Remploy - its all over, almost
Discussion
Waited patiently all day for this subject to appear and surprised it didn't. I guess we all know that our Government have seen fit to close most of the work sites down by withdrawal of the 25 million quid a year subsidy. That results in 1,700 people losing their jobs with the likelihood that to find alternative employment in the current work market is fairly bleak. Yes the Government managed to find two or three charities directly linked to helping disabled people to actually back the closures stating that Remploy had reached its natural ending and was no longer appropriate in 2012.
Its all in the timing, 1,700 people will now move onto all types of benefits rather than go to work and produce goods which sold. Its impossible to say how those directly affected feel about the closures but those that have spoke out are apparently unhappy to devastated regarding how this will affect them in their lives.
Anyhow the Government saves 550 million pounds a year and therefore they must all be feeling quite chuffed about their actions?
Anyone care to discuss.
Its all in the timing, 1,700 people will now move onto all types of benefits rather than go to work and produce goods which sold. Its impossible to say how those directly affected feel about the closures but those that have spoke out are apparently unhappy to devastated regarding how this will affect them in their lives.
Anyhow the Government saves 550 million pounds a year and therefore they must all be feeling quite chuffed about their actions?
Anyone care to discuss.
I am confused a little. If they remove a 25million subsidy, how does it save 550million. I´ve only read your post, so am confused.
From the text you write, you obviously feel passionate about this topic. My only comment is that I don´t think anyone "feels chuffed" when making job losses. We are in a position of making tough choices and everyone thinks that their cause is worthy (and I don´t claim to know right from wrong in this case) but this has been caused by overspending as a country and now having to cut back
From the text you write, you obviously feel passionate about this topic. My only comment is that I don´t think anyone "feels chuffed" when making job losses. We are in a position of making tough choices and everyone thinks that their cause is worthy (and I don´t claim to know right from wrong in this case) but this has been caused by overspending as a country and now having to cut back
This from the Grauniad:
Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people.
So most disability charities caring for disabled people back the move. Union leaders backing their own sense of importance while taking a pop at a Conservative led government don't like it. Hmmm it's a tricky thing discerning motive these days.
Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people.
So most disability charities caring for disabled people back the move. Union leaders backing their own sense of importance while taking a pop at a Conservative led government don't like it. Hmmm it's a tricky thing discerning motive these days.
The jiffle king said:
I am confused a little. If they remove a 25million subsidy, how does it save 550million. I´ve only read your post, so am confused.
From the text you write, you obviously feel passionate about this topic. My only comment is that I don´t think anyone "feels chuffed" when making job losses. We are in a position of making tough choices and everyone thinks that their cause is worthy (and I don´t claim to know right from wrong in this case) but this has been caused by overspending as a country and now having to cut back
Must admit the sums have me confused as well, but those are the numbers reported. Will have to do some digging around when more information is available. But at this point I would suggest that if it was 'only' 25 million quid saved then the Government would not pursue the closures on the basis of purely being financial.From the text you write, you obviously feel passionate about this topic. My only comment is that I don´t think anyone "feels chuffed" when making job losses. We are in a position of making tough choices and everyone thinks that their cause is worthy (and I don´t claim to know right from wrong in this case) but this has been caused by overspending as a country and now having to cut back
MP on the radio said it cost £25,000 per worker to maintain the,m in the remploy factories, when it woudl cost just £3000 to support them in the normal workplace.
Sounds sensible, but doesn't mean these people affected all get a new job elswhere, in a suitable local factory either. It doesn't add up the benefits these people will get (are they not on some other support) if they can't find work.
Sounds sensible, but doesn't mean these people affected all get a new job elswhere, in a suitable local factory either. It doesn't add up the benefits these people will get (are they not on some other support) if they can't find work.
turbobloke said:
This from the Grauniad:
Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people.
So most disability charities caring for disabled people back the move. Union leaders backing their own sense of importance while taking a pop at a Conservative led government don't like it. Hmmm it's a tricky thing discerning motive these days.
