View Full Version : Should less abled people be used as a source of cheap labour? This Tory MP thinks so
Tory backbench MP Phillip Davies has come up with the remarkable suggestion (http://forum.caithness.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=11) that "vulnerable" jobseekers - including disabled people - should be allowed to work for less than the minimum wage.
He states that "..Firms were likely to favour other candidates and MPs should not "stand in the way" of those who wanted to work for less to get on the jobs ladder.."
Surely in 2011 we should not have to put up with these judgemental prejudices.
Fortunately this is not Government policy. A spokesman for the Conservative Party said: "..These comments do not reflect the views of the Conservative Party..".
But don't forget that this government are masters at U-Turns (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jun/08/david-cameron-justice-u-turn)so it will come as no surprise to me if the CBI ask for the Minimum Wage to be "reviewed"
John Little
17-Jun-11, 16:51
In a word 'No.'
It invites exploitation, inequality and profiteering. Edward Heath called it the unacceptable face of Capitalism and no decent conservative would have anything to do with it.
Tories are another matter - but then again they have never been one party but two for their entire existence, and at one time, three.
NickInTheNorth
17-Jun-11, 17:00
believe me, for Phil Davies that is quite a moderate viewpoint, I had the pleasure of being at university with him. He's not exactly on the left of the conservative party :)
believe me, for Phil Davies that is quite a moderate viewpoint, I had the pleasure of being at university with him. He's not exactly on the left of the conservative party :)
He stands a little to the right of Attilla the Hun.:eek:
NickInTheNorth
17-Jun-11, 17:21
He stands a little to the right of Attilla the Hun.:eek:
No, a lot to the right - allegedly
John Little
17-Jun-11, 17:26
believe me, for Phil Davies that is quite a moderate viewpoint, I had the pleasure of being at university with him. He's not exactly on the left of the conservative party :)
Pleasure Nick? It's a wonder he made it through...
I think what he said was...If two people, One disabled and one non disabled went for a job, the majority of times the non disabled person would be picked.....
Disabled people seem to want to work, but find it difficult in this complex World...so he would give them the option.
It's really akin to 'dwarf throwning'...The little people love it as they can make good money, whereas society frowns on it..... Or hookers/ prostitutes plying their trade. 'People' want to stop it, but some women choose to do it.
I make no judgements on the rights and wrongs of it.......just try and see the objectivity!
Bobinovich
17-Jun-11, 17:38
Fully expect to have my head chewed off here but IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES where someone is in a viscious circle - say suffering from depression and having been on long term unemployment and unable to get a regular job because they know their depression might mean them having to take sick leave at any time, OR is disabled and doubts they can work at a pace which would satisfy an employer, but in both situations they WANTED to work for less (while still in receipt of suitable benefits) to give them some self-confidence and/or experience to get them (back) into work & it's associated social aspects, much the same as some who volunteer for charitable work, or are part of similar 'back to work' voluntary schemes THEN, and only then,would I not have a problem with it.
Fully expect to have my head chewed off here but IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES where someone is in a viscious circle - say suffering from depression and having been on long term unemployment and unable to get a regular job because they know their depression might mean them having to take sick leave at any time, OR is disabled and doubts they can work at a pace which would satisfy an employer, but in both situations they WANTED to work for less (while still in receipt of suitable benefits) to give them some self-confidence and/or experience to get them (back) into work & it's associated social aspects, much the same as some who volunteer for charitable work, or are part of similar 'back to work' voluntary schemes THEN, and only then,would I not have a problem with it.
Well said, but you could have said same without the highlights.......It's a choice that people make on their own....why punish those who want to do something good for themselves and society!
weezer 316
17-Jun-11, 17:46
Fully expect to have my head chewed off here but IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES where someone is in a viscious circle - say suffering from depression and having been on long term unemployment and unable to get a regular job because they know their depression might mean them having to take sick leave at any time, OR is disabled and doubts they can work at a pace which would satisfy an employer, but in both situations they WANTED to work for less (while still in receipt of suitable benefits) to give them some self-confidence and/or experience to get them (back) into work & it's associated social aspects, much the same as some who volunteer for charitable work, or are part of similar 'back to work' voluntary schemes THEN, and only then,would I not have a problem with it.
