FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > If IDS was disabled would you screw him?
If IDS was disabled would you screw him?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *he tactile technician OP Man
over a year ago
the good lands, the bad lands, the any where you may want me lands |
The general concensus of opinion from the majority of genuine disabled people and the organisations that profess to represent them is that Ian Duncan Smith is screwing the genuine disabled person big style, so what about IDS; we aren't aware of him disclosing a disability or not, but who would be queueing up to screw him equally?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
IDS' plans are to move people employed through Remploy into main stream employment where they will be subject to the same Terms & Conditions as any other employee, and paid the same rate accordingly. This frees up government funding for the severely disabled who would never be able to compete in the jobs market with their more able bodied counterparts.
How is that a bad thing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"IDS' plans are to move people employed through Remploy into main stream employment where they will be subject to the same Terms & Conditions as any other employee, and paid the same rate accordingly. This frees up government funding for the severely disabled who would never be able to compete in the jobs market with their more able bodied counterparts.
How is that a bad thing? "
That's my take on it too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"IDS' plans are to move people employed through Remploy into main stream employment where they will be subject to the same Terms & Conditions as any other employee, and paid the same rate accordingly. This frees up government funding for the severely disabled who would never be able to compete in the jobs market with their more able bodied counterparts.
How is that a bad thing? "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think that concern is legitimate when those who are responsible for assessing whether a claimant qualifies for support are heavily financially incentivised. Due to the privatisation of provision & the contract tendering process it tends to be awarded on the basis of which organisation is offering the most for the lowest price. Which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing as long as there is a) a standards control with investigative powers and b) a robust appeals process to ensure that people who although might be classified as 'able-bodied' based on the 'letter of the regulations' are regarded as unemployable when subject to a more holistic and empathetic analysis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ah, apologies, after re-reading my response I realise that I haven't really answered the OP.
Reducing benefit recipient numbers must always be a good thing, but only when coupled with a sensitivity to the case of the individual. It can't just be a numbers game.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ah, apologies, after re-reading my response I realise that I haven't really answered the OP.
Reducing benefit recipient numbers must always be a good thing, but only when coupled with a sensitivity to the case of the individual. It can't just be a numbers game.
"
IDS naively claimed that Remploy workers were doing nothing more than making cups of tea yet it's been shown that some workers employed through Remploy were performing the same tasks as able-bodied colleagues. It is those Remploy staff that should be taken out of Remploy and employed as able bodied people. If they are doing the work of able bodied people then they are able bodied, are they not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *he tactile technician OP Man
over a year ago
the good lands, the bad lands, the any where you may want me lands |
"IDS' plans are to move people employed through Remploy into main stream employment where they will be subject to the same Terms & Conditions as any other employee, and paid the same rate accordingly. This frees up government funding for the severely disabled who would never be able to compete in the jobs market with their more able bodied counterparts.
How is that a bad thing?
That's my take on it too"
You honestly believe that people in sheltered work programmes can compete equally in mainstream employment, be offered mainstream employment and be paid a real wage?
The welfare reform is concentrating on getting all people that can work back to work, and I for one as a disabled person; the definition of which you call severe, fully supports that, but by taking supported or sheltered work away and hoping that main stream employees will step in and recruit people in main stream employment is fancyfull. Untill the quota is reintroduced for particular sectors of severe disability, the people in sheltered work now, and the hard to place disabled people; such as people with a psyicotic condition, multiply disabled people, sensory disabled people, don't stand the slightest chance of competing equally for employment.
Companies employing in excess of 500 people should have a statutory obligation to employ a minimum of 10% of their work force from disabled people. Furthermore 50% of the disabled people employed should be from the hard to place employment sector.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think that concern is legitimate when those who are responsible for assessing whether a claimant qualifies for support are heavily financially incentivised. Due to the privatisation of provision & the contract tendering process it tends to be awarded on the basis of which organisation is offering the most for the lowest price. Which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing as long as there is a) a standards control with investigative powers and b) a robust appeals process to ensure that people who although might be classified as 'able-bodied' based on the 'letter of the regulations' are regarded as unemployable when subject to a more holistic and empathetic analysis."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ah, apologies, after re-reading my response I realise that I haven't really answered the OP.
Reducing benefit recipient numbers must always be a good thing, but only when coupled with a sensitivity to the case of the individual. It can't just be a numbers game.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"IDS' plans are to move people employed through Remploy into main stream employment where they will be subject to the same Terms & Conditions as any other employee, and paid the same rate accordingly. This frees up government funding for the severely disabled who would never be able to compete in the jobs market with their more able bodied counterparts.
How is that a bad thing?
That's my take on it too
You honestly believe that people in sheltered work programmes can compete equally in mainstream employment, be offered mainstream employment and be paid a real wage?
The welfare reform is concentrating on getting all people that can work back to work, and I for one as a disabled person; the definition of which you call severe, fully supports that, but by taking supported or sheltered work away and hoping that main stream employees will step in and recruit people in main stream employment is fancyfull. Untill the quota is reintroduced for particular sectors of severe disability, the people in sheltered work now, and the hard to place disabled people; such as people with a psyicotic condition, multiply disabled people, sensory disabled people, don't stand the slightest chance of competing equally for employment.
Companies employing in excess of 500 people should have a statutory obligation to employ a minimum of 10% of their work force from disabled people. Furthermore 50% of the disabled people employed should be from the hard to place employment sector.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The problem with statutory obligations to employ individuals from certain sectors of the population is the same as the chief problem with positive discrimination. It pisses EVERYBODY else off.
