Those defending Remploy are employing popular prejudice towards disabled people for political gain
Posted by Neil Crowther on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Under: Remploy
The most ugly aspect of the closure of Remploy factories is the way the issue is being exploited for political gain for reasons entirely unconnected either to the well-being of the workers who will be made redundant or to the lives of disabled people more generally.
The buttons being pressed here stem from 'malevolence benevolence' - prejudice disguised as 'compassion'. By playing on pity, the opposition can characterise the government as uncaring and nasty - scoring political points along the way. As a consequence the disproportionate level of noise being made about this issue, as against disabled people's employment prospects more generally, is contributing to the employment barriers disabled people face. Politicians and Unions were quick to criticise Iain Duncan Smith for his ill-chosen comments about the value of work carried out at Remploy. Yet statements about why Remploy should stay open typically characterise the workers as vulnerable and intrinsically unable to work in mainstream jobs. Both narratives are utterly at odds with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which requires States to 'promote recognition of the skills, merits and abilities of persons with disabilities, and of their contributions to the workplace and the labour market.'
Such sentiments are no different to saying people with learning disabilities are better off in long stay hospitals than living in the community. But we don't make that argument any more - instead we focus on how to include people in the community. Those who believe disabled people should enjoy equal rights and full participation should similarly be focusing their energies on ensuring that those who will lose their jobs at Remploy receive the intensive support to get, keep and thrive in mainstream employment and holding government to account to ensure that it happens. And they should do so as part of a wider demand for the right to work - something which seems to receive little attention these days.
I have been particularly appalled at what can only be viewed as the hypocrisy of the Labour Party which of course presided over a long-term 'modernisation' programme of Remploy. As it criticises Iain Duncan Smith today for putting Maria Miller MP forward to make the announcement about closure, recall how Labour left it to Remploy's own managers to make these decisions. In this Press Release, Peter Hain (then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) hails the 'fair deal' for Remploy workers resulting from a decision to close 15 fewer factories than planned! So that's 17 closed in 2007 then. Oh, and then there's the 11 others it merged. So that's 28 factories closed in 2007/8 at the start of the recession. But we'll forget about that because of course these were different times and in 2007/8 disabled people could not leave their front door without a deluge of jobs offers and all the workers lived happily ever after. Except we don't know that because what happened next wasn't tracked. Today Hain tweeted
"Government statement on Remploy shameless, callous betrayal of thousands of sacked disabled workers who will never work again"
Hmmmm...
So essentially the current government are continuing to implement the policy of the last (as with a great deal of DWP's agenda). The only difference is that they commissioned the independent Sayce review to remodel supported employment, which was consulted on widely, have committed to ring-fence expenditure and re-invest savings into access to work and employment support, and have committed to tracking what happens to the workers who are made redundant. Did the last government commit to do these things? Answer: No.
This blog should not be read as a Damascene conversion to the Conservative Party, nor as a naive defence of its policy and actions regarding disabled people, a great deal of which I disagree with fundamentally. But in this case those who are arguing against the closure of Remploy are not on the side of disabled people's rights - they are merely exploiting popular prejudice for political gain.
The buttons being pressed here stem from 'malevolence benevolence' - prejudice disguised as 'compassion'. By playing on pity, the opposition can characterise the government as uncaring and nasty - scoring political points along the way. As a consequence the disproportionate level of noise being made about this issue, as against disabled people's employment prospects more generally, is contributing to the employment barriers disabled people face. Politicians and Unions were quick to criticise Iain Duncan Smith for his ill-chosen comments about the value of work carried out at Remploy. Yet statements about why Remploy should stay open typically characterise the workers as vulnerable and intrinsically unable to work in mainstream jobs. Both narratives are utterly at odds with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which requires States to 'promote recognition of the skills, merits and abilities of persons with disabilities, and of their contributions to the workplace and the labour market.'
Such sentiments are no different to saying people with learning disabilities are better off in long stay hospitals than living in the community. But we don't make that argument any more - instead we focus on how to include people in the community. Those who believe disabled people should enjoy equal rights and full participation should similarly be focusing their energies on ensuring that those who will lose their jobs at Remploy receive the intensive support to get, keep and thrive in mainstream employment and holding government to account to ensure that it happens. And they should do so as part of a wider demand for the right to work - something which seems to receive little attention these days.
I have been particularly appalled at what can only be viewed as the hypocrisy of the Labour Party which of course presided over a long-term 'modernisation' programme of Remploy. As it criticises Iain Duncan Smith today for putting Maria Miller MP forward to make the announcement about closure, recall how Labour left it to Remploy's own managers to make these decisions. In this Press Release, Peter Hain (then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) hails the 'fair deal' for Remploy workers resulting from a decision to close 15 fewer factories than planned! So that's 17 closed in 2007 then. Oh, and then there's the 11 others it merged. So that's 28 factories closed in 2007/8 at the start of the recession. But we'll forget about that because of course these were different times and in 2007/8 disabled people could not leave their front door without a deluge of jobs offers and all the workers lived happily ever after. Except we don't know that because what happened next wasn't tracked. Today Hain tweeted
"Government statement on Remploy shameless, callous betrayal of thousands of sacked disabled workers who will never work again"
Hmmmm...
So essentially the current government are continuing to implement the policy of the last (as with a great deal of DWP's agenda). The only difference is that they commissioned the independent Sayce review to remodel supported employment, which was consulted on widely, have committed to ring-fence expenditure and re-invest savings into access to work and employment support, and have committed to tracking what happens to the workers who are made redundant. Did the last government commit to do these things? Answer: No.
This blog should not be read as a Damascene conversion to the Conservative Party, nor as a naive defence of its policy and actions regarding disabled people, a great deal of which I disagree with fundamentally. But in this case those who are arguing against the closure of Remploy are not on the side of disabled people's rights - they are merely exploiting popular prejudice for political gain.
In : Remploy
Tags: "remploy"
