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.

While people continue to be outraged on their behalf the opportunities for the vast majority of adults with moderate to severe learning disabilities will continue to be limited to day centres/therapeutic farms/gardens and voluntary work such as charity shops. Or staying at home where services or funding is lacking. While many of these projects are wonderful and suit many people innovative ideas that can help people with moderate to severe learning disabilities that want to work should be considered properly.

I work in a short break service for people with learning disabilities and of our 70 or so clients I am aware of 1 (yes one) person that has any paid work.

Without meaning to disrespect the person that posted regarding their children we are not talking about people who can manage a care home or be a professional chef but people with moderate to severe learning disabilities. People who require a reasonable to high degree of support to go about their day to day lives safely and successfully and would also require a high degree of support in the workplace/short hours/highly restricted role.

I'm no expert on the rules of young people working but I believe for example a young person at 13 can have a paper round? We don't all get hysterical and say "allow a paper round and before you know it the kids will be up the chimney for 40 hours - it's a slippery slope etc"

I think to carefully consider a form of supported employment contract which could for example be a maximum of 10 hours a week and not affect benefit entitlement (for people who have a moderate to severe learning disability) could be a good thing. Surely worth considering properly anyway?

I see both sides. My uncle has severe learning disabilities - he can't read or write and certainly could never be employed even with support.

However, back in the 1970's/80's he used to attend an "Adult Training Centre" where he and other adults with severe learning disabilities would do minor jobs for a few pounds a week.

He LOVED his job - he was so proud of it. He had loads of friends. MENCAP supported it with volunteers and they'd have days out and parties and he had loads of friends. My gran would put him on the "ATC" bus in the morning and meet him off it at 4pm. It allowed her and my granddad time to work.

Clearly by today's standards it was exploitative but it benefited everyone and did not affect his Attendance Allowance (as it was then).

As pp (Gingerkittykat think) says there is nothing for those with severe LD once they leave education and having a place and a purpose can be very morale boosting.

Clearly if people can work then this statement doesn't relate to them. The idea of working for less than minimum wage should only refer to those who would otherwise be completely unemployable.

SunniDay - I agree with your posts completely.

@Havanananana Maybe you could lead the way and offer to support a few of these employees from your own pocket? Pay the difference in wage yourself? This is after all what you’re asking the employer to do, to subsidise the cost themselves.

"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"

But then you have young people in retail working on days like Boxing Day just to pay their cab fare for getting to and from work. Some places have no public transport so taxis are the only option. On a wage like £4.00 an hour on Boxing Day its entirely possible that the taxi fare would outstrip the wage. This is already happening.

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.

The age exception is actually embedded in the NMW legislation. www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates

In some circumstances 16 year old going into employment in a shop might well have better skills than the 'experienced' worker. She might be better in tune with what younger customers are buying and saying - music, fashion, phones and accessories etc. and current slang.

The age argument also falls down when the shop takes on a 25 year old with no previous retail skills. Why should the older worker get more than someone who is 18, 20 or under 25 just because of age? By 24, the younger worker could have 8 years more experience than the newcomer.

SunniDay

My IQ is 68, I'm considered moderate learning difficulties.
I left school with nothing and finally gained a Degree and PgCE in my thirties.
I am also dyslexic and dyspraxic.
I've always been able to manage most entry level work. Production line work is challenging as the monotony sees me drifting off and I under perform.
I didn't have those problems teaching.

I can assure you there are plenty of people with moderate learning difficulties and disabilities who are fit for more than you're suggesting. How bloody cheeky.

Maybe you could lead the way and offer to support a few of these employees from your own pocket? Pay the difference in wage yourself? This is after all what you’re asking the employer to do, to subsidise the cost themselves.

I'm not asking the employer to subsidise the cost. I would support a scheme whereby the employer can be compensated for making the adjustments, whether this is for people with learning difficulties or for people with other needs - e.g. adjustments to the workplace for employees whose physical needs have to be considered (adaptive keyboards and PCs, access, special equipment etc.).

Would I pay out of my own pocket? Yes, as a taxpayer, because I support the idea that in some areas of life, we all have a duty to our fellow citizens. And yes as a consumer - I would actively look to spend my money with employers and businesses that can demonstrate a commitment to employees of all abilities and by the same token I would avoid those that do not have the same commitment.

Drabarni

"My IQ is 68, I'm considered moderate learning difficulties.
I left school with nothing and finally gained a Degree and PgCE in my thirties.
I am also dyslexic and dyspraxic.
I've always been able to manage most entry level work. Production line work is challenging as the monotony sees me drifting off and I under perform.
I didn't have those problems teaching.

I can assure you there are plenty of people with moderate learning difficulties and disabilities who are fit for more than you're suggesting. How bloody cheeky."

