What is Lord Freud worth per hour?

George Monbiot wrote an interesting article in the Guardian yesterday about the sort of depersonalised language that is so often used now to describe human beings.

He alleges that in a House of Lords debate Lord Freud described the changing number of disabled people likely to receive the employment and support allowance as a "bulge of, effectively, "stock"". Following the ensuing furore about his choice of the word "stock", the transcription in Hansard instead recorded the word as "stopped". GM says he has listened to the recording several times and believes the word used was "stock" - and in any event the word "stopped" would make the sentence meaningless. Given Lord Freud's use of the word "worth" to describe human beings as if they were just economic units, I'm more inclined to believe GM did not mishear.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/21/cleansing-stock-doublespeak-people-killing

Our problem Lilygran is that we do quite a bit of second tier work (we are the supplier of the main supplier) and it is the first tier who agree or disagree the risk assessment. Some of the items we have been asked told to "risk assess" are absolutely ridiculous, but you have a point. It is the insurance companies who insist on this.

Yes I too am very glad I was given the chance to prove myself, sadly not enough people are .

I'm glad your employer gave you the opportunity to show you could do the job, gillybob and that it was so successful. I've also done risk assessments at work and too often it is the risk of being sued if an accident happens that people are concerned with, rather than the hazardous nature of the task or the likelihood of an adverse outcome.

Exactly Printmiss

I do agree Lilygran that there are many people for whom a prospective employer would not need to make special modifications but in my own case I think it was the fear of the unknown. Would I be off work sick every other week?
Could I trip and fall? What about bathroom/toilet issues? What if I has some kind of "set back"? What about hospital appointments? Etc. once you have been given the chance to prove yourself (at little cost to the employer) then it becomes so much easier. The employer can see for themselves how capable or indeed incapable a person is.

I don't agree with your statement about blaming H&S though as I see it for myself every day. I write risk assessments for our company and sometimes I could scream "isn't it bleedin' obvious" but everything (and I mean everything) has to be risk assessed. Sadly this country has now gone down the American (blame culture) route and the employer is to blame for everything (especially if there is a chance of compensation). It is hard risk assessing an able bodied person to do a straightforward job, imagine if the risk assessment was for someone less able bodied or infirm?

Very interesting posts here from Printmiss and Gillybob.

I have seen this from both sides of the fence. As I said in an earlier post I don't think any employer would have taken a chance on me had it not been for what Remploy Outreach did. They persuaded employers to take me on and let me prove what I could do and the employer was subsidized by Remploy for a short period (I forget exactly how long) until I was taken on fully at the normal rate of pay. I think employers automatically think "disability or acute condition means loads of time off" when infact I have hardly ever been away from work in my life. Infact I probably have taken less time off for sickness than most private sector workers and most definitely less than any public sector worker. I think perhaps I have always had something to prove . If it had not been for the mentoring and guidance of Remploy I would have probably been put on the scrap heap.

On the other side of the fence, I am now an employer myself and legislation, rules and regulations have moved on tremendously since the late 80s early 90's . So much so that I can understand any employer being very reluctant to take on the extra burden of someone with an acute condition or disability (I'm sorry to use the word burden) and speaking for myself, who has a small engineering business the HSE would make it virtually impossible unless the person was chaperoned during the working day.

There are many disabilities which don't require an employer to make expensive modifications or buy expensive equipment but employers still won't give jobs to people even with those kinds of disabilities. Many people with disabilities are still able to do a job as efficiently as a person without. Subsidising the wages is one way of persuading employers to offer them a chance. Health and safety is the excuse used by many people in positions of power to exercise it at the expense of the rest of us. We should remember that some employers used to refuse to employ women because they didn't have any women's toilets!

