Why just the disabled? What if someone is able bodied and just a feckless airhead who reads zoo magazine all day and can't hold down a job?
Maybe they should have the right to undercut and find someone who will put up with them for 50p an hour, with the rest topped up by the government.
In fact why don't we all do this, find our levels in the market place and the government tops up the rest to reach a liveable income...
...otherwise known as a Citizens Income/Basic Income.[/QUOTE]
This. Make sure everyone, rich, poor, and everywhere in between gets a basic living income and there would be no need for minimum wage. The income is the same for all regardless of if they work or not. No more means testing, no other form of benefits, no DWP, no one squabbling over their neighbour getting something they haven't, no more stigma. It really is that simple.
You may want anything you care to want. You can want green moon cheese if it floats your boat.
Screaming and hollering faux outrage over this will get you nowhere. His statement was perfectly reasonable, and the concerned public, after initially buying into the Labour attempt to create a shitstorm out of nothing, have now understood the picture. It was sensible to clarify his remarks as the use of the word "worth" was obviously potentially toxic, but he's done that now.
The irony is the poor bloke was actually trying to help disabled people.
No if he was trying to help disabled people we would just employ them, simple really And he and lord F both used the term worth. discrimination laws are there to protect people, not just the disabled remember when it was legal to pay a women less than a man JUST because they were a women
No if he was trying to help disabled people we would just employ them, simple really And he and lord F both used the term worth
In Utopia, that would be the way it works, but in the real world most companies are run to maximise growth and profit. If you want them to have a social conscience, regulation pretty much has to force them to do anything other than maximise the return on investment.
If two people are both willing to work for NMW, and one of them will produce less value for the business, guess which goes home without a job?
Some people here seem to prefer that many disabled are unemployed until the day they die rather than admit that they might need some help in the jobs market.
In Utopia, that would be the way it works, but in the real world most companies are run to maximise growth and profit. If you want them to have a social conscience, regulation pretty much has to force them to do anything other than maximise the return on investment.
If two people are both willing to work for NMW, and one of them will produce less value for the business, guess which goes home without a job?
Some people here seem to prefer that many disabled are unemployed until the day they die rather than admit that they might need some help in the jobs market.
But were do you draw the line, job advertised at lets say £26,000 per year 2 people go for the job, one with 2 arms one with 1 arm do you say to the person with 1 arm sorry you have only 1 arm so the pay i am willing to pay you £13,000 per year and do you think that person should be gratefull for that
In Utopia, that would be the way it works, but in the real world most companies are run to maximise growth and profit. If you want them to have a social conscience, regulation pretty much has to force them to do anything other than maximise the return on investment.
If two people are both willing to work for NMW, and one of them will produce less value for the business, guess which goes home without a job?
Some people here seem to prefer that many disabled are unemployed until the day they die rather than admit that they might need some help in the jobs market.
But that all sounds good until you consider that what you are suggesting is that someone disabled is unable to earn enough to keep themselves. That after all is the point of the minimum wage. So basically you are condemning disabled people to underpaid slavery.
The failings of ATOS aren't pertinent to this argument so why would you expect ATOS to figure in this thread?
In fact it is the DWP who are to blame for that. Atos should have been monitored better. It didn't suit the interests of the current governments policy to do that.
But that all sounds good until you consider that what you are suggesting is that someone disabled is unable to earn enough to keep themselves. That after all is the point of the minimum wage. So basically you are condemning disabled people to underpaid slavery.
No, I'm suggesting they need some help so they are competitive.
Either regulation that says all companies with more than X employees need X% of their workforce to be registered disabled, or the government improves the cost/benefit ratio by paying either the employee or the company a top-up.
It is doing nothing that leaves many disabled people on benefits and without work their whole lives.
Yes i did, And it was made very plain that the person asking the question was not willing to pay someone NMW because he did not think these people were worth that much, and Lord F was agreeing with him. They want to exploit these people, who in most cases would not even know what being exploited is or means
It wasn't made plain at all I suggest you look at the transcript again
The irony is the poor bloke was actually trying to help disabled people.
