Disabled & terminally may be forced to work for free or lose benefits.

rosenhane wrote:
Kehama wrote:

Umm.. doesn't "disabled" mean you're not able to do anything? Just saying...

Being retarded doesn't stop any of the Republitards or those bible thumpers from getting jobs.

Noted. Strike one. Please read the Code of Conduct.

Malor wrote:

Well, that's what they're trying ultimately to do, to make these people's lives sufficiently unpleasant that they will either suicide or find work.

And unfortunately, if it turns out the latter isn't much of an option, then the former becomes much more palatable to an individual.

Apparently my aunt was on one of the consulting bodies for the development of this initiative (she's in the medical profession).... but she resigned because the questions that they will be asking the claimants were nothing to do with getting at the heart of the problem - basically just ignored any medical/psychological issues....

Kehama wrote:

Umm.. doesn't "disabled" mean you're not able to do anything? Just saying...

According to the Conservatives being "disabled" translates to "slacking off".

stevenmack wrote:
Kehama wrote:

Umm.. doesn't "disabled" mean you're not able to do anything? Just saying...

According to the Conservatives being "disabled" translates to "slacking off".

If they have hands they should be pulling on their bootstraps.

NathanialG wrote:
stevenmack wrote:
Kehama wrote:

Umm.. doesn't "disabled" mean you're not able to do anything? Just saying...

According to the Conservatives being "disabled" translates to "slacking off".

If they have hands they should be pulling on their bootstraps.

What if they don't have feet?

Paleocon wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
stevenmack wrote:
Kehama wrote:

Umm.. doesn't "disabled" mean you're not able to do anything? Just saying...

According to the Conservatives being "disabled" translates to "slacking off".

If they have hands they should be pulling on their bootstraps.

What if they don't have feet?

They they can pull them up higher than anyone else!

The thing I love about this story is how a load of the participating companies are abandoning it to avoid the bad press now it's higher profile. It's also probably useful as a list of companies who would try the same thing again if they think they can get away with it.

Did we ever determine if they were actually getting paid from the companies, or just still getting the benefits that they are owed?
I know here in the US we have allowed differently abled people, well at least those with reduced mental capacity to be hired for sub-minimum wage before. The rationalization to that was that they aren't putting in a "normal persons" work ability, but can still do some simple jobs if you keep an eye on them.

P.S. I am still unsure of which point of the Code of Conduct I violated, unless my post was taking as an attack towards Kehama. I was trying to say that there is a consensus that fundamentalists and the hard core right wing republicans have some sort of mental defect, but despite this handicap have jobs. I apologize if that came of as an attack on Kehama. If it was the generalization of the other groups, I'm sorry and I'll keep it in mind, but I thought it wasn't an issue with thread titles like "The Conservative War on Women" and "A Christmas of crazy: CPAC begins"

rosenhane wrote:

P.S. I am still unsure of which point of the Code of Conduct I violated, unless my post was taking as an attack towards Kehama. I was trying to say that there is a consensus that fundamentalists and the hard core right wing republicans have some sort of mental defect, but despite this handicap have jobs. I apologize if that came of as an attack on Kehama. If it was the generalization of the other groups, I'm sorry and I'll keep it in mind, but I thought it wasn't an issue with thread titles like "The Conservative War on Women" and "A Christmas of crazy: CPAC begins"

Probably 5:

5) Show respect. It sounds like an obvious thing to say but it needs to be written here as a reminder to everyone. Be respectful of other's view points, religions, where they're from and their beliefs.

Coupled with "The Intangibles" section of site's (not P&C specific) CoC

rosenhane wrote:

Did we ever determine if they were actually getting paid from the companies, or just still getting the benefits that they are owed?
I know here in the US we have allowed differently abled people, well at least those with reduced mental capacity to be hired for sub-minimum wage before. The rationalization to that was that they aren't putting in a "normal persons" work ability, but can still do some simple jobs if you keep an eye on them.

The articles i've read from those above state that these are "work placements" and these must be met to be able to collect on your benefits. Therefore, they would be doing the work of a person who is paid more than they are (paid by the company, these people are paid benefits from the government) for their benefits - though at first, in any placement, they would be being trained like anyone else.

