Disabled should work for less than minimum wage

[ElvishArchdruid]

Watching BBC24 and astounded at a woman who has come on to endorse that disabled folk should be paid less than normal (whatever that is) folk.

It's done her daughter the world of good and she thinks it fair as her daughter works at a slower pace with Downs Syndrome. I feel like they're casting a rather big net for a single group that may work slower. But the insinuation that I should be paid less than minimum wage is pretty outrageous. I'm sure there's lots like me who are mentally very capable, but have a body that doesn't co-operate.

A charity has endorsed this position too.

It has left me fuming, the woman by appearances can take the hit of her daughter getting paid less than minimum wage, let alone a living wage, subsidising her daughter possibly.

There is anger whilst I type this, but I can't see myself ever accepting such a suggestion.

No one would accept this she will be a minority who thinks this way.

It will also be discriminatory to so many acts and laws.

WTF? This is outrageous! It's just like the young people's thing and then some. They're quite happy to take the same proportion of tax...

There should be just as much outrage as when Tory MP Philip Davies suggested it on 17/6/2011 (date noted, as I wrote to him and my MP in disgust).

It's Rosa Monkton, Princess Diana best pal.
She is referring to what she calls therapeutic exceptions to the minimum wage where a person would struggle to compete in the job market and therefore no t be able to work. She doesn't mean all disabled people. She despairs of her own dd (princess Diana goddaughter) being accepted in the workplace otherwise.
To he fair she has set up her own charity, cafe etc.
She says when her daughter left college there was no provision for her.
Is it any difference to access to work where employers are subsidised to employ people they wouldn't otherwise employ?
I don't know what the answer is. I work in hr and access to work has worked well for the s but the employees we take we are only able to because if the subsidy. Without it, it wouldn't be economically viable to employ them.
Interested to hear views, not made up mind yet

No, I wouldn't be happy with that. My ds4 has a condition similar to downs syndrome. I would rather he was on benefits and did volunteering if he wasn't able to work at the required level than do the same job as nt people but slower and for less pay

She might mean well, y it, but it's so easy to see the potential for exploitation it's a total non-starter really.

I was going to say this was ages ago but I was thinking of that MP Lurking mentions. Very surprised it has reared its head again.

Wasn;t there that charity Remply or something that was subsidised to employ disabled people?

I can kinda see the point - people with some disabilities struggle to compete in a fully competitive job market so end up not working at all, when doing some work would be completely within their capabilities.

So there's nothing wrong with subsidising, meaning the employer has an incentive, but the disabled person isn't disadvantaged.
If we're going to have to throw money at the problem (which is likely) that seems the fairest way.
And since if they're unemployed the government would be paying benefits anyway, that would be economically wiser also.

Abhorrent idea.

Vile view point.

ffs, disability segregation is unacceptable and against the law.

The way it read on BBC24 was that is was to be a 'you're disabled - work but we'll pay you less!'

Miss Monckton, had a lengthy bit on about how great it was. I'm right in saying that said daughter can be subsidised, as a God Daughter of Princess Diana.

Maybe it was an error on the BBC's part, but it did appear to be a generalised suggestion. You can work slower due to learning disability or physical disability, doesn't mean that you're worth less than others around you.

I recalled it being suggested years ago, thankfully I got the impression that everyone was outraged. Now a charity and somewhat influential person are endorsing it.

Why not bring back the work house? We can have twee menial jobs and be grateful for our broth supper and itchy sheets on a crap bed.

She's off her trolley. It'll never happen

The disabled shouldn't be obliged to work.

It's literally advocating the concept that people with disabilities are worth less than people without disabilities.

It's a bloody disgrace and sadly it's been given disproportionate coverage.

I do hope that the BBC balance this by talking to some high profile disabled people who are employed and do a valuable job. Sophie Christiansen comes to mind as the perfect antidote to this crap....

I'm sure there's lots like me who are mentally very capable, but have a body that doesn't co-operate.

But when talking about some people with downs, they aren't mentally "very capable".

Having read about this with interest, not a single source or comment besides yours has suggested that disabled people 'should' would for less than the minimum wage, but that they should be able to, if they want.

You can work slower due to learning disability or physical disability, doesn't mean that you're worth less than others around you.

It does. You aren't worth less as a person but in the majority of cases, you're worth less as an employee. When you give someone a job, you aren't valuing them as people but as output relative to salary.

I employ / manage hundreds of people but wouldn't be able to employ someone with a disability that meant they were less able to meet the job requirements than someone else. There are roles where this could happen but why would an employer when they are basically doing some form of charity work.

There was a woman I once saw online somewhere who has a disabled daughter and she is paying the employer half the girl's wages behind her back. Loads of people responded saying how kind but to me the two of them were insulting and deceiving the daughter who had been led to believe she was an equally valued employee

As 2014 said, it isn't quite as it seems to have been put across by the Beeb!

I think that is inestimably sad as the idea is a really good one and, with some very, very strict oversight, could help get a lot of SEN/disabled adults, many of whom live quite solitary and/or strictly routine lives, into workplaces that will offer increased social interaction and so increase wellbeing in general.

We have a café here that has a lot of places for just such adults. They are subsidised by a local philanthropist. It works really well!

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I'm trying to think from the employer's POV (and I've never been one, so bear with me).

If they took on 2 staff members (one disabled and one not) to do exactly the same job, but got less production overall from the disabled person, they may need to pay them less so they can pay someone else to pick up the slack.

However, if both people were equally as productive, there's no need to pay one less than the other.

It might be the difference between employers completely overlooking disabled people, and being able to employ them.

its tricky because whats usually the case is that disabled people end up living on long term benefits or volunteering forever. There has to be a better solution

Different in every case, personally I don't agree with paying less and everyone should be valued. We all work at different paces and unless piece meal then there is no difference with able bodied why should it be for disabled.

Did she really use the phrase 'normal' folk, when talking about non disabled people, OP?

If so, I find that pretty shocking.

Worra here what happens in that café is that they hire more staff than they would usually need. They break the jobs down into smaller parts, less responsibility. All jobs in the café/shop are open to this offer, even the till (with the manager close to hand).

It work so well that people who visit and don't know may never notice!

The hours are restricted, so as not to threaten any benefits and the philanthropist pays 40% of the wage bill, leaving the owner no worse off, financially.

Some of the staff have gone on to work in 'normal' jobs. So it has a lot of positives... potentially!

Ridiculous idea, it would be open to abuse and exploitation of an already vulnerable part of society.