Remploy
- Thread starter Irenick
- Start date
terratech
Active Member
As stated Irenick to have open access to it you have to be registered and it does cost but here is the site address.. http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/
"Secretary of state for Work and Pensions appoints Roger Poole to seek a negotiated settlement regarding the future of Remploy."
http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/Ne...42438&int2ndParentNodeID=42438&Action=Display
Does anyone know of Roger Poole? I’m informed he’s Unison (NUPE); and, that he’s a right-winger. Seems Hain knows him from his days in Ireland.
It’s difficult to know whether having a trade unionist ‘chairing’ procedures will actually benefit the union side.
http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/Ne...42438&int2ndParentNodeID=42438&Action=Display
Does anyone know of Roger Poole? I’m informed he’s Unison (NUPE); and, that he’s a right-winger. Seems Hain knows him from his days in Ireland.
It’s difficult to know whether having a trade unionist ‘chairing’ procedures will actually benefit the union side.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Well, yes. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the company and I don't have strong views either way on its future. It was good of you to raise the issue and get an interesting discussion going - ignoring the personal abuse which some people confuse with politics - getting government departments to at least consider using such companies for procurement would do a lot of good.Irenick said:
I will stick to my original thought which is that the Government wouldn't mind running it down and the management are putting up a fight.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Gosh, all I'm suggesting is that we could move further to full employment, which used to be seen as a laudable aim. I have a tea towel which I bought in the People's Palace commemorating Keir Hardie which I am sure sets out full employment as something to be striven for assiduously. No longer, however. More people in work and off benefits is now seen by my lefty chums as a wicked thing.phildwyer said:
What we have in the economy is a lot of people who in the past would have been classed as unemployed and are now on incapacity benefits. Many have mild to moderate health problems and some have physical and mental impairments that are real barriers to their entering or re-entering working life. But many are not so disabled that they would not take a job if something appealing came up.
Many others are not unfit for work but have responsibilities for care of children or adults who require their support.
A move from 74% of people of working age in paid work to 80% would be a good thing, and whether the full shift towards the 80% target could be achieved, we should target support to get more people closer to the possibility of work by addressing the barriers they face. Barbarous, indeed.
In Glasgow a realistic shift would be from 65% to 70%. More Glaswegians would live longer, which I think would be a good thing, and more people in work would mean more members for trade unions.
The trots can work on their revolution if they like. Meantime the hated Brownite regime continues to expand public spending on health and welfare in its efforts to seduce the working class from its duty to buy turgid lefty papers each week from students in donkey jackets.
Now about my name - why should a name such as Fullyplumped be thought to denote "satisfaction"? By which I imagine you mean something to be disapproved of, so you're probably a puritan or a miserablist. I like it when my physical and emotional needs are satisfied and you should be happy for me too. In fact, the name Fullyplumped is meant to denote the innate jolliness and jocosity that is my trademark. So cheer up.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Bull-shit. The rhetoric has reverted to the 'deserving/undeserving' poor as far as welfare is concerned - let's look to make money from the lowliest in society, actively punish those at the very sharp end for their percieved failures to reach 'normal' standards, force people into labour situations whereby they have no control over wages, hours, conditions, oh wait a minute, wasn't that called slavery once upon a time iirc?
Full employment is a tool for mass exploitation of the poorest by the richest, it aspires to grade people by their contribution to capitalist consumerist culture. Poor people have always realised the need to work to survive, it's fucking fundamental if you're surviving at the bottom of a pile of well-off fucks telling you that you should pull yourself together and conform to their standards, you know, no cash in hand jobs or withholding tithes or litle baccy fiddles or whatever you do to get by cos that's criminal and fraud when your poor whilst those rich fucks practice 'tax evasion' and that's ok.
