Remploy to Close 43 Factories

[greenman]

The announcement has now been made that Remploy are to close 43 factories throughout the UK.

BBC Report

32 of the 83 Remploy sites will close completely and a further 11 will be merged.

There is a demonstration planned for tomorrow morning at 10am at the TUC.

Another attack on some of the people most disadvantaged by the current socio-economic set up, this time with the tacit backing of some "politically correct" charities using the language of "inclusivity" and "enablement" to back New Labour's drive to workfare, cheap labour and draconian labour discipline.

 

[Jografer]

No, why should disabled people have to work in a disabled ghetto doing crap jobs for minimum wages, close them down.

 

[greenman]

No, why should disabled people have to work in a disabled ghetto doing crap jobs for minimum wages, close them down.

Er, have you spoken to any of the disabled people or their representatives?
You sound like one of those people who refused to support the miners on strike because mining was "a dirty industry with dangerous jobs".

The GMB is launching a campaign to fight the closures.

Spokesman Phil Davies said: "Remploy disabled workers have now been stabbed in the back by the leaders of the disability organisations who called for them to be sacked without ever having spoken to them or their representatives.

"We have the grotesque scene of the leaders of six disability organisations scuttling around media studios calling for the handing out of redundancy notices to disabled workers.

"A clash now seems inevitable and we are warning that the outcome will be a national strike across all 83 Remploy factories."

 

[agricola]

Er, have you spoken to any of the disabled people or their representatives?
You sound like one of those people who refused to support the miners on strike because mining was "a dirty industry with dangerous jobs".

This is outrageous, its made even more so by the fact that "charities" have weighed in on behalf of disabled people without seemingly consulting them, and finally topped off with scandal by the seeming inability of the media to seek the views of the Remploy employees themselves.

Besides Jografer, if you think it is a ghetto now, consider what it will be like for these people when they are forced into the same agency-based jobs as the rest of society.

 

[chymaera]

No, why should disabled people have to work in a disabled ghetto doing crap jobs for minimum wages, close them down.

I think you should get a bit more au fait about Remploy before making that sort of very ill informed comment.

 

[belboid]

No, why should disabled people have to work in a disabled ghetto doing crap jobs for minimum wages, close them down.

if the workers were being moved into decent jobs, with improved wages and T&C's, then I'd be right with you. But they wouldn't be. The workers would be thrown on the dole, and (under the delightful recent changes to welfare benefits) made to take any old shite. That's hardly a step forward, is it?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

No, why should disabled people have to work in a disabled ghetto doing crap jobs for minimum wages, close them down.

Yeah, because really a mainstream commercial employer is going to offer a disabled person a job.

You really don't have a clue do you?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

...The workers would be thrown on the dole, ...

And they would stay on the dole. Employers really don't want to employ disabled people.

 

[belboid]

councils and some other public services will (quotas to meet), but in most other places? virtually no chance

 

[Belushi]

So is there an economic reason behind this or it it just that its been decided on the disabled workers behalf that they'd be better off out in the jobs market?

 

[Jografer]

Yeah, because really a mainstream commercial employer is going to offer a disabled person a job.

You really don't have a clue do you?

As a disabled person, yes, I do have a clue. I also work, and not in a 'make work for the crip' job.

The Disability Discrimination Act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against an employee (or potential employee) on the grounds of disability, the same principle as other equalities legislation. Levels of unemployment are high/higher among disabled people than the general population, but workshops for cripples is not the answer. Would you support segregated employment for black people, for women, for gays...... no, I didn't think so, so don't single out disabled people for special treatment... you'll be popping a sweet in my mouth, going 'ahhhhh' and patting me on the head next.... and yes, that has happened to me....

Remploy was set up for ex-servicemen who had been injured and/or disabled to provide retraining... it's ended up providing 'make work' not training... that there is now an institutionalised workforce & that they have failed to provide proper training is an indictment of workshops, not a reason to continue to provide an excuse or easy dumping ground for colleges & schools who haven't done their job properly.

Yes, people do have to look for work via agencies, they do have to get training, and look for support with job seeking/careers/the whole 'being employed' bit.... equal treatment means the crap bits as well as the good bits....

The social model of disability, which is the one accepted by disabled people through our own organisations, run by ourselves for ourselves expects that you should look beyond a person’s impairment at all the relevant factors that affect their ability to be a full and equal participant in society.... and that doesn't include being grateful for attempts to keep f***g ghettos open....

