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.

No, it's not different. The OP said her DS doesn't sit around, he is told what to fix and he does it. That is alternative work.

And it's quite shocking to assume he doesn't have the role through his own merits. Yes, his uncle took him on initially because he was helping the family out, but you can't fix cars unless you can fix cars - he is clearly doing the job on his own merit.

This is a really tough one and I don't know the answer.

Your DS is getting paid for the work he does. He does good work. If your brother lays him off, he can't take on as much work and loses revenue.

Not paying him for 2 days isn't really going to make much of a dent if your brother is saying he is looking to lay off several people. What will your DS's salary for 8 days a month difference make really? Has your brother worked it out properly?

How long does your brother expect your DS to work for free? Six months? A year? Forever? There needs to be a time scale. There comes a stage where it is wrong to carry on not paying him.

On the other hand it really does your DS good and you are not desperate for the money.

Not a useful post sorry.

What I said isn't shocking. And my words have been misinterpreted. By ops own admission, he wasn't employable elsewhere. His uncle lovingly took him under his wing and trained him to be a good mechanic. He has the job because he can do the mechanical aspect of the job now thanks to both his and his uncles perseverance. But no one else would have been willing to give him that chance then. Even now that he has the skills, from all indications, he is extremely unlikely to ever be employed elsewhere.

How is that the same when the person in your scenario should be able to obtain gainful employment elsewhere?

OP hasn't said anything to suggest DS does alternative work to compensate for the communication stuff, simply that he does useful fixing work and makes money for the business. That could be exactly the same fixing as other staff do, or more, or less. She says he works as hard as anyone else but that has a multitude of meanings wrt how much he actually gets done.

Mummy: So when someone is vulnerable because they might struggle to get a job elsewhere, we can simply decline to pay them? I genuinely do think that is shocking. He is doing his job, not taking charity. He is entitled at least to redundancy pay, if it is reasonable to lay him off.

Hyacinth: I am going to take the OP at her word about her son's work. His job is to fix cars; he fixes cars. I am not going to assume he doesn't get much done - not sure you should be assuming that either. It is fine for someone's role to be different to someone else's role based on their skills.

Some people have absolutely no idea what running a profitable business means. And takes.

Googlebabe: If you mean me, I hope you don't mean that running a profitable business means exploiting your disabled relatives

Paying full wage for 70% (or less?...) productivity for 8 years is hardly exploiting in my book.

I'm not assuming anything trifle, that was entirely the point. You are when you say DS does alternative work to compensate for the stuff he isn't able to do. That wasn't taking OP at her word, that was inferring something not there. But I agree we shouldn't be making assumptions.

Google: I am not even going to dignify that remark. There are laws. Businesses need to follow them. End of.

Hyacinth: But the OP did clearly say he doesn't sit round doing nothing, didn't she? So, although he isn't dealing with customers, he is still working on the cars. That is what he does. Whenever another worker is dealing with a customer, there is no reason to think he isn't available for work on a vehicle.

Anyway, the only person who can really comment on that is the uncle. The law is the law and he isn't allowed to treat his nephew (however good intentions might be) as unpaid labour.

I don't mean to sound confrontational at all, btw, and I am sure you mean well. We just disagree on this.

Trifle. Did you read what Witchend said at 23.59 last night? ^^ that is what I'm talking about.

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.

If he is not able to perform all aspects of a job, and the brother is going to have to lay off staff, then it would make sense to keep the employee that is able to perform all required tasks of the role. If he's having to let some other staff go as well, he needs to make sure that the remaining staff can take on those roles that are going to be made redundant. There's no point keeping his nephew employed if it means letting go of another employee and therefore not having anyone who can communicate with customers, talk to suppliers, answer phones on those days.

I think the poor brother has probably sat down, realised he needs to let go of x number of staff, the OP's DS being one of those that might go. DB has realised the significant impact this would have on his nephew's wellbeing, and thinks he has come up with a way to try and save at least one employee's job, whilst also letting the DS continue on what is an important role for him.