Welfare reform, my arse. This is workfare reform
Full employment is a tool for mass exploitation of the poorest by the richest, it aspires to grade people by their contribution to capitalist consumerist culture. Poor people have always realised the need to work to survive, it's fucking fundamental if you're surviving at the bottom of a pile of well-off fucks telling you that you should pull yourself together and conform to their standards, you know, no cash in hand jobs or withholding tithes or litle baccy fiddles or whatever you do to get by cos that's criminal and fraud when your poor whilst those rich fucks practice 'tax evasion' and that's ok.
Welfare reform, my arse. This is workfare reform
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Treelover (nae offence, like, if you see this) sometimes talks a lot of well-intended mince, but he/she is right to say that lefties don't treat this subject with the importance it deserves. It would be good to see serious debate on the future of work, welfare and so on. Who should do the horrible, or just the boring, jobs? Is there a right to work? Is there a duty to work in areas where there is no shortage of jobs? Is there a right to say NO to work and still be supported by working people?terratech said:
Thanks for the link to the website.terratech said:
Well, if you think that would help, but it rarely helps anyone to be abusive to the staff.terratech said:
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Fine. You don't like the language. Working people get exploited. You don't approve of full employment as an aspiration. You think that "baccy fiddles" should be tolerated. What is your alternative (in this country, in the foreseeable future, in this universe)?Paulie Tandoori said:Bull-shit. The rhetoric has reverted to the 'deserving/undeserving' poor as far as welfare is concerned - let's look to make money from the lowliest in society, actively punish those at the very sharp end for their percieved failures to reach 'normal' standards, force people into labour situations whereby they have no control over wages, hours, conditions, oh wait a minute, wasn't that called slavery once upon a time iirc?
Full employment is a tool for mass exploitation of the poorest by the richest, it aspires to grade people by their contribution to capitalist consumerist culture. Poor people have always realised the need to work to survive, it's fucking fundamental if you're surviving at the bottom of a pile of well-off fucks telling you that you should pull yourself together and conform to their standards, you know, no cash in hand jobs or withholding tithes or litle baccy fiddles or whatever you do to get by cos that's criminal and fraud when your poor whilst those rich fucks practice 'tax evasion' and that's ok.
Welfare reform, my arse. This is workfare reform
Fullyplumped said:
I've said it before. Appropriate a bit of capital, spread it around. C'est tout. No-one, or hardly anyone, has to work. There's plenty to go around. Why you feel the need to force invalids to clean toilets is beyond me. Surely that makes *you* the puritan?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Paulie Tandoori said:Welfare reform, my arse. This is workfare reform
This is it in a nutshell really - no matter what rubbish hacks like FP argue about full employment and 'helping people' behind a facade of social or humanitarian concern, the real agenda is workfare integrated into larger economic aims - flexploitation, casualisation, the end of any job security or employer paid training, the lowering of wages whilst productivity continues to rise, the removal of any basic standards of workplace safety (see the cuts in the HSE and the gutting of their powers that Gordon Brown has imposed), the removal of collective representation of the workers from any substantial say in how businesses are run and ther slasing of the social wage for the most vulnerable in society whilst telling the already super-rich to go fill their boots off the backs of these people.
Fullyplumped said:
Management are not putting up a fight. On the contrary; management, at local level, have acquiesced with Remploy’s 10-year scorched earth policy. Over the past 10 years there has been a systematic running down of the factories. This has manifested itself in a number of ways. In the first instance, a substantial decrease in factory populations; second, a programme of deskilling – for instance, factories once engaged in skilled work, such as furniture making; having their business changed over to packaging; and third, a growing culture of bullying and harassment on the part of local management.
The unions are putting up the fight. Though, local managers are standing on the gallows next to their disabled employees; rather than putting up a resistance to the hangman; they’re tightening the nooses, their own included, and helping with the blindfolds.
terratech
Active Member
jesus FP, theres no talking to you 
but can guess your job in Job Centre plus helps and just look what happens when you send those of us caught in your deniel of the truth to work for a pittance >http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=desperate-scotlands-poorest-kids&method=full&objectid=19622596&siteid=66633-name_page.html < Still poor and still knocking myself out to keep the wolf from the door.
