www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29628557
A close friend of mine (John) has a son. Not physically disabled, but mentally he's a challenge. However he likes cleaning stuff. He also likes making people drinks. He loves to feel useful, and loves being a "worker". He is just a whole lot nicer and more manageable when he is happy.
An equally close friend of mine (Bert) owns an "underneath the arches" type car repair/mechanics place and would love someone to make the tea and clean tools, also likes John and John's son and gets on well with son.
Bert is happy to offer John's son a "job". John is very keen that his son should take this job.
1) Anything son earns is deducted from his benefits. Fair enough, but he would lose more than he can earn.
2) Bert is happy to pay a few quid but can't afford minimum wage for someone who is not a mechanic or at least reasonably capable and talented.
3) John doesn't care how much money son gets, but knows how good "working" is for his behaviour.
4) Son doesn't really get why he can't just go there for free.
Why shouldn't the government and the law try to work something out there?
Now, what was that about political correctness?
|
My impression was that the original clumsy remarks had been made in the context of ideas for government subsidies to facilitate employment of people whose productivity is necessarily low, and who capitalists can't be expected to pay more than they are worth.
If that's so, Lord Freud had nothing to apologise for and was panicked into apologising. The parliamentary opposition has chosen this to display long teeth over, a bit distastefully I think. No more Mr Nice Miliband, heh heh...
|
>>
>> If that's so, Lord Freud had nothing to apologise for and was panicked into apologising.
Everybody is apologising all the time now. You might think that shows we are becoming a more polite society, but it's actually down to two factors:
1) Stupid people sounding off the first thing that comes into their head, thinking a rapid glib apology makes it all right
2) Thoughtful compassionate people making sensible comments but being pounced on by stupid people and then coerced into needlessly apologising.
All part of the March of the Morons.
|
Now, if you were to call John's son an apprentice then Bert could quite legally pay him £2.73 per hour for his first year of employment.....
The argument that the employee, an apprentice, does not earn his worth at the National Minimum Wage was exactly the argument used in setting the first year apprentice rate.
I have had recent, and current, experience of this argument while persuading my youngest that he would be better off in the long run taking on a job as an apprentice electrician, a proper four year apprenticeship with day release, etc. with a reputable local company, than sticking with his old college days job in a fast food place. As he is approching 21 he would be eligible for a NMW of £6.50 per hour at the fast food place, as an apprentice he could be paid £2.78 per hour...... Fortunately he sees the longer term benefit of having a decent skill and has gone for the apprenticeship, even better the company is a reputable one and is party to the JIB so my son gets the JIB electrical apprentice rate of £4.69 per hour for his first year and will be on a fair bit more than NMW next year.
My niece is of the same age and has had a very different experience with the apprenticeship schemes, she has just left her third apprenticeship in three years. She has had 'apprenticeships' in office administration, must admit that I'm not too sure what an apprenticeship in office admin involves, each promising much but paying the apprenticeship minimum on the back of the promise of a completed apprenticeship and lots of jam tomorrow. Oddly when she gets to the end of her first year and is due to move onto NMW these 'apprenticeships' have vanished like the morning mist and she has had to start again from scratch...... The cynic in me would say that this is just a ploy to get keen youngsters working for a year for next to nothing by cynical employers exploiting the first year apprenticeship loophole to get cheap labour, bit like the old YTS.
The Government keeps trumpeting about the increased, and increasing, number of youngsters in apprenticeships which all sounds wonderful to those of us who remember, or even benefitted, from proper, old school apprenticeships but I wonder how many are what we would recognise as an apprenticeship and how many are cheap labour schemes such as my niece has experienced; she really would have been better off flipping burgers for the last three years, at least she would be in a job earning money, she is currently on JSA and very demoralised......
|
Re: Cockle's son & niece.
In about 2006 or so I was heading up a fairly large organisation which was doing quite well. Sufficiently so that we thought a little payback was called for.
I decided that I wanted to invest time and money in 4 trainees, each of them should have good references from their teachers but pretty much messed up their exams. I was looking for kids with potential but facing a roadblock.
