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.

Who on here who thinks this is a good idea would be happy for their kids to be pushed into a washing up job? Mmm! I agree that some places really would take advantage, however, in all of the supported jobs I have seen in cafes, garden centres etc, washing up hasn't played a really big part of the jobs being done. Obviously someone does it, it is a job, after all! You could just as well ask "If it is good enough for an adult male with a family to support why isn't it good enough for anyone else?"

And someone else said sod cafes and garden centres... again why? Many people work in such places, forever! There are so many jobs within a garden centre that require so much skill and knowledge, as well as those that are less skilled. For the students I have direct knowledge of such places provide work that can be very flexible about timekeeping, spaces to be sociable, places to be less so, and lots of varied jobs that can be sampled until each student finds a place, a job, or two that matches their abilities and likes.

As I said, there are a fair few round here, I suspect there are almost everywhere. The college I worked at (mainstream FE) can't be the only one that provides Entry - Level 2 courses to support such work.

If there an issue with funding then that needs addressed rather than paying someine less than mininum wage. It has existed for years. This latest story is just one more, looking for an audience and doing it badly!

They seem to have wilfully concatenated 'disabled' with 'SEN' - which really is a despicable thing to have done. Look at how much anger and loathing it has sparked here!

They should advertise it differently then if it isn't really a job.

Please read what I say. There was no advertisement. Firms are approached by the charity and asked to create a job.

His favourite job was working in a kitchen. He loves washing up. Sadly the place closed. Some people may be happy with washing up, don't dismiss it.

With all due respect mrsdv people would pay your son the same for music if he produces it as well as any one else

No, if it become accepted practice to pay disabled people less then many employers would pay disabled people less regardless of how they did their jobs.

I have nithing more to add really.

Its about attitudes and valuing people with disabilities.

Mrsdv nailed it:

*finding themselves unemployable because of a disability

This is the problem.
The blame squarely on the person with the disability.
They don't find themselves unemployable.
They are deemed unemployable.
Its not because of their disability
Its because of attitudes towards disability.*

And so did roomster.

It shouldnt become a norm to pay disabled people less.

Could argue all day with people saying it was good for their relative.

But those points are why it isnt right.

she cannot be independent in the role ever.

I think this is an import aspect - independence. Theres a big difference with someone needing constant help and guidance and another who can carry out tasks independently.

And who would offer this support in the workplace? Would they bring key workers with them. Would it fall on existing employees, who would be taken away from their role to help someone else?

Well, I'd differ. With all the love for her in the world I won't say it'd be my 'attitude' that stopped me employing my sister if I was a shop keeper with a small business. It would be economically unviable to have her doing the job she wants as she wouldn't be able to be alone as required or perform tasks needed. I'd employ the person who could do the role I'm afraid.

In the argument for valuing her so much, what is the solution for her in the current model where she has the right to work? It's as one size fits all as the alternative, I think personally it is worth debate without being shut down as being disablist etc.

I've worked with many here this functioning but disabled adults in roles where they perform very well ( top of my head: deaf school leader, autistic ICT support/ stock controllers, girl with downs in childcare, wheelchair using secretary). It's great and obviously any change needs to protect and extend this... but where is the space for those not able to do this, to be economically equal in the workplace (well at least with realistic support such as access to work funding for some aspects)?

I cannot think of a job my sister could do on a par with your average non disabled adult, even with adjustment. There are many others like her. What is the solution? To have the right to work and sit on benefits forever?

I cannot think of a job my sister could do on a par with your average non disabled adult, even with adjustment. There are many others like her. What is the solution?

I don't know what the solution is for your sister but it is certainly not to put the rights of all disabled people back decades by making it accepted practice to pay them less whether or not their disability affects their ability to do their job. It is very naive to think that there could be safeguards to prevent this from happening.

So... she's a sort of sacrifice for the greater good along with other adults who are not economically equal to others? So disabled people who have areas where they are not affected my their disability can get ahead? Sort of two categories of disabled Roomster?

And someone else said sod cafes and garden centres... again why?