 

[belboid]

So is there an economic reason behind this or it it just that its been decided on the disabled workers behalf that they'd be better off out in the jobs market?

economics.

The government agreed to a subsidy for all the factories up till 2010, of around £110million (iirr). After that they must be profit making. After a couple of years of subsidy it has, apparently, become clear that there is no way that they will survive without greater subsidies, or closures. So they have gone for closures & mergers.

Jografer has some fair points about the 'historic failure' of Remploy to meet its original goals. However, simply shutting the factories down, with nothing else in place, strikes me as a pisspoor way to rectify that failure

 

[chymaera]

The social model of disability, which is the one accepted by disabled people through our own organisations, run by ourselves for ourselves expects that you should look beyond a person’s impairment at all the relevant factors that affect their ability to be a full and equal participant in society.... and that doesn't include being grateful for attempts to keep f***g ghettos open....

With the greatest of respect whilst including disabled people into all aspects of "normal" life is a laudable concept, in practice there are those who are better off leading a sheltered lifestyle.
(Given what a shower of utter disablist bastards the general public, the government, of whatever political persuation, agents of givernment, employers, and the media can be.)

 

[In Bloom]

This is outrageous, its made even more so by the fact that "charities" have weighed in on behalf of disabled people without seemingly consulting them, and finally topped off with scandal by the seeming inability of the media to seek the views of the Remploy employees themselves.

Why would you ask them? Mongs don't know what's best for themselves anyway. Best to leave it to the professional representatives and the community leaders. They always have everybody's best interests at heart.

N.b. if anybody takes any of the above seriously, you're a fucking moron

 

[Cobbles]

So is there an economic reason behind this or it it just that its been decided on the disabled workers behalf that they'd be better off out in the jobs market?

I heard on a Radio 4 report this AM that each Remploy factory "job" costs 20K a year.

It'd be far cheaper just to close the factories, sell the land and just keep on paying the workers to sit at home.

I didn't catch all of it but I think that the idea is that the money spent on keeping th efactories running will be used to fund places in the broader world of employment.

 

[In Bloom]

I heard on a Radio 4 report this AM that each Remploy factory "job" costs 20K a year.

It'd be far cheaper just to close the factories, sell the land and just keep on paying the workers to sit at home.

And that's going to happen, is it?

 

[agricola]

As a disabled person, yes, I do have a clue. I also work, and not in a 'make work for the crip' job.

The Disability Discrimination Act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against an employee (or potential employee) on the grounds of disability, the same principle as other equalities legislation. Levels of unemployment are high/higher among disabled people than the general population, but workshops for cripples is not the answer. Would you support segregated employment for black people, for women, for gays...... no, I didn't think so, so don't single out disabled people for special treatment... you'll be popping a sweet in my mouth, going 'ahhhhh' and patting me on the head next.... and yes, that has happened to me....

Remploy was set up for ex-servicemen who had been injured and/or disabled to provide retraining... it's ended up providing 'make work' not training... that there is now an institutionalised workforce & that they have failed to provide proper training is an indictment of workshops, not a reason to continue to provide an excuse or easy dumping ground for colleges & schools who haven't done their job properly.

Yes, people do have to look for work via agencies, they do have to get training, and look for support with job seeking/careers/the whole 'being employed' bit.... equal treatment means the crap bits as well as the good bits....

The social model of disability, which is the one accepted by disabled people through our own organisations, run by ourselves for ourselves expects that you should look beyond a person’s impairment at all the relevant factors that affect their ability to be a full and equal participant in society.... and that doesn't include being grateful for attempts to keep f***g ghettos open....

No offence, but isnt the issue whether the workers of Remploy feel that they would be better off not working for them?

 

[ViolentPanda]

The social model of disability, which is the one accepted by disabled people through our own organisations, run by ourselves for ourselves expects that you should look beyond a person’s impairment at all the relevant factors that affect their ability to be a full and equal participant in society.... and that doesn't include being grateful for attempts to keep f***g ghettos open....

The problem with the social model is that while it's a great theoretical position, real life means having to compromise, having to acknowledge that in some cases medical model arguments have some utility, and that not all people with impairments are able to assert themselves to the degree necessary to enforce their rights/receive their due.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why would you ask them? Mongs don't know what's best for themselves anyway. Best to leave it to the professional representatives and the community leaders. They always have everybody's best interests at heart.