Drabarni
Your post describes you studying and working. The only person linking your circumstances with any kind of supported work/lower paid work is you - certainly not me.

But again your outrage on their behalf will prevent people like the people I work with (many of whom will never be able to cook their own tea let alone study a PGCE) from having paid opportunities.

Without meaning to disrespect the person that posted regarding their children we are not talking about people who can manage a care home or be a professional chef but people with moderate to severe learning disabilities.

Who are you going to define who can and can't work? My nephew has moderate learning difficulties but he works and therefore currently gets the minimum wage. Bringing legislation to pay him less would be incredibly exploitative but that is what would happen. You are demonstrating the problem that this legislation would have though. Someone in an office will decide that certain people they have never met do not deserve to receive minimum wage and the pool of people that will fall into this category will probably increase to include nearly all people disabilities.

Surely you should get paid for what you do at the same rate as anyone else, regardless of any disability?

OP, sorry but you’re comparing yourself as a small child to adults who cannot read, process information or write and may be non verbal. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

On reflection (not least reading the strength of feeling on these posts) paying less than the minimum wage would be so toxic (even if it were allowed) that I don't think employers could/would touch it.

What would be more likely to work is a scheme where employers receive a supplement towards the persons pay from the government. I think this type of supplement has existed in the past with youth training schemes.

Jaxhog

Subject to NMW legislation, yes. That is what you have to pay before individual performance can be taken into account.

What this woman has said is horrible and I don't agree with it at all.

But this is not Conservative party policy.

@SaskiaRembrandt I think I remember this article. The point was that if someone had a learning difficulty which required the employer to use additional resources to enable them to do the job they’d be at a disadvantage in comparison to someone who wouldn’t because it would cost more to employ them. I suppose it does show up a flaw in the MW principle but then again as others have pointed out it would leave people with significant learning disabilities open to exploitation. It would be very difficult to implement this policy the right way, even if it was implemented perfectly it would still be uncomfortable for a lot of people.

@Drabarni

What a horrible idea. There used to be a scheme whereby "disabled workers" could be paid by the employer who got some kind of contribution from the government.

I have two DS with ASD and moderate/severe LDs. Hard to tell the extent yet as they are still very young.

I am seriously considering giving up work and opening a cafe staffed by adults with LDs when they finish school to give them somewhere to work. Seems unlikely to be possible elsewhere from this thread!

Wtaf

I'd never vote for the torys.

Surely you should get paid for what you do at the same rate as anyone else, regardless of any disability?

That depends on what you mean by ‘paid for what you do’. If you can only work at a quarter of the rate of other employees and need an additional member of staff present to supervise/support you to achieve this then how do you work out your ‘rate’? If it were piece-work (just as an example) that would mean you were paid at quarter the rate and then who would pay for your support person?

All this outrage would be fine if those posters were happy to pay more for their food and clothes in order to allow businesses to have a bit of leeway. But they don't do they! They gleefully tell everyone how cheaply they "got it on Amazon" whilst knowing Amazon don't pay a fair whack of tax and that their employment practises are probably exploitative. They do AIBU's on "Shall I complain about the idiot Tesco/Asda checkout assistant/delivery driver" because they have no tolerance of someone who is a bit slow or lacks social skills. How then do you expect business to react?

If you run your own business do you employ someone who is a bit slow or struggles with phone calls? (My son is one of these and he is currently volunteering with some wonderful people in a charity shop. The difference to him is enormous - but no one will pay him to do anything - ever.)

Clearly some protection would be needed to prevent abuse, but I have some sympathy with this suggestion for certain disabled people. There are lots of disabled people in the workplace, some of whom are helped by reasonable adjustments, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that they should be paid less. I'm certainly not.

However, there are some people who will never be able to get a job when treated entirely on their merits as an employee. I used to know someone with Down's syndrome. She loved working but with the best will in the world she was not very productive. Years ago (before the introduction of the NMW) she had a number of unskilled jobs in hairdressers and in supermarkets. They paid her very little bit she didn't care. She had no concept of the dignity of work, but she wanted to work because she was very sociable and loved being out of the house talking to other people like customers and staff.

The amount of work she did was probably minimal and she could be a bit of a liability (other staff sometimes had to redo things that she had done, and she sometimes lost jobs for unwittingly being rude to customers). It's therefore not surprising that employers decided not to employ her at the minimum wage when they could get far better employees at that rate.

So the NMW did her no favours. She (and her parents) would much have preferred to be able to work for a lower rate of pay.

NB: she received some sort of disability benefit (no idea what it was called at the time) and lived at home with her parents. Independent living would have been impossible for her.

The age-related minimum wage is an interesting concept too. I suppose the govt could say that it incentivises young people to do further education and training Which is in the country’s and their own interest

I'd never vote for the torys

😂