The entire Jobcentre organisation was a total waste of space. I cannot state too strongly how entirely useless and demoralising they were, both the organisation and the appalling people with in it. Quite clearly they preferred lording it over kids rather than having to do real thinking and work.
When I asked the local secondary schools for recommendations they thought we were from Mars and ignored us and the teachers mostly couldn't be bothered to talk to us. Too difficult in their summer holidays I guess. The few that did call us back reminded me of Lauren Cooper.
Newspaper ads were not very productive since the kids we were after weren't applying, the ones that were applying were doing so because the DSS or the Jobcentre made them to protect their benefits, and anyway it was difficult to frame up in an ad.
Eventually we found 4 by word of mouth through friends of employees and the like.
One didn't turn up for his second week. One we didn't want back for his 3rd week and the other two have turned out extremely well, both having moved on after promotions and now with solid careers.
My point was there was no support from the relevant organisations. Not a jot. So much as I agree about cynical employers, the damned organisations that are supposed to help are no better.
I guess its now 8 years later, maybe things are better. But I was shocked at the time.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 16 Oct 14 at 12:45
|
>Now, if you were to call John's son an apprentice..
One of the tragic consequences of the miners strike and subsequent pit closures was the destruction of excellent trade apprenticeship schemes. The pits turned out a constant steam of time-served sparkies, welders, machinists and pipe fitters etc. The task was left to technical colleges who didn't have a hope in hell of providing real on-the-job training.
|
>> Why shouldn't the government and the law try to work something out there?
Exactly my thoughts.
If you are say wheel chair bound, but otherwise totally with it and work in a call centre.. then the obvious answer is you get the same as everyone else.
In the circs you describe, it would be reasonable to pay less.
|
Shame FMR and AC weren't on Newsnight, whose debate on this predictably got nowhere.
Since Freud is not an idiot, it's fairly obvious what he was musing about and to persecute him for it instead of considering whether there is a need to be addressed says more about Miliband and the rest than Freud himself.
|
|
Politicians are either hypocrits or ignorant. The government, whoever has been in power has subsidised the pay of people who are unable to work at normal capacity for many years. It is called Supported Employment, it also includes subsidised travel and and workplace adaptations if they are required. In this area it is administered by the councils Employability Team.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 16 Oct 14 at 12:20
|
Google access to work
I did get some help from this scheme although only from a corporate point of view as attending large meetings does not really do much.
|
No FM2R,
Would it be worth enquiring whether there's anyone in the voluntary sector can help with arranging this as work therapy (or whatever the appropriate term is in your neck of the woods).
Here, Rehab* are subisdised by the state to provide training and organise work opportunities for disabled clients. These, I believe, can range from matching candidates with jobs in private businesses to working in closely supervised workshops where this more suitable for the client. It may be that Bert could take on John's son this way, avoiding any 'gotchas' about minimum wage, apprenticeships etc., in a way that everyone gets what they want and need from the arrangement.
* Rehab do operate outside Ireland. Their managment have also been in the news recently more than they'd like. But I name them as a well-known example of an organisation that John and Bert's local advocacy groups ought to recognise if they seek guidance on this.
|
tinyurl.com/m89u5np Link to Breitbart - London.
Article defending Lord Freud.
|
|
Unusually sensible for Delingpole.
|
I have occasionally employed fully able people who turned out not to be worthy of the minimum wage !
;-)
|
>>I have occasionally employed fully able people who turned out not to be worthy of the minimum wage !
Must be true, 'cos your Boss said the same thing.
|
Gromit,
Not an avenue that I'd considered, I've passed your note on to my friend for him to think about.
Thank you.
|
Hmmm.
Been out all day at the NEC, Caravan and Motorhome Show so only just caught this thread.
Looked at Lord Freud's entry in Wiki. Although he advised the Blair/Brown gov't and then joined the Tories and became a junior Minister I'm not clear what qualifies an ex banker with slightly 'sus' record to be an 'expert' on benefits.
