Sally Ann Hart says disabled people should be paid less

[Halb]

Tory election candidate says disabled people should be paid less as they ‘don’t understand money’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/con...

Who thinks she'll take Hastings and Wye?

[Halb]

daddy cool said:

To be fair, although the title of the topic and the article says "disabled people" (which makes you think "in a wheelchair" or similar) she actually says "some people with learning difficulties", which - knowing nothing about the background of the story or much about that field - doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.

People with learning difficulties should be paid less for the same job?

[Halb]

gazza285 said:

As always context is everything.

YOu agree with Sally Ann Hart?

[Halb]

Supercilious Sid said:

But look at the original posters MO. Its not really surprising that he would post a link to one painting her in the worst possible light.

What’s my MO?

[Halb]

otolith said:

Halb is usually quite moderate.

Thank you O. I also have you to thank for giving me the correct data on stuff many times. I’m going to check your link and see if my original hypothetical question needs reevaluating.

[Halb]

otolith said:

She was defending sharing this article;
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/the-minimum-wa...
It is being reported as "Tory candidate says disabled people should be paid less" when the article is actually about "people with learning disabilities who can't earn the NMW should still be allowed to work if they want to".
Now it may be that Sally Ann Hart likes the idea because she wants to send people with learning disabilities up chimneys instead of paying them welfare, but she doesn't seem to have said anything like that.

I've read the spectator article. Thank you for your logical, unbiased, informative input (as opposed to usual suspects)
Some people think that the work done by those with learning difficulties are not 'worth' the same as those without. I don't agree there. I think the spectator does it's way of pushing it's point of view well enough, with different reasons as to why one would back a lowering of the minimum wage, but I disagree with them. I don't see the devaluing of the work done because of who is doing it as a valid/moral way of thinking, because fundamentally it puts money first.

[Halb]

smn159 said:

Who decides whether your disability warrants payment of the minimum wage?

What protections will there be to stop employers from discriminating against those with disabilities by paying them less?

Quite.THis isn't something that can be decided piecemeal anecdotes. However, after saying that, if the parent/other wishes to 'opt-out'? Maybe that could be a way for those who want to, to allow their loved ones to be employed at a different amount?

[Halb]

Oakey said:

So if an employer has the option of employing a non-disabled person on NMW or someone with learning difficulties on NMW, which do you think they're going to choose?

As Scotty said earlier in the thread, it's not about the money, it's about giving these people the chance to do something productive that they enjoy.

That chance to do something productive is a maxim that should/can applied across the board, disability or no disability.

[Halb]

otolith said:

I see where you are coming from, but I think the point is that a minimum wage doesn't just put a floor on what you can buy labour for, it puts a floor on what you can sell it for. Which means that if you have to compete with people who are more able than you for the same price, you're never going to get the job.

My feeling is that people in this situation - who need to work not for the money but for the social structure of the workplace - are probably better served by working in the voluntary sector than being exempted from minimum wage.

Aye. It's certainly a nuanced and complex issue, and not as one sided as I first may have thought. I think that sadly, it is beyond the measure of the current crop of politicians to get the balance right.