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.

It's illegal to pay under the living wage
is it/? I thought that was national minimum wage, not living wage

Maybe people should read the article before jumping to ‘all Tory voters are scum’ but then that’s not the left’s way, is it?

Oh, and I have a son with autism

She's defending the spectator article, which I can agree with her about it. Why would someone employ someone with a learning difficulty over someone without, if they have to pay them the same wage, the person with the learning difficulty is by and large always going to be at a disadvantage and feel bad about it, purely down to economic reasoning. Not saying it's right, but it's just a fact.

Of course you shouldn’t be paid less.

But not all learning difficulties are the same.

Sorry, that sounded like I was saying disabled people should be paid less, I assure you I wasn't.

I’m not saying you’re wrong but throwing rocks at Tory voters if you’re in the labour camp is just ridiculous.
Racism...check
Discrimination...check
Badly thought out policies with no solid plan to implement/fund them...check

Anybody voting for labour because Torys are ‘racist and discriminatory’ I can only assume will be riding their unicorns to their local polling stations come 12th December 👍🏻

Labour MP has said it too.

Disabled party activists have expressed shock and outrage after the Labour chair of the Commons work and pensions committee suggested that employers should be allowed to pay some disabled people less than the minimum wage www.disabilitynewsservice.com/labour-conference-shock-and-outrage-over-fields-minimum-wage-comments/

But that doesn't make ALL Labour party members disabilist now does it?

The real ‘morally superior’ voters are those voting Lib Dem/green

What she said was abhorrent however there is a more complex issue of employing more severely learning disabled adults who require constant supervision and their productivity is considerably below that of a typical employee - it would be better if the state subsidises the employer the additional costs rather than paying a reduced wage though. At the moment many just find they are unemployable, something needs to change. I'm not talking about high functioning autism or need for equipment adaptations, I mean those who need to have someone supporting them nearly continuously eg a friend of mines son does had a job as a glass collector in the pub but he forgets and sits down and starts talking, they tried him in the kitchen and he would leave the kitchen and head to talk to people, it was costing them employee time to have him there and he wasn't working himself so after 2 months they had to let him go

Then there's the time Mark Spencer suggested that a man severe learning disabilities should "learn the discipline of timekeeping".

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/05/tory-mp-mark-spencer-starve-dark_n_6622468.html

I don’t believe we should accept the line that dignity is bound up with paid employment.

The knee jerk reaction to this is sad. The mother of a daughter who will not be able to get a job on economic grounds, wants her daughter to be able to work, for her own benefit, to her capabilities but she is being stopped by the minimum wage.

It's a charitable set up being prevented from helping 'clients', not discrimination.

The title of this thread is utterly wrong.

I have only read the title of the linked BBC article and it doesn't say the same thing at all.

"Disabled people should be paid less" is not the same thing as "Let learning disabled work below minimum wage"

Only economic idiots who don't understand that the minimum wage necessarily causes some jobs not to exist could misrepresent this in this way.

From the BBC headline alone I can infer that she was making the vary obvious economic point that it would be better for below-minimum-wage jobs to exist for some people, rather than them having no job at all. Not that disabled people should be paid less than the minimum wage for the exact same job that other people are paid more to do.

I don't know if people starting thread like these are all bullshitting propagandists, or just hard-of-thinking, but I wish they'd give it a rest.

She's defending the spectator article, which I can agree with her about it. Why would someone employ someone with a learning difficulty over someone without, if they have to pay them the same wage, the person with the learning difficulty is by and large always going to be at a disadvantage and feel bad about it, purely down to economic reasoning. Not saying it's right, but it's just a fact.

Why would the person with the learning difficulty be at a disadvantage? This is a genuine question, I really would like to know why you think that?

"Disabled people should be paid less" is not the same thing as "Let learning disabled work below minimum wage"

It will amount to exactly the same thing.

petty

It will mean the same. Seriously, do you think employers will pay nmw/living wage if they don't have to.
You'd have to be mighty green to think that.

The original suggestion does make some sense, but would only work for those disabled people who had family support (eg living with family so not having to cover full living expenses) or if disability benefits were substantial enough to allow a decent standard of living. As the former is not available to everyone and the latter is not the case (especially under a Tory government), this will just end up being another way the Tories screw over the most vulnerable in society in order to make life easier for themselves and the most powerful.

"Disabled people should be paid less" is not the same thing as "Let learning disabled work below minimum wage"

But 'letting' people work for less would soon become 'insisting' people work for less, and would leave them open to exploitation. And who decides on which people this would cover?

ODFOD what a horrible discriminatory thing to say.

Ha, what a charmer you are. I'm so sorry that logic flies over your head so easily. If you can't logically see that most businesses aren't charities, and rely on having a workforce of a certain productive level, and would willingly chose someone who does not have learning difficulties, over someone who does, when they have to pay them the same, then I'm sorry, but you're deluded.

Like I said it's not right, but it's a reality. And this is the salient point of the article, that one of the hurdles of certain disabled people have of getting into low paid employment, over other people is that the when the pay is at the minimum the employer wants the most from that, which some people with learning difficulties can not fulfil, and so obviously miss out on that employment.

She wasn't feeling well enough to go onto Victoria Derbyshire this morning hopefully she gets well soon after being struck down over night with a mystery illness !

If a person’s disabilities present a hurdle to them entering the workplace, they should be supported by society, and activities provided to keep them stimulated and - if they wish to be - productive. The idea that their “human dignity” resides in packing stuff for Amazon, cleaning toilets in Boots or working the oven at Greggs is risible.

Biker47 but why wouldn't the person with learning disabilities be able to do a particular job? I would agree there will be particular jobs a particular person may not be able to do, but that applies to everyone with or without a learning disability.