On subject under discussion I can sort of see where he's coming from but his expression was clumsy and he was a natural set up for both Labour and the Media. On the latter angle there was (yet again) an interesting discussion on BBC R4's PM programme tonight involving Guardian's Michael White, somebody from Guido Fawkes and Caroline Quinn, a BBC political correspondent, moderated by Eddie Mair.
Politically, given the coalition's record for 'nastiness' via issues such as bedroom tax*, sanctioning claimants and the (albeit aborted) withdrawal of Mobility Allowance for care home residents he was a natural target.
*I'm just about to follow RP into the world of CAB volunteering. Both at recruitment seminar and interview the effect of 'bedroom tax' on case load and on peoples real lives figured large.
|
>> *I'm just about to follow RP into the world of CAB volunteering. Both at recruitment
>> seminar and interview the effect of 'bedroom tax' on case load and on peoples real
>> lives figured large.
The "bedroom tax" (another left wing scare moniker, just like "poll tax") has at its heart an admirable aim, redistribution of community housing stock by need, but has been very badly implemented. The community charge was another badly needed measure, still needed today, but scuppered by poor implementation and scare tactics.
|
>> The "bedroom tax" (another left wing scare moniker, just like "poll tax") has at its
>> heart an admirable aim, redistribution of community housing stock by need, but has been very
>> badly implemented. The community charge was another badly needed measure, still needed today, but scuppered
>> by poor implementation and scare tactics.
>>
Agreed
|
>> The "bedroom tax" (another left wing scare moniker, just like "poll tax") has at its
>> heart an admirable aim, redistribution of community housing stock by need, but has been very
>> badly implemented. The community charge was another badly needed measure, still needed today, but scuppered
>> by poor implementation and scare tactics.
The term beroom tax amply describes the effect on people. It's not so much bad implementation as attempting to achieve an impossibility; the social housing stock simply lacks the requisite number of 1 and 2 bed properties. My cynical realist side says the govt knew that all along and the redistribution is a smokescreen for a fiscal policy.
Also, people on the whole do not respond well to compulsion/coercion. An initial offer based on some form of carrot with the stick reserved for later would be more effective.
|
From another forum, a summary of why Lord Freud's views caused such a fuss :
The problem Lord Freud faces is that his comments come on the back of a whole series of Government measures which have penalised disabled people. The new tough eligibility rules for Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and Personal Independence Payments (PIP) mean that many disabled people have lost benefits which they were previously entitled to. Artificial caps have been set on the disability benefit budget, which inevitably means that some disabled people who should be entitled to benefit are going to loose out. The fact that over two thirds of appeals against loss of ESA are won by the claimant suggests that this is already happening on a wide scale.
Meanwhile cuts in local authority budgets are having a big effect on adult day care services - particularly those targeted at those disabled people that Lord Freud now wants to employ for £2 an hour.
So as far as many disabled people, and their relatives are concerned, the Tories have already for 'form' when it comes to their treatment of disabled people, and that is why Lord Freud's remarks have caused such widespread outrage.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 17 Oct 14 at 10:34
|
>>particularly those targeted at those disabled people that Lord Freud now wants to employ for £2 an hour.
But that's not what he said.
Its simply yet another bit of prose misrepresenting the situation for the writers own agenda.
At least this one is written fairly well, I suppose.
|
>> At least this one is written fairly well, I suppose.
Which was why I used it.
|
>> My cynical realist side says the govt knew
>> that all along and the redistribution is a smokescreen for a fiscal policy.
well you would wouldn't you. If your blessed Labour party didn't keep dumping us in a fiscal mess you would be able to use that as an excuse now would you.
Its the same old roller coaster, Labour gov goes on a spending spree financed only by Wongo.co loans, and the Tory gov is "nasty and evil" when they have to come along and clean up the mess.
|
>> well you would wouldn't you. If your blessed Labour party didn't keep dumping us in
>> a fiscal mess you would be able to use that as an excuse now would
>> you.
That would be same Labour party that got USA and pretty much whole of western world in same or worse fiscal mess than UK?
>> Its the same old roller coaster, Labour gov goes on a spending spree financed only
>> by Wongo.co loans, and the Tory gov is "nasty and evil" when they have to
>> come along and clean up the mess.