Its incorrect in the Guardian to report that most charities support the closures. To me its common sense to say that charities supporting this particular group would certainly have pressed the Government for future plans regarding the issue. The Government are saying the money saved will be used in their 'Back to Work' program and its money better spent then to keep Remploy open for business. Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people.
So most disability charities caring for disabled people back the move. Union leaders backing their own sense of importance while taking a pop at a Conservative led government don't like it. Hmmm it's a tricky thing discerning motive these days.
From a personal POV I am amazed at the lack of responses to come from these charities and other organisations. The Unions are making some noise but I agree, its not helpful in this instance.
One of the Remploy centres which is closing has 55 job applicants for every job, not encouraging and for some positively crushing.
However, modern thinking and PC commentating requires that those that are disabled should be treated exactly the same as fully able bodied people, in which case this is simply just another Government sponsored support program which is closing down.
Thus far I have managed to control my personal feelings on the issue as it would not add anything to the thread other than anger.
turbobloke said:
This from the Grauniad:
Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people.
So most disability charities caring for disabled people back the move. Union leaders backing their own sense of importance while taking a pop at a Conservative led government don't like it. Hmmm it's a tricky thing discerning motive these days.
Its incorrect in the Guardian to report that most charities support the closures. To me its common sense to say that charities supporting this particular group would certainly have pressed the Government for future plans regarding the issue. The Government are saying the money saved will be used in their 'Back to Work' program and its money better spent then to keep Remploy open for business. Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people.
So most disability charities caring for disabled people back the move. Union leaders backing their own sense of importance while taking a pop at a Conservative led government don't like it. Hmmm it's a tricky thing discerning motive these days.
From a personal POV I am amazed at the lack of responses to come from these charities and other organisations. The Unions are making some noise but I agree, its not helpful in this instance.
One of the Remploy centres which is closing has 55 job applicants for every job, not encouraging and for some positively crushing.
However, modern thinking and PC commentating requires that those that are disabled should be treated exactly the same as fully able bodied people, in which case this is simply just another Government sponsored support program which is closing down.
Thus far I have managed to control my personal feelings on the issue as it would not add anything to the thread other than anger.
How can it cost us 25k per person?
Im guessing lots of overpaid "managers" and other wasteful practices.
Im all for helping those who have have disabilities but theres jobs that they can do without needing thousands of pounds in support.
Things like office work and call centres are the ideal places for a lot of disabled and they can do the job just as well as most able bodied folk and i would like to see the government pushing to help people with problems find proper jobs that they can do without needing thousands of pounds of subsidies.
Im guessing lots of overpaid "managers" and other wasteful practices.
Im all for helping those who have have disabilities but theres jobs that they can do without needing thousands of pounds in support.
Things like office work and call centres are the ideal places for a lot of disabled and they can do the job just as well as most able bodied folk and i would like to see the government pushing to help people with problems find proper jobs that they can do without needing thousands of pounds of subsidies.
With the deficit at the level it is the government cannot justify spending £25k a job to subsidise these factories remaining in business.
These people are presumably capable of work so it seems sensible that a much lower subsidy could allow them to find normal private sector employment.
These people are presumably capable of work so it seems sensible that a much lower subsidy could allow them to find normal private sector employment.
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
This from the Grauniad:
Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people.
So most disability charities caring for disabled people back the move. Union leaders backing their own sense of importance while taking a pop at a Conservative led government don't like it. Hmmm it's a tricky thing discerning motive these days.
Its incorrect in the Guardian to report that most charities support the closures.Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people.
So most disability charities caring for disabled people back the move. Union leaders backing their own sense of importance while taking a pop at a Conservative led government don't like it. Hmmm it's a tricky thing discerning motive these days.
July 2011
"Leading disability charities are backing the proposals. Mark Goldring, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, said: "We can do much more to help people with disabilities into work in a way that directly benefits them and wider society."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/11/remp...
March 2012
"Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/07/remp...
