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.

Let’s try not to use people with learning difficulties to make cheap political points.

If a person with learning difficulties does the same job with the same level of responsibility and supervision as a regular employee they should be paid the same wage.

If the person with learning difficulties does not do the same job, has less responsibility for the work done and requires more supervision it is entirely reasonable to pay them less money.

I am a regular at an establishment which employs people with learning difficulties. It costs the cafe money to employ them as they require constant supervision. It would be more profitable not to employ them. But the work experience is good for them and good for society as a whole.

If the person with learning difficulties does not do the same job, has less responsibility for the work done and requires more supervision it is entirely reasonable to pay them less money.

As long as that amount is at least the minimum wage, sure. It’s a minimum.

Oh it's so easy to write an outraged soundbite. For goodness sake, read the article properly. She wants there to be an incentive for employers to hire those with learning difficulties. She is not saying they should be paid less because they have these difficulties.

I'm afraid that any employer anywhere will hire someone without learning difficulties over someone with them - not fair perhaps but that's real life. What the councillor wants is to give those that are disadvantaged in the job market an opportunity to be more attractive to the employer than their competitors.

But putting it that way just doesn't make headlines, does it.

Just over two years ago, Sigmund Freud’s great grandson Lord (David) Freud, then a minister in the DWP, was asked a question on the subject by a Tory councillor, David Scott, who said: ‘I have a number of mentally damaged individuals, who to be quite frank aren’t worth the minimum wage, but want to work… but you can’t find people who are willing to pay the minimum wage. How do you deal with those sorts of cases?’

From the spectator article which was meant to prove the point that the MP was compassionate.

My mum used to run a similar project to Team Domeneca but funding was cut, they did manage to get some trainees into paid work who would otherwise be unemployed.

In the community cafe there are a couple of people with severe learning disabilities who help out accompanied by carers, they frequently need to be prompted to keep going with tasks and even then tend to be very slow. It works in a community venue where everyone is patient but I can't see that working in a commercial environment.

I agree there is a huge problem with learning disabilities being left with nothing after school and college but for those who are severely disabled then community projects or voluntary work seems more appropriate.

There used to be a good network of day centres with loads of activities, they have also been cut with the people who used to go there meant to be out in the community but in reality just dumped with no support.

And what if they still want to chose to work themselves? Are they not afforded that dignity also? They have they free agency of control of themselves and their lives, and might want to work to feel something other feel when working, or are we supposed to just ignore their rights and stick them in a creche for the rest of their life and provide them with these activities to keep them stimulated until they die of old age?

I'm NOT a Tory but I've read the bbc link and it seems she is worried that if the minimum wage goes up, her daughter will be out of a job because companies would rather pay someone else? That isn't the same as what the OP thinks then is it? Doesn't she have a point when she says that she would rather her daughter had a job and dignity than be unemployable because the pay is too much? I'm not sure if her reasoning is correct but it doesn't seem that she is an evil cow. Does show the shit world we live in though.

My niece is on the autism spectrum and has learning difficulties and cannot get work.
At one time she was in a supported job, but employers wont do it. They say she is too slow.
The (DWP?, SS?) have tried to implement a supported role, but the job never materialises.
She DOES get DLA (Disability Living Allowance), as my niece, I am not sure of the current terminology, but she does get extra for that.
The problem with autism, (her disability used to be called asperger's syndrome), is that the nature of the exact disability varies, so different people are capable of different things.
No one can say that xxx can do this or that, because that may not apply to yyy.
Frankly, I am in two minds about it. If the worker is able to do the same job as everyone else, then of course, that person should be paid the same.
However, if that person requires extra support, is very slow, and are competing for jobs in an area of high unemployment, then maybe there is a case for being paid less.
I have no answers to this, and am fortunate that my DC were not in that situation.

This Tory party are disgusting and inhumane

Meant to have a quote on that last one but forgot it, from the end of the last page.

I've read the article and still don't agree at all. Whatever someone's capabilities, understanding of money or home situation, if someone goes to (paid) work for an hour they deserve to end up with at least an hour's pay at NMW (for their age and apprenticeship status etc), simple as that, anything else is discrimination and opening the door to businesses to mistreat employees.

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. Same if there's not enough jobs to suit all capabilities, the government needs to address this not just pay disabled people less. If some people really can't handle a paid job then voluntary work or apprenticeships are great but if you're employed you deserve the same pay as anyone else in that position even if your disability means you can't do as well.

@churchandstate

If I have to employ someone to supervise the individual with learning difficulties it means I am doubling my overheads.

Unless customers are prepared to meet those costs by paying more for their purchases it means I will not employ the person with learning difficulties.

Biker47

It’s that or creating enough jobs with barriers to entry removed that they can choose for themselves. Paying them less than the minimum considered worth an hour of a person’s time isn’t an option, as it implies they are less than a person.

I know plenty of people with SEN that can carry out tasks as good as anyone else. There are also plenty of disabled people unable to work, so I see no problem with getting people with more severe mental disabilities into work if it means a lower wage as they will require more help with challenging tasks. YABU

Unless customers are prepared to meet those costs by paying more for their purchases it means I will not employ the person with learning difficulties

Then don’t. I am not arguing employers should be coerced into taking on people who can’t do the job.

