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.

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.

Making it officially OK to underpay them so they are in a class at the bottom is not a solution.

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.

this is why the whole minimum wage concept was introduced. To prevent this.

Yes but considered in the work place/ not considered are two artificial but significant categories.

The issue about protecting able individuals accessing work they are valuable doing is not the same as supporting some other people. As I said before I've worked alongside a number of disabled people who need protection more than support, e.g. Protected sick leave allowances for epilepsy, rather than a scheme to get them in work at all. Some people are even fantastic at their job because of a disability, e.g. An ict guy I once knew who hyper focused and remmebered things we were in awe of. He earned loads as he was talented in a way few are.

If disabled people are not a 'homogeneous' group then why is it so scary to change things for SOME disabled people in a way they can CHOOSe if they wish? Why do they get patronised with clubs like they are children (obv talking about my local area) going on little trips now and then but never choosing what they want to do- if that thing if work? Yes the clubs are lovely, but it's patronising when they are set up as all that's needed, arts and crafts basically

noone is saying they shouldn't work.

just that they shouldn't be underpaid.

people always get in there first with "people shouldn't shut this down by crying disablism"..but what else is proposing to pay people with disabilities less than minimum wage?

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.

I know that isn't what is being suggested but that is what will happen if it became accepted practice to pay disabled people less as explained by Dawndonnaagain.
Even graduates with higher salaries than NMW could find their salaries reduced compared with non-disabled peers if it becomes accepted practice to pay less. You can argue that in a free market they can move elsewhere but that isn't going to help if everybody is doing the same thing!

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

But it's as well to have your fact right first. Which you didn't.

I see nothing wrong with charities asking firms to employ people who would be otherwise unemployable and subsidising them. You do. That doesn't make you right. It works for hundreds of people with severe learning difficulties.

If you had your way it would stop and they'd be stuck at home again. Nice.

If you had your way it would stop and they'd be stuck at home again. Nice.

Yes I'd much rather have my own child stuck at home with me all day rather than doing something they enjoyed.

The whole point is it shouldn't be be underpaid or be stuck at home. It's that simple.

I know that isn't what is being suggested but that is what will happen if it became accepted practice to pay disabled people less as explained by Dawndonnaagain.

I really hear you Roomster but also there shouldn't be some underclass of disabled people who are seen as being fair game for this low "therapeutic" wage either.

What do you suggest then LouKout?

More funding?

making this funding a bigger priority?

decent moral values?

minimum wage applying to all and not just able people?

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 do understand your last point. With reasonable adjustment she would excel in other areas. She wouldn't leave a child alone, or not be able to manage in an emergency with normal direction we'd all receive. I will admit that I am going to push her as hard as I would my other extremely bright child to achieve what she wants. But it's not her disability that disables her ability to work in many areas. She would make an outstanding team member in a nursery area with reasonable adjustments, but like you infer indirectly, it's unlikely to happen unless I push her very hard for qualifications, that she would be able to compete unless there is economic benefit to the employer. So she will work as hard for less money.

I'm torn with this one. My first reaction is no way, it's a horrible idea. And there are obvious risks of this becoming a blanket approach whereby unscrupulous employers take advantage of people who have a disability.

But - I have a relative who works in a supported employment type arrangement. He earns less than the market rate for his job (usually above minimum wage, he gets minimum), but he doesn't carry out the full range of tasks that would normally be expected, and what he does do is much slower. (So if it was usually a minimum wage role, an employer would employ a person without his disability rather than him, as they'd achieve more for the same wage). He enjoys his job, it's incredibly beneficial to him and he's genuinely valued and respected by his employer and colleagues.

So, if it were carefully managed I can see how it could have potential to help some people with some disabilities into roles they would otherwise not be considered for BUT there are big risks of it being abused and it is absolutely not suitable to be applied to every person who has a disability, or to every disability..... agggh - I need to take the splinters out of my bum now....

I think the issue with the term 'disability' is that it covers an absolutely massive range of conditions and a huge variety of impacts.

For example the PP that commented "The disabled shouldn't be obliged to work".

I have bipolar disorder, it's a disability, I am disabled, I earn six figures in The City so I find it fairly odd that someone thinks I shouldn't be obliged to work.

Obviously Aww will say she didn't mean people like me. This is the issue with grouping all disabled people together. We're a massive group and the simple term 'disabled' means so many things.

I can see the point of the exemption for those that otherwise would find it very hard to work....perhaps they shouldn't be obliged to work but many want to as it gives them social contact, a sense of pride, etc (we seem to forget these days that working is a positive thing for reasons beyond money).

The trick is how it could be brought in to benefit those that it would be a benefit for, not use it to make them work and yet protect those that don't need this kind of exemption which would be tough.

Yes but considered in the work place/ not considered are two artificial but significant categories.

I'm not suggested that some people shouldn't be considered in the workplace. I am suggesting that the rights of disabled people should not be changed so that they can be treated less favourably in the workplace than those who aren't.

Needmoresleep..then it could be argued he does a lesser role in the company, but it is for minimum wage so there is less of a problem here.

i also find it worrying when people who are high functioning in the workplace despite disablities "other" those with LDs saying "but I can do the job just as well".

No group of people should be a subclass.

Noone should be underpaid.

LouKout but where would the funding come from? I mean this genuinely.

If there is extra money why shouldn't it go to the NHS, Policing, Prisons, teaching first?

Again, wrongly, this is the sort of initiative that would be at the bottom of the list.

it's quite scary to me that someone said at the start of the thread that noone would back this idea and would find it abhorrent, yet clearly it has lots of support.

So..Cosy..let me get it straight. you think that money should go to NHS and policing before going towards paying people with disabilities a fair minimum wage?

That is disturbing.

"Disabled should work for less than minimum wage"

disabled what?
if we are talking about people......then thats so wrong.
it would just end up as another way for this government to make more people live in poverty.
i hate the phrase "sit on benefits" as if a disabled person chooses to do that.
being disabled is not a lifestyle choice.
my dd will never work, sad but true. so she has no choice but to rely on benefits(which she deserves)
bring in this kind of shit and no doubt she will be expected to rock up to the local garden centre to provide entertainment

imagine if this was single mums/black people/ immigrants....there would be outrage.

Many people in supported employment are in receipt of benefits which brings their income up to much higher than the minimum wage. Some are in sheltered housing, some in residential homes. Their needs are very well catered for.

They could not work at all without the support of employers and charities. I think it's cruel to say their jobs should just disappear because you think they should be paid minimum wage. They matter very much to them and their families.

One size doesn't always fit all.

Most people are paid by the hour, not by efficiency. If the latter were the case, then I bet many overpaid managers would earn way less.

If a disabled girl wants to work, I am sure she can find some work where she works from home, thus can take as long as she wants and be paid accordingly.

Or volunteer, in which case no one will care how fast she works.

I don't see a reason why there would have to be a law that allows every employer to pay disabled people less. It would soon lead to them only employing disabled people who do just as good a job as non-disabled people, and paying them less.