Did you also forget the rentapop bandwaggoning from union dinosaurs by accident?
crankedup said:
Thus far I have managed to control my personal feelings on the issue as it would not add anything to the thread other than anger.
While admirably keeping control of your emotions, which is certainly the way to proceed.With the level of subsidy they could pay the employees the national average wage and it would still be cheaper. This is not 'work' or ‘employment’ it's fake factories and makes a patronising mockery of the efforts of the disabled workers, I’m not surprised the disabled charities are happy to see the back of this organisation.
0a said:
With the level of subsidy they could pay the employees the national average wage and it would still be cheaper. This is not 'work' or ‘employment’ it's fake factories and makes a patronising mockery of the efforts of the disabled workers, I’m not surprised the disabled charities are happy to see the back of this organisation.
Have to say, that is exactly how I read it too. The fact that the disabled charities back the closures speaks volumes about the need to close the factories. A subsidy of £25 per worker is surely lunacy too. (The fact that the unions oppose the move speaks volumes about them too. Long may they rot somewhere unpleasantly hot.)
Oli.
When I worked in the control rooms department at Brighton we employed six disabled people via Remploy in the CCTV control room. They were excellent, real grafters. Further we paid them basic wages and Remploy picked up the costs of special seating, access and that sort of stuff.
One particular chap was intelligent, shrewd, politically aware and worked hard at his job. I nearly said despite the fact he was paralysed from the waist down but after a while you could ignore that. The job went nowhere and on his annual assessment I discussed working for Sussex Police or a job outside, and that I'd support him. He'd have done well and been an asset to any job as well. But he said he felt loyalty to SusPol as when he came for the interview, one of 'hundreds' that he'd gone through he said it was the first time that anyone listened to him and just the thought that he stood a chance and was not there just to show that they'd included a disabled person made him grateful.
Remploy gives disabled people the chance to do some worthwhile work. A simple calculation of £s plus and minus does not answer all the points in its favour.
As for the other charities supporting withdrawing money from Remploy, those who use this as an example obviously are not aware of the cut-throat politics of the disability industry.
I don't know whether dedicated factory employment is the proper way to go. However, I wouldn't trust the judgement of other charities who might feel they are in line for a cut of the money saved.
One particular chap was intelligent, shrewd, politically aware and worked hard at his job. I nearly said despite the fact he was paralysed from the waist down but after a while you could ignore that. The job went nowhere and on his annual assessment I discussed working for Sussex Police or a job outside, and that I'd support him. He'd have done well and been an asset to any job as well. But he said he felt loyalty to SusPol as when he came for the interview, one of 'hundreds' that he'd gone through he said it was the first time that anyone listened to him and just the thought that he stood a chance and was not there just to show that they'd included a disabled person made him grateful.
Remploy gives disabled people the chance to do some worthwhile work. A simple calculation of £s plus and minus does not answer all the points in its favour.
As for the other charities supporting withdrawing money from Remploy, those who use this as an example obviously are not aware of the cut-throat politics of the disability industry.
I don't know whether dedicated factory employment is the proper way to go. However, I wouldn't trust the judgement of other charities who might feel they are in line for a cut of the money saved.
Derek Smith said:
As for the other charities supporting withdrawing money from Remploy, those who use this as an example obviously are not aware of the cut-throat politics of the disability industry.
For my part I was citing it as informed commentary from people who know what they're talking about, there was no 'use' other than to share it. Lots of people have worked alongside colleagues with disabilities me included but I'll listen to the key charities when they have something to say in comparison to anecdotes no matter how worthy. Unless you're telling me they're politicised in which case evidence please.To clarify some facts:
Remploy now has two businesses. The smaller and more recent one is Employment Services - the high street offices around the country that provide advise for disabled people seeking jobs and employers. This is a fairly fast growing business.
The larger and original business segment is Enterprise Businesses - the factories that produce a variety of goods (including automotive parts) and also more modern businesses such as operating CCTV control rooms.