In some ways i am very disappointed in companies pulling out of the scheme. At its core there is nothing wrong with placing people in work environments to gain experience (we did that when at school and some University and college courses do it too). This just makes me think that the companies, rather than doing the right thing and paying these people *something* they just will not have or enter into work experience programmes.

rosenhane wrote:

P.S. I am still unsure of which point of the Code of Conduct I violated, unless my post was taking as an attack towards Kehama. I was trying to say that there is a consensus that fundamentalists and the hard core right wing republicans have some sort of mental defect, but despite this handicap have jobs. I apologize if that came of as an attack on Kehama. If it was the generalization of the other groups, I'm sorry and I'll keep it in mind, but I thought it wasn't an issue with thread titles like "The Conservative War on Women" and "A Christmas of crazy: CPAC begins"

You just haven't been here long enough to insult people, and even if you had been "Republitards" is (just a little) too direct. You gotta dress it up a bit. The use of "knuckledragging", for example, is very common, and means the same thing. Passive agressiveness abounds (and often results in a satisfying feedback loop), so if you have a snarky streak to you, I recommend you use it.

People will post the CoC to give you direction, but that's mostly an excuse to ban new people. Generally, the real guideline is this: the less qualified you are to insult someone, the more acceptable it is. Directly insulting someone with a user ID -- i.e., someone you're actually talking to, and who can present their own opinion -- is a no-no at all points. Implying anyone that holds a certain opinion (which corresponds to something someone just said) is dumb usually works OK, because you're only indirectly insulting that person then. Directly insulting or wishing horrible acts someone you don't know, and can't post, like someone in a news article, is probably OK. For example, here is a thoughtful discussion on the pros and cons of raping the CEO of Massey Coal. You see similar stuff for politicians. I think there was like two pages of discussion on Michelle Bachmann's eyes, and how it meant she was crazy, or something.

Directly insulting a large group of people -- sticking "stupid, idiotic, etc" in front of a party name, calling a state "backwards" -- is almost always OK, with just a tiny bit of context. (You can't just say "Arkansans are inbred" by itself. But you can say that!) And of course, on the far end, insulting everyone, e.g., "people are scum" is so acceptable it's basically cliched.

Hope this helps. Navigating what the actual standards of P&C are, versus the stated one is kinda hard, I imagine. Just remember, there's really only one person that actually mods the place, so as long you go with insulting grain, no one will make a fuss and Certis won't care.

Enjoy! I think you'll fit in great here.

Staats wrote:

People will post the CoC to give you direction, but that's mostly an excuse to ban new people.

That's not how it is at all. It's an reason to ban people who do not make an argument but just hurl insults whether at people on here or elsewhere.

e.g. Her original post offered nothing to the conversation except her dislike of a certain group (also political) which had nothing to do with the topic.

For example, here is a thoughtful discussion on the pros and cons of raping the CEO of Massey Coal. You see similar stuff for politicians. I think there was like two pages of discussion on Michelle Bachmann's eyes, and how it meant she was crazy, or something.

The rape discussion came about because it is so common for people to "wish" people went to jail and got raped. I don't think it was directly calling for the rape of anyone and it was a discussion on the merits (or not) of a punishment system that engenders other punishments beyond those legislated or sentenced.

To be fair there's two separate issues here - to the best of my knowledge the work placement scheme is not directly targeted at disabled people (mostly it's for young unemployed people in general). I can see what they are trying to do but is EXTREMELY open to exploitation (I'm looking at you, TESCO) and remarkably shortsighted and I'm glad to see a lot of companies backing out of it, even if it is just down to bad publicity.

I think, personally, if I were in the above situation again (I've been unemployed for a good six months in the past - it's remarkably demoralising) I'd opt for volunteer work instead - if I'm not getting paid for something it might as well be something worthwhile which could offer the chance of new experiences - not stacking shelves for some company that see's the opportunity to save a bit of cash.

The "getting Disabled people into work" thing is a separate issue and considerable more dispicable in my opinion (although I'm sure there's plenty of overlap). This just seems like a very mean spirited attempt to cut people off of their disability benefits on the assumption that a lot of them are exploting the system. Naturally, this is all so vague and unfairly planned out that plenty of people who may well not be physically or mentally capable of regular work hours are forced into work as well.

As someone who has a sister with Downs Syndrome, let me say that the work program she goes to gives her a chance to feel self esteem over doing a job like everyone else. It gives her time away from home and a social atmosphere with other disabled people who don't look down on her or snub her (not that they don't have their own social circles, but you don't get snubbed for being disabled).

I tend to think that if my sister can get out and go to work every day, so can other people. And as far as being mentally capable of working... like I said, she has downs. She can clean things, she can do basic sorting of parts, etc. The bar for being mentally capable of working is pretty low. Not to mention that like most downs people she has thyroid issues and as such is grossly overweight.

