could lose the garage so what is your plan B.

I'm not saying don't speak to the SW, but wouldn't assume they'd be able to provide reliable advice on the legal position. Or that anyone would derive any protection from their views being sought.

Trifle while I agree about why we have these laws, I don't think that's something OP should be expected to consider definitive, and certainly not to place above her son's welfare if she thought it were in his interests to do as DB proposes.

Lots of kids do unpaid internships for experience. Could the name of what the OPs ds does be changed from apprenticeship to internship, thus getting around the pay problem?

Bit dodge to do that when you've been paying someone as an employee, and HMRC occasionally take an interest in unpaid 'internships' even when you've not.

The thing is if you say no, he needs to be paid, he will be made redundant.

If your son can't find another job ( which he will struggle to do) then he's at home everyday. This will not help him.

It's just money and if he doesn't need it, I'd not worry about it. I think we all get a bit worked up about money.

It's not right to not pay him due to his disability. However in honesty with his problems any business owner would made him redundant first.

The other option is that he sets himself up, fixing old bikes or repairing stuff. He will struggle with that though and would need lots of support.

Ask him, I bet he wants to still work at the garage.

Do whatever it takes to keep ds at the job he loves. If he stays at home 2 people lose out, him and db. If Db is a decent man which he sounds to be, he will pay ds again as soon as he is able. Obviously look into grants etc but since ds doesn't care about money and has no need for it it seems counter productive to take away the thing that gives his life a purpose for the sake of money.

I do hope you manage to come to an agreement which works for everyone.

Does he have an actual qualification after the apprenticeship? Or does his work still have to be checked by someone who does, in order for the garage to have its insurance? I know nothing about mechanic qualifications, but I assumed that they had to have something before fixing cars for paying customers. If he doesn't have the qualifications that the others do, but is doing it more to help out his uncle, who is then officially responsible for whatever repairs, then I can see why he might need to be the first one to be let go. I guess that comes down to how much of the exact same job he is doing as the others - if it's the same mechanic job, but without the customer facing stuff, then it is harder to justify him not being paid, but if it's more of a junior role that still has to be supervised/someone else qualified takes the official responsibility for what he does, then it makes more sense for him not to be paid.

I think asking too many questions about legal aspects might just get the brother into trouble, and end up with the whole arrangement being scrapped. Best would be to either give the brother the equivalent money to carry on as things are, or to hope that some of the grants people have mentioned are available. Otherwise, let him go, and then after a short break, maybe he could start up volunteering again, with less strict arrangements - like not officially having a start time or fixed days or whatever (even if he doesnt' treat it any differently). it could give him the flexibility of moving to another role or taking on a college course or something if those opportunities ever came up.

It's quite a sad indictment of our society that so many agree that the lad should just work for free or be fired when he is doing a perfectly good job and there is no more reason to fire him than anyone else, by the sounds of it. How many of us would accept a similar ultimatum for ourselves, I wonder.

It's quite a sad indictment of our society that so many agree that the lad should just work for free or be fired when he is doing a perfectly good job and there is no more reason to fire him than anyone else, by the sounds of it. How many of us would accept a similar ultimatum for ourselves, I wonder.

If I worked for a friend/relative, enjoyed my job and did not need the income, then yes I would gladly work for free if my friend/relative could no longer afford to pay me.

What would be the alternative? Me sit at home bored while the friend/relative's business struggled? That doesn't make sense for anyone.

Of course if either I didn't enjoy the job or I did need the income, the situation would be completely different

I think also people are wanting to know whether he truly is doing a perfectly good job - yes, he's doing useful work and providing income for the business, which is great; but it might be that it's still only at an 'intern' level rather than something he could do completely independently, without further qualifications, and it might still only be part of the job without all the awkward customer bits. If he wasn't quite doing what a usual mechanic would be doing, then it is a sort of apprenticeship type role at the moment, and those are often first in line for getting rid of if the business needs to cut back, aren't they?

Well, sorry, DeathStare, that's just how I feel about it. "Oh well, he doesn't need the money" doesn't really cut it when you're taking advantage of someone's inability to understand that you have stopped paying them for their time and revenue-generating work.

And again, I say that with every sympathy for the uncle and his business troubles.

Well, sorry, DeathStare, that's just how I feel about it. "Oh well, he doesn't need the money" doesn't really cut it when you're taking advantage of someone's inability to understand that you have stopped paying them for their time and revenue-generating work.

For me that would depend on how it was phrased when it was put to me.

If they said "look you're the only one who doesn't need the money so you're the one we're not going to pay" I would indeed feel like I was being taken advantage of.