Because they are the allotted roles.
There is nothing wrong with catering and horticulture IF you want to do it.
It is NOT ok to be told that is ALL there is for you AND you have to do it for less than everyone else.

user why do you think my DS would be paid the same? The suggestion contained within the OP is that disabled people should be paid less.
Not 'people who cannot or will not do the same amount of work to the same level as their colleagues should be paid less'

The issue with this is that the assumption is there ,ingrained, at the very beginning 'these people cannot perform a task to the same standard as me, they are worth less than I am'.

So on that premise, why would my son get paid the same as his non disabled peers?

But nobody is proposing to pay disabled people less whether or not it affects their ability to do their job. It's a suggestion that for some people who would otherwise never be able to work that a therapeutic pay rate may be appropriate.

Should they wish to work! Not compulsory. Rosa Monkton thinks it would benefit het daughter. She isn't making sweeping statements about all disabled people ffs. Unlike people on this thread. 🙄

A crappy pay rate doesnt sound very therapeutic tbh.

Her daughter has no concept of money she just wants the social aspects of working

'therapeutic pay rate' what kind of double speaking pyscho twaddle is that ffs?

Her daughter has no concept of money
Really?
NO concept of money yet she is able to perform complicated tasks.
If it is true its not the same as 'unable to have a concept of money'

I know lots of young people who have 'no concept of money' but that has nothing to do with their cognitive functioning.

If she was able to perform complicated tasks she would have job.

Thats double speaking!

What those advocating this 'good idea' don't realise is that once it's done for a few people with learning disabilities, it will be applied to all people with disabilities, so you'll end up with graduates with disabilities earning less than minimum wage. Why? Because the government then shifts responsibility and cuts benefits.
People with disabilities fought long and hard for equal rights, to be fair and equitable and to have society meet their needs. This sort of thing happened up until the eighties, and you want to bring it back? Disgusting.
And before you start saying that won't happen, that's what you said about benefits a few years ago, told us all we were being daft and the Tories wouldn't screw us over. Well, that didn't happen, did it...

Just because someone has no concept of money doesnt make it right to underpay them.

My child would be able to work in a wide range of places, as could a number of those with mild but significant differences to the intellectual norm. However, she wouldn't be able to understand the bureaucracy or pass the qualifications that are imposed on some jobs. For example, she'd make a marvellous playworker. But wouldn't be able to understand, say, the wording of safeguarding policies. She would work as hard as and would understand boundaries and safety as any reasonable ' normal' person. I wouldn't expect her to be paid less for working as hard.

cosy no it isn't.
Dressing yourself is a complicated task.
Choosing what you want to eat, opening a door with a key, putting your shoes on...all of these are multi step tasks that take a lot of thought and learning

She clearly can perform complicated tasks or she wouldn't be able to do the 'job' that people are proposing she does for less money.

Saying that someone is too disabled to do a job for money but are capable of doing it for none is double speak.

The issue is that whilst there may be benefits in some cases, it's impossible to legislate for without major unintended consequences. However, undoubtedly NMW legislation is, and will continue to be, a barrier to employment to those whose productivity can't justify that pay rate. Most adults with moderate learning disabilities who work do so under some sort of charity or other subsidy scheme. There's quite a good one where I work where they open as a cafe in the day and in the evening they use the space for corporate events using professional cocktail waiters and the profits from that make the whole thing break even. Not easily replicable though as you need hat demand for evening events.

The problem is that even able bodied, highly qualified people are struggling for work. Thee aren't enough jobs to go round and wrongly, people with LD are near the bottom.

Just because someone has no concept of money doesnt make it right to underpay them. But you can't run a business with staff who can't understand finance or deal with complex or complicated situations. A company may be able to find a few extra pounds to pay someone to clear plates, sweep floors, move boxes, but can't fund a fully paid position. Theres also NI, tax and pension contributions to consider - even maternity leave.

I don't know what the answer is but if there is an opportunity for those who would otherwise be forgotten then its got to be better than nothing.

With the above example, my sister tried playwork. It's not just the policies etc, it's the unpredictable situations. She can't support in resolving squabbles, she isn't reliable in an emergency e.g. An evacuation or first aid, she doesn't always know to put a child's needs first (e.g. She once needed the loo and left a child alone in an area). It's more than just playing with children in playwork, it's meeting needs.