N.b. if anybody takes any of the above seriously, you're a fucking moron

 

[Jografer]

No offence, but isnt the issue whether the workers of Remploy feel that they would be better off not working for them?

One idea is that any workshop/daycentre/segregated service should be allowed to naturally 'waste', that is, no-one 'joins', and through retirement etc the numbers diminish to zero..... but ........ putting the economic argument to one side, there is an social 'economy of scale' issue, where diminishing numbers make these places unviable... and has been pointed out the cost per 'job' <job!!?? spit..> is high, and could/should be better spent.

 

[Jografer]

With the greatest of respect whilst including disabled people into all aspects of "normal" life is a laudable concept, in practice there are those who are better off leading a sheltered lifestyle.
(Given what a shower of utter disablist bastards the general public, the government, of whatever political persuation, agents of givernment, employers, and the media can be.)

The problem with the social model is that while it's a great theoretical position, real life means having to compromise, having to acknowledge that in some cases medical model arguments have some utility, and that not all people with impairments are able to assert themselves to the degree necessary to enforce their rights/receive their due.

40 years ago..... 'mongols' lived in large hospitals surrouned by barbed wire fences..

30 years ago... the mentally handicapped still lived in hospitals, but got to go out for the day to Adult Training Centres..

20 years ago... downs syndrome people lived in homes, but still went to the daycentre, now called a 'resource centre'

10 years ago... people with a learning disability may still be in a home, may be in a half way house/supported accomodation, and some were going off to college..

now, many people with a disability live in their own shared home, with support, and many will have a job, some supported, some 'mainstream'... supermarket shelfstacking, for example, is not the greatest, but it pays a wage, not benefit, not an allowance, not charity...

Yes, I know this is a rose-tinted, over-simplistic version of history.... but many people work now who would have been institutionalised only a generation ago now are able to live with a much greater degree of indepedence and dignity.... because well meaning views of where we would be 'better off' have been overcome....

..... still more to do tho.....

 

[treelover]

Being involved in the campaign against the Welfare Reform Bill , for the first time I encountered ‘disability activists' who had the same approach and came up against this argument: that remploy was paternalist and degrading and made for ‘victim status' for the employees. I argued against it, but there seems to a distinct ideology in the disability movement, maybe because of its hard fought battles, that rejects any idea of disabled people as victims and not having ‘agency’ etc. There may be some truth in their objections to Remploy, but the structure of the modern workforce, neo-liberal policies, etc mean many people won’t even get on the first step of the brave new world of ‘freedom through work’ Belboid and others are right, this is a disaster, the workers will now be exposed to the cold winds of the market and the brutality of the benefits system, it won’t be pleasant I assure you.


Btw, the left response to these closures as has been crap as well, I watched a demo by R/workers the day of the anti-war demo during the LP conference, the SWP, etc were nowhere to be seen, they also ignored the one by the WRB campaign: only one type of workers , eh comrades?

Lets hope they take this on even at this late stage.


Btw, can you repost the info on indymedia, John Mcdonnels blog

 

[chymaera]

Yes, I know this is a rose-tinted, over-simplistic version of history.... but many people work now who would have been institutionalised only a generation ago now are able to live with a much greater degree of indepedence and dignity.... because well meaning views of where we would be 'better off' have been overcome....

..... still more to do tho.....

The problem is not ALL disabled people can be "fitted in" to a "normal" environment. Some of them need a sheltered existence.
Personally unless a hell of lot of care is taken about closing Remploy factories, I forsee a lot of suicides.

 

[treelover]

The same can be said about the consequences of the Welfare Reform Act, there will be casualties

 

[teuchter]

(Given what a shower of utter disablist bastards the general public, the government, of whatever political persuation, agents of givernment, employers, and the media can be.)

If this is true, and I am sure it is to an extent, it is not going to be made any better by continuing segregation.

As per jografer's well made point:

Would you support segregated employment for black people, for women, for gays...... no, I didn't think so, so don't single out disabled people for special treatment... you'll be popping a sweet in my mouth, going 'ahhhhh' and patting me on the head next.... and yes, that has happened to me....