It seems to me that the only way he can be helpful is to assist the Labour GE campaign - by staying in his job. Which may explain why Labour have not given him a final push today. He helps to complete the picture. The negative perception of Lord Freud and IDS together can be greater than the sum of their parts.
If a disabled person earning the NMW enters the job market today, what is the going rate for their services after Lord Freud has "had a think about it"?
Bottom line is:
anyone in positions like these simply can't and shouldn't make stupid remarks that will make them an open target.
It's no secret that such ideas are thrown around daily by government departments, think tanks and even disability organisations. They would be remiss in their jobs if they didn't consider all the angles, the implications and the ripostes.
However, it's not for public viewing, and should not be, unless to specifically engender public debate and within a context. It's simply unprofessional, and that's not what they are paid to be.
Bottom line is:
anyone in positions like these simply can't and shouldn't make stupid remarks that will make them an open target.
It's no secret that such ideas are thrown around daily by government departments, think tanks and even disability organisations. They would be remiss in their jobs if they didn't consider all the angles, the implications and the ripostes.
However, it's not for public viewing, and should not be, unless to specifically engender public debate and within a context. It's simply unprofessional, and that's not what they are paid to be.
So he should have refused to answer the question posed
It seems to me that the only way he can be helpful is to assist the Labour GE campaign - by staying in his job. Which may explain why Labour have not given him a final push today. He helps to complete the picture. The negative perception of Lord Freud and IDS together can be greater than the sum of their parts.
If a disabled person earning the NMW enters the job market today, what is the going rate for their services after Lord Freud has "had a think about it"?
I think last night's Question Time blew a great big hole in the argument that you put forward. Don't you ?
They all saw through a cheap Labour stunt. It has backfired and it was quite evident from Angela "Red" Eagles face that she knew it only too well.
It was all cooked up to defer attention from Mr Bean's tragic conference speech.
I think last night's Question Time blew a great big hole in the argument that you put forward. Don't you ?
They all saw through a cheap Labour stunt. It has backfired and it was quite evident from Angela "Red" Eagles face that she knew it only too well.
It was all cooked up to defer attention from Mr Bean's tragic conference speech.
Well said.
The young lady towards the end of QT said she had wondered if Angela Eagle would use this to play political football and was not surprised that that is exactly what she did.
If felt really good to see an audience unified in their disgust at Labours cheap tricks.
The young lady towards the end of QT said she had wondered if Angela Eagle would use this to play political football and was not surprised that that is exactly what she did.
If felt really good to see an audience unified in their disgust at Labours cheap tricks.
Well seems there already is a problem of the disabled NOT being paid NMW A report from last year Disabled workers are being encouraged by the government to check that their employers have not been cheating them out of thousands of pounds.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) said today (1 November) that disabled workers were particularly at risk of being paid below the national minimum wage.
BIS encouraged every disabled worker in low-paid employment to check that they were not being paid less than they were entitled to.
The National Minimum Wage Low Pay Commission reported last year that minimum wage jobs were more likely to be carried out by disabled people and other groups such as women, migrant workers and those with no qualifications. It found that nine per cent of disabled workers were being paid at or below minimum wage. 9% OF DISABLED WORKERS NOT BEING PAID NMW
Well seems there already is a problem of the disabled NOT being paid NMW A report from last year Disabled workers are being encouraged by the government to check that their employers have not been cheating them out of thousands of pounds.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) said today (1 November) that disabled workers were particularly at risk of being paid below the national minimum wage.
BIS encouraged every disabled worker in low-paid employment to check that they were not being paid less than they were entitled to.
The National Minimum Wage Low Pay Commission reported last year that minimum wage jobs were more likely to be carried out by disabled people and other groups such as women, migrant workers and those with no qualifications. It found that nine per cent of disabled workers were being paid at or below minimum wage. 9% OF DISABLED WORKERS NOT BEING PAID NMW
With real time reporting for companies payroll in place it should be easier for HMRC to check
Bottom line is:
anyone in positions like these simply can't and shouldn't make stupid remarks that will make them an open target.
