Bolitics The New Condem Government

[markavfc40]

 Cameron still claiming because he had a disabled son, no one on the other side of the house can question him on the issue of caring for the disabled.

 

He has a habit of throwing this one out doesn't he. At the Tory party conference he stated something along the lines that no one valued the NHS more than him based on the fact he had used it with his disabled son. What a load of bollocks.

I have an older disabled brother who I have lived around all my life. It doesn't mean that I can't be told f*ck all about disabilities. In recent years I have spent days upon days in hospitals watching both my dad and mother in law die that doesn't mean I can't be told f*ck all about the NHS or that it makes my opinion the be all and end all that can't be questioned.

Like Cameron I also have children but again that doesn't mean I can't be told f*ck all about how to bring them up. In Camerons case given he was the one that went home leaving his eight year old in the boozer for 15 minutes before realising she wasn't with him then I guess that at least isn't a subject he can claim he shouldn't be lectured on.

[villaajax]

I guess no one can bring up the point about disabled people suffering through his Bedroom Tax either?

[TrentVilla]

I guess no one can bring up the point about disabled people suffering through his Bedroom Tax either?

 

Obviously, he has a bedroom and pays tax. Duh.

[colhint]

About this minimum wage for disabled, Isn't this a bit of a volte face from the Labour party, seeing as this was tabled in 2003, 

 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070603164510/http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file11883.pdf

 

quoting 

 

and the national minimum wage would not apply (see Paragraph 17)

 

Now it's a  very long report and link, so open it if you want.

 

It was recognising that in some circumstances it would be difficult to employ some disabled people . 

 

A few quotes being 

 

who do various activities such as packing and assembly“ can“pay varying amounts up to £20 per week

 

there would probably not be an employer/worker relationship” and therefore “the national minimum wage would not apply

 

 

 

 

Patricia Hewitt was Secretary of State, 

 

 

Scope, Mencap and the TUC were all consulted on this. 

 

 

So why now are they calling for someone to be sacked

Edited October 15, 2014 by colhint

[villaajax]

Ah but... the Tories supported Apartheid deacades ago.

[colhint]

I haven't said anything about Tories, just why is a big issue now, not when it was put forward some years ago? 

 

In my opinion it's either right or wrong. Not right when I'm in power but wrong when I'm in opposition.

[TrentVilla]

About this minimum wage for disabled, Isn't this a bit of a volte face from the Labour party, seeing as this was tabled in 2003, 

 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070603164510/http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file11883.pdf

 

So why now are they calling for someone to be sacked

 

Probably because it doesn't say what you think it says.

[snowychap]

A few quotes being...

I think your quotes are very misleading and I don't think the note says what you are claiming or certainly anything like the Tory councillor and Freud's response.

To put your quotes in context here's a bit more from your link:

 

( c) A trust runs a facility for mental health out patients, who do various activities such as packing and assembly.

They are paid varying amounts up to £20 per week. If they do not attend there are no sanctions. If they go along and do not want to do any activity they don’t have to. There is a production line but the speed is set by the users and if they want to they can turn it off.

COMMENTARY

21. Of course, a Tribunal or court would need to consider all of the relevant aspects of any case. But it seems to us, on the information available, that there would probably not be an employer/worker relationship in examples (a) to ( c) because in each case, the people concerned are not obliged to turn up and no sanctions apply if they do not turn up. Scenario (a) appears to be a voluntary situation which along with other similar voluntary situations would not be covered by the National Minimum Wage legislation. In scenario ( a small ex gratia payment is paid. There is always a risk that a contract may be inferred if a payment is made, regardless of whether it is described as an “ex gratia” payment or “pocket money” or by another term.

Such terms are meaningless in legal terms. However, if such a payment is made and there are no obligations on the individuals who attend to carry out the activity, and they do not lose their place if they do not attend then a contract is unlikely to be inferred. In scenario ( the individuals simply do not receive the attendance allowance if they do not attend. In such a situation there does not appear to be any mutual obligation on the parties and the national minimum wage would not apply (see Paragraph 17( and ( c) above). The same appears to apply to scenario ( c). The reference to the level of productivity in scenario ( c) is not relevant for the purposes of the national minimum wage. However, if the person is required to achieve a certain level of productivity, and if that level of productivity were to affect the pay they receive, then a contract may be inferred. That is because there appears to be an obligation on the individual to perform in a certain way. In such circumstances the minimum wage may be payable.

[villaajax]

To me it sounds like the idea was that mental health patients, who maybe weren't up to full time work could do some work, under no obligation and be paid up to £20 per week for it with no contract or pressure on them?

[colhint]

yes it does. 

 

And didn't Anne Begg backtrack on Sky news when told of the context? And didn't the Adam smith institute come out and support him?

[villaajax]

Isn't that the Conservative think-tank, The Adam Smith Institute?

[snowychap]

I haven't said anything about Tories, just why is a big issue now, not when it was put forward some years ago?

You do realize that the document that you linked is a guidance note on how the NMW legislation actually applies - it was intended to help individuals and organisations [sic] understand how the national minimum wage applies in relation to what is often known as ‘therapeutic work’.

It was not a proposal or something that the Labour government 'tabled'/'put forward'.

[TrentVilla]

yes it does. 

 

No it doesn't.

 

You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting that document, it isn't what you think it is and doesn't say what you claim. 

