It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tory Minister: Disabled People '"not worth" the Minimum Wage.

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy


Yes an employer can pay a less productive disabled person £2 per hour as long as its topped up to AT LEAST the minimum wage by benefits.



Definitely not - an employer should have to pay at least the minimum wage to ALL employees, regardless of ability.
Benefits & supplements should be in addition to this.
It's too slippery a slope to go down to start having a sliding disability pay scale, and frankly immoral.




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: stargatetravels

It's too slippery a slope to go down to start having a sliding disability pay scale, and frankly immoral.


That is the single biggest powerful argument against it.
And I agree, its a very powerful argument.
I cannot argue against it.

I dont necessarily agree with this Lord Freud or what he said. I heard today that he was the architect for the bedroom tax, that alone defines his character. But I do agree with his right to actually say it.
My main aim is to clarify what he was actually saying compared to what people think he was saying due to the way its been reported.

This story is a shining example of how to put a very slight spin on what someone actually said to whip the masses up into a frenzy.
Propaganda is such a powerful weapon, and we are so gullible to it, its scary.
Its so easy to get us foaming at the mouth and begging for blood, its what allows the tories to get away with what they do.
Because at the end of the day in a tory world the immigrants, the unemployed and the disabled are the spawn of satan which needs to be eradicated from the face of the earth.
Its got nothing to do with the corporate manipulation of state, got nothing to do with the criminal bankers, no, no way.
Its all because of having to CARE for those that cant care for themselves. Yes blame the people that cant fight back, they are the devil incarnate.

Back to reality..
"First they came for the jews, but I wasnt jewish, so as they were dragged off kicking and screaming begging for help I stood and watched.
Then they came for the blacks, but I wasnt black, so as they were dragged off kicking and screaming begging for help I stood and watched.
Then they came for the eastern europeans, but I wasnt eastern european, so as they were dragged off kicking and screaming begging for help I stood and watched.
Then they came for the mentally ill, but I wasnt mentally ill, so as they were dragged off kicking and screaming begging for help I stood and watched.
Then they came for the physically disabled, but I was fine, so as they were dragged off kicking and screaming begging for help I stood and watched.
They kept coming and coming but I was fine every time, until one day they came for me, and there was nobody left to help me."
I paraphrase, but I hope the meaning isnt lost.



edit on 201410America/Chicago10pm10pmThu, 16 Oct 2014 13:16:21 -05001014 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I think that if you strip away the crappy politics there is a legitimate point that was made. It is this...

1. Employers won't recruit people too disabled to be productive - and this includes physical and mental impairment.
2. Some disabled people want to work for self esteem at the very least, and can contribute.
3. They could be employed at a rate lower than the minimum wage, but where the Government tops up.
4. Therefore, employers are able to employ disabled people - where the may not have done beforehand.

You may cry about the words this politician used, but this is what he meant. I agree.

I agree because it means whatever your disability, if you find an employer willing to take you on - even when the extent of your disability may mean you are unproductive, and therefore values you contribution at a lower rate, the government will top up. The disabled person contributes, the employer contributes and the Government contributes. The most important person - the disabled person - benefits.

The reaction of some people is designed to close down debating this important issue. If it is not debated nothing will change.

Regards



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
I think that if you strip away the crappy politics there is a legitimate point that was made. It is this...

1. Employers won't recruit people too disabled to be productive - and this includes physical and mental impairment.
2. Some disabled people want to work for self esteem at the very least, and can contribute.
3. They could be employed at a rate lower than the minimum wage, but where the Government tops up.
4. Therefore, employers are able to employ disabled people - where the may not have done beforehand.

You may cry about the words this politician used, but this is what he meant. I agree.

I agree because it means whatever your disability, if you find an employer willing to take you on - even when the extent of your disability may mean you are unproductive, and therefore values you contribution at a lower rate, the government will top up. The disabled person contributes, the employer contributes and the Government contributes. The most important person - the disabled person - benefits.

The reaction of some people is designed to close down debating this important issue. If it is not debated nothing will change.

Regards




Thank you, you have done in very few words what I have failed to do with many.
I will shut up now.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi


They could be employed at a rate lower than the minimum wage, but where the Government tops up.



So let the already over taxed British Tax Payer subsidise employers ,there by increasing their profits.

No thanks.

