× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Other benefit issues  →  Thread

Lord Freud: Some disabled people are “not worth” the minimum wage ...

 < 1 2 3 > 

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 868

Joined: 22 August 2013

Edmund Shepherd - 16 October 2014 09:23 AM

Was this intended well? As I understood him, he was suggesting that people (with disabilities) may be willing to work for less than the minimum wage and that they should not be prevented from doing so. On the one hand, this would help reduce the 50% unemployment rate among disabled people. On the other hand, it would be vulnerable to abuse by employers and reinforce the image of disabled people as second-class citizens.

There is already a mechanism for paying below the minimum wage for apprentices. I read this as an extension of this. Of course, working in Tesco for £2 an hour is not quite the same as being an apprentice, far from it.

All that said, I think this was a gaff and given Lord Freud is not the most popular man in the world anyway, it could mean a firm shove in the direction of the door.

such an idea starts on the premise that its ok to say to a disabled person they are worth less not only than a non disabled person but less than a legal minimum.

I would never accept that as a starting point.

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

As I said some time back- I keep thinking Germany, mid 1930s.

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

I’m not going to comment on individuals but there is also a more subtle point raised by this.  It is misleading to try to apply objective terms to groups such as “the severely disabled”.  One reason is that it leans toward the medical model of disability and tends to overlook or minimize the social model of disability.  Secondly, it leans toward people’s limitations rather than their capabilities.  Take one example, Stephen Hawking.  While it might be true to say that medically he is severely disabled it is also beside the point.  Few, if anyone, would argue that Mr Hawking doesn’t possess a first class mind so to propose that the value of his labour is practically worthless would be absurd. 

Furthermore, Mr Hawking is fortunate that he has been in a position to avail himself of advanced assistive technology in order for him to be able to pursue a career commensurate with his talents.  All disabled people (if I can be forgiven for using that phrase for the moment) deserve the same opportunity, not only as each other, but as everyone else also: to be able to start from the same place on the starting line and not, for some, way back in the stand.  If the Equality Act is to have any real practical meaning efforts should be pursued to change societal perceptions around exactly this line of reasoning, to rescue the individual from the group that has subsumed him and to raise him up rather than to push him further down.

[ Edited: 17 Oct 2014 at 04:01 pm by nevip ]
stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 868

Joined: 22 August 2013

nevip - 17 October 2014 03:58 PM

I’m not going to comment on individuals but there is also a more subtle point raised by this.  It is misleading to try to apply objective terms to groups such as “the severely disabled”.  One reason is that it leans toward the medical model of disability and tends to overlook or minimize the social model of disability.  Secondly, it leans toward people’s limitations rather than their capabilities.  Take one example, Stephen Hawking.  While it might be true to say that medically he is severely disabled it is also beside the point.  Few, if anyone, would argue that Mr Hawking doesn’t possess a first class mind so to propose that the value of his labour is practically worthless would be absurd. 

Furthermore, Mr Hawking is fortunate that he has been in a position to avail himself of advanced assistive technology in order for him to be able to pursue a career commensurate with his talents.  All disabled people (if I can be forgiven for using that phrase for the moment) deserve the same opportunity, not only as each other, but as everyone else also: to be able to start from the same place on the starting line and not, for some, way back in the stand.  If the Equality Act is to have any real practical meaning efforts should be pursued to change societal perceptions around exactly this line of reasoning, to rescue the individual from the group that has subsumed him and to raise him up rather than to push him further down.

a great post.

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

Seconded.

Nice (and rather humbling) one Nevip.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

There is an interesting discussion re models of disability and how the DWP has been influenced by a particular model here
http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/models-of-disability.html

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

Thanks Billy, there’s also this rather longer article by Debbie Jolly which first appeared on the DPAC website A Tale of two Models: Disabled People vs Unum, Atos, Government and Disability Charities which expands to consider the different models but also the links between Atos and Unum amongst various other issues.

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Labour Party to table Commons vote of no confidence in Lord Freud

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/19/labour-commons-vote-lord-freud-disabled-workers

Surrey Adviser
forum member

Benefits and debt adviser - Esher CAB, Surrey

Send message

Total Posts: 222

Joined: 17 June 2010

Of course the way this was expressed by Freud (& the questioner) was crass & - in a general sense - difficult to defend.  I think it’s a subject on which comments can easily be misunderstood and distorted if they are looked at as generalisations.  There is a very wide range of disability - from those with a relatively minor disablement who can work in the same way as non-disabled people to those who are in a persistent vegetative state.  Somewhere in this range there will be people who want to work but who would be unable to be as productive in whatever job they could do as non-disabled people.

This is the group the question (however badly phrased) was referring to.  If you look at it from the point of view of the workplace there will be situations where the employer is able to afford to pay the minimum wage to such people.  There will also be situations where dissension could be caused in the workplace if non-disabled people find themselves on the same wage as a disabled person doing the same job who is much less productive - particularly if they know or suspect that the disabled person gets benefits (DLA, PIP, WTC disability element) which they don’t.  I would like to be wrong but I suspect that not everyone is as altruistic as we might like them to be.

