People with learning difficulties should be paid less.

[Drabarni]

The latest to come from CONSERVATIVE.
I think I must be missing something. Yet people will vote for these people why?
What do they offer the average working family?

There are many people with learning difficulties who are carrying out their normal day to day living, doing the same job and as well as someone without learning difficulties.

I've not seen anything other than discrimination from this party.
Anyone who votes for them are openly voting for discrimination as it's not like they don't know.

wood I've not mentioned anything about paying people less simply because they have a disability. As I've repeatedly said, it's people such as in the article that otherwise wouldn't be able to work at all.

I presume you mean people employers would not want to employ rather than people who couldn't work. If they can't work anyway the question of what salary they should be paid wouldn't be relevant would it?

Who would decide that employers wouldn't give somebody a job and that therefore they should be paid a lower salary in order to increase their chances of employment? It may be fairly clear in some cases but certainly not in all and the danger is that people who were totally capable of working being paid a lower salary because they are disabled and employers have been given the opportunity to discriminate. It goes against equality laws to say that people without disability should be paid a minimum wage but if you have a disability you can pay less.

What's your solution

A potential solution would be that if someone with a learning disability is unemployed for a certain period of time employers who give them a job could be subsidised to give them a minimum wage.

I don't think employers should have the power to decide whether a person can be paid less. I'd attach the exclusion to the individual, like an exemption certificate. With no political involvement in whether it's granted. Off the top of my head, let's say it has to be signed off by at least 3 unconnected bodies. Eg an nhs consultant currently working in the relevant field, a parent or someone with legal responsibility, a disability social worker etc

Your solution is just as open to abuse, if not more so. Absolutely nothing to stop unscrupulous employers using it as an excuse to pay shit wages, same as they rely on the general benefit system to reduce their wage bill now.

I don't think employers should have the power to decide whether a person can be paid less. I'd attach the exclusion to the individual, like an exemption certificate. With no political involvement in whether it's granted. Off the top my head, let's say it has to be signed off by at least 3 unconnected bodies. Eg an nhs consultant currently working in the relevant field, a parent or someone with legal responsibility, a disability social worker etc

And how long do you think it would be before disabled people are forced to apply and to use the exclusion certificate and take a job for less than minimum wage rather than receive benefits?

Your solution is just as open to abuse, if not more so. Absolutely nothing to stop unscrupulous employers using it as an excuse to pay shit wages, same as they rely on the general benefit system to reduce their wage bill now.

If it is abused the taxpayer will be the ones paying for it rather than the disabled person. And considering the taxpayer would be paying for benefits if they weren't paying for the subsidy it will not make much difference.

Even in the current climate, when it's far from easy for anyone to claim that their disability makes it impossible to seek paid employment, it's accepted that some people can't be expected to find any regular paid employment. As it would be a small minority of that group, there's no more reason to assume they'd all be forced to work for less than nmw as there is now.

Your answer is just as likely to force people off benefits and into jobs when that isn't a reasonable expectation. So when a fat cat employer decides to pay op or anyone else less for a job they are just as capable of doing as anyone else just because they happen to be disabled, and gets the taxpayer to pay the difference, you think that's preferable to the money going directly to the disabled person?

Your answer is just as likely to force people off benefits and into jobs when that isn't a reasonable expectation.

They won't be forced off benefits for a job that pays less than minimum wage though which means that they are in the same position as some position as people who aren't disabled!

So when a fat cat employer decides to pay op or anyone else less for a job they are just as capable of doing as anyone else just because they happen to be disabled, and gets the taxpayer to pay the difference, you think that's preferable to the money going directly to the disabled person?

What are you talking about? If the disabled persons is paid less than minimum wage that doesn't mean they will get money direct from the tax payer. They will just have less money than other people who work.

in the same position as some position in the same position

If some employees have severe needs impacting their work then government should put in more support for this, whether that's money to businesses or whatever, not allow the employees to be penalised.*

This. Work by an adult should be paid as such. If a cash incentive is necessary this is a good use of public money and would be cheaper compared to faciliated activity programmes.

I can't believe anyone would genuinely try to defend comments like this honestly 🤯

And I can't believe the lengths some people will go to to wilfully misinterpret a situation 🤷‍♀️