The minimum wage is exactly what it says on the box. It's the minimum that should be paid. No excuses. If a company can't afford to pay the minimum wage, then they should not be in business.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Then people with disabilities such that their contribution is less than the minimum wage will remain unemployed, No one wins.

The minimum wage serves the vast majority, but perhaps for the good of society there can be exceptions. This is not the thin end of the wedge, it's a suggestion to solve a problem and help people with disabilities that prevent their employment.

Regards



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
This is just a way of reducing the benefits bill, nothing more, nothing less. They couldn't give a stuff about getting disabled people back into meaningful work. It just gives the likes of ATOS more manoeuvring when assessing people's disability benefit that's all. To believe the government is trying to help, with this sort of language is just a joke. In the eyes of the government and divisive right wing media,the sick and disabled have clearly had it far too good for far too long. Heaven help this miserable nasty nation.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: paraphi


They could be employed at a rate lower than the minimum wage, but where the Government tops up.



So let the already over taxed British Tax Payer subsidise employers ,there by increasing their profits.

No thanks.

The minimum wage is exactly what it says on the box. It's the minimum that should be paid. No excuses. If a company can't afford to pay the minimum wage, then they should not be in business.


And by your same standards then someone whose productivity cannot keep up with economic value should not be in employment.

With 2 million unemployed its an employers market, there is an over abundance of labour, the employers dont have to fight for staff. Staff have to fight for jobs. This keeps wages low, its simple supply and demand.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: paraphi
They could be employed at a rate lower than the minimum wage, but where the Government tops up.

So let the already over taxed British Tax Payer subsidise employers ,there by increasing their profits.
No thanks.
The minimum wage is exactly what it says on the box. It's the minimum that should be paid. No excuses. If a company can't afford to pay the minimum wage, then they should not be in business.


I may be American but regardless the bill to support the disabled is paid by the taxpayer. Would it not be better to have the disabled make what contribution they can while actually decreasing government expenditure? I get roughly $1,000/mo in social security - if I were working say, 20 hours a week even at $4/hr the government would only have to spend $200 to make up the difference.

$1,000 per month or $200 - since it's coming from your paycheck which do you think is the better deal?
Even if you split the difference and it cost $600/month the government would still save money and could actually afford to pay me slightly more than what I got for just sitting on my bum.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: paraphi


They could be employed at a rate lower than the minimum wage, but where the Government tops up.



So let the already over taxed British Tax Payer subsidise employers ,there by increasing their profits.

No thanks.

The minimum wage is exactly what it says on the box. It's the minimum that should be paid. No excuses. If a company can't afford to pay the minimum wage, then they should not be in business.


And by your same standards then someone whose productivity cannot keep up with economic value should not be in employment.




So Cameron's " Big Society " and those less fortunate being helped by the more fortunate, is complete bollocks then?

Why does everything we do have to have a cost to it?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: paraphi


They could be employed at a rate lower than the minimum wage, but where the Government tops up.



So let the already over taxed British Tax Payer subsidise employers ,there by increasing their profits.

No thanks.

The minimum wage is exactly what it says on the box. It's the minimum that should be paid. No excuses. If a company can't afford to pay the minimum wage, then they should not be in business.


And by your same standards then someone whose productivity cannot keep up with economic value should not be in employment.




So Cameron's " Big Society " and those less fortunate being helped by the more fortunate, is complete bollocks then?

Why does everything we do have to have a cost to it?



Money makes the world go around. Money is the new God.

Of course Camerons Big Society is a big lie. Trickle down economics is also a lie.
The gap between rich and poor gets larger and larger, and the people roll over and take it.
The more apathetic society becomes the easier it is for the politicians to feed us sound bites and illusions, while the reality which totally contradicts the illusions continue.

The more we roll over the worse things get, nothing will change until enough people demand it. And I mean demand, not write strongly worded letters.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

I recently met a old friend who was a Scaffolder ,he is now in a wheelchair after losing a leg but he is considered fit enough to work [ wtf ]
who makes up these rules



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
I think that if you strip away the crappy politics there is a legitimate point that was made. It is this...

1. Employers won't recruit people too disabled to be productive - and this includes physical and mental impairment.
2. Some disabled people want to work for self esteem at the very least, and can contribute.
3. They could be employed at a rate lower than the minimum wage, but where the Government tops up.
4. Therefore, employers are able to employ disabled people - where the may not have done beforehand.

You may cry about the words this politician used, but this is what he meant. I agree.