You live in a crumberling empire with billions world wide living in poverty, all wanting to earn - ILO figure on India suggest there will be 200 million more people of working age by 2015 an even greater danger than China`s population - with such a workforce where do you think industry is going to be and what will happen in this country?
Is your Labour party prepared? are you! as Industry moves to cut workforces by the intro of robots and what of the damage climate change will force on all. Get a grasp of the wider picture and prepare yourself for a different future, of the haves and have not`s - Just as India is now facing (well the world) of a nation split, the untold story of an underclass that is on the verge of an explosion of violence.
Ok so your not enamoured by the trots, I there say theres a few here who are not as well but your continued `Work fetish` is going to have to change gear. I would say spreading of the wealth is well pandering to hope, so we all have to think of a different way of living not just working.
but can guess your job in Job Centre plus helps and just look what happens when you send those of us caught in your deniel of the truth to work for a pittance >http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=desperate-scotlands-poorest-kids&method=full&objectid=19622596&siteid=66633-name_page.html < Still poor and still knocking myself out to keep the wolf from the door.You live in a crumberling empire with billions world wide living in poverty, all wanting to earn - ILO figure on India suggest there will be 200 million more people of working age by 2015 an even greater danger than China`s population - with such a workforce where do you think industry is going to be and what will happen in this country?
Is your Labour party prepared? are you! as Industry moves to cut workforces by the intro of robots and what of the damage climate change will force on all. Get a grasp of the wider picture and prepare yourself for a different future, of the haves and have not`s - Just as India is now facing (well the world) of a nation split, the untold story of an underclass that is on the verge of an explosion of violence.
Ok so your not enamoured by the trots, I there say theres a few here who are not as well but your continued `Work fetish` is going to have to change gear. I would say spreading of the wealth is well pandering to hope, so we all have to think of a different way of living not just working.
tbaldwin said:
My, aren’t you the controversial one; equating Remploy workers with bears, badgers and destitute people from a bygone era. Do you feel better for it? Has it added girth and length to your weeny willy; or, do you still need a couple of pairs of socks down the Calvins, to measure up?
What’s your job Baldwin; you one of the lucky ones; independent, answerable to no boss, or system? Can you stroll in and out of the workplace at will? Can you wake up in the morning; look out at the pissing rain; scratch your insignificance; and say “Bollocks” turn over and take the day off? Can you do as you wish, once you’re in work? Can you dip into the Guardian’s Wednesday job section; and, decide “That’s the job for me. £93,765 per annum…?” Can you tell your boss to go and fuck himself?
If, as with most of us, you respond ‘no’ to most of the above questions; welcome to the world of work. A world in which you prostitute yourself for money; a world where your time belongs to your employer; a world where you are segregated from those you’d rather be with – friends and family; a world not of most of our choosing.
A less reasonable person than myself might call you a fucktard, or a cuntoid, for the silly comments you made; but, I refuse to pander to such personal abuse. However, I will rebuke you for using the term ‘fascistic’. What is it with people like you; when will you learn, once you’ve branded the world and her cousins fascists and Nazis, you’ll be fucked when the real fascists and Nazis come along.
Grow up Baldwin.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Balders helps disabled people into employment, apparently.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
chymaera said:
I'd amend "need" to "wish", but otherwise totally agree.
Perhaps Balders dislikes the fact that Remploy deprives him of victims (or "clients" as I believe they're known)?
chymaera said:
Chymaera, Remploy workers are employed in supported employment, not as you so quaintly put it “…segregated and sheltered…”
Supported employment exists for a number of reasons; primarily to ensure disabled people able to work can work; work a mutually supportive environment. Then, there are the discriminatory reasons for needing Remploy.
Irenick said:
I chose my words carefully. Remploy are not the only organisation employing a disabled workforce.
I hate the one size fits all solution being forced on some very vulnerable people purely for reasons of political correctness and a social inclusion policy.
There are 5 million in Britain with varying states of disability.
Being in a sheltered segregated working/living environment is only an issuse for a tiny minority of them.
glenquagmire
Rightwing NuLab apologist
How about asking them? Seems to be a pretty clear picture coming through from the Remploy workers at the moment. Or perhaps others know better what's best for them?
