Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Ologhai Jones

Minimum Wage Hinders Disabled Jobseekers

Recommended Posts

BBC Website: MP says minimum wage a hindrance to disabled jobseekers.

He actually seems to be saying that it hinders 'vulnerable' jobseekers, and, if your definition of vulnerable is everyone who can't seem to justify being paid the minimum wage, then that's surely an argument for scrapping the minimum wage altogether?

That would seem to fit well with paying disabled people allowances out of the public purse to help compensate for the cost of living with a disability. One such cost being a higher bar to remunerative employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC Website: MP says minimum wage a hindrance to disabled jobseekers.

He actually seems to be saying that it hinders 'vulnerable' jobseekers, and, if your definition of vulnerable is everyone who can't seem to justify being paid the minimum wage, then that's surely an argument for scrapping the minimum wage altogether?

His points were

A ) it's unpalatable but employers have told him they would generally choose a non-disabled worker over a disabled worker

B ) people have the choice to work for free on internships etc, why should they not have the choice to work for £5.50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=Oh Well :(' timestamp='1308382811' post='3026292]

My view is that I am unlikely to employ a disabled person, I am even more unlikely to employ a fat one. However cheap they are.

this is actually the real problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the knives haven't been out for him on this one - I thought NMW would be a sacred cow, even though it is the wrong solution.

He actually said that the people looking for the jobs wanted to be able to ask for less, rather than businesses calling for it. This should be obvious though - the businesses will work around such price fixing by using fewer staff (more offshore, more automation etc). This just leaves more unemployed left to struggle on welfare.

IMO, as part of the new universal credit changes (with elements of the negative income tax concept), they should scrap the NMW. It would mean that those on low wages would be topped up to a minimum income, while still giving them a job. I'm sure unemployment would fall, as almost any work would not only be worth doing, but would also be legal.

I don't know how far IDS will go towards a full NIT, but it seems far better than just pricing people out of work.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is actually the real problem.

If you had two potential employees for a NMW job, one who is able bodied and one who isn't, both with similar experience/qualifications, who are you likely to choose?

Without NMW price fixing, the disabled person may be able to sell their service for less, giving them more of a chance of getting a job. Ofc, we can just leave them side lined and stuff them full of benefits, but why not let them work and then top up their income if it is considered too low? It would likely help their self worth, as well as improving the productivity of the economy as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a maximum wage of no more than 10 times minimum wage?

Should be given a try I think!! I can't imagine who would complain....

+1000000000000

I think this should be done.

Just to see who is outraged most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had two potential employees for a NMW job, one who is able bodied and one who isn't, both with similar experience/qualifications, who are you likely to choose?

Without NMW price fixing, the disabled person may be able to sell their service for less, giving them more of a chance of getting a job. Ofc, we can just leave them side lined and stuff them full of benefits, but why not let them work and then top up their income if it is considered too low? It would likely help their self worth, as well as improving the productivity of the economy as a whole.

the poster i was replying to said they wouldnt employ a disabled person regardless of how cheap they were - its the last part that that i think is pertinent, and is a more realistic reflection of what is going on in the workplace today, than tinkering about with low level wage issues.

because of this attitude, which he is fully within his rights to hold as he is the one who is doing the hiring, you really will see the disabled/poor/undesirable etc. stuffed full of benefits and sidelined, which is what is happening today and is why HB payments are through the roof.

Edited by Milkshock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems daft to make it illegal for someone to sell their labour at a price they are happy with, even if it is below NMW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think wages are the issue at all, unfortunately looking at the bigger picture its whether or not employers want these people in the workplace or not. whether this is right or wrong is not the issue, i personally dont care because its up to the employer.

but what i do know is that as a result you will have a a high number of benefit recipients as a result.

Edited by Milkshock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems daft to make it illegal for someone to sell their labour at a price they are happy with, even if it is below NMW.