I agree because it means whatever your disability, if you find an employer willing to take you on - even when the extent of your disability may mean you are unproductive, and therefore values you contribution at a lower rate, the government will top up. The disabled person contributes, the employer contributes and the Government contributes. The most important person - the disabled person - benefits.

The reaction of some people is designed to close down debating this important issue. If it is not debated nothing will change.

Regards




Thank you for this summary. I would never vote conservative, and this particular lord seems to be a born-again **** but before pouncing on his words, perhaps people should research the question. Strangely, all quotes of the question he was asked seem to have disappeared from the net, but it was part of a discussion on incapacity benefit and the question asked on behalf of some disabled people was whether some mechanism could be introduced to permit them to work for less than minimum wage if they wanted. The reason is that they are limited in what they can earn in addition to incapacity benefit-currently its £20.00 or 3 hours at minimum wage. Many of them gain a social life through work and would rather work 10 hours for less than 3 hours for more.

His answer was effectively that he would look into it-not that disabled people were worthless. I would also add that the same question has been asked previously by a major disabled charity, MENCAP. www.theguardian.com...

Obviously, in the long run there are better solutions that have already been posted, but they would probably need a complete overhaul of the benefits system. Here and now, the voluntary exemption he was asked to look into is probably the best short term option, and agreeing to look into it when asked to seems to me to be the appropriate response from a politician-it is his actual job to deal with issues like this.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I would amazed if there are many people whose labour us really worth less than the minimum wage. Even simple repetitive tasks done in the worst kind of sweatshop factory add more value than the minimum wage.
However if we accept the premise that some peoples labour is worth less you still can not give exceptions as how would this possibly be assessed?
You cant make exceptions to a thing like this or it doesn't exist. You certainly can't have the employer assess level of disability, you cant ask people with profound learning difficulties to make a value judgement about their own worth. So who does that leave , Atos?



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
One of the problems I see is when there's is a disabled person with an illness which fluctuates greatly in severity. I am one such person, I can appear quite 'normal' some days and others you won't see me at all. To all intents and purposes invisible when ill, I can disappear for weeks at a time and be unable to look after my personal welfare. Its embarrassing for me as I have always worked hard in my past, holding up a full time job which bordered on 60 hours a week along side voluntary work ( at the time I was a Christian and helped run film clubs at the church as well as another separate job working with vulnerable people ) so much as to say I wasn't actually at home other than sleep.

I became so ill that I effectively had to be retired from my job on medical grounds and also stop my voluntary work. It killed me, financially as well as socially and mentally. I became a shell of the man I was.. But I managed to sort out some voluntary work, they were flexible to allow me to work my own schedule. If I could manage a couple of hours one month and nothing the next then so be it. Its something that no paid employer could do. Payment is not something that affected my choice of work, in fact I'd prefer not to be held under a contract or obligation which I might be unable to fulfill.

What worries me is that these schemes will become compulsory. That there will be scores of disabled people forced to work in situations wholey unsuitable, ransomed under the threat of loss of welfare, housing and support if they do not attend. Being paid a pittance and eventually forced into ghettos workhouses who's pre Victorian ethics are hidden behind a shiny glass fronted facade. Most of the welfare a disabled person receives is to allow them access a basic standard of life, deducting a wage from such welfare creates a disparity between them and a healthy individual capable of working and receiving a full wage.. For me work is a therapy and gives me something which money cannot, but I am free to choose the therapy which suits me the most - not what's dished out by a smiley face at the employment bureau who know nothing of my circumstances and have a deficit in recycling technicians to sort through peoples trash for £2 an hour.

Despite what the media peddles (and the government) there are not millions of scroungers sitting on their backsides supping cans of beer and living it large on the Costa Blanca twice a year for a fortnight. But this is what springs to mind in many peoples minds. Every day can be a fight for life without having to consider the extra difficulties of defending themselves against peoples prejudices. If I didn't live where I do, in the uk, I'd be dead and I have a lot to be greatful for in regards to the welfare system we have. When its dismantled before my very eyes, piece by piece, year by year and peoples worth reduced to £2 an hour of course i am going to be worried because there will come the day when someone just like me will either die of neglect or choose to die because they cannot cope.
edit on 17-10-2014 by ObsidianEclipse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ObsidianEclipse
One of the problems I see is when there's is a disabled person with an illness which fluctuates greatly in severity. I am one such person, I can appear quite 'normal' some days and others you won't see me at all. To all intents and purposes invisible when ill, I can disappear for weeks at a time and be unable to look after my personal welfare. Its embarrassing for me as I have always worked hard in my past, holding up a full time job which bordered on 60 hours a week along side voluntary work ( at the time I was a Christian and helped run film clubs at the church as well as another separate job working with vulnerable people ) so much as to say I wasn't actually at home other than sleep.