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
tbaldwin said:
All the people who work in Remploy factories have the 'chance' to work in, as you put it, 'unsegregated' workplaces.
The only things stopping them doing so are (1) the fact that most other employers won't even give them interviews, lets alone jobs, and (2) the fact that what mainstream employment is available is usually offered with little protection of status or rights or progression in terms of skills or training.
Have you actually talked to anyone in the situtation of facing forced redundancy about what they think about the situation, rather than talking at them? How do you suggest discrimination and exploitation within the workforce is dealt with appropriately then?
Paulie Tandoori said:
Chance?
Encouragement? How much of both?
I am not talking to the people facing redundancy. I am stating my opinion on a bulletin board,that is going to be read mainly by people not directly affected.
I think that discrimination and exploitation is not best tackled by segregating people.
Disabled people can make a really positive contribution in work. We even had a blind home secretary once.
The idea that people should be segregated to me is nonsense.
Who really benefits from that? In my view lots of people in this country make a lot of money out of keeping people in their place...And argue that people have to be protected from wider society etc et fucking cetra.....They are the people that make a fortune out of keeping people poor.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Try and follow the argument, you sanctimonious prig. This isn't an argument about whether or not, as you so charmingly phrase it, 'disabled people can make a really positive contribution in work' - the argument is about the people who are already working in jobs that have employment protection, that are sustainable, that clearly have some value to them.
They are going to lose these jobs so that the money can be diverted to pay for 'personal' employment advisers who will encourage them to become part of the floating pool of low-status low quality employment pool that goes by the name of 'full employment' currently. Lower wages as well probably so greater reliance on state-subsidised benefits and tax credits (25% of the disabled working age adults in employment are still living in relative poverty anyway).
'But the factories are subsided', i hear you cry, 'it cost's us money to do business in this way!' - Well, so is farming and the defence industry and just about every other sector to some degree. It's how business works innit. Lot's of poor people are segregated - they are segregated from decent standards of living and decent incomes and decent opportunities. Disabled people are more likely to be poor and more likely to be disciminated against.
So i ask you again? What do you suggest is done to increase the employment rates of disabled people, when only 50% of working age disabled adults are in employment against 75% of the wider population?
When discimination in terms of securing or retaining employment is known to occur with little fear of challenge? How do you educate employers, who really want a flexible workforce on their terms, not that of their employees?
How do you make sure that a disabled person in work isn't still living in poverty? Do you support increases to tax credits and welfare benefits for disabled people?
They are going to lose these jobs so that the money can be diverted to pay for 'personal' employment advisers who will encourage them to become part of the floating pool of low-status low quality employment pool that goes by the name of 'full employment' currently. Lower wages as well probably so greater reliance on state-subsidised benefits and tax credits (25% of the disabled working age adults in employment are still living in relative poverty anyway).
'But the factories are subsided', i hear you cry, 'it cost's us money to do business in this way!' - Well, so is farming and the defence industry and just about every other sector to some degree. It's how business works innit. Lot's of poor people are segregated - they are segregated from decent standards of living and decent incomes and decent opportunities. Disabled people are more likely to be poor and more likely to be disciminated against.
So i ask you again? What do you suggest is done to increase the employment rates of disabled people, when only 50% of working age disabled adults are in employment against 75% of the wider population?
When discimination in terms of securing or retaining employment is known to occur with little fear of challenge? How do you educate employers, who really want a flexible workforce on their terms, not that of their employees?
How do you make sure that a disabled person in work isn't still living in poverty? Do you support increases to tax credits and welfare benefits for disabled people?
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
I will, Denisé r 
tbaldwin said:
Judging by your seeming total inability to understand that NO-ONE here is suggesting segregating ALL disabled people, I would be a lot happier if you were kept away from "helping" disable people in any way shape or form. There are however a FEW THOUSAND disabled people who need protecting from the outside world.
Similar threads
