sitsinhedges Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 We can give money, like it's going out of fashion, to overseas dictators and just about anyone who wants a share of our cake, but Freud is reluctant to pay disabled workers in our own country. Cameron isn't supporting Freud. If Freud has done nothing wrong, why is he back-tracking? Freud is a disgrace. How can an employer be expected to pay someone more than the work they produce? How is a more capable employee supposed to feel when only paid the same as one who does less work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Because there's a minimum wage, if they think the other employee is worth more, pay them more, but the one (disabled) on minimum wage is entitled to exactly that....a minimum wage. Or have I got it wrong..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Because there's a minimum wage, if they think the other employee is worth more, pay them more, but the one (disabled) on minimum wage is entitled to exactly that....a minimum wage. Or have I got it wrong..? Only if you believe in slave labour! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 no you aint got it wrong its just rather sad that there are actually people who think that those who have already pulled the short straw in life deserve less than those who came up trumps. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 kdubya - totally agree. Freud doesn't want to show compassion to our own people, who life has already dealt a harsh blow, but is part of a system that gives money to fund the Argentinian Forces, India's moon rockets or merely to grease a few palms abroad. You can make a business case for paying disabled people less, but who would want to do that - apart from Freud and other like minded individuals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Only if you believe in slave labour! Let's face it, minimum wage is slave labour whatever your circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 kdubya - totally agree. Freud doesn't want to show compassion to our own people, who life has already dealt a harsh blow, but is part of a system that gives money to fund the Argentinian Forces, India's moon rockets or merely to grease a few palms abroad. You can make a business case for paying disabled people less, but who would want to do that - apart from Freud and other like minded individuals? Maybe he wanted to actually make them employable. No business is going to choose to employ a disabled person over a more able person if they are going to suffer financial loss as a result. Like it or not businesses are not charities, they exist purely to make a profit and cease to exist without this. I can see a good case for giving businesses incentives to employ the less able but that's another matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amateur Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Surely the point is that the disabled people that Freud is being castigated for cannot do full work, therefore at the moment cannot find any level of employment. His argument was that they should be employed at whatever they are capable of (and thus gain some self-respect), possibly paid at a less than minimum wage, but with the difference between that pay and minimum wage being paid in benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Surely the point is that the disabled people that Freud is being castigated for cannot do full work, therefore at the moment cannot find any level of employment. His argument was that they should be employed at whatever they are capable of (and thus gain some self-respect), possibly paid at a less than minimum wage, but with the difference between that pay and minimum wage being paid in benefit. so why did the govt allow remploy to shut down? nah the man was being crass. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Maybe he wanted to actually make them employable. No business is going to choose to employ a disabled person over a more able person if they are going to suffer financial loss as a result. Like it or not businesses are not charities, they exist purely to make a profit and cease to exist without this. I can see a good case for giving businesses incentives to employ the less able but that's another matter. I believe that's what Freud was getting at, albeit in a poorly constructed way. As far as I can work out he was suggesting the employer pays a figure lower than minimum wage, and there should be a government scheme in place to make up the shortfall. I may be wrong...but it's unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead-Eyed Duck Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 so why did the govt allow remploy to shut down? nah the man was being crass. KW The difficulty with Remploy was that the Remploy factories competed with independent business. In effect they were government owned, and as such the business model was open to criticism. I used to visit many Remploy factories, and without doubt they were good for the workforce, and gave them a meaning for life rather than sat on their backsides collecting benefits. A relative of mine ran a Remploy factory for some years, and his brief was to make as little loss as possible. So, if factories were to employ disabled with the wage bill being met by the employer + government subsidy, then this has to be better than the disabled not being employed (but on benefits) in the real world. It would give them a meaning to real life plus they would associate more with a broader spectrum of the populace. This would of course have the added benefit of the non-disabled population appreciating the disabled as a benefit rather than a burden (as some do). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Let's face it, minimum wage is slave labour whatever your circumstances. about sums it up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amateur Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 The difficulty with Remploy was that the Remploy factories competed with independent business. In effect they were government owned, and as such the business model was open to criticism. I used to visit many Remploy factories, and without doubt they were good for the workforce, and gave them a meaning for life rather than sat on their backsides collecting benefits. A relative of mine ran a Remploy factory for some years, and his brief was to make as little loss as possible. So, if factories were to employ disabled with the wage bill being met by the employer + government subsidy, then this has to be better than the disabled not being employed (but on benefits) in the real world. It would give them a meaning to real life plus they would associate more with a broader spectrum of the populace. This would of course have the added benefit of the non-disabled population appreciating the disabled as a benefit rather than a burden (as some do). Spot on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.