Yeah some good points there.
John Little
17-Jun-11, 17:54
What sort of employer would wish to pay such a person less?
NickInTheNorth
17-Jun-11, 17:55
no-one should be forced to work for any wage that is less than that required to live on. Given that the idea behind the minimum wage is that it is the lowest viable living wage then no-one should be allowed to work for less.
And if someone is able to do the job they should be paid the going rate. If they are not capable of doing the job why employ them? People with disabilities should be treated with humanity and dignity, and should not be expected to be paid less for doing the same as an able bodied person.
There is so much discrimination in this benighted country that it makes me ashamed to be british.
Tory backbench MP Phillip Davies has come up with the remarkable suggestion (http://forum.caithness.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=11) that "vulnerable" jobseekers - including disabled people - should be allowed to work for less than the minimum wage.
He states that "..Firms were likely to favour other candidates and MPs should not "stand in the way" of those who wanted to work for less to get on the jobs ladder.."
Surely in 2011 we should not have to put up with these judgemental prejudices.
Fortunately this is not Government policy. A spokesman for the Conservative Party said: "..These comments do not reflect the views of the Conservative Party..".
But don't forget that this government are masters at U-Turns (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jun/08/david-cameron-justice-u-turn)so it will come as no surprise to me if the CBI ask for the Minimum Wage to be "reviewed"
I know what i would say to him. Can't repeat on here. i would get a ban.
Fully expect to have my head chewed off here but IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES where someone is in a viscious circle - say suffering from depression and having been on long term unemployment and unable to get a regular job because they know their depression might mean them having to take sick leave at any time, OR is disabled and doubts they can work at a pace which would satisfy an employer, but in both situations they WANTED to work for less (while still in receipt of suitable benefits) to give them some self-confidence and/or experience to get them (back) into work & it's associated social aspects, much the same as some who volunteer for charitable work, or are part of similar 'back to work' voluntary schemes THEN, and only then,would I not have a problem with it.
Why would an employer, employ, some one who is disabled. Who cannot do the work,and they would not employ in the first place. But then do a u turn, to get cheap labour
no-one should be forced to work for any wage that is less than that required to live on. Given that the idea behind the minimum wage is that it is the lowest viable living wage then no-one should be allowed to work for less.
And if someone is able to do the job they should be paid the going rate. If they are not capable of doing the job why employ them? People with disabilities should be treated with humanity and dignity, and should not be expected to be paid less for doing the same as an able bodied person.
There is so much discrimination in this benighted country that it makes me ashamed to be british.
Wow...you say treat then with humanity and dignity....And then....Why employ them!!!!! So don't give them a job at all! That is even worse discrimination.
They could be employed at a lesser position.
Wow...you say treat then with humanity and dignity....And then....Why employ them!!!!! So don't give them a job at all! That is even worse discrimination.
They could be employed at a lesser position.
You sound, like your talking about, a lesser being.
NickInTheNorth
17-Jun-11, 18:19
Wow...you say treat then with humanity and dignity....And then....Why employ them!!!!! So don't give them a job at all! That is even worse discrimination.
They could be employed at a lesser position.
No, I simply say that if you are going to employ someone to do a job then they should be paid the rate for the job. If someone is not good enough to do the job then they should not have the job. That applies to everyone regardless of any disability.
Obviously some on here cannot understand......
Most disabled people are on some type of Benefit....physical or whatever.
Why not give them an opportunity to feel good about themselves, feel they are a benefit to Society and just to keep themselves busy. So perhaps pay them the equivalent of making up their benefits, so that they would enjoy a normal wage.
Is that too difficult to understand........oh, and to the person who asked about..the Employer....doing such a thing...It does occur!
Obviously some on here cannot understand......
Most disabled people are on some type of Benefit....physical or whatever.
