Controversial So I Suspect A Lot Of Discussions On This.

[cassa333]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39138775

Having worked with people with learning difficulties and even employed a few within my department I can say that on the one hand they are an asset. Usually cheerful and willing and dedicated to doing their best.

On the other they all without exception were only able to do about 30% to 50% of the work of the rest of the team were expected to do.

There were members of the team, while welcoming them as a part of the team and getting on with them as they would any other, did still resent the fact they were carrying them work wise but were all still being paid the same.

I know my experiences are probably limited and not diverse enough to sweep all into the same category but my thought would be the employer pays the rate at which they work and the rest, to bring their pay up to the going rate for the job or minimum wage, would be subsidised by the government.

[Samjenko]

I agree with you. As just about everyone on the minimum wage has them made up to a livable standard, getting paid below the minimum wage would give anyone a distinct advantage.

[mikey4444]

It took us years to get a minimum wage, and I wouldn't want to see it being eroded.

[mikey4444]

I have only worked closely with one Downs Syndrome person, and we all looked after him and made him feel welcome. He passed away about 10 years ago, and we were all very sad when that happened. I think we need much compassion.

[cassa333]

It's not a matter of getting less than the minimum wage. The shortfall, if any, should be made up by the government.

If we assume that as the article says that the majority will not find employment they would be on benefits for most if not all their lives then paying the shortfall has to be less than the full amount of benefits.

I can't see most, at least like the ones I have known, will do much more than entry level manual/customer services work. The vast majority of these types of jobs are minimum wage. Those more able should not have difficulty getting on further.

[Old_Geezer]

It's an interesting suggestion, but the idea that it would get them off welfare and thus cost less simply doesn't fly. The job position still exists and if a learning difficulties person gets the role then someone else doesn't and they on welfare instead. It is about quality of life for the individual concerned so: perhaps a charity would be willing to commit to making up any justifiable wage deficit ?

[Old_Geezer]

Can't help but think any such scheme is probably open to abuse around the cheap labour issue.

[cassa333]

You're right old geezer it probably is open to abuse but isn't everything?

We were always very protective of our Downs people. We always included them as you would anyone in your team and defended them from the crass individuals from other departments. (I am talking quite a few years ago when attitudes were different).

I do think the shortfall would be less than the amount they would get on benefits but wether paid by government or charity is irrelevant.

I have just posted on another thread but it seems pertinent to this one as well. Perhaps there will be more menial/low paid work around after Brexit (thank you NewJudge lol). Don't get me wrong I am not calling for mass deportations and I don't think that will happen but a natural wasteage and moving upwards of current workers will leave a bigger gap in the market place for that end of employment opportunities.

[Samjenko]

This might interest you, cassa. This poor chap was hounded in real life and on AB.
Whether people were more concerned with the disabled then or the fact he was Tory and it was shortly before an election, I'll leave you to decide.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1372412.html

[Baldric]

//would be subsidised by the government//

We, the taxpayers can afford it, right?