ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
Who's argued that "disabled workers need segregating for their own good", balders?
No-one, that's who, dickhead.
Remploy
- Thread starter Irenick
- Start date
Who's argued that "disabled workers need segregating for their own good", balders?
No-one, that's who, dickhead.
nightbreed
Im Bored
I have followed this debate with interest.
It is not a debate about 'segregation'. It is about supporting keeping these factories open. It is a trade union issue.
People who try to split the debate into one on segregation have to seriously look at their so called trade union and socialist principles.
As a trade unionist I am 100% opposed to the government sponsored Remploy closure programme. As already stated Grant Thornton have provided a legitimate review and proposal which would keep the 43 factories open.It should be acted on.
If anyone here think that disabled people kicked out by these proposed closures will enter 'mainstream' employment under the protection of weak discrimination laws are seriously deluded.
It is not a debate about 'segregation'. It is about supporting keeping these factories open. It is a trade union issue.
People who try to split the debate into one on segregation have to seriously look at their so called trade union and socialist principles.
As a trade unionist I am 100% opposed to the government sponsored Remploy closure programme. As already stated Grant Thornton have provided a legitimate review and proposal which would keep the 43 factories open.It should be acted on.
If anyone here think that disabled people kicked out by these proposed closures will enter 'mainstream' employment under the protection of weak discrimination laws are seriously deluded.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
I found this yestersday - a petition by the Remploy Consortium of Trade Unions, calling for the Scottish Parliament to "urge the Scottish Executive, in partnership with Remploy and other sheltered workshop employers, to promote employment opportunities for disabled people by reserving local authority and/or government contracts to supported businesses, as permitted by EU Article 19 on Public Procurement."
In the petition (pdf file) they say that the fundamental issue was the ending of something called the Priority Suppliers Scheme in 1994 which hugely reduced the value of contracts for Remploy.
Perhaps one practical thing that people here could do would be to ask their MSPs in Scotland to support the petition and MPs and others elsewhere to ask Ministers to take steps to restore preference for Remploy and others in public procurement, in line with Article 19, Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.
Public procurement is a very complicated issue but it's taxpayers' money, and why not?
In the petition (pdf file) they say that the fundamental issue was the ending of something called the Priority Suppliers Scheme in 1994 which hugely reduced the value of contracts for Remploy.
Perhaps one practical thing that people here could do would be to ask their MSPs in Scotland to support the petition and MPs and others elsewhere to ask Ministers to take steps to restore preference for Remploy and others in public procurement, in line with Article 19, Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.
Public procurement is a very complicated issue but it's taxpayers' money, and why not?
tbaldwin said:
Ok, we had a blind Home Secretary; and, in 'Treasure Island' there was Blind Pugh and Long John Silver, both disabled. But, this the real world, and one disabled person in the top flight of government – technically, Gordon Brown, with only one functioning eye, could be classed as disabled; though, not necessarily by the DDA’s definition. There are exceptional people in all walks of life.
Baldwin, you insistence on using the word ‘segregated’ is becoming tiresome. It diminishes the power of the word when applied to real segregation.
When the Brixton, Leatherhead and Woolwich Remploy factories close; and, the overwhelming majority of the disabled workers, around 120 people, are forced onto benefits. Then, and only then, will they understand segregation; the segregation of a punitive benefits system; the segregation of exclusion from participating in the workplace, socially and economically.
This is the price the government expects them to pay in order to bolster their employment league tables. What these league tables don’t reflect is the nature of the jobs Remploy finds for disabled workers. As I’ve stated in the past. Remploy has not placed 5,400 people into sustainable employment; they’ve found 5,400 placements. Many of these will last a few weeks; 50% under 6 months; and, the remaining 50% between two and five years.
So, in reality; Remploy may have placed just over 2,500 people into ‘sustainable’ employment – for a disabled person, a job that lasts two to three years, is probably not even viewed as sustainable employment; as, they’ll probably have protracted periods of idleness in between jobs.
Fullyplumped said:
As you can see, from the link, Remploy has had the opportunity since January 2006 to exploit public contracts - £136 billion worth of the things.
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/documents/supported_factories_and_businesses.pdf
I visited most of the London factories last spring, bringing this directive to the attention of Local Remploy Managers. None were aware of this potential life-line. This suggests a couple of scenarios.