Lilygran I think you are putting an awful lot of fault on the employers here. Health and safety is such a bit issue these days, that no one can blame anyone for not taking any chances. There may well be grants available, but there comes a time when these end, and finding staff willing to accept responsibility for someone with a disability is not as easy as that, and even if this is possible, transport is difficult. There are so many ifs and buts to this problem. We are helping, quite rightly, people with disabilities to live better lives within the community, but every time we do this we create other problems - I am not saying we should not do it, just being realistic, that the more we encourage people to do more things, then the more they will want to do, and the more effort it will take to fulfil peoples aims. I do not think there is an easy answer, certainly not one that will solve everyone's problems, but it is an interesting point to discuss, without getting over-emotional (which we are not!), and asking for something which is really not available, but a dream toward which we should work.

DJen So I did, just found it. It is somewhat ambiguous so I can understand it being read as that.
No, I did not mean that about Camphill Trusts, should have read before posting. But other institutions, yes.

The policy Freud was referring to is the one tried out by this and the previous government which was to encourage employers to offer employment to people with disabilities by subsidising their wages. There are already government grants available for employers to provide any special equipment to enable a person with specific disabilities to be employed. Several parents of adults with disabilities have been interviewed over the past few days and have said how much the individual gains from working at a job that wouldn't be possible without subsidies. Freud was an idiot to agree to the premise of the question, no doubt about it, but the real fault is with employers who won't give people a chance - and the ones who won't provide training.

"Why are the Tories carrying on with some of the damaging policies that Labour introduced? (eg shutting Remploy factories, now Camphill Trusts, etc)"

This is what you wrote, Rosequartz. It definitely looks to me like you were giving as an example that Labour introduced closure of Camphill Trusts. Of course, if you did not mean that, just say so.

You're not going on at all, PRINTMISS, it is interesting to hear from someone who has personal experience.
My niece has disabilities, but does not work. She does manage to live on her own with supervision and undertakes a lot of activities and is very happy.

I think Freud was just pondering on ways to help disabled people into work. However, looking at it objectively, would a firm provide a role or roles for disabled people over and above their normal workforce, thus paying out more in wages than they need to? Would the disabled person be able to fulfil a full role as employee?

If the answer to the first is 'Yes' and to the second 'No', then perhaps the scheme where the firm pays a certain amount and the Government pays the rest to bring it up to a minimum wage is not such a bad idea after all.

If the disabled person is fully capable of fulfilling the role required then of course they should be paid the remuneration which applies to the job they are doing, otherwise firms could take advantage by employing them on a low wage knowing that the Government will make up the difference.

It does depend on capabilities which requires careful assessment.

I have been interested in this thread for personal reasons, and the views expressed here are some that have been aired for a long time, and really there is no easy answer to the problem of employing people with disabilities, and let's be honest here, there is a problem. I have lived in a community which has been very much involved with learning disabilities and because of that have come into contact with parents of children who also have a physical disability. Our one aim in life is that our children should be happy and well cared for, particularly when we are no longer around to do this. I have a friend whose son went to an Educationally Sub-Normal School (ESN) he has never been able to read, but fortunately comes from a very supportive family and has never been out of work, he originally started by working for us when we had our business. He is now married with a family (his wife can read but went to the same school) and they have two lovely sons. He is a much valued HGV driver, travels all over the country. Another friend had what was termed 'high-grade' Downs Syndrome' son - he had a job with us for quite some time, BUT he decided to light a bonfire within yards of the parked car - he had no idea of the damage which could have been caused - he needed to be watched, something one of our employees did happily (much to our surprise). That young man later went on to work at Woolworths where he was caught stealing because everyone else did it. His dad got him his job back three times, but the fourth time No. That could be classed as unfair and taking advantage. Our son used to come to 'work' for us. Not really of course, we found him something he could do - that was collating coloured/numbered sheets (like invoices). He was fine could do that all day, but when it went wrong, he had no idea how to put it right. He needed supervision. Fortunately he lives within an organisation which makes sure he goes out and about, and once a week he attends a Centre where he happily sits sand-papering some furniture for restoration. (For which HE pays) I do not know much about the physically handicapped but their special needs must be provided for. Of course we should not take advantage of these people, but we must be realistic and accept that wherever there is a special need, there is bound to be special care needed, and some of them might be grateful if they could do a small job for someone who cared to give it to them, at a reduced rate. Loneliness is something we forget about for these folk. I do not think Lord Freud was demeaning the handicapped (and this from someone who will fight to the death for her son) He was thoughtless. Perhaps I am wrong, sorry to go on.

