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.

Birdsfoottrefoil

You are missing the entire point. There is nothing wrong with any of those jobs. Nor is there anything wrong in not being able to do them. They have nothing to do with human dignity.

Ah so we expect so little of some people that they’re only good to offer free labour?

Samcro

My apologies my love. I came on here once and a poster had quoted "They came for me" I'd never heard it before, and vowed I'd become more aware of what was going on.
I'm hoping my low IQ isn't letting me down But it wasn't an intentional goad I can promise, more born out of fear.

Thanks for the pp with the World in Action link. I watched a bit, how sad.
Those people were their to see their friends, for a social, not slave labour.

What a perfect example how something can be totally totally taken out of context and how the mass read no further, have no interest to do so, just love to us these highlights to cry outrage to suit their views.

Hands up I haven't read any of the articles. What I would say regardless of if you have a learning difficulty, learning disability, physical disability it shouldn't matter. If you are able to do a job you should be paid the same as the next person even if you require adjustments. I realise there are not enough opportunities out there for people who have addional needs. However lowering the pay is a floodgate for vulnerable people to be taken advantage of and quite frankly patronising.

I am finding it very sad, that several pp's with disabled children, and indeed the original lady from whom these views come, Rosa Mockton, are being completely ignored and rubbished on this thread by those who think they know better.

Sure why not. Let's legalise the further exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. What could possibly go wrong?

My mind boggles. What message does this send? That people with LD's time is worth less. Disgusting.

Schuyler

I was 5 years old when I heard people saying they didn't expect too much from me. It bloody sticks and part of the reason it took me half my life to gain an education.

This is the problem with lumping people together as one group when the range of situations is immense.
It should be a case of putting the support back that was part of austerity and paying everybody the nmw/living wage.

How on earth could you live on half a wage, it's hard enough to live on nmw. There are no proposals to half rent, food, utilities, and of course tv and entertainment won't be half price.

We do know better, we know the abuse that would go on if they made this a law. In a ideal world it would work but sadly we do not have that world.

Sally Ann Hart propounds this monstrous scheme. And yes she is a candidate and will be standing in this election.
She sounds a complete bitch to be fair.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservatives-candidate-general-election-disabled-people-money-sally-ann-hart-a9235281.html

The Tories don’t even attempt to hide their discriminatory, bigoted and antiquated views yet people still vote for them. The mind boggles.

Once someone with a disability is in employment they are protected.
You must make reasonable adjustments
That puts lots of employers off

It also means its even harder for someone to get into employment in the first place, especially with no experience because employers are concerned about the impact.

One thing they used to do at a charity I worked at was offer a job role paying 70% of the going rate. So if it were an administrators job the person got 70% of what the other administrators did, however 10% of their time had to be dedicated to training and learning new skills. It was for 12 months maximum during which time line managers were expected to help and support them in job seeking and learning their strengths to apply to other jobs and the person had to be unemployed at the time. It was quite simply paid work experience for people with disabilities, with positive discrimination, without a disability you couldn't apply.

Personally, I think it was an exceptional scheme and did help people with disabilities, previously unemployed gain work experience.
That should be allowed, encouraged and employers supported in such schemes.
To only hire people with a disability and pay them a lower amount than someone else doing exactly the same job is wrong.
I am aware of another company in the same industry I am in now who gets people with with disabilities for user testing who are used on a weekly basis but only paid in gift vouchers to avoid minimum wage and not interfere with benefits etc. That also makes me angry, people have been there months/years genuinely hoping and believing it may result in a job which it wont, but don't worry because the directors can afford range rovers as company cars profiting off them. Twats.
Again, that's wrong and should be stopped.

There is such a high percentage of people with disabilities of working age, wanting to work, but unable to gain employment who should be supported, if that means short term contracts paying less to help employers take staff on then it should be investigated. Maybe even run like a trainee scheme whereby the person employed is paid minimum wage and the Government provide a grant to the employer to cover the additional costs involved

I am surprised people are not all as horrified as me . The woman said disabled people don't understand money! It's not a scheme or something which would work 'in an ideal world'. It's clear and utter prejudice.
Conservative candidate has told voters that disabled people and those with learning disabilities should be paid less because some “don’t understand money”.