1. That all LRM’s are incompetent – though, we in the unions joke about this; there are undoubtedly some decent and competent managers;
2. That the Board and senior management had instructed LRM’s not to exploit this business – this is the most likely situation.
The fact Remploy only advertised for a national public contracts’ procurement manager the day after the closures were announced, also speaks volumes. The fact that 19 months after the OGC Guidance on Reserved Contracts came out; public contracts only account for 22% of the work coming into the factories.
This accounts for a measly 0.024% of the £136 billion of public contracts. By increasing their share by a factor of 4.55; Remploy would fill the order books of all 83 factories; and, only at a cost of 0.11% of all public contracts; leaving 99.89% of contracts to the private sector – so, there can be no accusations from private industry that Remploy are taking food from their mouths.
chymaera said:
erm you could try that......
I am not arguing that disabled people should be forced to work.
Just arguing that they should get the chance to work side by side with non disabled people.
Billions of pounds are spent in this country on keeping disabled people segregated. A lot of people have a very vested interest in keeping things the way they are.
Irenick said:
So when it happens and it will happen,what are you going to argue for?
I think that all of those 120 people are important and it is important that they get some kind of employment if they want it.
Social firms/enterprises are very fashionable at the moment. Couldnt it be argued that 3 social firms could be started that would employ some of the people.
And i am sure that many employers actually do want to employ disabled people.
You could do worse than ask the local councils in those areas how many disabled people they employ. And shame them into action.
nightbreed
Im Bored
tbaldwin said:
I think you are a dreamer.
Do these soon to be redundant workers put everything on hold until a 'nice' social enterprise magically appears to employ them till they retire?
More importantly , are these workers going to get the same terms and conditions they currently enjoy at Remploy in these social enterprises, if they did exist? I think not.
I would love to see workplaces with genuine equality but it is completely utopian to believe that will ever happen.
Yer average capitalist wont employ disabled. No amount of legislation will change that.
nightbreed said:
It does not take a lot of time to set up a social enterprise.
Though certain people will prtend it does.
If yer average capitalist wont do it, as you suggest then what about the public and voluntary sector?
In my experience it is a lot easier with the capitalist pigs than with the right on hypocrites...
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
tbaldwin said:
so you can't or won't even begin to answer the very straight-forward questions that i asked you earlier on then?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Which no-one on this thread has done, so why bring it up?tbaldwin said:
Not a very coherent argument you're making, is it?
tbaldwin said:
I don’t know you Baldwin; but, that statement has a ring of triumphalism about it; a sense of schadenfreude on your part at the closure of these factories.
Closure is not a tenable option; we’re arguing for the retention of the factories. There is no point in arguing after the event; it’s too late for the overwhelming majority of the 120 disenfranchised disabled workers then.
tbaldwin said:
Yes, they are important; as were the 85 people made redundant from Crosfield (a supported factory funded by Croydon Council) in January 2005. The GMB has followed the fate of these disabled workers; seven of them have found sustainable employment in this period.
Baldwin, what you are wishing upon Remploy workers is “…some sort of employment if they want it.” First of all, they have some sort of employment; employment with reasonable Terms and Conditions, in a safe working environment. Second, they want employment; that’s why they go to work now.
What you’re offering them is a strong likelihood of the sort of employment they don’t want; jobs with poor Terms and Conditions, and without security of tenure. Because, that’s what Remploy’s Interwork scheme offers at the moment.
tbaldwin said:
Baldwin, Remploy is owned by the State – how much more of a social enterprise do you want?
tbaldwin said:
And Baldwin, I am sure more firms are shirking their legal obligations when it comes to employing disabled people – it’s called breaking the law; but, with such piss-poor legislation in place; a reluctant DRC; and, government obedient to the demands of business over people. Disabled people will continue to be discriminated against; and, as HR departments are becoming savvier; so, proving discrimination will become more and more problematic.
Councils have no shame. They’re amongst the worst employers around. Add to the equation the likely withdrawal of Access to Work in the foreseeable future; and, we’ll see them shirking their duty to disabled people.
