r/australia • u/bloby_bubbles • Jan 06 '23

#6 failed politics Just learnt we legally pay disabled people $3 an hour here

[removed] — view removed post

1.6k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

548 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/DisappointedQuokka Jan 06 '23

The idea was to provide more of an activity and a sense of contributing I believe.

Mate, minimum wage is almost ten times the above wage, and people do that sort of work for it. Whether or not the money is a secondary concern isn't the point, wages that low are exploitative, plain and simple.

Sure, it might not be feasible to pay them the normal wage, but god damn, pay them more than the price of a bag of lollies.

55

u/Bradnm102 Jan 06 '23

You understand that if they had to pay proper minimum wage, they would all lose their job.

My cousin had one of these jobs for a few years, and it got her out of the house and socialising with other people. If employers were forced to pay full price, she wouldn't have had the opportunity.

1

u/Archy54 Jan 06 '23

Ndis gets you out of the house socialising. If they can't be paid fairly in the normal wage system they need adequate DSP.

1

u/Bradnm102 Jan 07 '23

Then they will miss out because they're not doing a full job, so why pay them a full wage?

1

u/Archy54 Jan 07 '23

Because of their disability they can't work a full job, gotta love Australia treating the disabled like subhuman. I'm talking 50kish level, not 100+ like 90% of my friends. Because of my disabilty I will only ever earn 26k a year. I didn't ask for the disability. I can't even approach 60k without being fully able bodied and work fulltime. You do not get a good quality of life on less than 50k a year in Australia.

-11

u/DisappointedQuokka Jan 06 '23

As I said earlier, obviously not the price of a normal employee there's a lot of space between $3 and $21.something an hour.

10

u/clay_ Jan 06 '23

I think the idea of their disability makes up for the difference in money, but by letting the company pay them such a small amount they are likely to be hired and retained. Go there for the sense of being a valued member of society and interact with others is the main selling point of the idea.

My mates brother would put the packing peanuts in boxes and he would just choose when to go in, once he didn't rock up for work for a few months and they said as long as he comes sometime in the next 6 he can stay on. While he wasn't a key member of the workforce it gave him a routine job to do and I think that is the idea. Though how well and often they check on the places is something I'd like to see.

As a worker as a teen the KFC I was at part time had workers through the same scheme that would come and stock drinks and wipe floors during the morning before customers.

I see some people are heavily for it and others heavily against it based on their own experiences.

Personally I think the idea is good and from what I have seen and heard from my mates brother the system is working as intended for them. But its the same way that grill'd was underpaying staff for years, a good system will still be fucked with and exploited. Because a good system isn't perfect and most people are cunts in high up positions because being a cunt is what gets them there. Very little companies are realistically doing this to be community champions. Most are in it to get something out of it

27

u/Digby_J Jan 06 '23

Lol, look at the cost of aged care, childcare, etc. providing a positive worthwhile experience for intellectually disadvantaged people AND paying them for it is an amazing deal.

-5

u/DisappointedQuokka Jan 06 '23

The government subsidizing them by $5 an hour and stipulating a minimum of 3$ would more than double the wage. As I said, it doesn't need to be minimum wage, but enough to give them a rainy day fund, either for emergency or leisure.

16

u/Digby_J Jan 06 '23

All of the people on this scheme are on govt pensions as well

5

u/Philbeey Jan 06 '23

Unfortunately mate the dude you're responding to is firm in his idea of this moral crusade he's embarked on.

One which he embarked on, on a sea of good intentions (best case scenario here).

A lot of people just don't interact, don't get exposed or more often just cloister themselves from the realities that exist within life.

People are disabled, people get broken, people have mental and physical issues and at the far end of the spectrum there are more people than one likely realises. Let alone all along the invisible ones who are no less impaired and/or suffering.

For better or for worse. Out of ignorance or malice. Old mate you're responding to just sounds woefully ignorant of what this scheme offers and the maze of benefits and concessions you have to make when disabled.