[Risso]

It's a very interesting point raised by Colhint, compare and contrast:

 

"There is a small… there is a group, and I know exactly who you mean, where actually as you say they’re not worth the full wage, and actually I’m going to go and think about that particular issue, whether there is something we can do nationally, and without distorting the whole thing, which actually if someone wants to work for £2 an hour, and it’s working can we actually...”" link

 

and from the link above:

 

" An organisation works with disabled people with severe learning difficulties.  It organises placements with employers.  These employers offer places to people who have not yet acquired work skills and who may display behaviour which challenges society, often to the detriment of their businesses.  These placements are supernumerary to the requirements of their businesses.  Employers pay expenses to the disabled people who take on the placements and there are no obligations on the individuals to attend the workplace at certain times, nor are there any consequences if they do not attend.   Further, non disabled people from the organisation that arranged the placement accompany the disabled individuals on assignments.  As the disabled people are trained, they work more independently, and are accompanied only on some assignments.  They begin to receive a payment which exceeds the expenses payment.  They are also expected to attend the workplace at certain times and may lose their post if they fail to attend as directed."

 

Supernumerary definition "Not wanted or needed; redundant"

[MakemineVanilla]

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.

[snowychap]

and from the link above:

 

" An organisation works with disabled people with severe learning difficulties.  It organises placements with employers.  These employers offer places to people who have not yet acquired work skills and who may display behaviour which challenges society, often to the detriment of their businesses.  These placements are supernumerary to the requirements of their businesses.  Employers pay expenses to the disabled people who take on the placements and there are no obligations on the individuals to attend the workplace at certain times, nor are there any consequences if they do not attend.   Further, non disabled people from the organisation that arranged the placement accompany the disabled individuals on assignments.  As the disabled people are trained, they work more independently, and are accompanied only on some assignments.  They begin to receive a payment which exceeds the expenses payment.  They are also expected to attend the workplace at certain times and may lose their post if they fail to attend as directed."

 

Supernumerary definition "Not wanted or needed; redundant"

As the note goes on to explain just below this quote, example (e) is divided in to two phases: the initial situation appears not to attract the minimum wage (for a number of reasons but mainly because they simply receive expenses and there are no obligations on them to attend at certain times and no consequences appear to follow if they fail to attend); the second phase, however, where they have an obligation to attend, receive more than just expenses and have more responsibility, is an arrangement where a contract is likely to be inferred. In such a situation, the minimum wage would apply. Edited October 15, 2014 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

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

[Risso]

 

and from the link above:

 

" An organisation works with disabled people with severe learning difficulties.  It organises placements with employers.  These employers offer places to people who have not yet acquired work skills and who may display behaviour which challenges society, often to the detriment of their businesses.  These placements are supernumerary to the requirements of their businesses.  Employers pay expenses to the disabled people who take on the placements and there are no obligations on the individuals to attend the workplace at certain times, nor are there any consequences if they do not attend.   Further, non disabled people from the organisation that arranged the placement accompany the disabled individuals on assignments.  As the disabled people are trained, they work more independently, and are accompanied only on some assignments.  They begin to receive a payment which exceeds the expenses payment.  They are also expected to attend the workplace at certain times and may lose their post if they fail to attend as directed."

 

Supernumerary definition "Not wanted or needed; redundant"

As the note goes on to explain just below this quote, example (e) is divided in to two phases: the initial situation appears not to attract the minimum wage (for a number of reasons but mainly because they simply receive expenses and there are no obligations on them to attend at certain times and no consequences appear to follow if they fail to attend); the second phase, however, where they have an obligation to attend, receive more than just expenses and have more responsibility, is an arrangement where a contract is likely to be inferred. In such a situation, the minimum wage would apply.

 

 

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.

[TrentVilla]

 

 

and from the link above:

 

" An organisation works with disabled people with severe learning difficulties.  It organises placements with employers.  These employers offer places to people who have not yet acquired work skills and who may display behaviour which challenges society, often to the detriment of their businesses.  These placements are supernumerary to the requirements of their businesses.  Employers pay expenses to the disabled people who take on the placements and there are no obligations on the individuals to attend the workplace at certain times, nor are there any consequences if they do not attend.   Further, non disabled people from the organisation that arranged the placement accompany the disabled individuals on assignments.  As the disabled people are trained, they work more independently, and are accompanied only on some assignments.  They begin to receive a payment which exceeds the expenses payment.  They are also expected to attend the workplace at certain times and may lose their post if they fail to attend as directed."

 

Supernumerary definition "Not wanted or needed; redundant"

As the note goes on to explain just below this quote, example (e) is divided in to two phases: the initial situation appears not to attract the minimum wage (for a number of reasons but mainly because they simply receive expenses and there are no obligations on them to attend at certain times and no consequences appear to follow if they fail to attend); the second phase, however, where they have an obligation to attend, receive more than just expenses and have more responsibility, is an arrangement where a contract is likely to be inferred. In such a situation, the minimum wage would apply.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

[colhint]

 

I haven't said anything about Tories, just why is a big issue now, not when it was put forward some years ago?

You do realize that the document that you linked is a guidance note on how the NMW legislation actually applies - it was intended to help individuals and organisations [sic] understand how the national minimum wage applies in relation to what is often known as ‘therapeutic work’.

It was not a proposal or something that the Labour government 'tabled'/'put forward'.

 

 

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

 

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.