Incidentally Baldwin, the withdrawal of AtW from Central Government departments is another example of this government’s duplicity when it comes to commitment to disabled people. They plan, eventually, to scrap AtW throughout the public sector; then, once they’ve done this. They’ll do the same in the private sector.
nightbreed
Im Bored
tbaldwin said:
Disabled workers cant rely on this happening so lets not go there.
A little bit of old fashioned , socialist solidarity is needed here. Do you support the organised workers to defend their jobs or not?
Simple yes or no will do.
nightbreed said:
I think it has to be a NO. A reluctant NO but a NO,cos i think those people should not be segregated.
And i think that some positive change is needed for disabled people. Just defending the status quo,does not sound like a great idea to me.
nightbreed
Im Bored
tbaldwin said:
Its not defending the status quo, its defending jobs what is at stake here.It certainly isnt positive change and will not benefit disabled people in the long run for reasons already mentioned.
You have nailed your colours to the mast on this one Balders. The socialist position is one of solidarity with the Remploy workers.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
I came across this today -
Consultation on the future of Remploy factories earmarked for closure has been extended by a month, it emerged this week.
Discussions on Remploy's decision to close 32 of its factories and merge a further 11 with neighbouring sites will now continue until the end of September, due to the Department for Work and Pensions' appointment of a mediator to assist in the process.
The government-funded company, which both directly employs disabled people and supports them into work, announced the closures plan in May.
Roger Poole, previously chair of the Northern Ireland Parades Commission, the body which determines whether parades should go ahead, will chair meetings between management and unions GMB and Unite, who oppose Remploy's plans.
A Remploy spokesperson said it was hoped Poole’s appointment would help to break down the “log jam” between the company and the unions and enable a resolution to be found.
and some interesting comments by workers at the company's plants, Discussions on Remploy's decision to close 32 of its factories and merge a further 11 with neighbouring sites will now continue until the end of September, due to the Department for Work and Pensions' appointment of a mediator to assist in the process.
The government-funded company, which both directly employs disabled people and supports them into work, announced the closures plan in May.
Roger Poole, previously chair of the Northern Ireland Parades Commission, the body which determines whether parades should go ahead, will chair meetings between management and unions GMB and Unite, who oppose Remploy's plans.
A Remploy spokesperson said it was hoped Poole’s appointment would help to break down the “log jam” between the company and the unions and enable a resolution to be found.
Since the announcement, there have been numerous sleepless nights for the workers at the cutting unit. Many have worked at the factory for more than 10 years, and are opposed to moving to another site run by Remploy over the road. The unit under threat, which employs 41 people, 33 of whom are disabled, makes items including police protection suits, health care products and life jackets. The other site focuses on soft furnishings, so the move would change their jobs substantially, workers say.
They also fear that the plans represent the first tranche of closures and that eventually all of Remploy's factories will be shut.
and a columnist's point of view - They also fear that the plans represent the first tranche of closures and that eventually all of Remploy's factories will be shut.
On one side, the trade unions have started a fight to save jobs. They point out that many of the employees would find it hard to get jobs where their conditions were accommodated so successfully, and where they were less likely to suffer discrimination.
On the other side, some disability organisations claim that Remploy's new strategy is the right one: if the integration of disabled people into the mainstream is to progress, then it should be spearheading ways to enable people with disabilities to get the same jobs - with the right support - as everyone else. They argue that we won't get rid of discrimination in employment until management and (non-disabled) workers are used to working alongside disabled people.
It's the same argument that has been simmering for decades in special education, and for the last few years in adult day services: segregation versus integration.
On the other side, some disability organisations claim that Remploy's new strategy is the right one: if the integration of disabled people into the mainstream is to progress, then it should be spearheading ways to enable people with disabilities to get the same jobs - with the right support - as everyone else. They argue that we won't get rid of discrimination in employment until management and (non-disabled) workers are used to working alongside disabled people.
It's the same argument that has been simmering for decades in special education, and for the last few years in adult day services: segregation versus integration.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Segregation versus integration is a false dichotomy, but of course makes a journalist's job far easier.
The truth (as with "special" education) is far more complex, in that it spans a continuum from de facto "segregation", through varying degrees of integration, to "full integration".
The truth (as with "special" education) is far more complex, in that it spans a continuum from de facto "segregation", through varying degrees of integration, to "full integration".