But: Do you think that she should be [em]required[/em] to work (without pay) in order to get assistance?

I don't think anybody is disputing that work programs can be a good thing. The question is rather whether it is appropriate to [em]require[/em] people to participate in them, and whether it is appropriate for private businesses to benefit from that requirement.

bandit0013 wrote:

I tend to think that if my sister can get out and go to work every day, so can other people.

No one is arguing that people who are capable of working should be getting a free ride.

bandit0013 wrote:

As someone who has a sister with Downs Syndrome, let me say that the work program she goes to gives her a chance to feel self esteem over doing a job like everyone else. It gives her time away from home and a social atmosphere with other disabled people who don't look down on her or snub her (not that they don't have their own social circles, but you don't get snubbed for being disabled).

I tend to think that if my sister can get out and go to work every day, so can other people. And as far as being mentally capable of working... like I said, she has downs. She can clean things, she can do basic sorting of parts, etc. The bar for being mentally capable of working is pretty low. Not to mention that like most downs people she has thyroid issues and as such is grossly overweight.

She is paid for that work, right?

Hypatian wrote:

But: Do you think that she should be [em]required[/em] to work (without pay) in order to get assistance?

I don't think anybody is disputing that work programs can be a good thing. The question is rather whether it is appropriate to [em]require[/em] people to participate in them, and whether it is appropriate for private businesses to benefit from that requirement.

As long as there are parks that need cleaning, animal shelters with animals that need walking and other care, aid groups like the red cross that need volunteers, truly disabled people that need assistance and/or company...

Yes, I don't see why it's a problem to expect them to give back to receive. It shouldn't be full time, because they should be looking for work, training, etc, but would 15 hours a week be awful?

SixteenBlue wrote:

She is paid for that work, right?

Not really. Well below minimum wage take home.

To clarify, I think a good chunk of what she would be paid goes back into the government pool that helps pay for things people like her receive. It's a win for the business because they get cheap labor to do trivial things that they wouldn't want to hire someone for at a nominal wage and it's a win for the government because they save a portion of what they're paying out. It's a win for my sister because of the self esteem and social perk.

I don't see how anyone is being harmed.

bandit0013 wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

But: Do you think that she should be [em]required[/em] to work (without pay) in order to get assistance?

I don't think anybody is disputing that work programs can be a good thing. The question is rather whether it is appropriate to [em]require[/em] people to participate in them, and whether it is appropriate for private businesses to benefit from that requirement.

As long as there are parks that need cleaning, animal shelters with animals that need walking and other care, aid groups like the red cross that need volunteers, truly disabled people that need assistance and/or company...

Yes, I don't see why it's a problem to expect them to give back to receive. It shouldn't be full time, because they should be looking for work, training, etc, but would 15 hours a week be awful?

My main concern is simply the without pay part.

SixteenBlue wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

But: Do you think that she should be [em]required[/em] to work (without pay) in order to get assistance?

I don't think anybody is disputing that work programs can be a good thing. The question is rather whether it is appropriate to [em]require[/em] people to participate in them, and whether it is appropriate for private businesses to benefit from that requirement.

As long as there are parks that need cleaning, animal shelters with animals that need walking and other care, aid groups like the red cross that need volunteers, truly disabled people that need assistance and/or company...

Yes, I don't see why it's a problem to expect them to give back to receive. It shouldn't be full time, because they should be looking for work, training, etc, but would 15 hours a week be awful?

My main concern is simply the without pay part.

What if it was two tiered? You don't do anything, you get absolute subsistence level. If you do, you get a bit more.

bandit0013 wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

But: Do you think that she should be [em]required[/em] to work (without pay) in order to get assistance?

I don't think anybody is disputing that work programs can be a good thing. The question is rather whether it is appropriate to [em]require[/em] people to participate in them, and whether it is appropriate for private businesses to benefit from that requirement.

As long as there are parks that need cleaning, animal shelters with animals that need walking and other care, aid groups like the red cross that need volunteers, truly disabled people that need assistance and/or company...

Yes, I don't see why it's a problem to expect them to give back to receive. It shouldn't be full time, because they should be looking for work, training, etc, but would 15 hours a week be awful?

My main concern is simply the without pay part.

What if it was two tiered? You don't do anything, you get absolute subsistence level. If you do, you get a bit more.

Presuming that the person has the ability to work? That sounds like an improvement over the plan in the OP. I'm not sure I'm knowledgeable enough on the subject to say if it's the absolute best plan.

