Last week Breakthrough-UK (B-UK)
publicly released an email explaining why they would not put their name to a
letter (this appeared in the Guardian on Friday 11th May)
posted by Inclusion London, and others, calling to keep Remploy factories open.
B-UK, while not wishing disabled workers
to lose their jobs, nonetheless proceeded to explain why, for the greater good
of the disability movement, Remploy workers
should willingly surrender to their fate, thus consigning themselves and 'segregated'
employment to the footnotes of social history.
Unite the Union Disability Executive Rep
| Unless you happen to be a blue-collar factory worker... |
B-UK contend: "Firstly,
the social context has changed: the focus now for disabled people – for which
we have fought long and hard – is on rights and independence, on mainstream
employment and inclusive education, on user-led organisations and organisations
controlled by disabled people. We have rejected segregated provision."
The above
statement contradictory. On the one hand it calls for the mainstreaming of
disabled people into employment, while at the same time promoting user-led
organisations controlled by disabled people.
Which is
it? Disabled people should either enter mainstream employment and be given a
fair chance to compete on level terms (this could by using means such as Access to Work and reasonable adjustments); or, we should form user-led organisations
which we control and run.
The idea
of disabled people running a company from top to bottom is great. But, wouldn't
this create a more complete disability 'ghetto'
(I use this word in honour of Margaret
Hodge who first, charmingly, used this term to describe Remploy factories) than Remploy. For now you'd not only have
disabled workers, but the managers would also be disabled!
Incidentally,
the use of 'segregated' when discussing Remploy's
supported employment model is both
provocative and misplaced. Most people who work are, to a greater or lesser
degree, segregated. The very nature of most work means the individual has sold their
skills/labour to an employer for a given period of time. During periods of work
it is generally accepted that this is not one's own time. The nature of work,
which for a great many workers takes us away from friends, family, and the
general public, can crudely be defined as segregation.
Remploy factories do not differ in this
sense. Indeed, they replicate workplaces up and down the country in both the
private and public sector. Remploy
workers clock-in from 7.30 am to 9 am, depending on the factory and
nature of their work. They can be sacked; and they can invoke grievance
procedures against their employer. They work, mostly, around a 35-hour week; have progressive holiday
and sickness entitlement schemes; and good health and safety conditions. None
of this was gifted to them. No, they were union organised and fought hard for
these Ts and Cs, just as thousands
of other workplaces have fought over the years.
B-UK continue their thesis, thus: "Secondly,
the general economic context is vastly different to that of the immediate
post-war years; the strong manufacturing base that we had, and which supported
the Remploy model, is no longer: it has been replaced by the service sector and
the economy is also rapidly developing into an IT and communications base.
Remploy planning and development has not really taken account of these changes."
There is
grain of truth in B-UK's reasoning
here. However, manufacturing still accounts for 12% GDP (whereas financial
services only account for 9%) employing
around 2.2 million workers.
But,
you're right Remploy should have
kept up with the markets and began diversifying 15-20 years ago. They should have looked to other industries to tap
into. Indeed, some factories did invest in some areas of modern industry such
as telesales and security monitoring.
But we,
in the trade union movement, have
been complaining to successive governments that depending on old trades and businesses
was not the way forward for Remploy.
Back in 2007 we even put forward an alternative business plan to Price Waterhouse Cooper (who were
carrying out a Review of Remploy) that would have better
exploited reserved
contracts for
supported factories and businesses. Our plan would have brought down the
government subsidy per head in the factories massively; but, we needed time to
make good decades of decay. One union officer felt that given the right kind of
work and some time Remploy could go
it alone without government money!
B-UK then decided to state the obvious,
with: "Thirdly, of course, the current economic
climate is dire with ever more austerity on the horizon, the decimation of
welfare support for disabled people, and rising unemployment for the whole
population. This third factor is often used - misguidedly, we believe - to
justify the current calls to keep Remploy factories open."
As a trade unionist, misguided if we follow
your line, I believe there is a very good reason to keep Remploy factories open. Because, they maintain a few thousand
disabled people in meaningful employment. B-UK,
your way points to despair and poverty for the overwhelming majority of Remploy workers should they become
unemployed. There is a perversity, almost of a masochistic nature, in your
reasoning around the existence of Remploy.
If Remploy was a co-operative or social
enterprise ran by disabled workers for disabled workers you would
doubtlessly bestow upon it a mark of approval. Would you then criticise it for
segregating its workforce; or decry the fact that it was still publicly funded
because now local authorities and councils were handing out subsidies and
grants and contracts - where do you get your funding?
Your idea
of handing factories over to User Led Organisations
is not new. When the York factory
closed several years ago throwing 54
people out of work; from its ashes rose a co-operative phoenix. This enterprise is still operating. It employs 3 people making garden furniture and two others to run
the co-op (a buyer and manager I
imagine). Sadly, the co-op is
struggling; and I understand being helped by trade union donations.
Is this
the model you think the rest of the Remploy
factories should consider? There is nothing wrong with the concept of co-ops and social enterprises (except that SE's usually lead to privatisation, downsizing and a general race
to the bottom for their employees). However, if you hadn't noticed we are in
the middle of a double-dip recession;
one that, if we look at what's happening in mainland Europe (which
is like a 'get-out-of-jail-free-card' for
this government) could make things even worse here.
Double-dip recessions, an increase in unemployment and the
slashing of local authority and council budgets to the bone are hardly conditions
conducive to starting up scores of co-ops
and SE's in individual regions or
several hundred nationally. Even if such enterprises were opened, they would
still need the life blood of any business venture, orders in their books. Giving groups of people £10,000 to start up on their own account may sound generous; but,
in reality it is like putting a band-aid on a gaping wound.
B-UK goes on to reveal: "This
barriers approach, or the social model, identifies the real problems – barriers
and discrimination - and points the way to real solutions."
At last we arrive at the crux of the matter. Remploy factories only exist because of
societal barriers and discrimination against disabled people; and the social model of disability will save
the day. Except of course, in the real world the 'social model', a social
policy I wholeheartedly embrace, is always trumped by its bigger bullying
brother the 'economic model' .
Finally B-UK, I
see by your statistics that you supported 43
people into paid employment last
year. Well done. From my experiences I am willing to bet the people you helped
into employment were well educated and relatively young. In order for the
nearly 2,000 unemployed Remploy workers to be re-employed it
would take 46 B-UKs, as well as a
mountain of employer prejudice to shift.
If the government figures of 1.2 million unemployed disabled
people wishing to work are true, then I ask you Breakthrough-UK how exactly you think adding another two-thousand people to the queue will
do anything but add misery and heartache to another 2,000 people, their families and friends. Not to forget the
economic impact of another 2,000
wage packets no longer contributing to the Treasury
and local economies. Do you think that the social
model of disability will somehow bring down this regime that purports to
govern us. Do you suppose Iain
Duncan-Smith is going to sometime soon have an epiphany that causes him to
embrace the social model. At what
point in our troubled history do you think employers will banish disability discrimination from their
recruitment processes and open the door to us...
In the struggle
Seán McGovern
No comments:
Post a Comment
Tags