It's no secret that such ideas are thrown around daily by government departments, think tanks and even disability organisations. They would be remiss in their jobs if they didn't consider all the angles, the implications and the ripostes.
However, it's not for public viewing, and should not be, unless to specifically engender public debate and within a context. It's simply unprofessional, and that's not what they are paid to be.
It happened at the Conservative Conference didn't it? What do you think conferences are for?
It happened at the Conservative Conference didn't it? What do you think conferences are for?
Making stupid comments that are fuel forthe opposition to leap on gleefully, apparently.
Perhaps you don't realise he was at a fringe event. They are not official party events, anyone can pay for one and hold it, and they don't form part of official policy. Although they are often useful for throwing stuff around, many are just plain bonkers, and they are a trap for the unwary.
Although interest groups use them to wave ideas, they are not an official way of considering policy or introducing concepts. Party mechanik normally don't go anywhere near them because of the likely faux pas or associations with ideas that are not publicly acepted by the party. When was the last time you recall a Minister or the like attending one?
Making stupid comments that are fuel forthe opposition to leap on gleefully, apparently.
Perhaps you don't realise he was at a fringe event. They are not official party events, anyone can pay for one and hold it, and they don't form part of official policy. Although they are often useful for throwing stuff around, many are just plain bonkers, and they are a trap for the unwary. Although interest groups use them to wave ideas, they are not an official way of considering policy or introducing concepts. Party mechanik normally don't go anywhere near them because of the likely faux pas or associations with ideas that are not publicly acepted by the party. When was the last time you recall a Minister or the like attending one?
I think last night's Question Time blew a great big hole in the argument that you put forward. Don't you ?
They all saw through a cheap Labour stunt. It has backfired and it was quite evident from Angela "Red" Eagles face that she knew it only too well.
It was all cooked up to defer attention from Mr Bean's tragic conference speech.
Angela Eagle is not exactly subtle is she? A more nuanced consideration of Lord F's past utterances, IDS, ATOS, would have been much better.
But PMQs could hardly have gone any better.
Here is the puzzling bit.
Why does Cameron assume that a long GE campaign which includes stunts and dirty tricks is going to favour the Tories? People have reported anger on his face at PMQs. I saw shock and surprise (and some anger).
A bit like a bully getting an unexpected whack in the face.......
It seems to me that the only way he can be helpful is to assist the Labour GE campaign - by staying in his job. Which may explain why Labour have not given him a final push today.
Spin.
Of.
The.
Year.
Looking for a job in Labour Spin Central?
Let's try a...shall we say, more rational explanation?
Labour have not given this a "final" push, a "runner up" push or, for that matter, any damn push of any kind whatsoever, because they tried a spin stunt, succeeded for 24 hours then saw it slowly and totally blown apart when the facts came to light, after which they decided to quietly let it drop before they succumbed to even more abject embarrassment?
Comments
In Utopia, that would be the way it works, but in the real world most companies are run to maximise growth and profit. If you want them to have a social conscience, regulation pretty much has to force them to do anything other than maximise the return on investment.
If two people are both willing to work for NMW, and one of them will produce less value for the business, guess which goes home without a job?
Some people here seem to prefer that many disabled are unemployed until the day they die rather than admit that they might need some help in the jobs market.
But were do you draw the line, job advertised at lets say £26,000 per year 2 people go for the job, one with 2 arms one with 1 arm do you say to the person with 1 arm sorry you have only 1 arm so the pay i am willing to pay you £13,000 per year and do you think that person should be gratefull for that
But that all sounds good until you consider that what you are suggesting is that someone disabled is unable to earn enough to keep themselves. That after all is the point of the minimum wage. So basically you are condemning disabled people to underpaid slavery.
In fact it is the DWP who are to blame for that. Atos should have been monitored better. It didn't suit the interests of the current governments policy to do that.
Deleted
No, I'm suggesting they need some help so they are competitive.
