Bolitics The New Condem Government

[TrentVilla]

You do realise It was not a proposal or something that the Tory Government tabled/put forward.

 

 

Yes he does, nobody has suggested otherwise but that doesn't make it in any way more acceptable and besides the criticism I've seen has been directed at the individual rather than his party and rightly so.

[Risso]

 

 

 

The difference, crucially being that there are a very particular set of circumstances under which a contract of employment (written or otherwise) isn't in place legally thus removing the requirement for the NMW.

 

What the Tory chap seems to have been suggesting that NMW perhaps shouldn't be applied to disabled workers under contracts of employment because they are less capable than non disabled workers.

 

That is completely and utterly different and is very direct discrimination, the two things are poles apart.

 

 

That's just your analysis of it.  He doesn't mention contracts of employment at all.  He does state that some people "aren't worth the NMW", but then, so does the bit of the document I listed above.

[snowychap]

Yep, got that.  But the whole point as clearly demonstrated in that document, and which the Tory bloke clumsily tried to put forward, is that there ARE times when the paying somebody the NMW will not apply.

These are the exceptions to the NMW:

The following types of workers aren’t entitled to the minimum wage:

self-employed people running their own business

company directors

volunteers or voluntary workers

workers on a government employment programme, eg the Work Programme

family members of the employer living in the employer’s home

non-family members living in the employer’s home who share in the work and leisure activities, are treated as one of the family and aren’t charged for meals or accommodation (eg au pairs)

workers younger than school leaving age (usually 16)

higher and further education students on a work placement up to 1 year

workers on government pre-apprenticeships schemes

people on the following European Union programmes: Leonardo da Vinci, Youth in Action, Erasmus, Comenius

people working on a Jobcentre Plus Work trial for 6 weeks

members of the armed forces

share fishermen

prisoners

people living and working in a religious community

Work experience and internships

You won’t get minimum wage if you’re:

a student doing work experience as part of a higher or further education course

of compulsory school age

a volunteer or doing voluntary work

on a government or European programme

work shadowing

Voluntary work

You’re classed as doing voluntary work if you can only get certain limited benefits (eg reasonable travel or lunch expenses) and you’re working for a:

charity

voluntary organisation or associated fund-raising body

statutory body

link

Otherwise, if you are a worker then the law says that you must receive the NMW, at least. Whether someone is a worker is for an employment tribunal (or a court) to decide.

The document linked by colhint is for guidance on how various situations may be perceived and whether those people doing some form of work may actually be classed as workers (i.e. that there's an employer/employee relationship).

[sharkyvilla]

There is an issue in that only 50% of physically disabled and 15% of mentally disabled people are able to find employment. Allowing companies to pay a certain amount below the minimum wage that is topped up by benefits doesn't sound like a fundamentally bad idea to me, at least one worth discussing. Hence why it seems both 'sides' have pretty much had the same idea. The issue is his choice of words which was utterly crass and just feeds the headline writers.

[colhint]

 

You do realise It was not a proposal or something that the Tory Government tabled/put forward.

 

 

Yes he does, nobody has suggested otherwise but that doesn't make it in any way more acceptable and besides the criticism I've seen has been directed at the individual rather than his party and rightly so.

 

 

I'm sure Milliband and the shadow cabinet have been saying it is a return to the nasty Tories since the news broke, not just blaming the individual

[TrentVilla]

That's just your analysis of it.  He doesn't mention contracts of employment at all.  He does state that some people "aren't worth the NMW", but then, so does the bit of the document I listed above.

 

 

No he doesn't, but the fact he says some "aren't worth the NMW" suggests that some who are legally entitled aren't worthy of it, given that only those under a contract of employment are entitled then I think it a more than reasonable analysis of the views behind his words.

 

And no, the bit you quote from the document doesn't say some "aren't worth the NMW" it sets out the definitions under which NMW applies or does not apply (not limited to those with disabilities) that really isn't the same thing.

[TrentVilla]

 

 

You do realise It was not a proposal or something that the Tory Government tabled/put forward.

 

 

Yes he does, nobody has suggested otherwise but that doesn't make it in any way more acceptable and besides the criticism I've seen has been directed at the individual rather than his party and rightly so.

 

 

I'm sure Milliband and the shadow cabinet have been saying it is a return to the nasty Tories since the news broke, not just blaming the individual

 

 

I was referring to this thread given your comment was directed those posting in it.

 

There may well have been criticism of the Tory party from Labour but a very quick look on the BBC suggests that Miliband actually levelled his criticism at the individual and his role rather than the party/government itself.

 

Raising the issue in Parliament, Mr Miliband said: "These are not the words of someone who ought to be in charge of policy relating to the welfare of disabled people. 

"Surely someone holding those views can't possibly stay in his government?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29628557

[snowychap]

Certainly I do. You do realise the document was authorised by the Labour government and backed by Scope, Mencap and the TUC.