I think a number of points I've made have been ignored for the sake of argument. Dressing in a complicated, yet predictable and repeated task, in the workplace there is unpredictability. This is often the key difficulty in not having independence in the workplace and filling a role.

put the rights of all disabled people back decades by making it accepted practice to pay them less whether or not their disability affects their ability to do their job.

That isn't what's being suggested. It's about paying them less when their disability does have an effect on their ability to do a job.

It is very naive to think that there could be safeguards to prevent this from happening.

A previous poster spoke about the German system where it seems to work. The government tops up the salary to NMW, according to an assessed scale ie. the person with a bad back who earnt 75% and the government paid the 25%.

why would my son get paid the same as his non disabled peers?

I obviously don't know your son, but can think hypothetically.

1. He is very intelligent with an eye for figures but is in a wheelchair. He probably isn't included in this proposal as reasonable measures could likely be made and he is very employable.

1. He has mild down syndrome. He can work well in a kitchen. He is rarely hampered by his condition. He will likely get a job he wants.

1. He has more severe down syndrome. He is unlikely to be employed as as much as any employer would like to give him a break in life, 'unreasonable' measures would need to be taken. He would not pull his weight and would need a disproportionate amount of time of supervisors. If his performance is half that of the next best candidate then, as an employer, he is worth half as much to me as a member of staff.

To make financial sense, I need to pay your son half as much and I'm happy to do so. He would have lower expectations placed on him but in return would earn less.

They seem to have wilfully concatenated 'disabled' with 'SEN' - which really is a despicable thing to have done.

I disagree with the outrage as it's a sensible concatenation in this case. Better paid jobs tend to be more reliant on mental ability and those with SEN tend to have less mental ability (please note, I'm talking in general and not looking to cause offence). Someone adept in a particular field is still adept, whether they have a physical disability or not. Someone whose mental disability or SEN is holding them back is less likely to be adept in an area and will need more support and will tend to be less valuable to a company.

you'll end up with graduates with disabilities earning less than minimum wage. Why? Because the government then shifts responsibility and cuts benefits.

Not with a free labour market. If they felt they were underpaid (as a graduate with relevant qualificatiosn), they could find employment elsewhere.

I wouldn't expect her to be paid less for working as hard.

Sadly for your daughter, it isn't about effort once you're an adult, it's about attainment. 'She shouldn't be paid less for attaining as much.' Yes. 100%. Are you arguing that the qualifications that are imposed are discriminating against her? Considering the number of times 'safeguarding issues' are mentioned entirely wrongly on MN, I'm sure you aren't. If a policy could be explained to her in plain English then this seems like a reasonable adjustment. If there is a reasonable part of the job that she cannot perform as well as "any normal person" then she is worth less as an employee unless she excels in another area. She may well. If she is as talented as the next playworker who can pass the qualifications and can understand the bureaucracy, why would I employ your daughter over the other when they both have a NMW cost to my business.

I personally see why this could be such a great scheme but also see why it is of course likely to cause problems.

Someone spoke of the Autistic person with a 150 IQ being paid less. That wouldn't happen. They'd be snapped up for their abilities on the free labour market.

Having read the thread, people seem to be saying it is telling disabled people that they are worth less. It isn't. It's telling them that they're worth less in some jobs. I would have loved to have been a chef but I would be worth little as I don't have the talent many in the trade do. As a surfer, I have a value of zero. I don't look good in my swimmers / wetsuit and can't surf well enough to sell a sponsor's equipment. In my profession, I'm more valuable than most as I'm good at it. Anyone who read my posting history may see I actually have a negative value in a PR role.

So... she's a sort of sacrifice for the greater good along with other adults who are not economically equal to others?

Of course she isn't a sacrifice for the greater good! However, a way needs to be found to help her as an individual, without reducing the rights of all disabled people.

So disabled people who have areas where they are not affected my their disability can get ahead? Sort of two categories of disabled Roomster?

There are many "categories" of disabled people. We are not all one mass homogenous group.