The most recent accounts show that the overall business had revenues of £130 million. On top of this the company received a £116 million grant from the DWP. These totals are not altogether different from the previous year (£135m and £122m respectively).
However, when you look at the segmental reporting, a trend is apparent. The previous year the revenue split had been £121m by Enterprise Businesses and £14m by Employment Services. But this year the figures were £103m and £27m.
Furthermore both businesses are making an operating loss. In particular, Enterprise Businesses had a loss of £68m. The overall business only makes a bottom line profit because of the £116m grant from the Government.
At the time of the accounts, Enterprise Businesses employed 3,490 - hence each job is being subsidised by around £20,000 a year. I imagine a couple of other things are added in to obtain the £25,000 figure.
The main factors behind the loss appears to be: high materials costs and high staff costs (there is a sizeable pension deficit to be filled).
According to the Sayce Report the main issue facing the business is that there is not enough work to go around (around half of the factory workers have no work to do).
The £116 million grant that Remploy receives comes out of the £320m funding for Specialist Disability Employment Programmes. The other main programme is Access to Work - which funds certain reasonable adjustments to enable disabled people to work in normal jobs. AtW supports around 37,300 people at an average cost of £2,500.
The Sayce Report, which was written by the head of the largest disability charity in the UK, called AtW one of the country's best kept secrets. Since it was set up in the mid-90s, access has been rationed by a lack of publicity - many eligible people didn't know they could get support - for fear that they couldn't it if every people who needed help got it. As far as the Treasuy is concerned they get £1.48 back for every £1 spent on AtW. For many disabled people nowadays this is exactly what they want - they don't want to work in segregated factories anymore. So Liz Sayce proposed that the subsidy be taken from the Remploy factories and instead allocated to Access to Work to enable it to more than double the number of disabled people it supports to 100,000.
Currently all of the Remploy Enterprise Businesses factories are loss-making. But some are considered potentially viable businesses with a bit of transformation (the "factories" actually produce a wide range of goods and services). It's proposed that these factories be spun into mutual companies owned by the employees without government support. The unviable factories will mean while be closed with employees given transistion support to find another job. Hence why the talk is only of 1,700 redundancies out of 3,500 employees.
As far as the Disability charities are concerned (Remploy is not a charity incidentally) it's a choice of employing 3,500 people in a way that's no longer considered fit for the 21st Century by young disabled people or potentially supporting another 60,000 disabled people into normal jobs.
Remploy now has two businesses. The smaller and more recent one is Employment Services - the high street offices around the country that provide advise for disabled people seeking jobs and employers. This is a fairly fast growing business.
The larger and original business segment is Enterprise Businesses - the factories that produce a variety of goods (including automotive parts) and also more modern businesses such as operating CCTV control rooms.
The most recent accounts show that the overall business had revenues of £130 million. On top of this the company received a £116 million grant from the DWP. These totals are not altogether different from the previous year (£135m and £122m respectively).
However, when you look at the segmental reporting, a trend is apparent. The previous year the revenue split had been £121m by Enterprise Businesses and £14m by Employment Services. But this year the figures were £103m and £27m.
Furthermore both businesses are making an operating loss. In particular, Enterprise Businesses had a loss of £68m. The overall business only makes a bottom line profit because of the £116m grant from the Government.
At the time of the accounts, Enterprise Businesses employed 3,490 - hence each job is being subsidised by around £20,000 a year. I imagine a couple of other things are added in to obtain the £25,000 figure.
The main factors behind the loss appears to be: high materials costs and high staff costs (there is a sizeable pension deficit to be filled).
According to the Sayce Report the main issue facing the business is that there is not enough work to go around (around half of the factory workers have no work to do).
The £116 million grant that Remploy receives comes out of the £320m funding for Specialist Disability Employment Programmes. The other main programme is Access to Work - which funds certain reasonable adjustments to enable disabled people to work in normal jobs. AtW supports around 37,300 people at an average cost of £2,500.