Of course, 'segregation versus integration is a false dichotomy'.ViolentPanda said:
I’ve always found it mildly amusing, that many of those within the disability movement – the Peter and Polly ‘Politically-correct’ Purists – with whom I’ve argued nose-to-nose on issues of supported employment. How, they themselves were quite happy to work within the ‘disability industry’ – policy advisors for the NCIL; disability rights’ advisors for various local authorities, charities etc; and, freelance disability consultants.
These disability ‘professionals’, while decrying Remploy and supported employment; were, and are, themselves only in these supported jobs, in order that public bodies can hold them up as their commitment to disability issues.
Yet, they seem content to be employed in their especially-created-for-better-educated-crips jobs; while, denying working class disabled people the right to work.
Smacks of ‘I’m-alright-Jack’; bugger those crips that couldn’t secure a decent education; for them, the integration of Asda; stripped of trade union rights; and, at the mercy of intolerant co-workers, who in their frustration will lash out at those they see as even more vulnerable – they can’t get back at their bosses; so, something has to give – and, that’ll be those poor bastards with severe learning difficulties and survivors of the mental health system.
But, so what? At least they’ll not suffer the indignity of segregationist supported employment. Better to be integrated and tormented – to the point of attempted suicide – than working in an organised and safe environment.
The Trade Union Consortium met with the company last Friday; and, the following came from that meeting:
1. Remploy wants the unions to call off their industrial action ballot.
2. The unions then asked the company to withdraw the HR1 Closure Notice.
3. The company turned this request down; claiming it will cost millions to withdraw HR1 Closure Notice.
4. If this industrial dispute is between unions and Remploy; why is the DWP involved, calling for a stop to the ballot
5. To withdraw HR1 will restart consultation process from zero.
6. Roger Poole is putting heavy pressure on us to withdraw the industrial action ballot.
The whole thing stinks. Peter Hain wants this resolved as painlessly – for himself –as possible; but, of course he is always looking to the Treasury to see what they want. Ultimately, Hain is more concerned for his position; and, will dispense of Remploy; should he feel his gaffer, Brown, is desirous of this outcome.
1. Remploy wants the unions to call off their industrial action ballot.
2. The unions then asked the company to withdraw the HR1 Closure Notice.
3. The company turned this request down; claiming it will cost millions to withdraw HR1 Closure Notice.
4. If this industrial dispute is between unions and Remploy; why is the DWP involved, calling for a stop to the ballot
5. To withdraw HR1 will restart consultation process from zero.
6. Roger Poole is putting heavy pressure on us to withdraw the industrial action ballot.
The whole thing stinks. Peter Hain wants this resolved as painlessly – for himself –as possible; but, of course he is always looking to the Treasury to see what they want. Ultimately, Hain is more concerned for his position; and, will dispense of Remploy; should he feel his gaffer, Brown, is desirous of this outcome.
General statement
Remploy: The union campaign is not about helping more disabled people into employment; nor is it about redundancies. We have given a firm commitment that none of our disabled employees will be made compulsorily redundant.
TU Note – what about the 700 non-disabled people who will be made compulsorily redundant? and we’ve already dealt extensively with the impact of forcing the thousands of disabled workers to leave against their will the supported environment they have chosen to work in.
Remploy: In fact our modernisation proposals mean that within five years Remploy will quadruple the number of jobs we find for disabled people - that is 20,000 jobs each and every year.
TU Note - there is no evidence whatsoever so support this sweeping claim, and there is much evidence to prove that the alternative jobs will not be equivalent to the high skilled, manufacturing jobs which are currently provided in Remploy factories.
Remploy: The unions' interest is only in maintaining loss-making factories which cost the taxpayer millions of pounds each year. This would prevent us from helping thousands more disabled people into employment each year.
TU Note – this is a complete lie; the Trade Union business plan has been extensively circulated and the number one commitment is to not only provide significantly more jobs for disabled workers but to do so within the Government’s laid down funding envelope of £555m. The company has for 18 months totally ignored the massive opportunities available through the Public Procurement regulations**.
Remploy: The response from the unions to these plans has been to threaten a strike. It must be the first strike in history against a company that was trying to create thousands of jobs.
TU Note – again total misrepresentation; our ballot is a weapon of last resort to be used against a company that has consistently refused to engage in meaningful consultation over an 18 month period.
