MP: Disabled Should Be Able To Work For Less

Originally posted by Johnze
Ummm to be honest, this has all largely been taken completely out of context, as usualy is the case with the Main stream media.

The MP in question was giving an interview on BBC Radio 4 this afternoon and explained himself pretty well. Also if you actualy listen to the entirety of his speech you will get a better idea of what he was saying.

Basicaly he said, because people are disabled, and people do have mental ill health issues, it is a simple fact employers will higher people who DO NOT HAVE these issues. It is that simple, abled bodied persons, and persons with a distinct lack of mental ill health are MORE PRODUCTIVE and that is what an employer cares about. Why would they higher someone at the same price who is less effficient?

NOW

The MP was stating that is a serious problem within the work force, because that model in particular makes life incredibly tough to get a job. The situation many people who have come out of prison face. What he suggested was this.

For a trial period, someone who is willing to work for less than the minimum wage, should be entitled to do so, as is there right to work for less IN ORDER TO SECURE THE EMPLOYMENT to show an employer they are indeed just as productive, and once said trial period is over there wages would reflect the minimum wage. Why is that wrong?

He also mentiond in his speech people who live on minimum wage is completely ludicrous, as that is essentialy the minimum amount of money it is thought that you can survive on, and they tax you on it, lol what?. But you dont see the newspaper highliting that point. Also it was kinda lulzy one of the largest mental health charities in the country started saying he was completely out of order, his comments were a disgrace etc to which he replied, WHY DO YOU YOURSELVES PAY YOUR DISABLED WORKERS LESS THEN? LOL. Hypocrit scum.

The MP was essentialy calling for people to review the situation in order to help those with disabilitys mental or otherwise find gainfull employment. He just may have chosen his words a bit better. And as such knee jerk reactions fly everywhere as everyone decide to believe what they read in the godamn MAIN STREAM F***-ING MEDIA.

edit on 17-6-2011 by Johnze because: (no reason given)

Perhaps it was taken out of context but he did say it and he not only meant it but he added to it by saying it also applied to other people. Essentially he was saying scrap the minimum wage.

Would not have been so bad if he led by example and worked at less than the minimum wage as an MP. I am sure many people would love to have his job and would be prepared to do it for next to nothing.

The problem with this MP's idea is that by allowing people with a history of poor mental health to bargain away their legal rights in their quest for employment, many of them still won't be able to escape the social security system when they take up employment. Because they'll have to claim benefits to top up their wages in order to pay their rent, council tax, exemptions for health benefits etc etc.

And while many will go into employment with high hopes, when faced with the reality of modern working life I can see many giving up work within only a few weeks because they'd be no better off than if they sat on their backsides all day. And that'd leave the employer with a staff member down and even more reluctant to employ such people ever again.

Originally posted by Niall197
The problem with this MP's idea is that by allowing people with a history of poor mental health to bargain away their legal rights in their quest for employment, many of them still won't be able to escape the social security system when they take up employment. Because they'll have to claim benefits to top up their wages in order to pay their rent, council tax, exemptions for health benefits etc etc.

And while many will go into employment with high hopes, when faced with the reality of modern working life I can see many giving up work within only a few weeks because they'd be no better off than if they sat on their backsides all day. And that'd leave the employer with a staff member down and even more reluctant to employ such people ever again.

The problem is that the Government is trying to do away with sickness and disability except for the most sever cases and the majority of disabled and sick people are being pushed on to time limited ESA and then means tested and many pushed on to JSA competing in the market place for volunteer jobs and working for your dole.

The same argument against the minimum wage and paying the poor more has always been something the rich and business owners have always used. But when they do pay people more the money circulates in the economy and everyone is better off. When they try to reduce everyone's wage to slave labour the slaves have no spare money to buy the goods and services of of all these rich business people and eventually if they can find on new markets their businesses slump and go out of business.

The aim of the elite now is to push people in the west down to the level of those working for slave wages in the third world, and while the middle classes and the poor fight amongst themselves over who is getting the extra crumbs from the rich mans table they rip everyone off.

reply to post by Exuberant1


That is common battlecry, label one a commie.
Not all people with one arm should have to work, although some do.
And half a brain?
C'mon find a better argument.
Or were you referring to the stupid people, because I know plenty of them who make much more than they are worth.

That MP had a cheek asking people to work for less than the minimum wage when his and his fellow leeches are on pensions which would make even a lottery winner green with envy. They even have the cheek to tell public servants who are proposing to strike that they have to economise for the sake of the nation. I don't see MP's leading by example-

www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by Niall197


You are exactly right. I am on disability and while it is much better now, for years there was no point to working. I was only able to make $200 per month and 25 cents on the dollar after that. What incentive is that? Fortunately my government has made changes to this system and I am now working and doing relatively well. However if the UK has a system like we used to have, it will only cause disabled people to not even try working. Why work for 8 hours a day if you can't get ahead? It is easy to become dejected with a system like that. And as others have pointed out, if this were allowed, employers WILL fire the disabled workers at the end of the trial period.

reply to post by Johnze


I think we shall just have to agree to disagree here.

You believe it is right for a disabled person to agree to work for less than an employee without a disability, trial period or not.

I on the other hand do not agree, and no amount of rationale from an opposing angle will make me change my mind.

So the article is mainstream, and has been in your opinion "spun" to be sensational, well guess what I'm sure that the charity he said that he consulted with didn't have in mind the same notion that he did when he approached them to discuss the issues surrounding the disabled securing employment.

So you would have approached this thread differently. First off the title is the title of the article, as sepcified by the terms of posting in the breaking news section.

