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

originally posted by: TheToastmanCometh
a reply to: gortex

As a disabled person, i'd love to do the fancy 'take off the glove and slap his face with it'. His apology is crap...and i'm American.

I suggest he either donate a good chunk of his salary to disability groups, volunteer/work with actual disabled people, or both. And not for a day...a good solid week or two, even better a month.

Not a bad idea at all..and he could also take a cue from another dick MP who said he could live on 50 quid a week and do just that. And wassat? £0.89 per hour! Then maybe, just maybe there will be enough saved to buy a Bike to get onto.

Hb
Not sure how to get a smaller image, so used the original 😜

a reply to: woodwardjnr

I suspect that the immigration pool of cheap labour has finally started to show signs of drying up and so n ow - the mentally ill are to fill odd jobs that every town needs to be done - and of course if people can b e given less than the minimum wage no end of companies will try to get away with it.

The government, by alowing pittance pay makes it easy for corporations to increase their profits by having low wage bills and part-timers sho no holiday or sick pay required. One has to remember that the politicians all have to put their money somewhere and if its not in property or antiques etc it goes into corporations shares - which means anything to damage the profit margin such as paying higher wages means lower dividends for the politicians and wealthy especially the elite.

People forget that a number of politicians are executive directors on no end of companies and get huge retainers and other perks. There is no end of directorships politicians can hold. I have noted, even when they declare an 'interest' it never means they cannot influence decisions or are taken off specific committees making our laws etc.

I was annoyed to see david cameron taking the moral high ground over disabled people. He sits on a government where it was exposed that the government used a firm to do its best to qualify giving the lowest levels of Disability Living Allowance to disabled people. If you can stagger to the bathroom from your bed or settee, you can walk fine so lowest level. It is a disgusting means of cheating people who are genuinely disabled.

I found his passionate response to milliband about the disabled quite disgusting, because with his wealth he could use private health care and probably has it. I doubt his disabled family go short of anything they require, whilst many can't access the funds to help them have just the necessities they need.

I don't buy Lord Freud's Oh dear it was a question I shouldn't have taken on. I think he knew exactly what he was saying and he meant every word. It is right that some mental illnesses make employment very tricky but surely we have a society where we try to make people who want to work feel they have the opportunity and backup they need. We have so many unemployed that we spare capacity to back up people even on a voluntary basis. I take the point that some mental illnesses do make people unemployable and nothing can change that.

Leaving aside all the boo-hoo anti-free speech crowd for a moment...

He's right. Isn't he?

Certain disabled people can't do enough work to earn the minimum wage. My unfortunate cousin is one (kitesurfing). Their lives might be improved if they could do some work. So, it's worth considering a scheme where a firm pays them what their work is worth (for example 2/hr) and the tax-payer kicks in the rest. So the employer, the disabled people, and the country as a whole all benefit.