Remploy: We get our funding from the Government and Ministers have told us that Remploy has to change. The status quo is not an option.
TU Note – AGREED!!
Remploy: If the unions got their way, and Remploy did not modernise, over the next five years more than 40,000 disabled people would continue on benefit rather than enjoying the benefits of a satisfying and rewarding job. Our proposals will allow us to transfer resources from factories into finding more jobs for disabled people in mainstream employment. Every time we place a disabled person in a job with another company there is a one-off cost of just over £5,000, while each job in our factories costs on average £20,000 every year. The equation is simple - for the cost of one job in our factories we can place four people into jobs in mainstream employment.
TU Note – again, total misrepresentation of the TU alternatives; Remploy MUST modernise, but it is not necessary to choose between funding either factories or supporting people into mainstream employment. There is a huge amount of waste in a company that is massively top-heavy with senior management – our business plan deals extensively with cutting costs and waste as well as how to significantly improve sales and margins.
Remploy: We know that, with the right training, job preparation and support, almost all of our employees can work in other companies, and we are already talking to charities and social organisations to find meaningful work, in a more supportive environment, for those who need this.
TU Note – we know from a huge amount of evidence both from Remploy workers who have worked in mainstream employment and from other disabled members in industry that this is simply not the case; working class disabled people are far more likely to be found in low paid, low skilled, short term employment and also experience wide-spread discrimination and harassment, despite the introduction of protective legislation.
Remploy: Every disabled employee will have the support they need for as long as they need it.
TU Note – again this is misleading; there are a number of conditions that employees will have to fulfil to continue on Remploy terms and conditions, and besides, our members demand the right to choose where they work.
** The regulatory framework is outlined below:
The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (OGC) Regulation 7 (Reg.10 Utilities Contracts Regulations) states: “A contracting authority may reserve the right to participate in a public contract award procedure, framework agreement or dynamic purchasing system to economic operators which operate supported factories, supported businesses or supported employment programmes. Where a contracting authority has reserved the right to participate in a public contract, framework agreement or dynamic purchasing system, it shall follow the contract award procedures set out in these Regulations. When seeking offers in relation to a public contract, a framework agreement or dynamic purchasing system, a contracting authority shall specify in the contract notice if it is using this approach”.
These regulations apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Executive implemented the Directives separately, but the Scottish Statutory Instrument contains exactly the same provisions.
Remploy: The union campaign is not about helping more disabled people into employment; nor is it about redundancies. We have given a firm commitment that none of our disabled employees will be made compulsorily redundant.
TU Note – what about the 700 non-disabled people who will be made compulsorily redundant? and we’ve already dealt extensively with the impact of forcing the thousands of disabled workers to leave against their will the supported environment they have chosen to work in.
Remploy: In fact our modernisation proposals mean that within five years Remploy will quadruple the number of jobs we find for disabled people - that is 20,000 jobs each and every year.
TU Note - there is no evidence whatsoever so support this sweeping claim, and there is much evidence to prove that the alternative jobs will not be equivalent to the high skilled, manufacturing jobs which are currently provided in Remploy factories.
Remploy: The unions' interest is only in maintaining loss-making factories which cost the taxpayer millions of pounds each year. This would prevent us from helping thousands more disabled people into employment each year.
TU Note – this is a complete lie; the Trade Union business plan has been extensively circulated and the number one commitment is to not only provide significantly more jobs for disabled workers but to do so within the Government’s laid down funding envelope of £555m. The company has for 18 months totally ignored the massive opportunities available through the Public Procurement regulations**.
Remploy: The response from the unions to these plans has been to threaten a strike. It must be the first strike in history against a company that was trying to create thousands of jobs.
TU Note – again total misrepresentation; our ballot is a weapon of last resort to be used against a company that has consistently refused to engage in meaningful consultation over an 18 month period.
Remploy: We get our funding from the Government and Ministers have told us that Remploy has to change. The status quo is not an option.
TU Note – AGREED!!