Secondly, how you perceive that I should have responded to the article is not for you to say, as it is I who posted the thread, then it is I who shall decide what questons, and perception I wish to pose in the my opinion portion.

You can disagree as much as you like, it is welcomed at ATS to deny ignorance as you well know. It is not however your place to allude to how I should approach any given subject matter, because it opposes your viewpoint.

So please just agree to disagree with me, its not that I don't see the angle you are coming from, or have a miscomprehension in your argument it is that I disagree with your rationale, just as you disagree with mine.

If this is in any way differcult for you to accept, then the issue is yours

Regards .

what is the point of haveing a min wage.
if you dont stick with it?
? disabled are only half a human?
so they get half of the min wahe?
And what is HIS wage?
min wage * 20 ?
you can get 40 disabled people for that.
and they would give a hell of a beter job.

reply to post by AlphaBetaGammaX


Thanks for explaining it properly. I think most have failed to grasp what is being sugested.

And there is already positive discrimination in the workplace in UK. The Police came under pressure to hire more ethnic minority officers, so they did.

Tony Blair wanted more women in politics so womend were chosen to stand for parliament over men who might have been better.

And companies by law are supposed to have a certain percentage of disabled people on the books.

In my view anybody who wants to work for less than minimum wage or indeed for nothing should have the right to do so, since there are already forces preventing them from entering the workplace and gaining the EXPERIENCE which is required to apply for the next position.

Indeed people finding it hard to get a job are advised to consider doing voluntary work as a way building up some sort of history they can use on their cv. So I don't see what the difference is. I'd rather do voluntary in the sector I am trying to get a proper job.

If I was hiring and somebody was so keen as to offer to do this I would think very highly of them. There are too mnay folk who can't be bothered working at all and are sent to interviews by the Job Centre as per the rules. The candidate has no intention of taking the job they are just there wasting everyones time, and sometimes companies are given incentives to hire these wasters just to get them off the jobless numbers and the civil servants can clap themselves on the back for doing such a great job.

it would be interesting to hear from persons who are the focus of this post rather than an mp or charity for that matter. i considered this topic throughout the day and spoke with a disabled person on the situation. they went through the grindstone that is the work capability test and informed me the test exacerbated the physical disabilities already present. anyway the reply came back that this could become a charter for hiring and firing if and when the employer is approached after a possible agreed probation period.
so, is this the only barrier that is hindering employers from taking on disabled people, the minimum wage?
btw i do my bit for the not so well off, unpaid of course.
f

This is just offering one minority group up to be exploited by those who would otherwise discriminate against them because they belong to a minority group.

Why did he not just suggest affirmative action instead? This whole concept rewards discrimination.

Someone can be in a wheelchair and still be highly skilled.. the term disabled can mean a hundred different things. Someone can also be a woman or black or albino and still be highly skilled.. but if a potential boss is a bigot he/she might assume them inferior regardless of how they might prove themselves in a trial. If you're going to allow peoples' prejudices to dictate what kind of person is worthy of minumum award wages you may as well argue away their right to vote as well because their vote is not worth the same as a "normal" person's.

Hopefully alot less people will be voting for this guy in the future.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by solargeddon

 

.

As far as the issue with the disabled specifically, if you are going to have a minimum wage policy then all workers should be entitled to that wage. Companys of course should be under no compulsion to hire any disabled workers. If there is public policy that requires private firms to hire the disabled then the forcing of minimum wage upon them is unjust.

With many of these comments about how the disabled are equal to folks fortunate enough not to have disabilities, if that were the case they would not be classified as being disabled. People who are hired at the lowest end of the employment spectrum are often hired for potential. The person bagging grocerys makes it and moves on to stocking shelves, then working in the warehouse, what ever. As a result of that potential, they are more valuable and as a result worth more to the employer. Being worth more they should be paid more

First of I am disabled; I have three different disablities. I am equal to anyone simply because I am human and therefore all humans are created equally. The problem with your mind set is you think of people in terms of a caste or class system. I have bachelors in communications and business, a Master's in psychology why should I accept less money? I can do my job at 30 hours a week or from home no problem. I only get sick when I work 35-50 hours per week and that is the main reason I am on disablity I also get sick if I work too many hours in a day(usually more than 4 away from home). I would never want to work for a company who thinks of me as an asset or liablity. I am human being and therefore should be treated as such. The problem with the coperate system is that is all about the mighty dollar or their "god" so to speak. I am sorry to say but I think coperatism/capitlism has almost become a religion and money a "god". How much more do the real human beings of this planet have to put up with before we say ENOUGH!
As a disabled person I still have the same bills, I still have to pay them so unless I am forgiven for a lot of my bills I would never EVER work for less than what I think I am worth. Of course right now I do technically make $15-20 per hour but I only work as needed which is about 15 hours per week actual work time. I can see how most employers discriminate against those with a disablity but that is their problem not mine.
Why do we give businesses and companies so much freedom but fail to protect the "little guy"?

As some one already stated, why dont these free loadiing millionair MPs dip into their own pockets instead of leeching off the working class. Its not like they are representing the people, they are representing thier rich cronies who have companys. We need a revolution in this country, unfortunately the sheople are glued to the box watching the soaps ect. I think this summer will be a hot one in more ways than the weather. And when ever I view these MPs at work all they seem to do is shout a load of rubbish at the other side, which in reality is the same side. They look and act like a load of cripples hissing a booing like a bucnh of snakes, which they all are. Yes our sons are fighting in the afghan so that girls can go to school while here at home they are closing schoools down to lack of funds. And when our sons are injured they can come home and be made to work for a pittance.
What a shame our govt is.....