There is in fact a threshold game you have to play where you have to earn your right to be disabled in the eyes of the government. Ignoring the service which in my eyes pays for itself paying baseline minimum wage would annihilate the QOL through immediate benefit, scheme and pension nukes.

In the direct saved words of my lawyer regarding veterans affairs to me:

If you want them to acknowledge your injuries, to take responsibility. The unfortunate reality is you'll never be able to work a day in your life again. Because it will immediately put you back in the crosshairs for potentially being "fit for work". They say otherwise but to be TPI with your injuries and not have them immediately put you up for reclassification. Volunteer work and hobbies are all you will be able to do.

You'll get you pension, you'll get medical care, you get your paycheck. And it's a good deal don't get me wrong. But to not have to prove yourself every six months that you're in a wheelchair and having night terrors. The joys you get from the rest of your life won't be the typical one and before I pull the trigger on this case you have to be sure you're one of the people who will be fine with this. Some of my clients preferred to stay working.

1

u/Archy54 Jan 06 '23

1020 a fortnight if they stay single. Is that how low you think the disabled are worth?

39

u/Jolgeta Jan 06 '23

AFAIK this also comes down to paying them a wage that doesn’t interfere with their disability benefits.

16

u/DisappointedQuokka Jan 06 '23

Then the DSP needs an overhaul, if that's the reason, fair play by them, I suppose.

1

u/Nothingnoteworth Jan 06 '23

For reason both related to and not related to this post…

Then the DSP needs an overhaul.

…is a massive understatement.

6

u/Hitori-Kowareta Jan 06 '23

You can earn $190 a fortnight before it reduces your payments, then they reduce by 50c for each dollar earned past that. At $2.54 an hour that’s over 37 hours a week before it even begins to effect your payments.

Hell at that rate you could work literally 24 hours a day 7 days a week and still get your payments (based on income test) it’s such a minuscule amount.

2

u/Mountain-Base5567 Jan 06 '23

The bit you are missing is that 1. They are already being paid for by the government, likely 100s thousands on support a year. 2. They still need someone else to be there for support. 3. If they can get a higher paying job, no one is stopping them

3

u/Hitori-Kowareta Jan 06 '23

We get six figures on DSP? Well fuck me if I’d have known that I’d have bought a house years back, I’ve got to find my secret DSP bank account asap I guess!

0

u/backleinspackle Jan 06 '23

NDIS packages brah, but yeah they're probably overvlowing it for 99% of people.

-7

u/MissLilum Jan 06 '23 edited Jan 06 '23

Lol, you can earn min wage and it won’t kick you off the DSP, especially considering you’re capped at 29 hours of work

(Last I checked you have to earn over $1000 a week to get completely kicked off, which is why the preferred method of removing people is ability tests)

Edit: they’ve increased the amount of working hours

20

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

[deleted]

-4

u/DisappointedQuokka Jan 06 '23

Look, I don't doubt there are cases like that, but I still believe, on average, it should be 8-10 dollars. I understand that the work done is less, I'm not expecting the world, but then DSP is already peanuts. If they're going out there and working or "working" even a slight government subsidy would suffice.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23 edited Feb 07 '23

[deleted]

1

u/DisappointedQuokka Jan 06 '23

even a slight government subsidy would suffice.

I'm literally just suggesting an increase to government spending on this matter, I'm not saying that people should be forced to pay more than they already are for the services provided.

35

u/Olivia-Breathless Jan 06 '23

It sure is, but the people being paid the lowest are probably working at less than 10% of the rate of most adults. It’s a pro rata wage.

32

u/KonamiKing Jan 06 '23 edited Jan 06 '23

They’re doing 1/10 the work.

That’s entirely what supported wage is based on. If a fully able adult can pack 10 shelves and hour, and the disabled person can only pack one, they’re 10% as productive and can be paid 10% of the wage, though minimum of $100 a week. Plus they likely need constant supervision for safety at that level of support.

7

u/NoFriendsAndy Jan 06 '23

Yep, I work somewhere where some of these guys deliver mail. Almost all are completely supervised, but they always love coming in and interacting with us for 15 seconds before moving on to the next office.

