Lord Freud And The Minimum Wage For Disabled People

[sp1814]

During a meeting at the Conservative conference last month, Lord Freud told a Tory councillor: 'You make a really good point about the disabled. There is a group where actually as you say they are not worth the full minimum wage.'

He also went on to say that there are people who want to work for under £2 and provision should be made to enable this.

I suspect that people actually don't want to undercut the minimum wage if at all possible.

And it's more than a little curious to identify the disabled as being those who deserve less than the minimum wage in any case. If you're able to do the job, then surely you should be paid the wage for that job.

Or am I being naive?

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

[Peter Pedant]

I confused Quizzie with someone else the other week
embarassing
sorry Quith

happens

rather well handled Sp - I quite like the view of 'I say so many things that I cant be expected to remember it all.... '

[sp1814]

Peter Pedant

Thank you...I am still wracking my brain trying to work out in what context I may have said what Svejk has highlighted.

However, it has to be said that after ploughing through five episodes of 'Homeland', my faculties are a little 'frazzled'.

His silence makes me suspect that he may have indeed to thinking of someone else.

We'll see...

[Hypognosis]

@SP

//If you're able to do the job, then surely you should be paid the wage for that job. //

Hmm, if you're able to do a job, not to mention doing it as well as a 'normal' person, then the word 'disabled' has lost all its meaning, hasn't it?


The 'context' of the comment revolved around those who wanted the pride and self esteem which comes from being part of the workforce but are markedly less productive because of their physical, or cognitive limitations. When he said "who want to work for £2/hr" maybe he meant these people are acknowledging their limitations and are offering a concession to potential employers who, currently, see them as a net cost, when paid at full rate?

[douglas9401]

Nobody's said 'Freudian slip' yet so allow me.

[Svejk]

Maybe Tony Blair and Gordon Brown shouldn't have employed him in the first place.

[anneasquith]

resignation in the next few days hopefully,,,,,,,,,,,, another ; bad; day for david,

[Canary42]

////Maybe Tony Blair and Gordon Brown shouldn't have employed him in the first place.////

Four and a half years on, and still blaming the last government for this one's blunders. Nothing changes.

[jno]

Cameron is free not to give him work, should he so wish.

[Hypognosis]

@Svejk
//Maybe Tony Blair and Gordon Brown shouldn't have employed him in the first place.//

Heh, that would mean the Beeb loused up by referring to him as a 'Tory peer'. Or was I not listening carefully enough?


Sidebar: I've only just noticed that… the Peace envoy travels, but not by rail (4,5)
;-) Tell me that's been done before?

[Svejk]

I'd imagine very few people live on the minimum wage. They live on the 'in-work' benefits that come with it. Less money=more in-work benefits. It's, therefore, an advantage to work for less money, if they allow you. Remember that a lot of these minimum wage jobs are also part-time and zero hour contracts which pay less than £2 an hour if divided by 40 hours. Personally, I don't believe in the minimum wage but if we have it, it should be high enough that people don't have to go 'cap-in-hand' to the government to survive. Slash the welfare bill as well, wouldn't it.

[Svejk]

Hypo, Tony created his job and first employed him and Gordon implemented some of his ideas. You might say Cameron inherited him. Whether he kept him on to promote the cuddly, caring tory image or as a sop to his coalition partners I couldn't say. Hey, he might even have been good at what he was doing, don't know. ;)

[Quizmonster]

Freud joined the Conservative party in 2009. Consequently, any notion that Cameron "inherited" rather than "chose" him is absurd, given that he (Cameron) became Prime Minister a year later and could have swept him (Freud) away if he'd felt like it.
It's abundantly clear that the man is now in and working for the party he truly belongs with. That's always assuming he doesn't decide he's really even further to the right and jump ship!

[Brenden]

Yes they should be paid the minium wage if they are capable of doing the job, my concern is (and I have actually witnessed this) when the employee needs a taxi to get them to and from work - who picks up the tab?. Are there organisation that assist them?, or is it down to the employer.

[TWR]

Just because a person has a disability does not mean they can not do the job, Eg/ David Blunkett, was he on a Minimum Wage?

[dave50]

He probably meant that some disabled people may not be able to work as quickly and efficiently due to their disability and might welcome the chance of employment even at a reduced rate below the minimum wage, knowing full well that he perhaps doesn't deserve the same rate as his or her able bodied colleagues.

[Quizmonster]

How is it possible to have (quote) "a reduced rate below the minimum wage"? If such a rate existed, IT would be the minimum wage!

[Zeuhl]

^LOL quiz

in fact there are already two different Minimum Wages in the UK dependent on age.

and i understand other countries incl Denmark have different levels dependent on levels of disability.

[janbee]

He has the PM's "full support". Oh well, that's it then. Bye Bye Freudy !

[Hypognosis]

@Svejk

//I'd imagine very few people live on the minimum wage. They live on the 'in-work' benefits that come with it. Less money=more in-work benefits. //

Thanks, I hadn't allowed for that.

In-work benefits are something I am ambivalent about in that, whilst giving people a helping hand, they effectively subsidise the employer class at the taxpayer's expense.
Also, they blur the lines between people "living on the state" and "the workforce" and any debate goes off on a tangent whenever it has to be pointed out that across-the-board benefit cuts will squeeze all these low paid workers in the unfairest of ways, such as making all the difference between being able to afford to -get to- work at all.

The fact that a minimum wage had to be legislated at all is indicative of what some employers think of their workforce. They moan about their profit margins being squeezed by wage demands on the one hand while awarding their executives massive bonuses on the other.

It's that kind of hypocrisy that typifies the world today but what really gets me down is how many of us, despite being equally appalled by it, are accommodating towards it and content to take whatever we can get from the system and not upset the apple-cart. Even the unemployed do not actively campaign for higher wages in these jobs people turn their noses up at, because that would threaten their prospects - they are already getting told "sorry, we can't afford to hire anyone at the moment".

So, here we come, full circle, where one sector is so desperate to work that they're prepared to offer their services at a (subsidised) 1/3rd of NMW!

[Svejk]

Diane Abbott has just said on 'This Week' that Labour have known about this for 2 weeks. But they wanted to make political capital out of it. Rather puts their (faux)outrage in a different light, doesn't it.