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.

Wannabe I guessing 'HFA' .

You are explaining the problem with the 'Disability' Discrimination Act.

You are damned if you do and damned if you don't mention it !

Firstly if you mention your Disability , you won't get the job (or get told to work in a Charity Shop) If you don't mention your disability, the moment your symptoms play up you are 'liable' for the sack !

Don't think the kids will get chips and ketchup there :o

Flying no, VI. The disability discrimination act was replaced by the equality act 2010. But it meant that it was watered down signifficantly.

In my own case my disability is a bit obvious at interview stage as I have a guide dog, but even on here there were some justifying on a thread the other day not employing someone with a guide dog, even when I pointed out that adjustments could be made and that the dog doesn't mean the person can't do the job....

stealth yep there's only the one - it has a French name.... ;)

Responding to a few posts towards the start of the thread...some people do get assessed on IQ and also piecework productivity at the moment to get jobs.

In the first ten years of my career I went through applications for jobs that required personality tests, IQ-test type puzzle solving, roleplay to test interpersonal skills, productivity tests (speed typing, how much accurate data can you enter in a set time, reading comprehension/rewriting in a set time etc) and so on - as well as submitting a c.v. with my academic qualifications. Some jobs paid a salary, some paid on hours worked but some were paid by units of work submitted and passed as of high enough quality.

I'm not actually in favour of most of the above methods as being particularly useful at selecting employees or dignified to work with as an employee, but it wouldn't be a novel punishment being introduced by the recruitment sector.

Haven't RTFT sorry.

I think I'd support businesses paying a reduced rate in some cases where it could be justified due to an actual, significantly reduced work-rate, but only if the government subsidised the worker's wages so that the employee actually received the minimum wage.

Actually 15% Employment rate is quite an 'achievement' when compared to just 5% of HFA in full time employment !

Think about that most people with HFA are above average 'intelligence' yet 95 % are unable to earn a living wage ! That has to be one of the biggest scandals in the UK today !

You are quite right the 'Equality' Act replaced the Disability Act and having been a victim of not getting a chance because i disclosed my Autism i should have known !

Fortunately i have a very supportive DH family and two bright DDs , so live in 'relative' comfort. However, it is an outrage that my 'own' money comes Via ESA than from a job i am capable of doing, but denied a chance !

BastardBlood has he volunteered for 15 years or was it JC "volunteering"

Ive put this on here quite often but i think it belongs here too. There was a boss of a certain retail co. on the Question Time panel a few years ago. He was having a moan about disability benefits.

Not one panel member OR audience member asked him what his policy was on employing disabled people. NOT ONE!

This is the state of play in Britain today.

Sorry I haven't read whole thread but my immediate response is that the issue isn't that person a (disabled) doesn't produce as much as person b (not disabled) but that the EFFORT required from both is the same. And if it is so much easier for person b to produce, is it fair they're paid extra for something that is a matter of good fortune?

Sorry, I've just come back to this.

Yes, I completely understand that you were coming to it from the point of view of your son, vegansnake, and you were just thinking it through out loud.

I wasn't been sarky saying jolly good (and my sentence order was a bit muddy, so I can see that may have been confusing). For the record, I absolutely agree your son should have some meaningful, fulfilling activity to do. God knows we all need that.

I'm just weary of the same old same old on this topic. I appreciate you're thinking about it for the first time; alas I'm not, and have been round this merry-go-round more than enough times.

In the current environment, it's just not safe to introduce another area of probable abuse of disabled people. I can see what the suggestion of cutting NMW is trying to achieve. But the benefits sought are not guaranteed - as you said, how would your son feel if he discovered he was being paid less? And the harms are almost certain to happen.

I suppose I ought to apologise for having said all this curtly, not gently handholding through the thinking process - which I do recognise. But today I'm tired. I'm tired of being too ill to read the documents I urgently have to deal with today. I'm tired of what strength I have being constantly diverted onto firefighting the never-ending torrent of shit from the cuts to disability services and benefits. And I'm too tired to write decent sentences without being muddy.

To bed, and a better day tomorrow.

I think the issue with some of the points posted so far, is that the word disability is - in some posts - being used as a really generic term. Whereas we all know there are massive ranges in ability, and trillions of different jobs, and it doesn't make sense to have this discussion as if we were all talking about the same thing.
People have said that they /their family member has a disability but can complete the same workload as the next person - well, obviously in that circumstance, nobody is going to be able to justify a different pay scale because they have a registered disability. However, that is completely different situation from the others (such as the employer in the garden centre wanting to give the brother some small amount of money as he came 'to work' ever day, even though in an economic sense wasn't able to contribute to the business's finances, or the young person who isn't able to do anything such as cross a road or use money without 1:1 support. That is a population that needs to be given different opportunities from a perso who is capable of completing the job.
The German way described up thread sounds like it has possibilities but i cant begin to i agine how the % is either measured nor policed.

I've written a blog in this news item here. I'm a disabled jobseeker and have started to consider roles that pay half of what I have been earning in my last 5 jobs. The only difference is this is my first time interviewing with a wheelchair. I have lost my job on average every 12 months since becoming disabled. Discrimination and exploitation is rife.