I honestly thought MNers were generally brighter than to read into this article what OP has managed to.

People are either deliberately ignoring the actual words that were written and spoken, or just utterly thick.

People with learning disabilities should be paid less...

It says nothing of the fucking sort!

I get the argument that some people won't be given paid work due to their capabilities but the answer is not to let them be used as cheap labour because it's 'better than nothing'.

Nothing is gained by setting up a straw man and then hurtling stones against it.

The original article makes an argument for a therapeutic exemption to the minimum wage. On the face of it, it has some merit, but there may well be arguments against it. It would be much more useful for posters to raise actual arguments against this position than to invent something that was never said and shout about it.

There is plenty of evidence that the Torry party is disablist, like the cuts to Access to Work funding for example, there is no reason to manufacture things they haven't actually said.

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.

True, but we're talking about barriers to employment for disabled people, which heavily implies that these are jobs which either require extra supervision which will mean extra costs, or lower productivity etc. or anything in between. There's different levels of disability, and their different levels of employment, pretty sure there's jobs certain disabled people could do without anything different to anyone else, but I'd hazard a guess there's a lot more jobs which would require adjustment or extra costs for the disabled person to do safely and/or adequately.

For people to bury their heads in the sand, and ignore the fact that employers will by and large still chose someone with disabilities or learning difficulties over someone else, is ignorant and dangerous.

I think part of the problem is we are having this conversation in the context of the society that has been formed by Tory values. In this society money is God and as Biker's comments reveal, everyone is in survival of the fittest mode (apart from the ultra rich) and if you bring nothing to the table financially, well tough. 'It's just the way it is'

So it is very hard to look outside of this capitalist-on-steroids system in place to one where, as churchandstate's brilliant posts show, dignity is not linked to what you earn or how you contribute to a pretty callous and ruthless system and people are not valued on their economic viability as everyone has enough.

I don't know what I've added to this conversation but as someone who is unable to work (DWP just declared so, so I must be sick!) this attitude is part of a wider culture of declaring the vulnerable an economic burden.

Sorry

For people to bury their heads in the sand, and ignore the fact that employers will by and large still chose someone without disabilities or learning difficulties over someone who does have them, is ignorant and dangerous.

really wish there was an edit function in this god damn forum. It's 2019 ffs.

I think it would be reasonable for the company to pay less, with the employee with LDs receiving the same wage as everyone else and the government making up the difference between the two. The other option is the person being on benefits, so it won't be that much more expensive.

Many more people with learning disabilities used to engage in meaningful activities with payment but the minimum wage put an end to many of these activities.

It is not a case of someone being appointed to an ordinary job, expected to work and have a productivity level in a similar way to their colleagues and be paid less but a supported and supportive environment whether in a mainstream workplace or a place that is part day/social centre part employment.

Imagine you own a shop or a cafe with all the commercial pressure that entails and a person with a reasonable level of learning disability applies to work there, supported by their parent or carer in their application.
Imagine in a cafe the person and their carer say they are able to cut and serve the cakes at the counter but they are not able to cook or serve hot drinks and food or to wait tables. Imagine in the shop the person would like to put out new stock and hang tried on items back up but is not able to use the till or serve customers. Having to pay the minimum wage prevents jobs like this from existing aside from large employers who can sometimes afford this if they choose to.

I think instead of thinking of it as simply paying a disabled person less it would be reasonable to consider a category of "Supported Employment" which did not need to meet the minimum wage.

I think people that are saying "I have an autism diagnosis and am a chartered accountant- should I be paid less" are missing the point. Of course not you are doing the same job as your colleagues. But the minimum wage is preventing people who need a much more restricted and supportive environment to manage in work from gaining meaningful paid employment. It is a very easy to have a knee jerk reaction and say no/never but can your small business/workplace afford to employ people with a moderate learning disability on this basis?

** I am not saying that someone with a learning disability cannot cook or use a till. Everyone is different but for the purpose of my example this particular person can't.

Lots of people would agree that some learning difficulties and disabilities make no difference to a person’s ability to do a job and so they should not be discriminated against and get jobs on merit.

However some people with severe learning difficulties or disabilities would like to work, but the investment from the employer in adapting the environment (including increased supervision) makes it financially unviable especially compared to other potential recruits. The question is - how should it be funded? By paying those who with disabilities less? By tax breaks for companies who do this? Or additional funding from govt for companies to be able to do this? I would suggest the last option.

The fact that anyone including posters on this thread thinks this would be a good idea is quite scary. They may start off paying less than the minimum wage to people with quite severe learning disabilities but how long will it be before this was extended to people who have quite mild learning difficulties and can do their job as well as anyone else. I bet it would also be extended to people with physical disabilities. I'm sorry that some people with learning disability abilities are having problems getting a job but there are better ways of persuading employers to give them a job that don't involve allowing discrimination. They can subsidise the wage for example. For companies over a certain size they could also insist that a certain number of people with learning disabilities were employed. In fact do they not already do that? They used to.

Where i work we have a lad who has learning difficulties, he does the operating the dishwasher (it a restaurant) he does exactly the same job as the other staff without difficulties all be it on quieter nights but he gets paid the same hourly rate as he should because he is doing the same job