RC
But the original point was not, disabled people must be paid less.
It was disabled people COULD accept jobs for less than minimum wage if they so wished.
Compassion deserts Cameron
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Isn't the real issue about disabled people who are capable of doing a job, but at a fraction of the speed of a non disabled person? The employer is doing something good providing the opportunity, and the employee feels good from having a job. However, it's tough on an employer to be expected to pay the normal pay rate, and provide all the facilities, to get a much lower number of units of output for the same labour cost. So what's the fairest solution for employer, employee, and maybe the taxpayer or a charity?
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14290
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
My wife's step mother has been in two different homes and both have been brilliant. We had to move her to a new home which was more secure as her dementia worsened. The fact that she is still alive after eight years is a testament to the quality of care that she has received in both homes. One was charity run and the other is private.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
- RenewableCandy
- Posts: 12777
- Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
- Location: York
I can sort of see your point but inevitably the two will become indistinguishable with time.DominicJ wrote:RC
But the original point was not, disabled people must be paid less.
It was disabled people COULD accept jobs for less than minimum wage if they so wished.
Perhaps if they do individual licence applications (like the ones for an U14 taking on a job) it might work...but an U14 is vouched-for by his/her teachers and parents: who could do that fairly for a disabled person? And will the licencing process inevitably seague into a mere formality (clue to the answer: yes).