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.

I understand that with some severe learning disabilities, the are no reasonable adjustments that could put a role back on an even playing field. However - rather than have a severely disabled person paid less and left to navigate the benefits system to make up the shortfall, would the answer not be for the government to agree an adjusted NMW for the employer and top up the difference between that and the actual NMW, so that the employer pays the individual the actual NMW as usual?

Anyone with a learning disability so severe for talk of a reduced wage to even be a possibility is going to be someone who we would otherwise support on benefits, so we're paying for them anyway. Why not open up the possibility of them working by subsidising employers to pay them like any other person in that role? There would have to be safeguards to ensure they didn't end up any worse off financially and were given the option to resign without any benefit implications - I think I'd rather put the onus on the individual to say if it wasn't working out rather than the employer, to avoid situations where a vulnerable person is bullied into working for a bad employer.

But in principle, allowing the employer to pay less but for the employee to still receive NMW doesn't seem a bad idea. I know what I've suggested isn't what has been suggested, but I think it's a much better tweak!

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.

You don't seriously think that if business made more money they would use it to employ seriously disabled people rather than pay their shareholders or directors salaries do you.

Sunniday

Just to clarify, I observed entry level teachers during my PgCE and worked in the dept for a few weeks.
You all do a fantastic job and it must be so rewarding.

Whilst I understand these people aren't going to go on to do PgCE's I know from experience the jobs they have got, min wage being treated the same as everyone else.

One girl local beauty shop, supporting herself well in a council flat.
Another girl working in Primark, has a boyfriend who is lovely and treats her well. She came from an abusive background too.
They are success stories without needing to work for half a wage.
The teachers told me countless success stories.
Education for much of this was also lost. We had a college full of different dept offering all sorts of skills for life.

Seesaw Majary Daw
Johnny shall have a new master
He shall earn but a penny a day
Because he can't work any faster

Straight outta the workhouses

Actually I think businesses would. My local fruit and veg shop is well known for giving local kids a chance - as is the garage, the garden centre, (but cheaper in B and Q) and Waitrose. Business does not just mean BIG business.

I think perhaps this more highlights the fact that there needs to be more stuff in place for people with learning disabilities once they leave education. People's lives can have meaning without doing paid work, although a job can give someone lots of benefits.

I don't think cutting minimum wage is the way forwards though. I don't think it would work for the group being targeted. If you need to employ an extra person to supervise someone, or they are very limited in the tasks they can do, businesses are still unlikely to employ them, no matter how low their pay would be. The business would still face additional costs and potential problems and be unlikely to take that risk.

What would actually happen, imo, is people already capable of working would get a pay cut, and people would be employed on the cheap and exploited.

I'd also be interested to know who would get to decide that an employee is "disabled enough" to be paid less.

If the end goal is getting very disabled people into work, I think the answer is subsidies for employers-as well as more supported training and education for people with learning disabilities who are not school age.

I would support something like a specialist apprenticeship scheme for people with disabilities, where people are paid perhaps a low apprenticeship wage (like young people in an apprenticeship) but also gain training, skills and ideally qualifications as they work.

The thing is, there used to be all kinds of places where people with learning disabilities could work and socialise. Remploy was only one of them.

Guess who closed those places and cut support for those organisations? The Tories. It's a bit rich then for them to suggest that people with learning disabilities should work for less than NMW with a 'therapeutic exemption' when they themselves have been responsible for tearing down the facilities that would have provided exactly that. Rank hypocrisy and there is no excuse for it.

I view it from a different perspective. Nmw should be the pay for someone that can't do the full job, and everyone else should have living wage as the minimum.

So the cafe employing person A to take orders, prepare food, serve it, take money, cash up etc should be paying them a living wage. If they employ B, with a learning disability that limits them to sweeping the floor and washing up at a slower rate than average, there can be an exception made to pay only nmw.

So the cafe employing person A to take orders, prepare food, serve it, take money, cash up etc should be paying them a living wage. If they employ B, with a learning disability that limits them to sweeping the floor and washing up at a slower rate than average, there can be an exception made to pay only nmw.

Don't you think that would be ridiculously complicated and easy to abuse?! I can just imagine unscrupulous employers claiming people couldn't work fast enough or didn't do good enough job and therefore should be paid less. What if someone with physical disabilities couldn't sweep the floor as quickly. Would you pay them less them minimum wage too?

The thing is, there used to be all kinds of places where people with learning disabilities could work and socialise. Remploy was only one of them.

Yes there used to be lots of (therapeutic) factories/cafe's/workplaces.

Guess who closed those places and cut support for those organisations? The Tories.

No it was forcing those employers to pay the minimum wage to everyone that closed those places.

I think the answer is subsidies for employers

About 20 years ago employers did get subsidies to employ people with LDs but the charities and lobbying groups felt it was demeaning to their clients so employer support was stopped.

I can't even begin to explain my hatred of the tories.