Rosequartz, I am supposed to be so good at ferreting out political facts, according to Ana, but I can find no reference to Labour closing Camphill Trusts. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

DJ - where did I say that they did? As far as I am aware, I never said that.

I did say: I realise in some instances the Tories are just carrying on what Labour started.

'In some instances' is not a specific reference.

Well done to you gillybob and for your determination in the face of such difficulties.

After being ill for some time I was finally diagnosed with MS in 1990. I was 28 years old with two small children. I was forced to give up a job in a large office that I loved (and very much needed) and was in and out of hospital for some time. I eventually stabilised towards the end of 1991 and was desperate for work. I managed to get a few hours in a friends corner shop while I looked for something more permanent that would pay the bills, needless to say no-one was keen to take on a 30 year old with two children and MS !!

If it had not been for Remploy I would have been on the scrap heap. I was introduced to them at one of the very few meetings of the MS society I ever attended (too depressing) and never looked back. I became an "Outreach worker" where I would be "lent out" to a business at a low hourly rate for a short period while they assessed my capabilities and after a given period (I forget how long) the company was given the choice to keep me or "send me back" ha ha. This gave the company I was loaned to a chance to see what I could/couldn't do and probably gave them the confidence to take me on. I would have never made it through the door otherwise.

I tried to find out about the statutory employment position of handicapped people but came up against a real mountain of fine-sounding equality legislation so I just don't know if employers are still obliged to take on handicapped people. As regards politicians, after 70+ years I've decided they share a common theme - looking after their own interests. That's what you expect from the Tories but not from Labour who used to represent the interests of ordinary people. And as for the Liberals, for a sniff of power they've dumped their scruples...

No, you were just criticising me for asking him the question.
Rosequartz, I am supposed to be so good at ferreting out political facts, according to Ana, but I can find no reference to Labour closing Camphill Trusts. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

Eh? I was neither challenging nor defending papaoscar...

Exactly, Ana, but I'm sure papaoscar can tell me when it changed.
Unlike you, I am not challenging him, just curious to know. I am sure papaoscar knows that and does not need you to defend him.
When my husband fell off the ladder and broke his back, the hospital missed the fact that he'd broken a heel and gave him crutches and told him to walk on it as much as possible. He suffered from then until he died from that broken heel. My mother had been a nurse, and when we were told they would make sure that they always xrayed people's feet when they fell off ladders, she asked when that had changed, because when she was nursing they always did that.

Papaoscar, they are fortunately not all the same. The people on thehardesthit website think that Kate Green is okay. Hopefully we will have the chance to find out.

thehardesthit.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/first-speech-by-kate-green-shadow-minister-for-disabled-people/

Exactly, rosequartz.

durhamjen, you're so good at ferreting out political facts, I'm sure you can find out for yourself whether what papaoscar says is accurate.

Don't they still have to, papaoscar? When did that change?

Yes, I just can't shut up can I, Ana!

Yes, I am fed up with the criticism of this government and posters who are very very rude because these posters do not give a reasoned answer, just personal and sometimes vitriolic remarks, but quite honestly, having googled a few related things I realise in some instances the Tories are just carrying on what Labour started. None of them seem to be radically different (despite what some posters think!). It is interesting to note how many Labour people are 'advising' this Government or head of committees.

Margaret Thatcher started off some trends which could have worked had Labour not taken these ideas to extremes and which this present Government has continued, ending with the demise of at least one institution.
Disillusioned.