In 64 and again ten years later Labour came to power just as roller coaster booms set off by first Maudling and then Barber flipped over the top.
|
>> That would be same Labour party that got USA and pretty much whole of western
>> world in same or worse fiscal mess than UK?
Do you deny that Labour spend too much?
Balls seems to have changed his tune somewhat as well.
|
|
All governments spend too much!
|
>> Do you deny that Labour spend too much?
>>
>> Balls seems to have changed his tune somewhat as well.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/19/britain-political-class-tories-economic-fairytale
Some real figures rather than Tory myths recycled by their lackeys.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 19 Oct 14 at 21:02
|
>That would be same Labour party that got USA and pretty much whole of western world
>in same or worse fiscal mess than UK?
>In 64 and again ten years later Labour came to power just as roller coaster booms set
>off by first Maudling and then Barber flipped over the top.
Why is it always someone else's fault whenever Labour stuff up the economy Bromp?
|
|
Both parties have made plenty of cock ups over the years.The Tories are just a bit nastier when they want to be.I thought the economic crisis was caused by everybody being in debt.Private and Government Kevin.Housing crisis in the States followed by banks going bust but where not allowed to.And had to be bailed and we all pay for it.Am I anywhere near Bromp?
|
>> Why is it always someone else's fault whenever Labour stuff up the economy Bromp?
It's more the notion, pushed repeatedly here, that the Tories are exemplars of fiscal probity. Do you deny the existence or effect of the Barber boom?
|
|
Didn't we have to be bailed out by the I.M.F under Norman Lamont.Scary when you think that these people used to be in charge..I've never studied economy. I bet they haven't either>:)
|
|
It was the labour govt in 1976 that applied to the IMF for money I think you will find don't remember any others, I may be wrong
|
Most records of the time, for example his obit in the Independent, have a slightly less biased view of the barber boom than you portray Bromp.
The general view IMHO of governments in the last 50 years in independent literature anyway, that labour is generally poor at finance and the tories are poor at society.
There is good and bad in both which you might see if you took the blinkers off
Goodnight
|
>> There is good and bad in both which you might see if you took the blinkers off
They're both lousy at most things except when something goes right for once, or can be said to have gone right.
Governments of any stripe are really at the mercy of economic storms and winds in the outside world. One of the less attractive practices of our main political parties is that they pretend these inevitable, irresistible ups, or rather downs, have been brought about by 'our predecessors', the other party when in government. Of course when there's an up they earnestly claim credit for it. Who wouldn't?
Naturally politicians don't believe all that carp. But they insult the rest of us by thinking we will swallow it. I dunno, perhaps we are that dumb. I'm often tempted to think so.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 18 Oct 14 at 00:14
|
Here's my radical solution:
We divide the country evenly into two parts, and let the Tories rule one and Labour the other.
The border is totally flexible, and any county or smaller part can opt to swap to the other half.
Each part is ruled permanently by each party. There are no elections, but we can switch government providers whenever we like, just like switching banks or energy providers.
Then if one system is manifestly better or less accident prone than the other then it will quickly attract more territory, and hence a larger tax base. The less-favoured side will have to come up with a better offer or lose customers.
For the sake of argument we could call them "England" and "Scotland", although of course over time the actual geographical relationship would dissolve.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Sat 18 Oct 14 at 13:45
|
It would make no difference. The politicians try to buy votes from the gullible with promises they have no intention of keeping even if they were viable.
Has anyone noticed ho quiet the Scottish Nationalists have gone about their land of plenty funded by oil since the price has plummeted.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 18 Oct 14 at 13:49
|
>> It would make no difference. The politicians try to buy votes from the gullible with
>> promises they have no intention of keeping even if they were viable.
>>
>> Has anyone noticed ho quiet the Scottish Nationalists have gone about their land of plenty
>> funded by oil since the price has plummeted.
>>
And when the price rises in the future they will become noisy again.
You must realise about 45% of the population pay no income taxes so think government spending does not affect their pocket...hence the cries of "the government must do something"...