Not that long ago Remploy use to run supported work for (some quite severely) disabled people in several factories - they also use to help people learn various skills & than help them into mainstream work placement. the new scheme for helping people into mainstream employment encouraged the development of supporting the more able/disabled into work by acting as a sort of supported job agency, the scheme meant that the company (some of which are more commercial than socially aware) would get bonuses at varying stages ie taking the individual on their books, getting the job & than staying in the job for 6 months - Papworth Trust in partnership with other Charities wrote a letter which raised the concern that this would mean that people who had more difficulties would be more excluded than on the previous job support regime - if you research what happened to the people at remploy you will see that this is true. There was also a case of a young cook with Aspergers whose boss tried to argue that his underpayment was because the young man was disabled - the reason he was able to do this for so long was not for that reason but because he was vulnerable. Some members of the Conservative party have argued this point for years. If this is there argument than what should happen is that the government should pay & assess individual need for disabled people & make it more attractive to employ people - which by the way is suppose to happen - I would argue that rather than reducing salaries for disabled workers more thought out support & more extended supported apprenticeships should be available. (Previous research)

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/30/remploy-factories-close-disabled-workers

Not really woodchuck

I'm talking about the people with lds that otherwise wouldn't be employed at all. Ignoring all the numerous shortcomings with the system and support, there's usually reasonable evidence when anyone was limited enough to only get nmw.

Physical disabilities are different because they aren't limited by mental abilities, and in many cases minor adjustments can allow the job to be done completely by someone with a physical disability. So in my theoretical cafe, a grant should pay for equipment for eg a deaf employee, a cook that can't stand etc. But no equipment is going to make it possible for someone that can't understand money to work a till, or someone that can't write or remember orders to wait on tables.

What's the alternative? Pay less than nmw or remain unemployed as far as I can see.

I'm talking about the people with lds that otherwise wouldn't be employed at all. Ignoring all the numerous shortcomings with the system and support, there's usually reasonable evidence when anyone was limited enough to only get nmw.

Who's to decide that they wouldn't be employed at all though. Whilst it may be clear for some people others would be more borderline. I think once there is a precedence to employ some people on lower than national minimum wage it would get expanded to start to include all people with disabilities including physical disabilities. Calling it national minimum wage where his everyone else gets a living wage is just playing with words. The Conservatives currently call national minimum wage the living wage. You are suggesting a new minimum wage which would just be lower.

What's the alternative? Pay less than nmw or remain unemployed as far as I can see.

The obvious alternative is to subsidise employers who employ people with severe learning disabilities to even the playing field.

About 20 years ago employers did get subsidies to employ people with LDs but the charities and lobbying groups felt it was demeaning to their clients so employer support was stopped.

I don't remember that. Who lobbied against it?

@TrainspottingWelsh I have seen many people who have different
"mental" (catchall expression in the Social Model of Disability to describe LD/ASD/Mental Health) disabilities develop skills & train in a variety of occupations. Sweeping generalisation it may seem but many people within the spectrum (please see red2green website) can cope with & become highly skilled in Computers,IT & repairs, even with fairly profound social or sensory issues. I know of a college where young people get training in plant nursery work & also colleges where disabled student get training in catering etc etc etc -just because someone has difficulty with reading or dealing with money doesn't mean that for many people even with moderate learning disability cannot learn or cope with some form of work - as long as they have training & support.

Racisms, sexism, bigotry, hate, division, lies... This is the Tories. Anyone voting for them are condoning all this.

I don't remember that. Who lobbied against it?

Mencap were the big one

wood you miss my point. I'm not suggesting anyone should be paid less than the current nmw. I think all employers should be forced to pay an actual living wage to regular employees, with the current nmw as the alternative for those genuinely unable to do any job completely.

mum sorry, I missed the part of my post where I generalised about everyone with an ld/ autism/ mental health problem. Oh yes, that's because I didn't.
As the op is referring to an article about someone that isn't going to become a computer programmer, as are many pps, and the thread is about people that would otherwise be unemployable, I would have thought it was fairly obvious I'm not suggesting everyone that isn't completely healthy and nt should take a pay cut.

I get the economic argument for an employer not wanting to employ somebody who will be significantly less efficient or require considerable additional expense if somebody 'able' could be recruited instead. I also get that nobody deserves to be paid less than NMW, its dehumanising and othering. And I hear the mums who are saying their daughter or son would benefit from the opportunity to work and that the only way they see that happening is them getting paid less.

Surely a sensible solution would be for the government to offer incentives to employers who employ those with a significant enough learning difficulty. They could pay the employer say 50% of the wages the person earned. The books could be balanced with an equivalent reduction in benefits (if they get any/enough.. this is after all the Tories we are talking about). Scheme run for the cost of admin and some employer support (this used to be available via ESA, not sure if it's been cut). Nobody gets paid less than NMW. Mental health stats, economy and so on all benefit.

I know of a college where young people get training in plant nursery work & also colleges where disabled student get training in catering etc etc etc -just because someone has difficulty with reading or dealing with money doesn't mean that for many people even with moderate learning disability cannot learn or cope with some form of work - as long as they have training & support.

Yes training schemes exist but are usually time limited before those trainees are expected to transition into open, sustainable employment and support is removed. I used to work in supported employment and saw very few people last more than a month or two.

Disgusting cunts.

i wonder why some charities would be against subsides for employers?

Because they felt it demeaning that employers had to be effectively bribed in order to employ someone. It would be a good point if we lived in a perfect world and businesses didn't put profit above everything else.