The Sayce Report, which was written by the head of the largest disability charity in the UK, called AtW one of the country's best kept secrets. Since it was set up in the mid-90s, access has been rationed by a lack of publicity - many eligible people didn't know they could get support - for fear that they couldn't it if every people who needed help got it. As far as the Treasuy is concerned they get £1.48 back for every £1 spent on AtW. For many disabled people nowadays this is exactly what they want - they don't want to work in segregated factories anymore. So Liz Sayce proposed that the subsidy be taken from the Remploy factories and instead allocated to Access to Work to enable it to more than double the number of disabled people it supports to 100,000.
Currently all of the Remploy Enterprise Businesses factories are loss-making. But some are considered potentially viable businesses with a bit of transformation (the "factories" actually produce a wide range of goods and services). It's proposed that these factories be spun into mutual companies owned by the employees without government support. The unviable factories will mean while be closed with employees given transistion support to find another job. Hence why the talk is only of 1,700 redundancies out of 3,500 employees.
As far as the Disability charities are concerned (Remploy is not a charity incidentally) it's a choice of employing 3,500 people in a way that's no longer considered fit for the 21st Century by young disabled people or potentially supporting another 60,000 disabled people into normal jobs.
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
This from the Grauniad:
Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people.
So most disability charities caring for disabled people back the move. Union leaders backing their own sense of importance while taking a pop at a Conservative led government don't like it. Hmmm it's a tricky thing discerning motive these days.
Its incorrect in the Guardian to report that most charities support the closures.Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people.
So most disability charities caring for disabled people back the move. Union leaders backing their own sense of importance while taking a pop at a Conservative led government don't like it. Hmmm it's a tricky thing discerning motive these days.
July 2011
"Leading disability charities are backing the proposals. Mark Goldring, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, said: "We can do much more to help people with disabilities into work in a way that directly benefits them and wider society."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/11/remp...
March 2012
"Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/07/remp...
Did you also forget the rentapop bandwaggoning from union dinosaurs by accident?
crankedup said:
Thus far I have managed to control my personal feelings on the issue as it would not add anything to the thread other than anger.
While admirably keeping control of your emotions, which is certainly the way to proceed.I have acknowledged that the Unions were making a noise but it is unhelpful on this matter.
I agree that the Remploy model has passed its sell by date, but in the complete absence of a alternative I contest the Government has moved to quickly. For Government to merely drop these people into the 'Back to work' program is lamentable. Further it is soul destroying to those that have shown that they want to and are able to do work and now find themselves on the dumping ground.
I would certainly agree, as would most people, that there must be better ways to be able to direct these people into work which better benefits them and society. But the Government has a nasty habit of talking the talk and not delivering.
I appreciate that we are in a financial disaster area, however for the relatively small amount of money saved I would like to have seen a more gradual process of Remploy being closed as other doors opened, rather than these people being cast aside.
turbobloke said:
This from the Grauniad:
Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people.
So most disability charities caring for disabled people back the move. Union leaders backing their own sense of importance while taking a pop at a Conservative led government don't like it. Hmmm it's a tricky thing discerning motive these days.
Indeed. Let them eat cake!Most disability charities back the move on grounds that the sheltered factory model is long outdated. But unions expressed outrage, pointing out that the decision came just days after the passage of the government's welfare reforms and represented a second crushing blow to disabled people.
So most disability charities caring for disabled people back the move. Union leaders backing their own sense of importance while taking a pop at a Conservative led government don't like it. Hmmm it's a tricky thing discerning motive these days.
turbobloke said:
Derek Smith said:
As for the other charities supporting withdrawing money from Remploy, those who use this as an example obviously are not aware of the cut-throat politics of the disability industry.
For my part I was citing it as informed commentary from people who know what they're talking about, there was no 'use' other than to share it. Lots of people have worked alongside colleagues with disabilities me included but I'll listen to the key charities when they have something to say in comparison to anecdotes no matter how worthy. Unless you're telling me they're politicised in which case evidence please.Just saying like.......
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff