“Some people with learning disabilities don’t understand about money”, proclaims Conservative parliamentary candidate Sally Ann Heart. Therefore, she says, we should pay disabled people less for their work.
When the Tories tell you who they are – and by god is one of them doing that here – believe them. https://t.co/QnvZCRrIHK
— James B (@piercepenniless) December 5, 2019
At a time when parliamentary candidates across the UK are desperate for our votes in next week’s General Election, you would think they would refrain from offending entire groups of oppressed people. It sounds like common sense, but nobody told the Tories that.
Sally Ann Heart thinks that equal work should not be met with equal pay if there is a chance that the person receiving the pay does not understand the value of money or how to spend it. It does not occur to her that, even if somebody struggles to understand the cash they earn, they still have exactly the same amount of rent to pay and their bread, cheese and tomatoes all cost the same in the supermarket as hers do. Their electricity costs the same as their next-door neighbour’s, and when they buy their mum a bunch of flowers, they don’t get a discount.
I’m disabled. Should I be paid less for this article than my colleague who wrote yesterday was paid? Should I get more than some other oppressed groups?
Should my understanding of the money I receive have a material impact on how much of it I get?
In an equal world, disabled people are supported to live independent lives. This means getting support in the areas we struggle with, be that with getting washed in the morning, getting on public transport or doing a food shop. If we struggle to manage our money, a world in which we are supported to live independently would include helping somebody to cope with the cash that comes in and goes out.
As it is, in the UK, some disabled people receive support to live independently but many do not. Does this mean we should discriminate further against those who do not?
They may be more vulnerable to discrimination but that does not justify carrying it out.
We have a minimum wage for a reason. It may be too low but it is there as a protection for workers against unscrupulous employers. If we allow provision for members of marginalised groups to receive less than those who are more privileged, this enshrines this discrimination in law even more than it already is.
Disabled people are already penalised in the workplace. Many workplaces are inaccessible and, even when there are ramps and lifts and accessible loos, getting employers to give us a chance and hire us is incredibly difficult: 89% of recruiters believe that disabled people are not suited to senior roles.
The audience that Sally Ann Heart was speaking to reacted with dismay, which was refreshing in a country with serious problems with disablism. And Labour’s shadow disabilities minister Marsha de Cordova told the Independent, “If Boris Johnson wins next Thursday, the hostile environment the Conservatives have created for disabled people will push even more into poverty,” she said.
“Disabled people are already shut out of employment and have been disproportionately harmed by the Conservative and Lib Dems’ cuts. Now, these comments further expose the contempt the Conservatives feel for disabled people, which underlie their policies towards us.
“These aren’t comments Sally-Ann Hart made years ago. She made them during this election. Anyone with such hateful views has no place in Parliament.”
Heart referred to the idea that disabled people should work for less pay, or no pay, as a “therapeutic exemption”. We might enjoy work, so why pay us? It might do us good, so why pay us?
But nobody posits such an idea for non-disabled people. If they enjoy their job, should they get a pay cut? If it boosts their confidence, should they lose their salary altogether?
The idea that everything a disabled person does should be, or is, therapeutic in some way is ever pervasive. So is the idea that we have less to offer. But if a person is good enough to do a job, then she is good enough to be paid. And if she does the same job as someone else, they should receive the same amount in their monthly paypacket.
Image credit: Scouser UK
The author makes many good points, but . . . . . If an associate was (say) a wheelchair occupier could they be a bricklayer and be paid as much as none wheelchair occupier bricklayers?
STOP!
This is inappropriate for even asking the question.
Are you familiar with Hitler?
When he came to power in Germany, he ordered ( as a first step in his dum belief about developing a master race”) the gassing of disabled citizens.
My point is this kind of a question must be challenged.
It is a very slippery slope. Understand?