People being trained can be paid less then NMW

Security staff can sign away their rights to be paid nmw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A ) it's unpalatable but employers have told him they would generally choose a non-disabled worker over a disabled worker

Employers would choose qualified applicant over an unqualified one. Clearly this disadvantages those not qualified, a bricklayer should have the same prospects for obtaining a surgery position as a surgeon. Anything else would be discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Employers would choose qualified applicant over an unqualified one. Clearly this disadvantages those not qualified, a bricklayer should have the same prospects for obtaining a surgery position as a surgeon. Anything else would be discrimination.

yes but who gives a toss, in the real world you dont need to worry about that. the employer would rather dump their prejudices back on the state, shortsightedly not seeing that they will pay for it anyway indirectly via taxation.

edit: sorry i think i misread your point which seems to be about skillsets - the point is a disabled applicant for a position in the context of which we are speaking would be assumed to be qualified. and they are still not being hired.

if you are inferring that a disabled person automatically wont have the same skills as a an able-bodied one then it kind of reinforces what I'm saying, unfortunately.

Edited by Milkshock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His points were

A ) it's unpalatable but employers have told him they would generally choose a non-disabled worker over a disabled worker

B ) people have the choice to work for free on internships etc, why should they not have the choice to work for £5.50

i think you mean that to read 'employers have the the choice to employ whoever they want for whatever wage they want'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then who pays for the rest the tax man.

naturellement:)

so the employer ends up paying anyway for their prejudices via taxation :P

what a complete waste of time the whole thing is.

Edited by Milkshock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a maximum wage of no more than 10 times minimum wage?

Should be given a try I think!! I can't imagine who would complain....

Anyone who is employed by someone who earns more than that?

Example:

Mr A runs a business employing 10 people on various low to medium wages. He pays himself £200k pa and his company is profitable enough to support this and the wages of his staff.

Your plan comes into force and he is now restricted on how much he can pay himself.

He thinks "sod this for a game of soldiers", closes his business, semi-retires but works part time as a consultant for less money.

Mr A is pretty peed off but at least he gets to play golf a couple of times a week now and work much less hard.

Mr A's employees are all out of work.

Genius!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who is employed by someone who earns more than that?

Example:

Mr A runs a business employing 10 people on various low to medium wages. He pays himself £200k pa and his company is profitable enough to support this and the wages of his staff.

Your plan comes into force and he is now restricted on how much he can pay himself.

He thinks "sod this for a game of soldiers", closes his business, semi-retires but works part time as a consultant for less money.

Mr A is pretty peed off but at least he gets to play golf a couple of times a week now and work much less hard.

Mr A's employees are all out of work.

Genius!

I agree- this is a bad idea.

A better idea is to allow Mr A to pay himself as much as he wants but on the condition that the lowest paid worker in the company earns no less than about 10% of his total income. This way aspiration is preserved for Mr A- and as his company makes more money both he and his employees also benefit from the raise in profitability.

By linking the wages of lowest paid with the highest paid we could achieve a degree of fairness as to how company profits are being shared by those who create them, while preserving the ability for the boss or CEO to pay himself whatever he likes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree- this is a bad idea.

A better idea is to allow Mr A to pay himself as much as he wants but on the condition that the lowest paid worker in the company earns no less than about 10% of his total income. This way aspiration is preserved for Mr A- and as his company makes more money both he and his employees also benefit from the raise in profitability.

By linking the wages of lowest paid with the highest paid we could achieve a degree of fairness as to how company profits are being shared by those who create them, while preserving the ability for the boss or CEO to pay himself whatever he likes.

Agree this is "better" but still potentially very damaging to some. What if one of Mr A's staff is an office junior on £13k, straight out of school? At the moment they're employed, they have an opportunity to gain experience and build confidence and ability. They may at some point be awarded a payrise (or take their growing skills elsewhere for one). Under your system Mr A would have to offer them £20k straight off. They may not be worth that, not yet, so the result is they lose their job.

You'd also create a massive dis-incentive to employ people in junior roles at all, meaning more young people unemployed.

It doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.