I realize that the government guidance on a bit of (then recently enacted) law would need to come from the government (and specifically the department that would deal with that area). They would also need to consult with various bodies, specifically, as per the opening page of the document:

CONNECT SUPPORT AND EMPLOYMENT

DISABILITY ACTION

DISABILTY ALLIANCE

DUNDEE CITY COUNCIL (EMPLOYMENT DISABILITY UNIT)

GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, SOCIAL SERVICES

LEICESTERSHIRE EMPLOYMENT ACTION TODAY

LOW PAY COMMISSION

MAKING SPACE

MENCAP

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT

NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE BLIND AND DISABLED

NATIONAL SCHIZOPHRENIA FELLOWSHIP SCOTLAND

NORTHERN IRELAND SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT

OXFORD LEARNING DISABILITES NHS TRUST

SCOPE

SCOTTISH UNION OF SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT

SHAW TRUST LTD

TUC

WELSH INITIATIVE FOR SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT

*A bit of a shocker that they couldn't spell disability!

What Freud said was in response to a question.

 

You do realise It was not a proposal or something that the Tory Government tabled/put forward.

According to the Huff Post, the Tory councillor who posed the question at a conference fringe meeting said this...

Looks like I knew before you even joined in the discussion that it was in response to a question. I know it isn't a proposal or something from the coalition government.

It was a response from a junior minister who said, "I’m going to go and think about that particular issue."

[snowychap]

Hence why it seems both 'sides' have pretty much had the same idea.

Where have 'both sides' done this?

 

There may well have been criticism of the Tory party from Labour but a very quick look on the BBC suggests that Miliband actually levelled his criticism at the individual and his role rather than the party/government itself.

To be fair when Miliband raised this at PMQs, he quickly got on to the 'nasty party' line.

[TrentVilla]

Fair enough, hadn't seen that but if that is the case that is the sort of stuff I detest from either party.

[peterms]

The government used to provide employment for the disabled through Remploy factories.

 

29 factories were closed down by New Labour in 2009 and the policy has been continued by the coalition, with further closures.

 

This means that there are fewer opportunities for the disabled.

 

The disabled are now expected to compete on equal terms in the private sector, which depending on the level of disability may be more difficult.

 

an absolute prize disgrace on the new Labour roll of honour of disgraces

I do some work with an organisation which has picked up some of the Remploy former staff in a retraining/job creation programme following the closure of the local centre. The consensus is that they turn up to work on time, take significantly less time off sick than most people in most workplaces, and just want to do something worthwhile in companionship with others.

The way they have been treated is disgraceful.

Compare that with the way we treat thieving MPs, fraudster bankers, corrupt cops and journos...

[chrisp65]

yep, similar

I know somebody that was a regional co-ordinator of a couple of Remploy factories

 

really really distressed when they were closed down with absolutely no other employment opportunities in the area

 

hopefully people remember this kind of scum behaviour when the next potential Labour candidate comes tap tapping on the door hoping for a nice £67,000 salary plus perks and expenses 

[MakemineVanilla]

I really don't think Labour come out of this well.

 

They themselves decided under Blair to implement a market solution for the employment problems of the disabled, and for laudable reasons.

 

The coalition has continued the same policy, based upon the same reasoning.

 

Now the government has been caught discussing cases where the market solution is failing and Labour are deliberately misinterpreting what was said for their political advantage, which might suit them but makes it impossible for the problems with the system to be discussed, or solutions found.

 

So politically dishonest in that they are denying their own authorship of the present problems, and morally dubious for exploiting those disabled their policy has failed. 

[colhint]

I think the downside to all this is, it probably needs discussing. Whether it works or not, I have no idea. But I doubt anyone in Parliament will raise it, and it'll be kicked into the long grass. 

 

So many disabled will stay unemployed

[MakemineVanilla]

In some countries they do a lot more for the disabled.

 

[villaajax]

 

Andrew Selous: 'Disabled are grateful so work harder,' says Tory minister

 

A second government minister made contentious comments over the disabled and their role in the workplace at the Conservative Party's annual conference last month, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

 

Andrew Selous, a Justice minister and former parliamentary aide to Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, told a fringe meeting that "disabled people work harder because they're grateful to have a job".

 

His comments are revealed just days after David Cameron faced calls to sack Lord Freud as Welfare Reform minister after a recording emerged of him telling a separate fringe meeting that disabled people were "not worth" the full minimum wage.

 

The IoS has learned that Labour will hold a vote of no confidence in Lord Freud, in the Commons. Labour will table the motion tomorrow and the vote will be on 29 October, the first available opportunity, when it has its opposition day debate. Labour sources said the pressure would be on the Lib Dems to back the motion after Nick Clegg said last week that Lord Freud's comments were "deeply distressing and offensive".

 

Link

Edited October 20, 2014 by villaajax

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Blimey. Whether that opinion is true or not, there are better ways to approach the subject. Makes me think that any old tosser who can form words with their mouth can become an MP.

What a cock.

[Eames]

 Makes me think that any old tosser who can form words with their mouth can become an MP.

 

That is essentially the selection criteria in a nutshell. 

[meregreen]

Charles Dickens would recognise these attitudes being espoused by certain Tories. It's the era they belong in. How sad that such people still exist, and feel its become acceptable to air such views today.

[Awol]

Charles Dickens would recognise these attitudes being espoused by certain Tories. It's the era they belong in. How sad that such people still exist, and feel its become acceptable to air such views today.

Saying disabled people work harder because they are grateful for the opportunity is like saying fat birds try harder in bed.

It might not be incredibly PC but that doesn't mean it's not true.