I bet that if the national data on recipients of disability benefit were analysed based on the parameters of education and viable employment history you would find the very lowest registers populated by those individuals. It is tragic but where is the justice in forcing an employer to employ a person who is disabled and inferior (in terms of education, experience & ability) over a person who is not disabled? Of course this is a vicious cycle that perpetuates itself and locks people in to dependancy.
Whilst life is unfair and I think that government should seek to mitigate some of that unfairness (after all, who wants to live in a truly Darwinian society?), when it seeks to compel individuals to behave in an uneconomic fashion it creates more problems than it will ever address. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Companies employing in excess of 500 people should have a statutory obligation to employ a minimum of 10% of their work force from disabled people. Furthermore 50% of the disabled people employed should be from the hard to place employment sector.
"
If those people can perform the tasks required of them then they should be employed as full employees with the same right, priviledges and pay as anyone else, which is what IDS is promoting.
He's not trying to take severely disabled people out of state-funded employment programmes, just those who for one reason or another have found themselves employed through schemes like Remploy when they shouldn't have been, and that is a classic case of manipulating the unemployment figures to make it look like unemployment was falling - something Labour were past masters at doing.
I don't agree that people who can do able-bodied work should have the safety net of Remploy continually sitting underneath them, and let's not forget that those businesses using Remploy staff are being subsidised by the taxpayer to employ them when they should really be included in the running costs of their business. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Spare a thought for those who suffer from severe disablement. I had to attend tribunal to support someone close to me who "looks ok" but has times when they cannot even press buttons on a mobile phone and is communicatively impaired.
I was in tears as they obliged him to list in minute detail all the things he could not do. It was torture for him, a man who had worked all his life until the onset of MS forced to detail just how incapable he was.
Given an opportunity to add something at the end, I told them exactly what I thought.
Liars do this easily, honest working people do not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
When jobs are scarce for the 'able' they are even more scarce for those with disabilities. Sheltered employment schemes have their place.
The OP was about whether IDS should/would be given the same treatment as that being imposed on those with genuine and affecting disabilities.
Just as with the general population not everyone is entrepreneurial and able to be self-employed but employment opportunities are harder for people with disabilities and yet more end up working for themselves just to have work to do. After all, work is not just about paying for food and a roof it is about self actualisation and personal satisfaction, dignity and contributing to a greater whole. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Spare a thought for those who suffer from severe disablement. I had to attend tribunal to support someone close to me who "looks ok" but has times when they cannot even press buttons on a mobile phone and is communicatively impaired.
I was in tears as they obliged him to list in minute detail all the things he could not do. It was torture for him, a man who had worked all his life until the onset of MS forced to detail just how incapable he was.
Given an opportunity to add something at the end, I told them exactly what I thought.
Liars do this easily, honest working people do not."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
without trooping any particular party colours (they're all mostly disingenuous self serving rubbish groomed by expensive pr gurus!!). vilifying the vulnerable and poor receding their liberties while coseying up to big business.. providing lavish tax breaks for members of their own boys club, spending vast amounts from the public purse needlessly are all the conservative party seem to be good for.
Don't get me wrong!
All for welfare reforms, far too many able bodied people living on hand outs but if this isn't done properly (usually as government goes it won't be)
could have disastrous consequences.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think the vilification of the disabled, and any other sector of our society, has largely been about turning attention away from those governing us, and getting people to vent their anger and blame on us, the ordinary people.
IDS, like many others from all parties, is incredibly rich, and doesn't care, that many people will be faced with loss of any income, whether from employment or benefits, at a time when the government has done next to nothing to stimulate growth in the economy.
The propaganda has somewhat succeeded, though the current government's poll ratings are abysmally low. I think the next couple of years, as austerity measures really bite, and more face life on the dole, or without money, at a time when private contracts, such as A4E and workfare, worth £millions are doled out to government friendly institutions, people will refocus their attention, and place blame directly at the governing parties.
I wouldn't give my piss to IDS, however thirsty he may ever get. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I wouldn't give my piss to IDS, however thirsty he may ever get.
He probably wouldn't want it.  "
I might if he especially didn't want it. Considering the other forum thread on pissing in a woman that someone's got, it would be his turn instead.
Apparently, there are 7 million people in the UK currently living in extreme financial stress, most of them employed.
Funny isn't it, that poverty doesn't make much progress at disappearing, especially whilst the elite have been doing so very nicely out of the repeated recessions we're in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I wouldn't give my piss to IDS, however thirsty he may ever get.
He probably wouldn't want it.
I might if he especially didn't want it. Considering the other forum thread on pissing in a woman that someone's got, it would be his turn instead.
Apparently, there are 7 million people in the UK currently living in extreme financial stress, most of them employed.
Funny isn't it, that poverty doesn't make much progress at disappearing, especially whilst the elite have been doing so very nicely out of the repeated recessions we're in."
What makes you think poverty will ever be eradicated? It is a myth to believe that at some point in humanity's future someone will come up with a credible plan for sharing the wealth equally whilst maintaining the desire in the achievers in our society to keep on achieving knowing that a high % of the result of their endeavours will be redistributed to the lazy, the weak and the inept. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hi,
I work in a medical practice and the proportion of what we term "fakers" is about 50%.
The genuine 50% who really need DLA / benefits do not get enough.
The problem is there are high levels of fraud meaning those that need help are getting less.
Let me give you an example from last week, patient comes in as had cough for over 3 weeks, in conversation he said he doesnt work, I asked why, and he said because hes classed as disabled, I questioned him further (as theres nothing on his notes and nothing obviously wrong with him), and his response was, "my grandmother died 15 years ago".
Hes not alone.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
