If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Disabled getting National Minimum Wage
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in Work & Study
An MP, Philip Davies, has argued 'cos people with a learning disability or mental illness if they get a job are less reliable and less productive, should be excluded fron laws like getting a minimum wage. He sees that if people declare a disability when competing in the open job market an employer will more likely recruit them if they can be paid less than required by law
Sounds like exploitation of people who already are at the receiving end of widespread discrimination in society
Sounds like exploitation of people who already are at the receiving end of widespread discrimination in society
0
Comments
Thankfully almost the entire country is outraged. That restores my faith in humanity.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7034023/dont-dismiss-davies-out-of-hand.thtml
Hope he gets deselected comes to standing for MP at the next general election
In practical terms, disabled people getting paid less may help them get work, but in moral and legal terms its condeming them as less human and makes a nonsense of concept of equal pay. Next women could be legally paid less when already this is happening unofficially in the job market
The thin end of the wedge argument means we should do nothing about anything because it 'might' (very unlikely) lead to an extreme example. It's a straw man that by allowing a small group of people to under some circumstances work for below minimum wage would lead to women being able to be paid legally less, especially as he wasn't even talking about all disabled - he was making a specific proposal to deal with the specific issue of those disabled with severe learning difficulties.
I actually think condemming them to a life on welfare is condeming them as less than human and that this is an idea to help people with severe learning difficulties interact with wider society. Interestingly it's been tried in Ohio and whilst various 'rights' groups seem to disagree the mother of a disabled son (ie someone who is actually impacted on) says
Now, its a complex argument with lots of economic modelling needed to see whether it works as intended, as well as carefully defined legislation to stop their being further adverse consequences. However, we're never going to tackle some of the deep-rooted social and economic problems that are faced if whenever someone puts up a proposal its dismissed as something it's not.
Whereas being ruled out of the job market completely is acceptable?
The point Davies was trying to make was that he'd rather see people working than not working, and that lower pay might be an option to achieve this.
I don't agree with him, mainly because there is already support for businesses which makes employing disabled people economical. However you cannot just dismiss his argument as immoral when insisting on equal pay leaves them with a lower income than being paid less than minimum wage would. Both arguments smell of immorality.
It really isn't a black and white issue.
Let'd get this straight then:
He wants companies to pay disabled people less because they're less productive. Having a disability doesn't make you less productive. If you pay people less than minimum wage, then the government would have to pay them benefits, which would cost them more money.
You don't; but many others do. Given that not all disabled people can work full-time, how exactly are they meant to live?
That's why he wants the law changed - he's not suggesting companies act illegally
And if they don't work at all you need to pay them even more benefits. The worst case analysis is that the pay is so small the Governmment pays out exactly the same as it does now, but even if there is no benefit to the exhequer there is an obvious benefit (not just or even neccessarily financial) to those who are working when otherwise they wouldn't be,
What's your comment got to do with the argument at all. The argument is that in certain cases firms can be incentivised into employing people who they wouldn't otherwise do; it is not an argument that disability benefits be cut or that disabled people should be forced into working if they are unable to do
Not actually true:
I receive around £160 every 2 weeks in income based benefits. If I work, I could get up to £102 every week in benefits.
Now I'm not an expert on benefit payments, so there could well be anomalies, but as a principal it seems to be you should be better off working than not working and that includes people with severe learning difficulties on less than minimum wage
Me working will cost the state more.
I don't see where he mentions 'severe learning difficulties' in specific, but disabilities and mental health, which could cover a spectrum of disabilities. Of course, this isn't challenging employer prejudice, it is punishing people for being disabled.
I wonder what his stance is on the closure of Remploy factories.
Most disabled people in work are employed in sheltered workshops. Those who brave it in the competitive mainstream job market should be paid equally- as you say its punishing on their disability to say 'you're in' but legally will get paid less
I agree Philip Davies is seeking a practical solution. But its the negative moral and emotional impact on disabled people who break into the mainstream job market- we're dealing with humans here who demand respect and exist in a culture of equality
And yes, its not straightforward but the arguments for and against paying less can go on and on
One of the clubs I'm a member of used to have a group of adults with learning disabilities come in with their carers and do our cleaning and gardening. It was a nice clubhouse, with plenty of open space and a very sheltered environment. We kept the tea and biscuit cupboard stocked for them, the group brought a packed lunch and had a pretty good day out. We 'paid' them what we would have paid a contract cleaner & gardener to do the equivalent work. Obviously that's nothing like the minimum wage, but the arrangement suited everyone really well.
Then the a busy body kicked up a fuss about minimum wage, so that group doesn't get anything any more.
The difference is that I would argue they weren't being employed. It was an opportunity for them to learn skills in almost a voluntary way but the club took the decision that it wasn't right to take it for free - is that about right? You didn't take on an individual to do a job but decide that they weren't going to be paid the same as someone else because they weren't somehow 'worth' that, which (whether it was his intention or not) is what Mr. Davies heavily implied.
it sounds at first reading as though theyre saying minimum wage is ok for one group, but not for all, and disabled people should be prepared to work for less, but in actual fact, its just complaining that minimum wage, which was brought in to protect people from exploitation, is actually just making certain groups unemployable. As it stands, the only work a lot of disabled people are able to aquire, is voluntary work. So people are allowed by law, to work for absolutely free, or for £5.85, and nothing inbetween, which is putting a lot of people at a disadvantage in an employers market
I think his point is about the negative moral and emotional impact by ruling this group out of the market completely.
As I said, I don't agree with the guy, but the only way you win the argument is by addressing the points he actually raised and proving them to be incorrect, rather than arguing about the morals (or otherwise) of not paying minimum wage.
I will research more abour Philip Davies speeches and put my thinking caps on
Unemployment benefits big business, so they can offer the lowest wages and crappy contracts because people are desperate for a job. Some employers are even sacking people and employing them again on worse contracts, or effectively cutting pay by removing their paid lunch breaks... The list could go on.
This is just another attack on workers' rights. I hate this idea that people should be "lucky to have a job"... In the past year, the richest people have seen an 18% increase in their assets, whilst some councils have seen the number of people approaching them as homeless has risen 23% in the past year... The Department of Work and Pensions now has people stacking shelves for Asda, or working in Primark as "work experience" to earn their JSA. Really, if as a business, you are getting free labour to do these jobs, how much incentive is there to create new jobs?
If you mean morally then you are possibly correct. Sadly Utopia hasn't arrived.
however, from a legal p.o.v. their responsibility is to their shareholders.
Sorry, not a law (to my knowledge) and certainly not about "X" amount. They have an obligation to maximise shareholder income. It's only community interest companies which are obliged to do something for the community.
It's not unheard of companies (like Nike, Coke etc) to do something for a community. However, this is usually purely about increasing their market share and often comes with a binding contract which excludes their competition from the area - see coke sponsorship of college, nike providing basketball courts - there have been cases with students being suspended for wearing the logo of the competitor...
I think this sounds like a concession rather than involvement in the community. I've also not heard of any cases where students have been suspended for wearing logos - I'm not saying it hasn't happenend, but that it is extremely rare (and if it does the person who wrote the contract from the public sector side had either better have made millions or should be sacked!).
More common is like a local engineering firm which has just donated a couple of £hundred to my daughters' school for some gym equipment or Waterstone's £10,000 contrinbution to literacy
http://www.thebookseller.com/news/waterstones-backs-evening-standard-literacy-campaign.html
However, in reality these are the biggest way the private sector helps the wider community - they're icing on the cake compared to it providing goods and services we want to buy, employment and wages and providing Government with tax take (both indirect and direct)