Obviously the term "disabled" covers a huge range of conditions, some of which significantly restrict a person's ability to carry out certain activities, and some of which mainly only affect someone - as an employee - in their ability to gain access to a workplace. So I wouldn't say that it's in the interests of all disabled people to be transferred to mainstream jobs, of course not, but wherever it's possible it should be encouraged, surely.

Over the last ten or twenty years building regulations have been gradually tightening to provide better access for people with all kinds of disability. It's silly to do this and not follow it up by actually making sure as many people as possible are taking advantage of this improved access. As someone pointed out earlier on, things have changed (as they should have done) since the Remploy factories were started up - to me at least the idea of loss-making factories just to keep people (who in many cases could be out doing mainstream jobs) busy seems outdated and just a little patronising.

 

[greenman]

Does Remploy need improving and updating? Of course.
The workers' unions put a series of proposals to the management along these lines.
However, what is happening is that the management are following the New Labour line which is of a piece with the Welfare Reform Bill, part of the same neo-liberal process.
How many more times do we have to witness shambles like "Care in the Community" and "educational inclusion" before people wake up to the idea that "liberatory" and "social model" rhetoric is being used to cut costs, discipline the workforce and impose neo-liberal dogma?
People should listen to what people in socially disadvantaged groups want, not what some self appointed "liberators" say is "best for them."

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

rant deleted

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Does Remploy need improving and updating? Of course.
The workers' unions put a series of proposals to the management along these lines.
However, what is happening is that the management are following the New Labour line which is of a piece with the Welfare Reform Bill, part of the same neo-liberal process.
How many more times do we have to witness shambles like "Care in the Community" and "educational inclusion" before people wake up to the idea that "liberatory" and "social model" rhetoric is being used to cut costs, discipline the workforce and impose neo-liberal dogma?
People should listen to what people in socially disadvantaged groups want, not what some self appointed "liberators" say is "best for them."

Totally agree with you greenman. All this shit about saying 'Let there be jobs for disabled people' is all a bit Marie Antoinette-ish and let them eat cake. Totally unreal.

Closing down factories that provide jobs for disabled people [i.e. the bread in this scenario] is not going to make jobs available in the open jobs market [i.e. the cake].

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

...The social model of disability, which is the one accepted by disabled people through our own organisations, run by ourselves for ourselves expects that you should look beyond a person’s impairment at all the relevant factors that affect their ability to be a full and equal participant in society.... and that doesn't include being grateful for attempts to keep f***g ghettos open....

I totally agree with you about the social model of disability, I do not like or approve of the medical model.

But sometimes there's a need to create jobs for people who wouldn't necessarily be employable in the open job market.

For example, at a community/health centre near where I live there is a cafe that is a mental health project. There are some people with mild learning difficulties or other mental health problems for whom working as volunteers in the cafe is a stepping stone to employment, but some of them are probably/possibly unemployable. Or only employable in another specialist project or company. Another public sector organisation that I worked for employed someone with learning difficulties in the post room, but that's few and far between, most private sector organisations wouldn't do something like that, because the bottom line is that time is money, and they want people who can do a job and do it quickly and *some* disabled people can't work as quickly as able bodied/minded people.

That isn't to say that disabled people should be all herded into a ghetto of special jobs, but just because you or I can work in mainstream jobs that does not mean to say that jobs that provide employment specifically for disabled people in a disabled friendly environment should be abolished.

 

[ViolentPanda]

40 years ago..... 'mongols' lived in large hospitals surrouned by barbed wire fences..

30 years ago... the mentally handicapped still lived in hospitals, but got to go out for the day to Adult Training Centres..

20 years ago... downs syndrome people lived in homes, but still went to the daycentre, now called a 'resource centre'

10 years ago... people with a learning disability may still be in a home, may be in a half way house/supported accomodation, and some were going off to college..

now, many people with a disability live in their own shared home, with support, and many will have a job, some supported, some 'mainstream'... supermarket shelfstacking, for example, is not the greatest, but it pays a wage, not benefit, not an allowance, not charity...

Yes, I know this is a rose-tinted, over-simplistic version of history.... but many people work now who would have been institutionalised only a generation ago now are able to live with a much greater degree of indepedence and dignity.... because well meaning views of where we would be 'better off' have been overcome....

..... still more to do tho.....

Thanks for the lecture. No, really!

I shouldn't be surprised that fellow people with impairments can as patronising as "normals", but I still am nonetheless.

Now, do you care to actually answer the point I made?