Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Back to forum list |
Back to The Lounge |
Jump to newest |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"IDS' plans are to move people employed through Remploy into main stream employment where they will be subject to the same Terms & Conditions as any other employee, and paid the same rate accordingly. This frees up government funding for the severely disabled who would never be able to compete in the jobs market with their more able bodied counterparts. How is that a bad thing? " That's my take on it too | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"IDS' plans are to move people employed through Remploy into main stream employment where they will be subject to the same Terms & Conditions as any other employee, and paid the same rate accordingly. This frees up government funding for the severely disabled who would never be able to compete in the jobs market with their more able bodied counterparts. How is that a bad thing? " | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah, apologies, after re-reading my response I realise that I haven't really answered the OP. Reducing benefit recipient numbers must always be a good thing, but only when coupled with a sensitivity to the case of the individual. It can't just be a numbers game. " IDS naively claimed that Remploy workers were doing nothing more than making cups of tea yet it's been shown that some workers employed through Remploy were performing the same tasks as able-bodied colleagues. It is those Remploy staff that should be taken out of Remploy and employed as able bodied people. If they are doing the work of able bodied people then they are able bodied, are they not? | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"IDS' plans are to move people employed through Remploy into main stream employment where they will be subject to the same Terms & Conditions as any other employee, and paid the same rate accordingly. This frees up government funding for the severely disabled who would never be able to compete in the jobs market with their more able bodied counterparts. How is that a bad thing? That's my take on it too" You honestly believe that people in sheltered work programmes can compete equally in mainstream employment, be offered mainstream employment and be paid a real wage? The welfare reform is concentrating on getting all people that can work back to work, and I for one as a disabled person; the definition of which you call severe, fully supports that, but by taking supported or sheltered work away and hoping that main stream employees will step in and recruit people in main stream employment is fancyfull. Untill the quota is reintroduced for particular sectors of severe disability, the people in sheltered work now, and the hard to place disabled people; such as people with a psyicotic condition, multiply disabled people, sensory disabled people, don't stand the slightest chance of competing equally for employment. Companies employing in excess of 500 people should have a statutory obligation to employ a minimum of 10% of their work force from disabled people. Furthermore 50% of the disabled people employed should be from the hard to place employment sector. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that concern is legitimate when those who are responsible for assessing whether a claimant qualifies for support are heavily financially incentivised. Due to the privatisation of provision & the contract tendering process it tends to be awarded on the basis of which organisation is offering the most for the lowest price. Which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing as long as there is a) a standards control with investigative powers and b) a robust appeals process to ensure that people who although might be classified as 'able-bodied' based on the 'letter of the regulations' are regarded as unemployable when subject to a more holistic and empathetic analysis." | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah, apologies, after re-reading my response I realise that I haven't really answered the OP. Reducing benefit recipient numbers must always be a good thing, but only when coupled with a sensitivity to the case of the individual. It can't just be a numbers game. " | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"IDS' plans are to move people employed through Remploy into main stream employment where they will be subject to the same Terms & Conditions as any other employee, and paid the same rate accordingly. This frees up government funding for the severely disabled who would never be able to compete in the jobs market with their more able bodied counterparts. How is that a bad thing? That's my take on it too You honestly believe that people in sheltered work programmes can compete equally in mainstream employment, be offered mainstream employment and be paid a real wage? The welfare reform is concentrating on getting all people that can work back to work, and I for one as a disabled person; the definition of which you call severe, fully supports that, but by taking supported or sheltered work away and hoping that main stream employees will step in and recruit people in main stream employment is fancyfull. Untill the quota is reintroduced for particular sectors of severe disability, the people in sheltered work now, and the hard to place disabled people; such as people with a psyicotic condition, multiply disabled people, sensory disabled people, don't stand the slightest chance of competing equally for employment. Companies employing in excess of 500 people should have a statutory obligation to employ a minimum of 10% of their work force from disabled people. Furthermore 50% of the disabled people employed should be from the hard to place employment sector. " | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Companies employing in excess of 500 people should have a statutory obligation to employ a minimum of 10% of their work force from disabled people. Furthermore 50% of the disabled people employed should be from the hard to place employment sector. " If those people can perform the tasks required of them then they should be employed as full employees with the same right, priviledges and pay as anyone else, which is what IDS is promoting. He's not trying to take severely disabled people out of state-funded employment programmes, just those who for one reason or another have found themselves employed through schemes like Remploy when they shouldn't have been, and that is a classic case of manipulating the unemployment figures to make it look like unemployment was falling - something Labour were past masters at doing. I don't agree that people who can do able-bodied work should have the safety net of Remploy continually sitting underneath them, and let's not forget that those businesses using Remploy staff are being subsidised by the taxpayer to employ them when they should really be included in the running costs of their business. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Spare a thought for those who suffer from severe disablement. I had to attend tribunal to support someone close to me who "looks ok" but has times when they cannot even press buttons on a mobile phone and is communicatively impaired. I was in tears as they obliged him to list in minute detail all the things he could not do. It was torture for him, a man who had worked all his life until the onset of MS forced to detail just how incapable he was. Given an opportunity to add something at the end, I told them exactly what I thought. Liars do this easily, honest working people do not." | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't give my piss to IDS, however thirsty he may ever get." He probably wouldn't want it. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't give my piss to IDS, however thirsty he may ever get. He probably wouldn't want it. " I might if he especially didn't want it. Considering the other forum thread on pissing in a woman that someone's got, it would be his turn instead. Apparently, there are 7 million people in the UK currently living in extreme financial stress, most of them employed. Funny isn't it, that poverty doesn't make much progress at disappearing, especially whilst the elite have been doing so very nicely out of the repeated recessions we're in. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn't give my piss to IDS, however thirsty he may ever get. He probably wouldn't want it. I might if he especially didn't want it. Considering the other forum thread on pissing in a woman that someone's got, it would be his turn instead. Apparently, there are 7 million people in the UK currently living in extreme financial stress, most of them employed. Funny isn't it, that poverty doesn't make much progress at disappearing, especially whilst the elite have been doing so very nicely out of the repeated recessions we're in." What makes you think poverty will ever be eradicated? It is a myth to believe that at some point in humanity's future someone will come up with a credible plan for sharing the wealth equally whilst maintaining the desire in the achievers in our society to keep on achieving knowing that a high % of the result of their endeavours will be redistributed to the lazy, the weak and the inept. | |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Post new Message to Thread |
back to top |