Welfare Reform Minister Lord Freud - said !

Uglymug

As per usual some Labour activists have managed to put Lord Freud's comments out of context and as usual some lefties are jumping on the band wagon.


This Guardian article



http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/feb/04/davidbrindle




from February 2000 reports calls for an “urgent revision” of the rules to enable “low output” disabled workers to be exempt from minimum wage legislation. The proposal said some disabled workers should be classified as “special provision” and as a result be exempt from statutory provision, thus allowing employers to pay them less than the minimum wage. This was not an off-the-cuff remark from a Tory peer, but a detailed proposal from Mencap, Britain’s leading charity for disabled people.


Mencap said at the time that while they otherwise support the minimum wage, an exemption should be allowed because “Most people with a learning disability want to work and we urge the government to give them that chance.”Which is almost exactly the point Lord Freud was making.


No one has ever called for anyone from Mencap to be sacked for making very similar comments to what Lord Freud made.


Perhaps next week we can have Ed Miliband calling for Mencap to be disbanded.

Indie_Kid

How would this even be legal under the EA?

rogerblack

Indie_Kid wrote: »

How would this even be legal under the EA?

As outlined above in my earlier post.
Employers are not required to create roles suitable for disabled people.

Employers are required to - for the roles they have - make 'reasonable adjustments' to the role.

Once you fall enough below the productivity of a 'normal' worker - even with 'reasonable adjustments' that are made - you can be sacked for being unable to do the job effectively.

Exactly how much is 'enough' is a question - but the basic law is not at all ambiguous in this.