(Mrs madf gets fed up of my response which is "you pay for it then"...
|
>> You must realise about 45% of the population pay no income taxes so think government
>> spending does not affect their pocket...hence the cries of "the government must do something"
Are you in the real world?
The basic rate of income tax has been a one way downwards way bet all my working life. Accepted that allowances have occasionally been frozen and that more have been sucked into 40% band but idea that increased spend falls solely on IT payers is pathetic.
Do you really think nothing falls on vat, fuel duty, booze/fags etc?
And the biggest group of non IT payers are pensioners.
|
>> And the biggest group of non IT payers are pensioners.
>>
...........Because most of us are on low incomes!
|
This 'ere pensioner pays IT ! Reminds me...Gotta do my return soon, rather than at the last minute
|
If you're doing it on paper, it is (almost) the last minute! 31 October deadline.
Did mine on Thursday.
|
In a previous life I owned four small retail stores. Between one and three full time employees in each shop, and several part time. Two of my very best friends have disabled siblings, not physically but backward for want of a better description. I often discussed with them the possibility of providing employment, but being a small business they would have to work alone...in the warehouse, helping a delivery driver unload and check off stock, putting it away in the right place in the warehouse and rotating stock etc. unfortunately they could not be left to work unsupervised and I simply did not have the manpower to do so. One of the regrets of my life not being able to offer employment to these two unfortunate people.
And as for Jobcentres. The dross they sent us had to be seen to be believed. All I wanted was an honest, reliable person to work an easy 38 hour week in a retail environment. Turn up on time, wear a clean provided polo and be pleasant with customers. Easier to advertise in the local paper and take it from there. Some did not turn up for pre arranged interviews, disappeared, never to be seen again after two hours in the job, arrived looking scruffy & unkempt. Totally unemployable and no use to either man or dog.
|
>> Some did not turn up for pre arranged interviews, disappeared, never to be seen again after two hours in the job, arrived looking scruffy & unkempt. Totally unemployable and no use to either man or dog.
The work I do now hardly ever requires me to meet anyone in person. But in my youth I did a lot of different jobs most of which required one to be shaved, clean, tidy and yuck, 'smart'. This requirement was a great burden to me. I always hated having to pull my socks up, comb my hair etc., and tended to oversleep and be late for school or work, sometimes disgracefully late, but I never quite managed to get fired.
Nevertheless I contrived to look marginally acceptable when necessary, and I reckon I still could although I haven't got a non-threadbare whistle that fits me properly. Must drop in at the Oxfam shop when I've got some bread.
|
Somebody who looks smart and presentable could be the biggest con merchant under the sun.
Spend some time working on a barge with a skipper who didn't give a toss about forever cleaning up.Great bloke but scruffy.>;)
|
Worked with a guy a few years back who had one arm.
He was on about £60k p/a. I don't think he would like to be paid less than the minimum wage!
|
>> a guy a few years back who had one arm.
>> He was on about £60k p/a.
Working as a bandit one assumes?
:o}
|
>Bandit!
Considering his profession, probably ;-)
|
>> Somebody who looks smart and presentable could be the biggest con merchant under the sun.
Quite Dutchie. I am always suspicious of excessively well-groomed individuals. But in a corporate setting they've got us surrounded. The ghastly thing is that they aren't all as stupid as they look, and they are quite often genuinely nasty.
|
>> There is good and bad in both which you might see if you took the
>> blinkers off
The irony of that post in a forum where UKIP/Tory blinkers are part of the dress code........
|
>> >> There is good and bad in both which you might see if you took
>> the
>> >> blinkers off
>>
>> The irony of that post in a forum where UKIP/Tory blinkers are part of the
>> dress code........
>>
A typical Bromptonaut response. There are indeed some bad ones of other colours but that does not make you any better.
You even probably count me as one, wrongly. I have little time for blind party politics whichever party is involved you are IMHO one of the worst examples. To say others are bad is no defence as I am sure you know, given your background.
|
>> A typical Bromptonaut response.
I'm playing a C4P form of BS bingo now......
|
"Disabled not worthy of minimum wage" - Armel Coussine