If they said to me "I'm really sorry but I can't afford to keep everyone on, and you're the person with the least flexible skills so it's you who is going to have to go. I feel really bad about it, especially because I know how much you enjoy the work so if you ever want to come down and help out we'd be really glad to have you, I just can't afford to pay you anymore" then I'd be a lot happier just to go down and help if I enjoyed it.

OP - I assume you/your DB has some ability to communicate with your DS? Maybe one of you should have that conversation with him and see what he wants to do.

DeathStare: I understand what you mean, but I think if that was a realistic conversation this wouldn't be the issue that it is. Of course, I might be wrong, that's for the OP to comment on if she likes.

Trifleorbust - re: 'he is doing a perfectly good job and there is no more reason to fire him than anyone else, by the sounds of it.' - OP has explained that while her son is perfectly capable of doing the main part of the job (fixing the cars) he can't do many of the secondary roles (answering phone, sorting appointments, taking payment, discussing with people etc.)

If he hadn't been DB nephew and just a random on an apprenticeship/intern/training scheme (or if OP's son had done his training with a different garage) it would be very likely that he would have been let go before he could get a proper job if he could only do part of the skillset. Apprentices (or anyone going for any job, really) need to prove that they can perform all aspects of the job satisfactorily not just 70% of them.

From the other employees' point of view, why should OPs DS be paid the same as them for doing less work? Say there are three other employees and DS, if two of the other employees and DS were ill/or on holiday the final employee could still carry out the job on their own. If three employees were off and DS was the only one in, he couldn't carry out the job solo and the garage would have to close for the day and lose revenue.

• I am NOT saying I agree with this or that it's right, but if you are asking for a purely business rationale for firing him over other employees there is one -

OP I 100% agree with all your misgivings but it seems to me your brother went over and above in helping your DS and is being upfront with you now. Taking

I could understand your reasoning either way, but ultimately to me I would swallow my principles in favour of what would be better for DS.
It appears from what you've said that he personally wouldn't feel himself to be disadvantaged at all if you allowed him to continue working/volunteering there for free (it would be you that loses the money he gets and would have to make up the shortfall, and from what you say this wouldn't be an issue for you) but he would be upset and lose out on a lot of beneficial experience, skills, and enjoyment if he had to stop going completely.

If there is a business rationale for making him redundant, no problem. I would accept an argument that said he was the least effective employee and therefore couldn't be kept on. There is no rationale for firing him outright.

And actually, no, people don't always need to prove they can perform all aspects of a job in order for it not to be a favour for them to be in it. Reasonable adjustments are perfectly standard practice.

It's just money and if he doesn't need it, I'd not worry about it.

Fine for the time being, but what about when OP isn't able to provide care and accommodation for her DS? Is the state guaranteed to provide what an older person with a disability will need in the future? He should be paid, for one thing so that he (with suitable assistance) will be able to afford a better, or even reasonable, standard of living later in life.

And finally (conscious I'm being a bit opinionated here) I wonder what people would think in a similar scenario, but one where the employee was limited physically but wasn't autistic, so had a better appreciation of what was going on?

Imagine a poster came on here and said, "I'm 24, I've worked in X field for X number of years, and I work for my uncle. The business is going through some difficult times and my uncle has asked me - but not any of the other employees - if I can work for free for a few months. I do a good job and I love my work but there are one or two aspects of the job I don't do because I'm wheelchair-bound, and his logic is that this means I would be the one to be fired if I couldn't work for free. I do other work to compensate for the fact that I don't do those aspects of the role. I worry that I wouldn't be able to find another job tbh.

The thing is I don't really need the money (I live at home), and this is the other argument he put to me, that I can afford to work for nothing because I don't have bills to pay. AIBU to think I should be paid or made redundant?"

I agree about it looking like he's being used but what would your DS do for the 2 days if he didn't have that to go to ?

He enjoys going and doing something useful. I'd try and get a time frame from your DB and look to see if he can get a grant

Trifle. In your scenario, the physically limited person does alternative work to compensate for not being able to work physically. This is different, isn't it? As far as I'm aware, that's not how op has put it to us. And also it would depend very much on the business. It would be difficult for the person in this example to be labouring in a warehouse or on a construction site but not an issue to work in telesales. This person is also aware and choosing not to work for free. They assumedly will have obtained the role more through their own merits rather than because their uncle has gone to great care and expense to train them over a number of years. This person will also be employable elsewhere, which is not the case for ops selectively mute autistic child. I get where you are coming from and I do think this is acvery different scenario.