I did read it. I would not ever assume that any one employee with a disability was the same as another, to be honest - the OP hasn't said her son takes four times longer than other workers to do something. But if that is the case, the uncle shouldn't employ him. I think there is a line in the sand here - if you employ someone, you pay them. If you employ them in the knowledge that they aren't up to the job, that's on you, however well-intentioned you were or are. It is not okay to start weighing up a disabled individual's contribution and paying them less, just because your business is struggling. I feel for the uncle, I really do, but the implications of saying it is okay to have the young man working for him for nothing because of his disability are disturbing, and I can't really see past that, I'm afraid.

Midnite: I don't think I will re-post because I think others have made similar points to yours and, whilst I understand those points and think they are superficially persuasive, I think the point of principle is more important, so I am not going to change my mind. But I don't want to argue 😊

Ive only read the first page and last three, so forgive me if I've missed something major.

We own a repair garage. Last year it very nearly went under and DH had to massively cut his wages for six months to keep it afloat. Garages don't make as much money as people think. Perhaps your brother is in a similar situation and looking for ways to keep everything afloat? Things might pick up again n a few months, it has for us to a degree. Your brother sounds a decent man, he helped your DS gain confidence and work when perhaps many other employers wouldn't? He probably put a lot of time and training into getting to where he is today? Please go and have a proper chat with him before you involve external people. He's probably just asking for your help and trying to find a way to not let anyone down,cal though I can see why you feel you feel your son is being abused.

I do understand what you are saying Trifle and it pains me deeply that a young, vulnerable man is being asked to do this through his parents. I read the comment from Witchend not with regard to ops sons productivity levels. It's his mental health that I'm most concerned with.

Society today works on a system of financial remuneration. However, he's completely removed from this social structure and would be unable to function in society without his parents assistance.

His renumeration is the pleasure he gains from doing the work. I fully appreciate that working for free can and to the authorities would be seen as exploitation. However, through no fault of his own, if he no longer worked, he would no longer be able to get his personal renumeration. This is also grossly unfair.

If ops parents choose not to let him work for free, society is still arbitrarily choosing what is best for him in an attempt to push everyone concerned to conform to societal norms. This in itself could be viewed as a form of manipulation and is equally undesirable.

Trifle I agree with everything you've said.

Googlebabe, I'm actually offended that you said that. How do you know that he's 70% less productive then everyone else? How do you know that he doesn't deserve every penny that he's made?

DS shows up, works on a car alone, does the job to the exact same standard as anyone else would. The only help he gets is that another mechanic looks over the final work to make sure that he hasn't missed anything. Their have been days where everyone else was sick/busy/had an emergency and DS went into work alone, the garage had to remain shut as he can't deal with people showing up and he couldn't take calls but he worked on cars that needed to be fixed and because of him they managed to fix them within the time scale given to the customer.

Yes DB trained him but that does not give him the right to exploit him. He wouldn't be asking this if DS wasn't autistic, how many of you would honestly work for free without a timescale?

Their are other apprentices, who started well after DS did and aren't as qualified or as capable, so this isn't about him being the first to go regardless of family/disability being family may have actually meant being the last to be fired in some cases, not the first.

Anyway, I've been emailing his social worker back and forth and this is pretty much illegal. You cannot ask an employee to choose between being fired or working for free until hopefully they can pay you again, it's an abuse of power and could get DB into an enormous amount of trouble

DS will no longer be working there, social worker is very hopeful about other employment opportunities, as unlike before he's fully trained and qualified. We have a meeting with her for Wednesday to further discuss things and look at options.

That's great, OP, I am so glad to hear you have a positive way forward. I hope things work out.

That's good news a new job where he gets the proper payment and the enjoyment is the best outcome all round

Not sure about all the legal stuff. But Ops ds has made it clear he enjoys working there. Mum is happy that Ds is happy and has always enjoyed working with cars. He has spoken. Leave him to it. When uncles business is better he can start payments again.

I'm confused, I thought he wouldn't be able to get a job elsewhere. Great if he can.

Sorry. Posted before your update. It's great news that he will be able to get another job.

Great that you've gone from having zero alternatives to being hopeful about his prospects. As so often, the answer seems to Secret Option C.

I just hope this ends well for your relationship with your brother. It sounds like he's been a huge positive in DS's life and I hope that counts to his credit amongst this talk of him exploiting your DS and abusing his power.