Why not give them an opportunity to feel good about themselves, feel they are a benefit to Society and just to keep themselves busy. So perhaps pay them the equivalent of making up their benefits, so that they would enjoy a normal wage.
Is that too difficult to understand........oh, and to the person who asked about..the Employer....doing such a thing...It does occur!
I understand. Only too well.
Why should any person, be exploited.
I was not asking if this happens. It was more of a statement.
If the person can do the job, they should get paid the advertised rate.
Shall we start sending children, up the chimneys again.
If they are unable to do the full job, should they be locked away! Ask those who are disabled...I should qualify that, truly disabled, if they want to sit at home and do nothing....Simple answer....No. They say....Give me something to do!
NickInTheNorth
17-Jun-11, 18:42
sandyr1 - you clearly know very little about the world, disability, benefits, and basic humanity.
To say that "most" disabled people are on some type of benefit has no factual basis.
To say that disabled people should be allowed to take slave wages to make them feel good about themselves is patronizing beyond belief.
Everyone, man or woman, able bodied or not, learning impaired or not should be treated with dignity and humanity. No-one should ever be expected to take a job on a slave wage to make them "feel they are a benefit to society".
Employers should take the opportunity to employ the right person for every job. They should rejoice in the diversity available to choose from. People are people, they should not be stigmatized and labeled as "less abled". We are all individuals capable of doing what we are able to do, and selection for employment should be made purely on the ability to do a particular job. Not on some shortsighted bigotry. Or willingness to debase oneself and accept less than the rate for the job.
John Little
17-Jun-11, 18:42
For some reason I have lost interest in this thread.
If they are unable to do the full job, should they be locked away! Ask those who are disabled...I should qualify that, truly disabled, if they want to sit at home and do nothing....Simple answer....No. They say....Give me something to do!
I am one of those TRULY disabled. I cannot work. Even if i wanted to.
Locked away?
Can't be bothered with you.
I am one of those TRULY disabled. I cannot work. Even if i wanted to.
Locked away?
Can't be bothered with you.
FYI...For many months after a car accident I was unable to do my job, but I did take something of lesser value to keep life going.....
And in truly disabled, I did not mean a person who is incapable of doing anything......If one can do some type of work and wants to do it, they should be allowed.
To each one's own!
I know quite a few disabled and disadvantaged people up and down the length and breadth of the UK. The one thing they all agree on is that they should not be classed as second class citizens, they should be given a level playing field when it comes to job selection, if they are not good enough then so be it but their disability should not come into the selection process!
Only a Tory could come up with this degrading idea, what next, the same for Women because they might want time off to see to their sick children or have a few months off to have a baby?
This Govt is trying to take us back into the dark ages, it will be small boys working up chimneys and in dark mills before long.
And of course the Tory supporters on here wonder why we are so passionate to get independence, its to get as far away from this discrimination as far as possible.
I wonder if they paid David Blunkett less than minimum wage when he was an MP?
Today is a sad day to be called British !!
C3.......[disgust][disgust][disgust]
1 and watt, come to mind.
I know quite a few disabled and disadvantaged people up and down the length and breadth of the UK. The one thing they all agree on is that they should not be classed as second class citizens, they should be given a level playing field when it comes to job selection, if they are not good enough then so be it but their disability should not come into the selection process!
Only a Tory could come up with this degrading idea, what next, the same for Women because they might want time off to see to their sick children or have a few months off to have a baby?
This Govt is trying to take us back into the dark ages, it will be small boys working up chimneys and in dark mills before long.
And of course the Tory supporters on here wonder why we are so passionate to get independence, its to get as far away from this discrimination as far as possible.
I wonder if they paid David Blunkett less than minimum wage when he was an MP?
Today is a sad day to be called British !!
C3.......[disgust][disgust][disgust]
So very true, but oft times the level playing field is not so level..... Look at the people waiting for their severance and proper pay, on one of these threads. Life is not fair, but we have to go on!
I think what he said was...If two people, One disabled and one non disabled went for a job, the majority of times the non disabled person would be picked.....
Disabled people seem to want to work, but find it difficult in this complex World...so he would give them the option.
