Philip Davies MP.....

H

Hetairoi

Well-Known Forumite
If there is a problem with unemployment rates among disabled people maybe the government should look at incentives for employers to take on disabled people.

If they were to divert the benefits that would be paid to an unemployed disabled person to the employer then employers would look more favourably at disabled employees.
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
But then those too disabled to work would be worse off?

Why not go the whole way, lets divert all the unemployment benefit for able bodies people into big businesses too? That way they can get away with paying below NMW because the gov will top it up for them, so that they can increase their profits even more.
 
John Marwood

John Marwood

I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Or just force the elite high earners to pay proportionate amounts of tax like what we do by actionable castration ( 30 day terms ) 10 if they issue threats to jobs pr bollix
 
H

Hetairoi

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
But then those too disabled to work would be worse off?

Why not go the whole way, lets divert all the unemployment benefit for able bodies people into big businesses too? That way they can get away with paying below NMW because the gov will top it up for them, so that they can increase their profits even more.
Click to expand...
Why would those too disabled to work be worse off they would still get thier benefits?

I know some diaabled people who are capable of some work but may not be able to work to the same level as able bodied people so why would an employer employ them if there was a suitable able bodied person available?
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Ah, I see, you mean actually pay the company to employ them rather than reduce their benefits. Read it wrong, interesting idea but isn't that then being prejudiced against able bodied people?
 
H

Hetairoi

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
Ah, I see, you mean actually pay the company to employ them rather than reduce their benefits. Read it wrong, interesting idea but isn't that then being prejudiced against able bodied people?
Click to expand...
This was just an idea that came to me whilst reading the thread so hasn't been thought through very well!

The idea would be to stop or partially stop the benefits being paid directly to the disabled person and instead pay them or a portion of them to the employer who then tops them up to whatever the wage is they are being paid.

It costs the government no more and gets the disabled person back into work, gives the employer an incentive to employ a disabled person and brings in a bit of tax for the IR.

It is a fact that faced with an able and a disabled person with the same qualifications and experience an employer will employ the able bodied person.

It may be seen as being prejudiced against able bodied people but I would think that there are very few people who would mind people with a disability being given a little bit of help.

What I don't think is helpfull is quotas and targets so someone gets the job just because that company hasn't filled it's quota!
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
I thought it was this guy, but it turns out it was Christopher Chope who wanted to allow people to opt out of the NMW. Found the document now.

National minimum wage opt out

(1) Any person who would otherwise qualify for entitlement to the national
15minimum wage, as defined in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, may
elect to opt out from such entitlement.

(2) Any election to opt out under subsection (1) must be made by an employee in
writing to that person’s employer and signed by the employee and employer.

(3) Any person who has elected to opt out of entitlement to the national minimum
20wage in accordance with subsection (1) may withdraw such election by giving
notice to his employer in writing.

(4) Any notice of withdrawal under subsection (3) shall take effect no earlier than
three months from the date that it is given unless such period of minimum
notice is waived by the employer.

(5) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act shall require a person to take
5employment below the minimum wage and no person shall suffer any
detriment to their entitlement to national insurance benefits by reason of their
unwillingness to take employment below the minimum wage.
Click to expand...
Also noticed the bit about training wages, anyone know what they pay?

Training wage

(1) Any person who would otherwise qualify for entitlement to the national
10minimum wage, as defined in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, shall not
be so entitled if he or she has entered into a written contract of employment
providing that his or her entitlement is to a training wage.

(2) A contract of employment providing a training wage must also include an
entitlement to training from the employer in skills relevant to the employment.
Click to expand...
I can kind of see the point in this, but depends how far below NMW it is. I can see YTS again.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2012/0024/cbill_2010-20120024_en_2.htm#l1g2
 
H

Hetairoi

Well-Known Forumite
The option to opt out of the NMW is a very dangerous concept and should be avoided at all costs.

If there is an option to opt out you may as well scrap the NMW because employers will pressure employees to sign or only offer a job to someone who is prepared to opt out.
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
I have seen many jobs where your contract of employment already states that you are opting out of the 48 hour week limit, which I thought dodgy. The idea that they could tell you to opt out of the NMW is very worrying. The Tories never did like the NMW, though its one thing I consider Labour got right. I just hope the training wage is high enough not to get kids used as skivvies again, and that the training aspect is with recognised qualifications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top