SixteenBlue wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

But: Do you think that she should be [em]required[/em] to work (without pay) in order to get assistance?

I don't think anybody is disputing that work programs can be a good thing. The question is rather whether it is appropriate to [em]require[/em] people to participate in them, and whether it is appropriate for private businesses to benefit from that requirement.

As long as there are parks that need cleaning, animal shelters with animals that need walking and other care, aid groups like the red cross that need volunteers, truly disabled people that need assistance and/or company...

Yes, I don't see why it's a problem to expect them to give back to receive. It shouldn't be full time, because they should be looking for work, training, etc, but would 15 hours a week be awful?

My main concern is simply the without pay part.

What if it was two tiered? You don't do anything, you get absolute subsistence level. If you do, you get a bit more.

Presuming that the person has the ability to work? That sounds like an improvement over the plan in the OP. I'm not sure I'm knowledgeable enough on the subject to say if it's the absolute best plan.

Absolutely. People who are actually physically or mentally impaired to the extent they can't work deserve our compassion and care.

bandit0013 wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

She is paid for that work, right?

Not really. Well below minimum wage take home.

To clarify, I think a good chunk of what she would be paid goes back into the government pool that helps pay for things people like her receive. It's a win for the business because they get cheap labor to do trivial things that they wouldn't want to hire someone for at a nominal wage and it's a win for the government because they save a portion of what they're paying out. It's a win for my sister because of the self esteem and social perk.

I don't see how anyone is being harmed.

So you're not sure anything extra goes back into the pool for everyone else? I don't see the logic in this since, if that's the case, then the company isn't saving anything. IMO, minimum wage is there for a reason. Just because the job is sh*tty or virtually requires no thought doesn't mean that the person should be paid less than minimum- by definition it is the least amount "viable" in the marketplace/social construct. Then there's the aspect that i feel (personally) is most offensive and that's: Why is her contribution not worth minimum wage?

Duoae wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

She is paid for that work, right?

Not really. Well below minimum wage take home.

To clarify, I think a good chunk of what she would be paid goes back into the government pool that helps pay for things people like her receive. It's a win for the business because they get cheap labor to do trivial things that they wouldn't want to hire someone for at a nominal wage and it's a win for the government because they save a portion of what they're paying out. It's a win for my sister because of the self esteem and social perk.

I don't see how anyone is being harmed.

So you're not sure anything extra goes back into the pool for everyone else? I don't see the logic in this since, if that's the case, then the company isn't saving anything. IMO, minimum wage is there for a reason. Just because the job is sh*tty or virtually requires no thought doesn't mean that the person should be paid less than minimum- by definition it is the least amount "viable" in the marketplace/social construct. Then there's the aspect that i feel (personally) is most offensive and that's: Why is her contribution not worth minimum wage?

Because her disability prevents her from providing minimum wage value. Because there is extra overhead with transportation, staffing, scheduling, and supervising people with her condition that isn't present for other workers.

I wasn't going to post this, but the story has grown a bit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ju...

As you might be aware, the UK just had a nice long weekend to celebrate Lizzy sitting on a throne for 60 years, and then some company tries to quietly get away with slavery cheap labour:

A group of long-term unemployed jobseekers were bussed into London to work as unpaid stewards during the diamond jubilee celebrations and told to sleep under London Bridge before working on the river pageant.

And someone from reddit:

JoeyJoeC[/url]]I am one of those people who they are trying to get work out of. They want me to do a months unpaid work over the Olympics, 30 hours a week. I will get £57 a week from job seekers anyway, so that's £1.90 an hour.

I'm torn on this issue. On one hand, I absolutely think it's a great idea to keep the unemployed or those on welfare in the workforce in some capacity. Otherwise, the longer you're out of the workforce the harder it is to transition back. On the other hand, even when I've railed against America's burgeoning entitlement programs, I don't support forcing the terminally ill to go sleep under a bridge before pulling a 20-hour day. If anything, I see this as another example of what happens when you give government way too much control over your life. At some point the British people accepted big government programs that have now turned on them.

That's awful, Scratched. And I think everyone should be afraid of this. Not because of it possibly being cruel or wrong, but because it would inevitably lead to wage deflation.

jdzappa wrote:

At some point the British people accepted big government programs that have now turned on them.

Thinking that purely capitalistic enterprises would not pull the same crap as "big government" in this situation is naive... There was a reason that the concept of minimum wage and health and safety was brought into existence.

[edit]In fact, reading the article it is clear that it is a private company - not the government - taking advantage of those poor people so your comment is even less founded in reality....