It's really akin to 'dwarf throwning'...The little people love it as they can make good money, whereas society frowns on it..... Or hookers/ prostitutes plying their trade. 'People' want to stop it, but some women choose to do it.
I make no judgements on the rights and wrongs of it.......just try and see the objectivity!Please read my initial comments. I just try to see some objectivity in. Something is better than nothing!
And FYI the original wording is...FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO WORK. Seems a wee bitty strange that those in such disgust, would deny a person their basic Human Rights to be free to do as they Wish.......and be a Productive member of Society....
I see the one's who 'chickened out' of the discussion, have gone to Chickens in the Garden! C'est la vie.
I see the one's who 'chickened out' of the discussion, have gone to Chickens in the Garden! C'est la vie.
Have you been on the booze Sandy? I am not surprised you are here on your own, talking to chickens in the garden seems like a good idea after hearing your crap tonight!!!
C3......:roll:[disgust]
I think that in most general circumstances it should be a real wage for for a real job. Although years ago I worked in a council run day centre for people with disabilities and we had lots of little 'social enterprises' going on such as making furniture, laundering footie strips, growing and selling veg and countless other things. Now the place was council run so we weren't allowed to pay wages and we weren't allowed to charge market rates. What we did was set up a charity and the money coming in paid for things like holidays to Blackpool, TV;s and furniture for folk moving into their own homes, clothes etc etc etc. It was the only way to get round the red tape at the time. Well, one day after 20 years of this, Mr Boss man came along and said 'You have to stop all this NOW, it's exploitation', so we did, overnight we shut everything down and the folk sat in front of the telly or played pool all day. Now it's come full circle.
I think it depends what you class as 'disability' and what you class as 'work'. The dole used to have a thing called Therapeutic Earnings which was disregarded on top of benefits, that was done away with too. Who know#s we could argue each side mebye?
Oh for the days of orphans picking oakum.....
Why not make everyone claiming benefit and give them a job to do to earn their money. Who knows we might regenerate Rover; the knitwear factories; the cotton mills; all the things our contry no longer does?
Or- in the light of the pension debates, make all pensioners do work for their pittance- and that would be well below minimum wage.
Oh- and by the way Francis Maude- the Nazi of the Tory party has also been putting his little tuppenceworth into the debate- he wanted to bring back the workhouse in 1991
I would like to think the gubberment would subsidise the cost of getting a "disabled" person up to speed and in a fullfilling role in employment,
Sort of bumping up what they are worth at the time of employment to the minimum wage...then as a helping crutch for a while...incase of it not working out etc...
So everyone gets a chance to get a proper job......not a made up one..
Have you been on the booze Sandy? I am not surprised you are here on your own, talking to chickens in the garden seems like a good idea after hearing your crap tonight!!!C3......:roll:[disgust]. As is the ORG.. When all else fails ' get personal'
a bit out of the depth of the subject here.. but ive noticed with Sam and Ben.. Sam is lazy and dosent want to work.. he wouldn't willingly work if you paid him.. and hes your typical 8 year old..
ben on the other hand who is autistic loves to work.. and wants to be a handyman when he grows up.. hes not decided if its going to be a joiner, plumber or some other trade.. but def. a handy man..
and will bend over backwards to do jobs for me when i ask him.. i highly encourage the disabled that are able to work to work.. i do not like the idea of paying them less.. but saying that i dont agree with paying teens less just because of their age.. i think that pay should be based on ability, willingness, performance and seniority. in my humble opinion i think there should be a single base wage for everyone that is equal.. and rises should be given on the above grounds.. but that is my personal beliefs..
canadagirl
18-Jun-11, 06:47
I've just read this thread and must say I agree with Sandy, tho I don't think it should be made law. I've known able people, including myself, who have worked for free to show willing and able to do a job. They shouldn't be used as cheap labour, but it can do wonders for self confidence to do a job. As long as nobody is forcing anyone to do it employers should have an option to take on someone that they normally wouldn't, for a lower rate, and hopefully would pay the going rate once the person proves themself. :D (There's me thinking everybody is so honourable!)