Sally-Ann Hart, the Tory candidate for the marginal seat of Hastings and Rye, was met with jeers and boos when she made the comments at an election hustings this week.

“Some people with learning difficulties, they don’t understand money,” she said, in an exchange that was captured on video.

I am as horrified as you. They are saying let's pay them less, they will never know!

That has to be the most vile thing they've come out with yet i used to work with a man with a disability a few years ago and he worked just as hard as anyone else if anything his disability propelled him to work to achieve more it didn't hold him back.

To be fair OP, you lumped all people with LD in one group which you assumed to be as capable in terms of work as you. The original article is nuanced and carefully written not to make blanket claims.

I think it would be discrimination to allow paying a disabled person lower than minimum wage. Minimum wage isn’t meant to be a measure of the value of the work, but the minimum any person working needs to survive.
This would create a slave labour class of people. It’s servitude, not employment when you pay any human being insufficient wages to live on.
The fact that some severely disabled don’t know the value of money makes it even worse. They can be easily exploited for profit by business owners who do.

This is a massive straw man argument. If someone has a disability that doesn't affect their ability to fulfil their role, or can be worked around with reasonable adjustments, then these people are by definition not the people that eg Rosa Monckton are referring to.

A lot of small businesses are operating on very fine margins and can't afford to take a hit on productivity if they are effectively forced to employ someone.

A blanket "let em work for less" is discriminatory.
Of course, you can see it this way, but it’s very naive to think employers should pay the same for less. In some cases, the work position is only for the benefit of the employee and their wellbeing. In reality, it may cost the company more than the employee benefit them by having employed them in the first place.

That has to be the most vile thing they've come out with yet

@LucaFritz, a Labour MP has said the same thing. Will you tar all of Labour with the same brush too?

I'm as horrified. If you see the metro clip you can see the audience are as horrified.
I wonder, do people not see a bigger picture when they think proposals like this are a good idea.
I'm sure it's not that they don't care because some are affected by it themselves.
I can't for the life of me understand.

Labour are just as vile as the Tories so yes i would she is speaking for her party is she not ? And if they disagreed with her they'd fire her wouldn't they ? Can't see a Tory firing one of their own for saying what they all think somehow

I was absolutely livid when I read the post from the MP. I have worked with adults and young people with learning disabilities/ difficulties,and now with 16 + students with additional needs. But now I can actually see the point in the original article. Just to play devil's advocate I will compare it to the minimum wage for young people. When my 16 year old daughter got her first job in retail I did not think it was fair that she was getting £4.00 P/H when she was doing the exact same job as someone older getting paid £8.20 or more P/H. I actually questioned how this could be fair in terms of age discrimination. Apparently in the workplace there is an exception made, as no firm would employ a youngster with no experience if they had to pay them the same as a skilled person. I sort of saw the point as it is the only way young people would ever get any experience iyswim. So I actually agree that in some cases, depending on the disability it may be the chance of an individual to initially gain any experience, but the lower wage should only be in the short term. No it is not fair, but most of the students I work with leave college desperate for a job and an opportunity to prove themselves and would happily take a job that pays (marginally) less than NMW just to get themselves in to the field of employment.

A blanket "let em work for less" is discriminatory.
Of course, you can see it this way, but it’s very naive to think employers should pay the same for less.

The logical end point of reducing the argument solely to the economic benefit to the employer is that everyone is paid piecework. No job security. No guaranteed wage. The fastest, craftiest, fittest, youngest etc. get paid the most - those who cannot keep up get paid less or lose their jobs completely with no rights and no safety net. 1870s sweatshop Britain.

This is Conservative thinking at its most basic - people reduced to disposable units of cost. Exactly as described in Britannia Unchained and promoted by Raab, Truss, Kwateng and Pritti Patel. No wonder Conservative HQ has been keeping these awful people out of the media spotlight. Surely nobody on their right minds is going to vote for a manifesto so unhinged.

@youjustdoyou

a Labour MP has said the same thing. Will you tar all of Labour with the same brush too?

Evidence please,if you can provide it then yes.