And these issues will play out completely differently in a system where the main objective is to be supportive and enabling of disabled people (perhaps the German system is?); from a system where the main objective is to cut welfare spending while maintaining enough of a figleaf that the general public doesn't realise the safety net's in tatters.

Someone who can't count money most likely won't understand they are being paid differently, but that person still has a right to 'go to work' if only for pleasure and to participate in the social aspect of working, even if it is in a garden centre or in a cafe.

It was proposed a few years ago (can't remember the party, though), but it didn't go through. Basically, the employer would give a disabled person £2 an hour or so, and the government would top up your pay another £4 an hour or so (it's have to be £5 now) until you end up effectively being paid minimum wage. This would be in replacement to your disability living allowance. Personally, I don't think it's the worst system. You might feel a but shit if your boss tells you that he wants you to go through the scheme to save himself some money if, say, you're in a wheelchair at an office job. But I can really see it levelling the playing field for those who would otherwise be turned away for a more mentally able person. Going to work every day, as long as it's not too stressful, is really important for maintaining independence and quality of life, even if you might feel a bit embarrassed if you knew it was the only reason they hired you. I say go for it as long as the top up is in place.

I don't see a massive issue as long as the employee receives at least the same wage as any other employee doing that role. I am sure there have been schemes like this in the past and it hopefully creates employment opportunities that sadly aren't happening at the minute. It also helps people out of the nightmare if being trapped in ESA.

PausingFlatly - the German system is backed up by every employer of more than a certain (very limited) size having to have a certain percentage of disabled employees. And they calculate how disabled someone is on a scale, much like disabled people are assessed here for ESA etc, except it isn't as binary. I think it's on a scale of 20-80 or something. I think it's based on a doctors report.

It seems to work better than the system here from what I've seen, although it's not great for MH issues as it wasn't really designed for it. But that's an issue with our benefits system too.

this would be in replacement of disability living allowance

So how do you propose they pay for the services they need and services that will be withdrawn because of the loss of the disability living allowance (or personal independent payment which it is now). That money, in most areas pays for carers, in some for medical treatment, some cannot access work without that money and would be refused by necessary support by employers because some employers see DLA as being the standard by which to judge someone's disability.

Someone who can't count money most likely won't understand they are being paid differently,

That is NOT a reason to underpay and exploit them

I'm two minds about this.

If it is a disabled person doing the same job as someone else and not being paid the same that is flat out wrong.

However, a woman I used to work for 'worked' at a garden centre on Wednesdays and would bring home £5 for the whole day.

I have said 'worked' becaus essentially it was like a club meeting. She would go and meet up with friends, very occasionally they would pot some plants. However most of the time they drew pictures, did painting or walks out etc.

That day out was a life saver for her when the conservatives closed all out local day centres.

It meant her Mum could still have a break one day and the lady could get out by herself and meet up with friends.

Those sort of arrangements I think are great (especially since majority of day centres have closed) however I think they should be carefully watched to make sure they don't become exploitative.

The thing is though a majority of people cant live on the nmw as it is, without cutting morehence the reason they need tax credits to hold their hands. Like I said. If they're not well enough. They shouldn't be in work, unless they want to, of course, but. Forcing them into work expecting them to do a good job for a for a joke never mind a pittance, is absurd.
A fair days work for a fair days pay should mean exactly that. Plus where is the line in the sand. Some able bodied people are natural slow workers.

It's a FAB idea, there is a community cafe near me that does it. Much better that people have a job and work then receive 50% of their wages subbed than not working at all.

Under universal credit workfare becomes mandetory for disabled people (the government are trying to put a stop to anyone being excluded) and it is not time limited, and is full time work so the discussion is to a certain extent mute anyway.

So no one is going to be 'trapped on esa' no one is trapped on it anyway, it is horrendously difficult to get and if you say in the medical you want to work they find you fit for work and you'll be turned down and put on JSA.

I think sometimes people forget that not all disabled people have families or anyone for that matter to help or support them in everyday life. Some of us must use benefits to pay for support that can be provided by family. When my benefits stop again (and they will - I cannot meet the most basic of needs such as hygiene anymore due to cost and that's with benefits) I'll be homeless again. I cannot work with my needs (I'll spare you the details) yet the government expect people with my conditions to do full time workfare indefinitely until I find work, I cannot do that so will not be allowed to claim.

I think it's disgusting. Which charity is endorsing this?

It's absolutely depressing. I am teaching my DD who had mild ( but very significant in terms of future work) LDs, how to be frugal, how to grow her own food, because it's just going to get worse. Hopefully she'll always have a home with us and that when we die, as we have practically zero support or family.
Workfare for anyone but the disabled especially makes me so fucking crazy. I wish all the worthy liberals getting all het up about Trump would get so fecking worked up about the disabled people in this country being so royally fucked.

It will also be discriminatory to so many acts and laws

Only two, and only since 1995. Also difficult to prove.

I've heard this from others and it makes me so angry.