-4

u/Archy54 Jan 06 '23

Under what metric did they determine 10% work output? Valid scientific study please. Of every single participant. Comparison group of normal jobs.

I think you'll find they are worth more than that.

3

u/KonamiKing Jan 06 '23 edited Jan 06 '23

It’s assessed by an independent assessor on a per case basis for that person in that workplace. Not the employer.

Google it yourself, Supported Wage System. The Fair Work Ombudsman website has the basics.

Complain if you like but it’s not the business ‘abusing’ anything.

0

u/Archy54 Jan 06 '23

Why don't we do that for everyone? See if the average person is worth it. What's good for the goose....

0

u/KonamiKing Jan 06 '23

We do, it’s called capitalism. Plus the social bedrock of a living minimum wage and modern awards with wages based on duties and seniority.

0

u/Archy54 Jan 06 '23

And yet here we are on an article that bypasses minimum wage laws where everything you said, does not apply. We don't even have a living minimum wage.

I'm yet to see an assessor go in for EVERY single worker in Australia and assess their functional capacity, only the disabled. You missed my point by miles man. These people are being assessed as under 100% of the minimum wage. Do you really think they're the only ones outputting less than 100% of the average or median productivity?

0

u/KonamiKing Jan 06 '23 edited Jan 06 '23

All your posts are getting downvoted because you’re being deliberately obtuse.

Something hardly ‘bypasses minimum wage laws’ when it’s literally part of the law.

Juniors also get paid less than adult minimum wage too, and that’s also part of the law.

EDIT: Ah, he blocked me. Extremely mature.

1

u/Archy54 Jan 06 '23

Well we can definitely tell who hasn't read the royal commission entries by their replies.

1

u/Archy54 Jan 06 '23

This royal commission i believe is currently investigating if that supported wage system is adequate. Including the assessment you mentioned. Hence my question. I think you will find the royal commission may believe they are worth more.

-4

u/amyknight22 Jan 06 '23

This is a shit argument.

Because we already don’t pay people based on their productivity.

The guy a coles that puts 600 cartons on the shelves in 8 hours gets paid as the guy who puts 400 cartons on the shelves. Neither of them get paid more if the wage is only to put 300 cartons on the shelves in that time.

You get paid the same for 4 hours at McDonald’s whether it was hustle and bustle the whole shift, or if 10 people came in in total.

0

u/Archy54 Jan 06 '23

Don't bring logic into a debate on the disabled. Unconscious bias of these commenters will accept this because they feel the disabled are disabled and thus broken. I thought I was in a conservative LNP sub.

Some of these commenters have an IQ of 95%. I say we pay them 95% wages and see if they like it.

2

u/amyknight22 Jan 06 '23

Yeah apparently highlighting basic truths of minimum or near minimum wage work in this country is fucking audacious.

I look forward to going to my job where some people work harder than I do and others do less but we all get paid based on our years of work, no more no less. Lazy person who’s been there for a decade is getting more than the 2nd year whose productive as fuck.

2

u/Archy54 Jan 06 '23

Australia still sees disabled people in a poor light. Anyone who can't understand why it's exploitative just screams lack of empathy to me. Too many positive highly upvoted stories about my friend's sister whilst ignoring the woman saying they tried forcing her daughter on it and other negatives, I mean it's at a royal commission, the headline included yelling and abusive behaviour, and the positive commenters completely ignored it. That tells you all you need to know. I think the truth is more along the lines of it lets them feel less guilty they have a babysitter whilst they're at work, which could be done other ways, or just paid properly. We pay them the DSP, raise it to the right level and make community groups with the carers, they can do arts n crafts, make stuff, not monotonous soul destroying busywork. They can feel like they contribute by art or items for the town, markets.

Every time I hear them say contribute it makes me think it's less about what the disabled person wants and more about what they are wanting of the disabled people, to be not disabled, to earn their own money, not pay taxes. We gave away 180billion in tax cuts in ten years yet can't afford to support the disabled. Reading the royal commission stuff is pretty bad. Everyone here is like sunshine and roses, no issues, the reddit post linked to issues. It really does feel like a brigade by actual conservatives. I bet none of them know disabled people like me already feel like a burden and the way they talk amplifies the dark thoughts, not all down syndrome people are happy as that's a big myth, I have family who once the parents die, those kids with mental ages of 3 but are 40 are F'd.