NickInTheNorth
18-Jun-11, 08:39
I've just read this thread and must say I agree with Sandy, tho I don't think it should be made law. I've known able people, including myself, who have worked for free to show willing and able to do a job. They shouldn't be used as cheap labour, but it can do wonders for self confidence to do a job. As long as nobody is forcing anyone to do it employers should have an option to take on someone that they normally wouldn't, for a lower rate, and hopefully would pay the going rate once the person proves themself. :D (There's me thinking everybody is so honourable!)
Canadagirl - in the UK we have a minimum wage system. Employers must pay at least this rate for any job, for any employee. That being the case exceptions cannot be made for anyone. The legislation views that wage as the minimum rate people should be paid.
Your contention that an employer "should have an option to take on someone that they normally wouldn't, for a lower rate, and hopefully would pay the going rate once the person proves themself" would be acceptable to me, it does not suggest this should be done due to the fact of a disability of some sort. But the discussion is based around the fact that the MP that sparked the debate suggested that someone who has a mental or physical disability of some sort should be able to opt to be paid less simply to get a job. That in my opinion makes a world of difference.
I know quite a few disabled and disadvantaged people up and down the length and breadth of the UK. The one thing they all agree on is that they should not be classed as second class citizens, they should be given a level playing field when it comes to job selection, if they are not good enough then so be it but their disability should not come into the selection process!
Only a Tory could come up with this degrading idea, what next, the same for Women because they might want time off to see to their sick children or have a few months off to have a baby?
This Govt is trying to take us back into the dark ages, it will be small boys working up chimneys and in dark mills before long.
And of course the Tory supporters on here wonder why we are so passionate to get independence, its to get as far away from this discrimination as far as possible.
I wonder if they paid David Blunkett less than minimum wage when he was an MP?
Today is a sad day to be called British !!
C3.......[disgust][disgust][disgust]
So you think Scotland some kind of beacon of non-discrimination? Don't make me laugh.
So you think Scotland some kind of beacon of non-discrimination? Don't make me laugh.
I dont want to make you laugh Duke, I think you quite like being sad!!!.....;)
I do believe that Scotland takes far better care of their sick and disabled than they do elsewhere. I cannot ever think that Alex would ever come up with a suggestion like this one which takes advantage of the disabled and makes them feel even worse about themselves. As I said, most of them just want to be treated the same as everyone else, no better, no worse!!
C3.....;)
weezer 316
18-Jun-11, 14:47
Corrie you are absolutely full of nonsesne sometimes. Did David Cameron come up with this? No. Yet you act like this is tory party policy and will be enacted seemingly as a slight against us ultra-civilised scots who wouldnt dream of ever discrimating against anyone, especially the english who we treat with the utmost respect in this country at all times eh!?
For the record I agree with the idea. At minimum wage 2 people, equally quialified, but one disabled, the disabled candidtate will almost certianly be denied the job on the count of their disabiity. It couldnt be proven but that is the case. We dont live in a perfect world and the unknown factor of someones health can very easily make an emplyer, especially a small one, veer on the side of caution.
Is it right? No of course not, but its the reality of the world. I would say this could only be a temporary arangement though, say 3 months at most, and after such time they should be levelled up.
Its not treating people as second calss citizens, its a chance for disabled people willing to work but unable to get employment to show that they are equally able despite inherint scepticism that clouds peoples views, rightly or wrongly.
Corrie you are absolutely full of nonsesne sometimes. Did David Cameron come up with this? No. Yet you act like this is tory party policy and will be enacted seemingly as a slight against us ultra-civilised scots who wouldnt dream of ever discrimating against anyone, especially the english who we treat with the utmost respect in this country at all times eh!?
For the record I agree with the idea. At minimum wage 2 people, equally quialified, but one disabled, the disabled candidtate will almost certianly be denied the job on the count of their disabiity. It couldnt be proven but that is the case. We dont live in a perfect world and the unknown factor of someones health can very easily make an emplyer, especially a small one, veer on the side of caution.