a reply to: supermouse
I think it's more the tone in which he answered the question, implying that disabled people had less worth. Before my stroke, but still with a terminal brain tumour, I was doing voluntary work a few days a week for a couple of different organisations. It was extremely valuable to me and I aim to get back to doing it, if and when my walking improves. I was still being paid a small amount of DLA a month. The thing is everyone's disabilities are different and you run the risk of being exploited. Is it really too much to ask? Looking after disabled people in our community? Do you really look at your wage packet and question where every bit of your tax goes. When I was working I never looked at my tax deduction and get angry that some would go to support the disabled or go to build schools for kids I didn't have and hospitals. I saw it as the price to pay for living in a modern decent society. Why is everyone all of a sudden lumping all benefits recipients together and questioning,who is entitled to what? Why are we targeting the most vulnerable in society, rather than directing our ire against the real crooks who caused the mess in the first place. Ask yourself that. People have been brain washed to blame anyone but the real culprits. Isn't that strange? Anyway, I'll not be dancing to the governments tune or the readers of right wing press, who seek to divide us into little camps. Not for me, not when it's perfectly clear it was the policies of governments and unscrupulous banking institutions that caused this mess.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: supermouse
I think it's more the tone in which he answered the question, implying that disabled people had less worth. Before my stroke, but still with a terminal brain tumour, I was doing voluntary work a few days a week for a couple of different organisations. It was extremely valuable to me and I aim to get back to doing it, if and when my walking improves. I was still being paid a small amount of DLA a month. The thing is everyone's disabilities are different and you run the risk of being exploited. Is it really too much to ask? Looking after disabled people in our community? Do you really look at your wage packet and question where every bit of your tax goes. When I was working I never looked at my tax deduction and get angry that some would go to support the disabled or go to build schools for kids I didn't have and hospitals. I saw it as the price to pay for living in a modern decent society. Why is everyone all of a sudden lumping all benefits recipients together and questioning,who is entitled to what? Why are we targeting the most vulnerable in society, rather than directing our ire against the real crooks who caused the mess in the first place. Ask yourself that. People have been brain washed to blame anyone but the real culprits. Isn't that strange? Anyway, I'll not be dancing to the government school or the readers of right wing press, who seek to divide us into little camps. Not for me, not when it's perfectly clear it was the policies of governments and unscrupulous banking institutions that caused this mess.

Sorry to hear about your health problems.

I think targeting the most vulnerable people for help was the intention. The idea was if your disability was too great for you to get a normal job, you still might like to be free to work for less. A sort of middle ground between your voluntary work (allowed) and minimum wage work (allowed). Currently, working for 5 pounds an hour is prohibited.

I wonder ........ What one of the greatest minds of the latter 20th and now 21st century would think Stephen Hawking

Anything coming from a Tory or a Tory Voters mouth is going to be riddled with stupidity and abuse but unfortunately the Tories and the right wing in general seem to have a penchant for abuse.... usually child abuse with racial and ageist abuse mixed in...

a reply to: supermouse

He's right. Isn't he?

No , he isn't right.

Certain disabled people can't do enough work to earn the minimum wage.

Then they should be looked after and paid enough in benefits to live life to a decent standard , day centers should be reopened and funded to give the people that need them something to do and somewhere go.
How is it we can afford to waste billions on a weapon we will never use (Trident) and a rail line that most agree is a bad idea (HS2) yet we can't afford to look after the most vulnerable in our society.

The views of the Lord were not made with the benefit of the disabled in mind rather employers who could get some cheap labour of the back of them , his views are abhorrent and typical of the ruling class.

a reply to: supermouse
You are obviously very naive to the Tory Ethos... without human rights this would be a forced policy used by employers for cheap/slave labour.

originally posted by: supermouse
Leaving aside all the boo-hoo anti-free speech crowd for a moment...

He's right. Isn't he?

Certain disabled people can't do enough work to earn the minimum wage. My unfortunate cousin is one (kitesurfing). Their lives might be improved if they could do some work. So, it's worth considering a scheme where a firm pays them what their work is worth (for example 2/hr) and the tax-payer kicks in the rest. So the employer, the disabled people, and the country as a whole all benefit.

By saying someone with a disability is not worth paying the minimum wage too, immediately makes that disable person feel that are not good enough.

They would look at themselves as either a second class or under class individual.

Can you not see what damage this idiot Freud can course to people with disabilities ?

Maybe he needs to put his brain into gear before he opens his mouth.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: supermouse

He's right. Isn't he?

No , he isn't right.

Certain disabled people can't do enough work to earn the minimum wage.

Then they should be looked after and paid enough in benefits to live life to a decent standard , day centers should be reopened and funded to give the people that need them something to do and somewhere go.
How is it we can afford to waste billions on a weapon we will never use (Trident) and a rail line that most agree is a bad idea (HS2) yet we can't afford to look after the most vulnerable in our society.

The views of the Lord were not made with the benefit of the disabled in mind rather employers who could get some cheap labour of the back of them , his views are abhorrent and typical of the ruling class.

