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.
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.
originally posted by: stargatetravels
It's too slippery a slope to go down to start having a sliding disability pay scale, and frankly immoral.
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
originally posted by: paraphi
They could be employed at a rate lower than the minimum wage, but where the Government tops up.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.