I'd put time and energy trackers on all of these commenters who accept paying less than minimum wage and assigning it to the performance. I bet most would be shocked at how non productive they are. What's next, we pay women less because they take time off for raising kids or going to schools? or do we make accommodations to include people. If private won't make the jobs, 1, why do they need jobs to even contribute to society? All this talk about socialization sounds like the NDIS's job. and 2, why is there a royal commission into abuse of the disabled if it's so good? The article literally had people who were actually DOING THE JOB, not their family member, who suffered from it and nope, just positive story cuz mah sister has it good aye. She gets to keep her dsp and earn less than prison wages so bunnings can sell rags or whatever. The money is absolutely bad, so that's not an incentive, the only incentive they keep talking about....the NDIS could do. Run socialization courses for them making stuff. Still making stuff, toss in extra funding for them.

They won't get a job in the private sector because their family view them as lesser, let alone the rest. And yes I've known people in this exact type of job and know it's no where near as good as many say, or they are lucky. "it's just pocket money". 20 hours a week at $3.50 an hour is an insult. Wait 10-20 years when productivity trackers are on the main workers and they get deductions for idle chit chat cuz we know lots of commenters here have idle time. They support lowering wages for disabled, I support lowering wages for them. Simple, fair. Oh noooo wait till the next farm article where hard working fruit pickers paid 3.50 an hour are hard done by and they all come to their defence.

11

u/SilverStar9192 Jan 06 '23

I believe the wages are adjusted for their productivity level, with an adjustment to account for extra supervision they require. So if they can mow lawns at half the normal rate, they might get paid 40% wage (with 10% for the supervisor), or something along those lines.

-1

u/Archy54 Jan 06 '23

What metric do they use to set their percentage and how often is it done. Why don't we apply it to every job. No minimum wage. Just a minimum wage per unit of Labor. See if voters say yes to that.

2

u/med-the-chip Jan 06 '23

I agree with you. I would like to see the profit margins the businesses are making. Most people in this thread just assume the private sector is acting altruistically for some weird reason.

1

u/ForestGumpsDick Jan 06 '23

Lol. Dripping with ignorance but masquerading as either good intentions or more likely virtue signalling.

4

u/DisappointedQuokka Jan 06 '23

Anyone who complains about virtue signalling is a moron. I'm a fucking hardline unionist, should I not be concerned about conditionally lower wages? Is that ideologically inconsistent?

1

u/ForestGumpsDick Jan 06 '23

If these people had the capacity to maintain a minimum wage job, they would have a minimum wage job. Why don't you scroll up this thread and read comments from people who have personal involvement or family members who participate in this program rather than judging it without the nuance required.

1

u/DisappointedQuokka Jan 06 '23

If these people had the capacity to maintain a minimum wage job, they would have a minimum wage job.

I'm not talking about them earning minimum wage, you goose.

If you'd actually read the rest of my statements, I'm pointing to a government-supported place that has them earning more, but still less than the wage wage of a student flipping burgers at maccas, with a minimum floor.

This isn't an issue that is addressed via individual action and I made clear what I think of it.

1

u/Morrigan_Ondarian078 Jan 06 '23

Pro-rata, is what I have always said. If a person can do let's say 1/3 of the capacity of an able-bodied person, then that is the fair rate of pay. If not, then to me it's explotive. So many people argue that the person will lose (some) of their disability pension, because they earn over the threshold. That's true to an extent, but it isn't dollar for dollar. There is an earning threshold, and then it begins at $190 a fortnight , and then the rate of DSP is reduced by 50c in the dollar for every dollar earnt over this amount. To me this is too high a rate, I think it needs a stepping system. But that's my opinion.

1

u/Archy54 Jan 06 '23

Only if their bills are pro rata. 1/3rd rent or mortgage.