Is it right? No of course not, but its the reality of the world. I would say this could only be a temporary arangement though, say 3 months at most, and after such time they should be levelled up.
Its not treating people as second calss citizens, its a chance for disabled people willing to work but unable to get employment to show that they are equally able despite inherint scepticism that clouds peoples views, rightly or wrongly.
Who mentioned Cameron? Why dont you read things correctly? Of course you will agree with it Weezle, I didnt expect anything different from you, all Tories feed out of the same bowl dont they?
C3.....[disgust][disgust]
Gordon Bonnet
21-Jun-11, 17:46
I think the disabled should be given the option of working for a short period at a cut rate. Perhaps four quid an hour for a month , so they can prove their worth...employers should not be allowed to serially employ lots of cut price disabled folk. This may give the disabled a gateway into the labour market which has hithertoo been barred by blind prejudice and scepticism.
*edited after further consideration.
NickInTheNorth
21-Jun-11, 17:49
why the "disabled" why not everyone - just because someone is able bodied does not mean they are capable of doing a job. Nasty old Davies hates the minimum wage and sees this as a backdoor means of getting rid!
People should be paid a living wage for any work they undertake.
Gordon Bonnet
21-Jun-11, 18:25
Nick in the North said 'why not everyone'
If life were fair you would have a justifiable point. Sadly though, life is far from 'fair'...the labour market is very difficult to get into now, especially on the bottom rung...that's what those who are working for the minimum wage have a foot upon.
Of course, the less able bodied are handicapped - okay that's a non-p.c. word these days but it's perfectly apt. Any mechanism which temporarily gives them a leg up has merit, and should be trialled in one or two contrasting areas of Britain.
Gordon Bonnet
21-Jun-11, 18:29
I dont want to make you laugh Duke, I think you quite like being sad!!!.....;)
I do believe that Scotland takes far better care of their sick and disabled than they do elsewhere.....
C3.....;)
Largely at the expense of your near neighbours, the English, of whom you all have such a high opinon, no doubt.
I am completely flabbergasted, by some of the coments on this thread. By some utter Dick Heads.
Largely at the expense of your near neighbours, the English, of whom you all have such a high opinon, no doubt.
Who is talking about expense? I am talking about compassion....I do believe that Scots look after their sick and disabled at home better than the English who are too quick to put them into a home or establishment, that goes for their old folk as well!!! In fact, the English could learn from the huge amount of Indian immigrants who come over here and look after their own rather than put them away out of site and out of mind!!
C3......[disgust]
John Little
21-Jun-11, 19:14
What do you base that view on?
Who is talking about expense? I am talking about compassion....I do believe that Scots look after their sick and disabled at home better than the English who are too quick to put them into a home or establishment, that goes for their old folk as well!!! In fact, the English could learn from the huge amount of Indian immigrants who come over here and look after their own rather than put them away out of site and out of mind!!
C3......[disgust]
Aye right C3 have a look here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13573081
What do you base that view on?
My own experience John, here in Scotland and in England....And if you read this......http://www.newsnetscotland.com/scottish-politics/2231-snp-carers-initiative-welcomed-by-charities.html I think you will agree that there is nothing like this in England.
C3.....:)
Aye right C3 have a look here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13573081
Because I love you so much Golach I will dedicate my thousandth (1000) post to you...........
Thats why I said Scots are more than likely to look after the disabled and elderly at home.
C3.....:roll:;)
John Little
21-Jun-11, 19:48
There are carer's forums all over England and Wales. It may be easier to organise a national forum for a nation of 5 million than it is for 52 million but I assure you they do exist. Lots of carers too.
Your assertion puzzles me. I'm trying to see the advantages of a national carer's Parliament but apart from the obvious one- that it looks good for PR- I'm finding it hard to understand its purpose.
I am completely flabbergasted, by some of the coments on this thread. By some utter Dick Heads.
Wowee...Two people couldn't be bothered with this thread now they are back with a vengance....
Careful with your comments ......s//// Cud b construed as quite sexist......naughty!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.