I think the disabled already get decent benefits and agree that the government spends a lot of money needlessly on other things (much higher spending and higher taxes than the previous government). I don't think he was suggesting the disabled benefits should stop.

What they were discussing was to help some severely disabled people work if they choose to.

Sadly, as you say, any scheme would probably be exploited both by companies seeking cheap labour and overpaid public sector workers administering it.

Still, it's a nice idea if you can get round these problems. Maybe a charity employing people and using donations to make up the difference between the value of their work and minimum wage? Would have the same effect without the government being involved.

There is such a broad range of disabilities,
I have a niece who is severely disabled, and could never hold employment,
yet someone like Steven Hawkins, deserves more renumeration than most of us.

There are many abled bodied people who are not worth their wage, specifically those in government jobs in certain countries.

Some disabled people may not be viable workers, they may not deserve minimum wage, but they, as humans, certainly deserve compassion and care.(which may well exceed minimum wage).

If we are not able to care for the disabled, then we, ourselves are disabled, or unable.

The man is a horrible piece of crap, to be honest he deserves a bloody good kicking....and I'd be happy to oblige.

But is it any wonder that we have a man who comes from an incredibly privileged background and is as removed from the lives of ordinary people as can possibly be has such an uncaring attitude towards the most vulnerable in our society?
Like most from this particular social grouping, who just happen to dominate big business, politics and senior positions within the police, military and Civil Service, he seems incapable of genuine empathy or social awareness and responsibility.

Before turning his hand to politics he quite unsurprisingly worked 'in the city' where;

his career in the city has been described as "morally ambiguous". Whilst working in the City of London he was called by a colleague the "Fraud Squad" because of his ability to "heavily promote new share issues that subsequently tanked."

en.wikipedia.org...

Amazingly the morally defunct Tony Blair asked him to review the welfare sector despite him having absolutely zero experience of it at all.
His subsequent report is recognised as the blueprint for the current governments policies on welfare reform etc;

In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008 his policies have been described as "making the poor pay for the risk-taking of the rich

He seems to be quite a particularly odious individual even by current politicians standards.

I'm not surprised at all that he doesn't see the need to resign - how many politicians do so nowadays? - but I find it appalling that Cameron, himself a parent of a disabled son, hasn't sacked him immediately.

As for the voters remembering - even if they do so what?
He's a Lord - a member of the upper chamber, the one the people have absolutely no say over whatsoever.
That any unelected person can be in such a position of power in the first place is an absolute disgrace and it needs reforming as a matter of priority.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: smurfy


Still and all, No10 is not in a sacking mode...yet.

They never are. Not until enough public outrage has been vented to force the issue.

Not until it affects the poll ratings. Because its all about appearances, reality has nothing to do with it.

You are kidding of course..the whole of Westminster government itself is in outrage right across the board, not just any opposition, there have even been 'quiet' apologies between parties where one side has accused, (wrongly) a current government MP of talking in the same frame as Freud. Correct info wrong man? I don't know.

No, you are kidding of course. Pretending to be outraged and being outraged are two different things.
With a general election around the corner they have appearances to maintain.
Narcissists are incapable of compassion.

originally posted by: DreamerOracle
I wonder

....

.... What one of the greatest minds of the latter 20th and now 21st century would think Stephen Hawking

Anything coming from a Tory or a Tory Voters mouth is going to be riddled with stupidity and abuse but unfortunately the Tories and the right wing in general seem to have a penchant for abuse.... usually child abuse with racial and ageist abuse mixed in...

Thats not confined to the tories.
The left wing is just better at pretending to care.
While the tories are more in your face with it.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: supermouse
I think it's more the tone in which he answered the question, implying that disabled people had less worth.

He really didnt. He said that there is a small portion of mentally disabled people that if they were WILLING to work for £2 could do so, he also said he needed to think about the issue, being as he hadnt already.

I cant believe Im defending this guy, BUT the truth is the truth.

HE DID NOT SAY THAT DISABLED PEOPLE ARE WORTH LESS. The only implication is that the value of some peoples LABOUR is less than others, which is self evidently true, otherwise we would all be paid the same wage.