Remploy: If the unions got their way, and Remploy did not modernise, over the next five years more than 40,000 disabled people would continue on benefit rather than enjoying the benefits of a satisfying and rewarding job. Our proposals will allow us to transfer resources from factories into finding more jobs for disabled people in mainstream employment. Every time we place a disabled person in a job with another company there is a one-off cost of just over £5,000, while each job in our factories costs on average £20,000 every year. The equation is simple - for the cost of one job in our factories we can place four people into jobs in mainstream employment.
TU Note – again, total misrepresentation of the TU alternatives; Remploy MUST modernise, but it is not necessary to choose between funding either factories or supporting people into mainstream employment. There is a huge amount of waste in a company that is massively top-heavy with senior management – our business plan deals extensively with cutting costs and waste as well as how to significantly improve sales and margins.
Remploy: We know that, with the right training, job preparation and support, almost all of our employees can work in other companies, and we are already talking to charities and social organisations to find meaningful work, in a more supportive environment, for those who need this.
TU Note – we know from a huge amount of evidence both from Remploy workers who have worked in mainstream employment and from other disabled members in industry that this is simply not the case; working class disabled people are far more likely to be found in low paid, low skilled, short term employment and also experience wide-spread discrimination and harassment, despite the introduction of protective legislation.
Remploy: Every disabled employee will have the support they need for as long as they need it.
TU Note – again this is misleading; there are a number of conditions that employees will have to fulfil to continue on Remploy terms and conditions, and besides, our members demand the right to choose where they work.
** The regulatory framework is outlined below:
The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (OGC) Regulation 7 (Reg.10 Utilities Contracts Regulations) states: “A contracting authority may reserve the right to participate in a public contract award procedure, framework agreement or dynamic purchasing system to economic operators which operate supported factories, supported businesses or supported employment programmes. Where a contracting authority has reserved the right to participate in a public contract, framework agreement or dynamic purchasing system, it shall follow the contract award procedures set out in these Regulations. When seeking offers in relation to a public contract, a framework agreement or dynamic purchasing system, a contracting authority shall specify in the contract notice if it is using this approach”.
These regulations apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Executive implemented the Directives separately, but the Scottish Statutory Instrument contains exactly the same provisions.
ViolentPanda said:
I dont agree VP. But do agree to the point that Integration is not a magic wand to cure all evils etc....
But segregating people due to their disability in the workplace has not exactly been a sparkling success has it?
I dont know how much experience you have of special schools or segregated workshops, but id guess from what youve said not a lot.
There are some really good special schools and some appalling ones. It depends not on the pupil intake but the head and teachers.
Some kids do OK from special schools and some need to be freed is quickly as possible.
Baldwin, "I dont know how much experience you have of..." supported factories; but, I'd guess from what you've said, none.tbaldwin said:
There are some really good supported factories. It depends on the trade union organisation, support and employees; as well as the LRMs. Some disabled workers do ok from supported employment; while some thrive outside in 'mainstream'. This is why, the overwhelming majority of disabled employees work in mainstream jobs.
chymaera said:
I dont think its a question of being too thick,chymaera.
I think it's that i have a different view. Unfortunately disabled people can suffer abuse and murder in integrated or segregated settings.
Segregationists talk about safety etc....But Segregation is not the best or safest option for people in reality.
No Baldwin, it’s not a question of being thick. It’s more a question of using purposely inflammatory phrasing, and weak Remploy/government propaganda to prop up your views on supported employment; an area that I doubt you’ve had any meaningful experience of.
I fully support all employment opportunities for disabled people. I don’t know a single person working for, or connected to Remploy through trade unions, that is against disabled people working wherever they can; and, I personally know hundreds of people working in Remploy factories, and associated with them through the labour movement.
The only time this issue comes up, is when people like you, Baldwin, clumsily attempt to make this an integrationist versus segregationist argument. It is not Baldwin; nor, has it ever been. If, you are going to offer this up as the main plank of your argument; at least know your argument.
I fully support all employment opportunities for disabled people. I don’t know a single person working for, or connected to Remploy through trade unions, that is against disabled people working wherever they can; and, I personally know hundreds of people working in Remploy factories, and associated with them through the labour movement.
The only time this issue comes up, is when people like you, Baldwin, clumsily attempt to make this an integrationist versus segregationist argument. It is not Baldwin; nor, has it ever been. If, you are going to offer this up as the main plank of your argument; at least know your argument.
Similar threads