I became so ill that I effectively had to be retired from my job on medical grounds and also stop my voluntary work. It killed me, financially as well as socially and mentally. I became a shell of the man I was.. But I managed to sort out some voluntary work, they were flexible to allow me to work my own schedule. If I could manage a couple of hours one month and nothing the next then so be it. Its something that no paid employer could do. Payment is not something that affected my choice of work, in fact I'd prefer not to be held under a contract or obligation which I might be unable to fulfill.

What worries me is that these schemes will become compulsory. That there will be scores of disabled people forced to work in situations wholey unsuitable, ransomed under the threat of loss of welfare, housing and support if they do not attend. Being paid a pittance and eventually forced into ghettos workhouses who's pre Victorian ethics are hidden behind a shiny glass fronted facade. Most of the welfare a disabled person receives is to allow them access a basic standard of life, deducting a wage from such welfare creates a disparity between them and a healthy individual capable of working and receiving a full wage.. For me work is a therapy and gives me something which money cannot, but I am free to choose the therapy which suits me the most - not what's dished out by a smiley face at the employment bureau who know nothing of my circumstances and have a deficit in recycling technicians to sort through peoples trash for £2 an hour.

Despite what the media peddles (and the government) there are not millions of scroungers sitting on their backsides supping cans of beer and living it large on the Costa Blanca twice a year for a fortnight. But this is what springs to mind in many peoples minds. Every day can be a fight for life without having to consider the extra difficulties of defending themselves against peoples prejudices. If I didn't live where I do, in the uk, I'd be dead and I have a lot to be greatful for in regards to the welfare system we have. When its dismantled before my very eyes, piece by piece, year by year and peoples worth reduced to £2 an hour of course i am going to be worried because there will come the day when someone just like me will either die of neglect or choose to die because they cannot cope.


I agree, I know instinctively that what you say is true. It would be the start of the slippery slope.

I heard today that only 14% of the disabled are in work, that is just terrible, and hopefully the comment of Lord Freud will at least get the discussion going. Because quite frankly we have to do something to equalise opportunity in this country.

Now is the time for ideas, from all sides of the debate. So we can reach some sort of concensus in the middle and we can actually move forward, because right now its a travesty. Employment shouldnt be forced on anybody that isnt up to it, and ATOS should be scrapped for a start. And we really need to get rid of IDS.

edit on 201410America/Chicago10am10amFri, 17 Oct 2014 11:56:11 -05001014 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
People voted against AV so that creeps like this man can continue to control what happens in the UK. Sigh.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
It amazed me that everyone seems to think that you can get rid of a minimum wage for some people and they wouldn't be affected: as long as they aren't part of the group without minimum wage, the disabled. But why employ a person at minimum wage when you can hire a cheaper person. The fact of the matter is I see people not worth the minimum wage all the time: supermarket cafes usually: and they usually aren't disabled: just crap. There always seem to be the dellusion that everyone thinks that they are really wonderful and just haven't became Bill Gates because they didn't get the breaks. But many of the people in the world are useless and not disabled. But we have a society where only the disabled are supposed to be this way and people cannot admit that many people, friends and acquaintances, maybe even family are complete failures for no good reason. We don't live in a world of supermen and women but one where the X factor shows peoples frailties.

But more than this what getting rid of the minimum wage is really about is a reversal of thinking, people are getting used to the idea of making the life of those disadvantages people more difficult and helping the better off. So the politician safely attacks the ill and so makes employees cheaper for the richer and large corporations so that the wealthy CEO's can get greater bonuses. What is telling is than when a group of people were chosen to keep down inflation and pay less they chose the most unpopular group in society: the disabled. A world where quotas are put in place so that people can get a job because of race and where companies in the UK get grants to employ criminals from jail makes it very clear, that whereas an ex criminal: potentially violent criminal: is worth more than everyone else, because they get a wage and the employer gets a grant for employing them, whereas a disabled person gets less. Surely the saving is easy to get, stop paying people to employ criminals.