My boss earns a fortune compared to me, does that mean Im less of a human being as a result?

a reply to: OneManArmy
The point of a minimum wage is obviously that it is a minimum. Not that all peoples labour is worth the same but that no ones is worth less than the minimum.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: OneManArmy
The point of a minimum wage is obviously that it is a minimum. Not that all peoples labour is worth the same but that no ones is worth less than the minimum.

Yes that is a very fair point.

But the alternative is no employment at all.

Given the option between someone who has half the productivity of a fully able person and someone who has full productivity regardless of ability or disability, the employer will ALMOST ALWAYS take the more productive person when he has to pay them both the same. This ultimately ends in the less productive members of society being consigned to the trash heap of society, unable to get employment anywhere. Its just not good business sense to pay a full wage to someone whose productivity doesnt cover the costs. Thats the brutal truth of it. I know it sounds horrible and mean, buts its the reality of the world we live in. Dont like it, change the world.

As a disabled person he does have a point. I would not be worth what other workers are for many reasons; I would be slower, absent more often, incapable of certain tasks, etc. I don't take it personally, it's just they way things are. I am fortunate to have a spouse who has a good job otherwise I would be homeless on what social security pays.

The issue as I see it is that many people with disabilities want to return to work but are penalized for doing so. That is counter-productive in my mind. If instead of paying through social security how about government pays employers a little to cover the loss in productivity? That way the disabled can try to work, still make a living wage and hold their heads up knowing they are doing what they can to contribute to society.

Disability is a long spiral downward. The less active you are the less you can do in the long run. Not only do we lose our sense of self-respect and pride but our bodies atrophy at the same time. Add to that the loss of social contact that most experience at the work place and you have a recipe for slow death. I'm really beginning to feel like it's catching up with me. I know I can never be "normal" again but like anyone what I want most is a sense of normalcy, to feel like I fit in with the broader outside world. That's probably the biggest reason I stay online as much as I do in an effort to remain socialized.

There's usually a better way than what government gives us but somebody might lose a dollar here or there so forget it. I wouldn't be too harsh on the man, he was being candid which is more than can be said of many politicians. I for one would rather be slightly offended than lied to. We need more truthful politicians than we need PC ones who dare not open their mouths for fear of offending someone or some group.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
As a disabled person he does have a point. I would not be worth what other workers are for many reasons; I would be slower, absent more often, incapable of certain tasks, etc. I don't take it personally, it's just they way things are. I am fortunate to have a spouse who has a good job otherwise I would be homeless on what social security pays.

The issue as I see it is that many people with disabilities want to return to work but are penalized for doing so. That is counter-productive in my mind. If instead of paying through social security how about government pays employers a little to cover the loss in productivity? That way the disabled can try to work, still make a living wage and hold their heads up knowing they are doing what they can to contribute to society.

Disability is a long spiral downward. The less active you are the less you can do in the long run. Not only do we lose our sense of self-respect and pride but our bodies atrophy at the same time. Add to that the loss of social contact that most experience at the work place and you have a recipe for slow death. I'm really beginning to feel like it's catching up with me. I know I can never be "normal" again but like anyone what I want most is a sense of normalcy, to feel like I fit in with the broader outside world. That's probably the biggest reason I stay online as much as I do in an effort to remain socialized.

There's usually a better way than what government gives us but somebody might lose a dollar here or there so forget it. I wouldn't be too harsh on the man, he was being candid which is more than can be said of many politicians. I for one would rather be slightly offended than lied to. We need more truthful politicians than we need PC ones who dare not open their mouths for fear of offending someone or some group.

Now thats what Im talking about!!!

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.
But there would certainly have to be very stringent checks and balances to prevent these companies from exploiting disabled people.
I dont want to see the situation we have now, where we have people on wages so low they are topped up by benefits, so that the execs and shareholders can take vast sums in wages, bonuses and dividends while at the same time taking handouts from government, exploiting ALL low skilled labour.