Either regulation that says all companies with more than X employees need X% of their workforce to be registered disabled, or the government improves the cost/benefit ratio by paying either the employee or the company a top-up.
It is doing nothing that leaves many disabled people on benefits and without work their whole lives.
It wasn't made plain at all I suggest you look at the transcript again
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49779/sayce-report.pdf
At an unsustainable wage level. It can't happen. He's not at fault for not advocating the impossible.
Give it up already. We know what he said, what he didn't say, why he said it and what he meant. Give it up, you're shouting in the dark.
It seems to me that the only way he can be helpful is to assist the Labour GE campaign - by staying in his job. Which may explain why Labour have not given him a final push today. He helps to complete the picture. The negative perception of Lord Freud and IDS together can be greater than the sum of their parts.
If a disabled person earning the NMW enters the job market today, what is the going rate for their services after Lord Freud has "had a think about it"?
anyone in positions like these simply can't and shouldn't make stupid remarks that will make them an open target.
It's no secret that such ideas are thrown around daily by government departments, think tanks and even disability organisations. They would be remiss in their jobs if they didn't consider all the angles, the implications and the ripostes.
However, it's not for public viewing, and should not be, unless to specifically engender public debate and within a context. It's simply unprofessional, and that's not what they are paid to be.
So he should have refused to answer the question posed
I think last night's Question Time blew a great big hole in the argument that you put forward. Don't you ?
They all saw through a cheap Labour stunt. It has backfired and it was quite evident from Angela "Red" Eagles face that she knew it only too well.
It was all cooked up to defer attention from Mr Bean's tragic conference speech.
Well said.
The young lady towards the end of QT said she had wondered if Angela Eagle would use this to play political football and was not surprised that that is exactly what she did.
If felt really good to see an audience unified in their disgust at Labours cheap tricks.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) said today (1 November) that disabled workers were particularly at risk of being paid below the national minimum wage.
BIS encouraged every disabled worker in low-paid employment to check that they were not being paid less than they were entitled to.
The National Minimum Wage Low Pay Commission reported last year that minimum wage jobs were more likely to be carried out by disabled people and other groups such as women, migrant workers and those with no qualifications. It found that nine per cent of disabled workers were being paid at or below minimum wage. 9% OF DISABLED WORKERS NOT BEING PAID NMW
How many severely disabled people do you employ Tim?
With real time reporting for companies payroll in place it should be easier for HMRC to check
It happened at the Conservative Conference didn't it? What do you think conferences are for?
Perhaps you don't realise he was at a fringe event. They are not official party events, anyone can pay for one and hold it, and they don't form part of official policy. Although they are often useful for throwing stuff around, many are just plain bonkers, and they are a trap for the unwary.
Although interest groups use them to wave ideas, they are not an official way of considering policy or introducing concepts. Party mechanik normally don't go anywhere near them because of the likely faux pas or associations with ideas that are not publicly acepted by the party. When was the last time you recall a Minister or the like attending one?
Lord Freud, at the recent Tory conference......
Angela Eagle is not exactly subtle is she? A more nuanced consideration of Lord F's past utterances, IDS, ATOS, would have been much better.
But PMQs could hardly have gone any better.
Here is the puzzling bit.
Why does Cameron assume that a long GE campaign which includes stunts and dirty tricks is going to favour the Tories? People have reported anger on his face at PMQs. I saw shock and surprise (and some anger).
A bit like a bully getting an unexpected whack in the face.......
Spin.
Of.
The.
Year.
Looking for a job in Labour Spin Central?
Let's try a...shall we say, more rational explanation?
Labour have not given this a "final" push, a "runner up" push or, for that matter, any damn push of any kind whatsoever, because they tried a spin stunt, succeeded for 24 hours then saw it slowly and totally blown apart when the facts came to light, after which they decided to quietly let it drop before they succumbed to even more abject embarrassment?
Well you said 'we' so i assumed you were including yourself.
So when you said 'we' should employ disabled people, did you actually mean everyone else?