Minister in row over ‘£2 minimum wage for disabled’
15 October 2014, 07:53 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Grantham
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard a conversation this afternoon on the radio where the councillor who asked the question gave a completely different view. Not like the media to blow things out of all proportion is it.
Trending Topics
15 October 2014, 09:31 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
tbh i think it may actualy be a good idea.
some disabled folks can't do jobs as well as fully abled staff because of their disabilities, thats not being discrimanatory, its just talking about someone's true capabilities.
a company wont want to hire a worker who can only do half of what someone else can do, unless their wage is cheap enough to make good business sence. So the company pays a cheap wage for the work they get and worker gets disability top up top take up the rest to min wage.
seems like it benefits disable people in helping them find a job, because what seems to be lost in 90% want to work, yet doesnt burden a company with the finantial cost they can ill afford to pay in the modern economic world.
some disabled folks can't do jobs as well as fully abled staff because of their disabilities, thats not being discrimanatory, its just talking about someone's true capabilities.
a company wont want to hire a worker who can only do half of what someone else can do, unless their wage is cheap enough to make good business sence. So the company pays a cheap wage for the work they get and worker gets disability top up top take up the rest to min wage.
seems like it benefits disable people in helping them find a job, because what seems to be lost in 90% want to work, yet doesnt burden a company with the finantial cost they can ill afford to pay in the modern economic world.
16 October 2014, 01:56 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tbh i think it may actualy be a good idea.
some disabled folks can't do jobs as well as fully abled staff because of their disabilities, thats not being discrimanatory, its just talking about someone's true capabilities.
a company wont want to hire a worker who can only do half of what someone else can do, unless their wage is cheap enough to make good business sence. So the company pays a cheap wage for the work they get and worker gets disability top up top take up the rest to min wage.
seems like it benefits disable people in helping them find a job, because what seems to be lost in 90% want to work, yet doesnt burden a company with the finantial cost they can ill afford to pay in the modern economic world.
some disabled folks can't do jobs as well as fully abled staff because of their disabilities, thats not being discrimanatory, its just talking about someone's true capabilities.
a company wont want to hire a worker who can only do half of what someone else can do, unless their wage is cheap enough to make good business sence. So the company pays a cheap wage for the work they get and worker gets disability top up top take up the rest to min wage.
seems like it benefits disable people in helping them find a job, because what seems to be lost in 90% want to work, yet doesnt burden a company with the finantial cost they can ill afford to pay in the modern economic world.
16 October 2014, 08:00 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
16 October 2014, 08:59 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical Tory thinking and there will be several of their supporters on here who agree with him even though they won't say so.
Cameron's usual spineless response. Scum, the lot of them.
Cameron's usual spineless response. Scum, the lot of them.
16 October 2014, 09:00 AM
#13
tbh i think it may actualy be a good idea.
some disabled folks can't do jobs as well as fully abled staff because of their disabilities, thats not being discrimanatory, its just talking about someone's true capabilities.
a company wont want to hire a worker who can only do half of what someone else can do, unless their wage is cheap enough to make good business sence. So the company pays a cheap wage for the work they get and worker gets disability top up top take up the rest to min wage.
seems like it benefits disable people in helping them find a job, because what seems to be lost in 90% want to work, yet doesnt burden a company with the finantial cost they can ill afford to pay in the modern economic world.
some disabled folks can't do jobs as well as fully abled staff because of their disabilities, thats not being discrimanatory, its just talking about someone's true capabilities.
a company wont want to hire a worker who can only do half of what someone else can do, unless their wage is cheap enough to make good business sence. So the company pays a cheap wage for the work they get and worker gets disability top up top take up the rest to min wage.
seems like it benefits disable people in helping them find a job, because what seems to be lost in 90% want to work, yet doesnt burden a company with the finantial cost they can ill afford to pay in the modern economic world.
Nobody is saying YOU MUST WORK FOR 2 QUID AN HOUR, BECAUSE YOU ARE DISABLED.
It would be great if everyone could be employed at the same wage level, but for a company it may not make sense. They're not charities, remember.
16 October 2014, 12:49 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Grantham
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Henrik;11539922]
Nobody is saying YOU MUST WORK FOR 2 QUID AN HOUR, BECAUSE YOU ARE DISABLED.
Spot on its about giving somebody some self respect and feeling of self worth, it was never about 2 quid an hour it was about making people feel useful and that they are contributing to society unlike the great unwashed who see benefits as a right.
Nobody is saying YOU MUST WORK FOR 2 QUID AN HOUR, BECAUSE YOU ARE DISABLED.
Spot on its about giving somebody some self respect and feeling of self worth, it was never about 2 quid an hour it was about making people feel useful and that they are contributing to society unlike the great unwashed who see benefits as a right.
16 October 2014, 05:42 PM
#15
IIRC The Minister's idea originally was not to pay the person but to pay the employer the difference to pass onto the employee and the employee gets a job at the correct wage...........so basically it's subsidised employment like REMPLOY.
So the boss is paying £2.00 per hour out of his firm's pocket and the rest is paid for by the state.
That's how I read it.
Shaun
So the boss is paying £2.00 per hour out of his firm's pocket and the rest is paid for by the state.
That's how I read it.
Shaun
16 October 2014, 06:46 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Grantham
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC The Minister's idea originally was not to pay the person but to pay the employer the difference to pass onto the employee and the employee gets a job at the correct wage...........so basically it's subsidised employment like REMPLOY.
So the boss is paying £2.00 per hour out of his firm's pocket and the rest is paid for by the state.
That's how I read it.
Shaun
So the boss is paying £2.00 per hour out of his firm's pocket and the rest is paid for by the state.
That's how I read it.
Shaun
16 October 2014, 07:55 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
IIRC The Minister's idea originally was not to pay the person but to pay the employer the difference to pass onto the employee and the employee gets a job at the correct wage...........so basically it's subsidised employment like REMPLOY.
So the boss is paying £2.00 per hour out of his firm's pocket and the rest is paid for by the state.
That's how I read it.
Shaun
So the boss is paying £2.00 per hour out of his firm's pocket and the rest is paid for by the state.
That's how I read it.
Shaun
the aspiration for citizens must always be to work and contribute
and the aspiration for Government should be to create the environment for meaningful, skilled and quality jobs
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post