I don’t pretend to know the best way of dealing with this but I don’t think a broad brush approach (e.g. everyone must have the minimum wage regardless at one extreme; or let employers decide to pay less for anyone on DLA/PIP at the other extreme) is necessarily the right way to go to encourage employers to take on disabled staff wherever they have jobs available that they could do.

Does anyone remember the Registered Disabled Persons scheme?  I know it existed in the 50s but not when it ended.  Employers (? those above a minimum number of employees) were obliged by law to take on a minimum % of people who were registered as disabled.  In the very large organisation I worked for it seemed to operate satisfactorily.  My very vague recollection (could be quite wrong) is that one of the reasons for ending it was that employers couldn’t meet the quota as the number of RDPs looking for work declined.

I’m sure any attempt to resurrect anything like this would be strongly opposed.  I mention it only to make the point that there are other ways of looking at this problem and I think some original thinking without preconceptions could be useful.

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

It was the green card scheme operating a quota of 3% of the workforce.  It was abolished by the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act.

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

For anyone interested in a historical perspective on this issue (and possibly also to understand that whilst much in this paper has changed, much still remains broadly the same), you could do worse than have a read through Professor Colin Barnes’ paper Disability and Employment (pdf copy) although he was a Doctor back then in 1992.

It covers the Green Card scheme (sec.5i), as well as the need to change peoples’ thinking from the medical to social model of disability more generally. It’s also striking how some aspects sound anachronistic such as the sheltered work placements, but also how most of the issues raised, such as underemployment, earnings disparities, and institutional discrimination remain real live problems for many people.

I was especially struck by this section at the conclusion (my emphasis):

It is evident, therefore, as many foreign governments including America, Canada, France and Australia have realised, that the only strategy which holds out any hope of success is one which focuses on the demand side of labour, i.e. on the social organisation of work. Such an approach warrants the introduction of a policy which emphasises disabled people’s lack of social rights rather than their individual needs, and focuses on the disabling society in which we live.

In other words, a comprehensive anti-discrimination mandate which, firstly, establishes a firm basis for a range of policies designed to ensure disabled people’s meaningful integration into the economic and social life of the community - besides a strengthened employment quota scheme these directives must tackle inaccessible housing, inaccessible transport, inaccessible education and training etc. -and, secondly, sends a clear signal throughout society that discrimination against disabled people for whatever reason and in whatever context is no longer acceptable; together with a suitable means of enforcing it.

Whether these ambitions have been realised remains a very moot point. The Equality Act, as Paul notes, should be a key tool here yet it’s not clear that it’s necessarily having the impact intended.

P.E.T.E
forum member

Head of Welfare Rights at Barnsley MBC.

Send message

Total Posts: 104

Joined: 17 June 2010

I just feel that we should remind employers that the minimum wage is just that. Its not a cap as some seem to think.  Nothing to stop them paying more to their staff if they want

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

Superb piece, in my opinion, from Adiya Chakrabortty in today’s Guardian.

If you’re disabled, it’s not just Lord Freud who holds you in contempt

Austerity is the incompetent treatment of the symptoms of a dysfunctional economy rather than its cause. Housing benefit bill too high? Don’t build more council houses, cut welfare! Paying too much in tax credits? Don’t get employers to pay more, cut benefits! Rather than help create decent jobs, Cameron and Freud prefer to drive Britons off welfare into cut-price employment. That logic is at its most naked and futile in the treatment of disabled people. They are being beaten harder than anyone else; yet no amount of guff about shirking will suddenly make them less disabled.

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Paul_Treloar_CPAG - 21 October 2014 10:21 AM

. The Equality Act, as Paul notes, should be a key tool here yet it’s not clear that it’s necessarily having the impact intended.

The Equality Act might be seen as a blunt tool at the moment; the damages available are often so low as not to attract Legal Aid which prevents a lot of low income people accessing appropriate recourse.

We’re trying to change that however… the nexus of the JR that is anticipated is the application of the Wider Public Interest & Reasonable Private Paying Individual tests; this time in light of the wholescale failure of PIP HCPs to make adequate adjustments in light of individuals’ disabilities.

[ Edited: 21 Oct 2014 at 02:24 pm by Dan_Manville ]
Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

DManville - 21 October 2014 02:09 PM

The Equality Act might be seen as a blunt tool at the moment; the damages available are often so low as not to attract Legal Aid which prevents a lot of low income people accessing appropriate recourse.

We’re trying to change that however… the nexus of the JR that is anticipated is the application of the Wider Public Interest & Reasonable Private Paying Individual tests; this time in light of the wholescale failure of PIP HCPs to make adequate adjustments in light of individuals’ disabilities.

Thanks Dan, but your link doesn’t work for me.