The truth is simple getting rid of a minimum wage for one group would render some other groups cheaper, and would reduce the salary of many people both disabled and otherwise: certainly the salary of all employed disabled people would reduce. I would actually like to raise the reverse argument: is it fair to expect an employed disabled person to have their taxes sent to the third world to people with better health? Should a disabled person be paying for a nondisabled persons unemployment benefit? Surely if you are saying a person should be paid less then disabled people who do have wealth, and/or are working should pay less tax or make sure it isn't being frittered away on lazy non disabled people.

It seems to me though that this would just be the first step, next would be to stop all disabled people from controlling their wealth to transform many disabled people into a slave class. But don't think that this isnt me, because many people have arthritis at some point in their life or diabetes, and anyway once the rights of one person has been removed then they will work through to the poor and old. Human rights only work if everyone has them.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: werewolf99
It amazed me that everyone seems to think that you can get rid of a minimum wage for some people and they wouldn't be affected: as long as they aren't part of the group without minimum wage, the disabled. But why employ a person at minimum wage when you can hire a cheaper person. The fact of the matter is I see people not worth the minimum wage all the time: supermarket cafes usually: and they usually aren't disabled: just crap. There always seem to be the dellusion that everyone thinks that they are really wonderful and just haven't became Bill Gates because they didn't get the breaks. But many of the people in the world are useless and not disabled. But we have a society where only the disabled are supposed to be this way and people cannot admit that many people, friends and acquaintances, maybe even family are complete failures for no good reason. We don't live in a world of supermen and women but one where the X factor shows peoples frailties.

But more than this what getting rid of the minimum wage is really about is a reversal of thinking, people are getting used to the idea of making the life of those disadvantages people more difficult and helping the better off. So the politician safely attacks the ill and so makes employees cheaper for the richer and large corporations so that the wealthy CEO's can get greater bonuses. What is telling is than when a group of people were chosen to keep down inflation and pay less they chose the most unpopular group in society: the disabled. A world where quotas are put in place so that people can get a job because of race and where companies in the UK get grants to employ criminals from jail makes it very clear, that whereas an ex criminal: potentially violent criminal: is worth more than everyone else, because they get a wage and the employer gets a grant for employing them, whereas a disabled person gets less. Surely the saving is easy to get, stop paying people to employ criminals.

The truth is simple getting rid of a minimum wage for one group would render some other groups cheaper, and would reduce the salary of many people both disabled and otherwise: certainly the salary of all employed disabled people would reduce. I would actually like to raise the reverse argument: is it fair to expect an employed disabled person to have their taxes sent to the third world to people with better health? Should a disabled person be paying for a nondisabled persons unemployment benefit? Surely if you are saying a person should be paid less then disabled people who do have wealth, and/or are working should pay less tax or make sure it isn't being frittered away on lazy non disabled people.

It seems to me though that this would just be the first step, next would be to stop all disabled people from controlling their wealth to transform many disabled people into a slave class. But don't think that this isnt me, because many people have arthritis at some point in their life or diabetes, and anyway once the rights of one person has been removed then they will work through to the poor and old. Human rights only work if everyone has them.


Nobody has proposed getting rid of minimum wage.
No-one has attacked the disabled and sick.
A problem has been raised on behalf of disabled people who are claiming incapacity benefit, which is that they are only allowed to earn a small amount on top before they start having benefit cut. Due to minimum wage they hit this cap in 3 hours of paid work. Some of them would rather work longer hours for less than minimum wage, so they can spend more time working without it affecting their benefit.
A politician has been asked if a voluntary opt out clause can be introduced for disabled people on benefit.
The politician has replied that he will look into it.
This same question has been asked before by disabled charities-I previously posted a link to Mencap's comments.
It was noted as a potential problem when minimum wage was introduced, and the government at that time said it would be looked into.
I recall reading an article in the Guardian, probably the UK's most left-wing paper, in support of the idea
[url=http://www.theguardian.com...]
Bottom line is, Freud hasn't proposed anything, least of all turning the disabled into a slave class. He has been asked a question and has said he'll look into it. Previous governments have said the same. Nothing has changed and I don't expect it to. Having said that, if he does look into it and create some mechanism for a voluntary exemption, he will be the first politician in my lifetime to have actually done as asked by an ordinary person.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join