|
|
Post by everso on Nov 15, 2010 19:13:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Nov 15, 2010 19:56:40 GMT
Before making a judgement, I looked at some numbers: The item says "the bill [£240,000] to employ speech interpreters needed by Ms Cordell, who is profoundly deaf, amounted to five times her salary and was close to the combined salaries of all British staff at the embassy." According to the Embassy's web-page, there are eight sections, plus (presumably) the Ambassador and Consuls, if any. Assuming there's at least one Brit in each section, that makes the average salary about £30,000, and hers about £48,000. And that's leaving out the Ambassador. (At least £130,000.) Plus family living allowance, housing, and expenses. I could go on. Anyone fancy working for your country in Kazakhstan for £48,000, never mind £30,000? Anyone believe the numbers? In all my dealings with the UK Embassy and Consulates in the Netherlands, I never once got any help worthy of the name, or even much courtesy. They did manage to get my passport renewed, by sending the old one to Liverpool and then forwarding the new one from Liverpool on to me, and charging me extra for the pleasure. I would give her the money. It's probably less than the Ambassador spends on a single banquet, never mind his wife's G&Ts, his and the staff's kids at boarding school, and all the servants. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 15, 2010 20:06:33 GMT
I haven't read all the details yet.
But aren't we constantly being told that people with various disabilities are perfectly capable of working?
And isn't that true only of they receive the necessary support?
So what's the government's answer?
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Nov 15, 2010 21:58:18 GMT
There's the conflict; employers don't have to provide necessary support; only reasonable support.
Forty years ago I knew a deaf woman who attended an elite special school, where students were steered into jobs considered "suitable", largely in the field of science. Clearly this "one size fits all" approach didn't suit everyone, including my acquaintance who wanted to teach deaf children. However she had to go to America to train because she was unable to qualify in Britain, where all teachers had to teach in a mainstream school before specialising.
So somewhere between the "you can't do the job and we won't help you" and "I can and you must help me" must lie the answer.
Most of us have had to curb our ambitions because of our capabilities - or lack of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Nov 15, 2010 23:28:28 GMT
So the Foreign Office 'balked' at spending £240,000 on interpreters. That's something. Know what Best Beloved's Global sized employer balked at to provide her with an upgraded computer screen and text enlargement software?
£500
They paid it - and the other £500 was paid for by the Government's "Access to Work" programme. The company made it clear though that that was all they would be paying and not a penny more and think ourselves lucky to be getting that.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Nov 16, 2010 8:06:43 GMT
I always thought that Access to Work reimbursed the whole cost of necessary equipment. If the employer has to fork out half, it is hardly going to encourage them to take on disabled people, is it?
And I don't think the diplomat was exactly championing this cause either, especially in these days of budget tightening. Indeed, given that some public bodies are having to make drastic staff cuts, isn't it just a teeny bit selfish to expect them to fork out a six figure (or even five figure) sum to enable you to travel, given that the almost inevitable result will be that others lose their jobs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Nov 16, 2010 8:41:33 GMT
Just half in this case. I don't know whether they do it according to the company's size maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Nov 16, 2010 9:52:15 GMT
Come to think of it, Jack's employers bought him a special chair for his bad back. I doubt if they got it via Access to Work because he has never applied for any disability benefits...and might well not qualify, because although in a lot of pain, he can walk further than the distance for which DLA mobility is granted.
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on Nov 16, 2010 9:56:46 GMT
Just half in this case. I don't know whether they do it according to the company's size maybe? Yes, I believe that's the case. The larger the company, the more they have to shell out, which is fair enough I suppose. You could hardly expect a small company of half a dozen people to provide thousands of pounds worth of equipment without some government help. Especially since, as has been said, the government are trying to get as many people back to work as they can (whether or not there are the jobs available). |
|
|
|
Post by everso on Nov 16, 2010 9:59:24 GMT
I do think it's a bit rich, though, to expect a public funded government department to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to enable one person to do a certain job.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 16, 2010 10:10:38 GMT
But (I've read the article now) they pay hundreds of thousands of pounds for the
Public School education of diplomats' offspring.
I suggest that having children is a disability the cost of support for which means a diplomat should not expect an overseas posting.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Nov 16, 2010 10:16:52 GMT
Yeah Weyland,I quite fancy working in Kazakhstan for £48k.
|
|
|
|
Post by sesley on Nov 16, 2010 14:22:28 GMT
disabled people in the UK are now given equal rights to employment. If she had been a wheel chair they would have to provide proper access for her to be able to do the job. This new law is supposed to give everyone a fair chance for employement.In this day of budget cuts and cuts in benefits workplaces should be made accessable to all. Including government offices home and abroad. Considering with a deaf person would be an advantage being able to lip read,she can watch people across the room and tell what they are saying,a plus ability for the foregin office surely.so if she is ok in Poland why not elsewhereProvisions for her surely are no more expensive than a interpreteur who needs to eat and sleep as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Nov 16, 2010 16:13:21 GMT
But (I've read the article now) they pay hundreds of thousands of pounds for the Public School education of diplomats' offspring. I suggest that having children is a disability the cost of support for which means a diplomat should not expect an overseas posting. Presumably, though , the "hundreds of thousands of pounds" is the total bill, not just to one family? I mean I know private education is expensive, but surely not that expensive? Sesley, you are right to some extent about wheelchair access, but if (for example) someone applied for a job working as a guide in a stately home, there would be no requirement to install stairlifts up all the antique staircases. There is the test of reasonableness. |
|
|
|
Post by sesley on Nov 16, 2010 16:22:00 GMT
my bias is for disabled people my son has a autism disability and as far as i am concerned for his future in employement . These new laws are to protect and give all people a fair equal oppertunity to work,regardless of ability. They have laws to protect against racial and sexual discrimintation,this one that now stretches to disabled people who rightly should be treated equally.Being deaf,blind or legless is no excuse for employers to discriminate anymore. A interpretuer for foreign langauges is no more expensive than someone who can sign or lip read for deaf people,its just a excuse from the government not to spend more money when they are cutting like mad. Why don't they sack a few surpulous managers to make savings/
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Nov 16, 2010 16:34:37 GMT
. A interpretuer for foreign langauges is no more expensive than someone who can sign or lip read for deaf people,its just a excuse from the government not to spend more money when they are cutting like mad. Why don't they sack a few surpulous managers to make savings/ As I understand it (and I may have got the wrong end of the stick, the figure quoted was over and above any cost that would have had to be spent on interpretation for any employee, hearing or not. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 16, 2010 18:14:34 GMT
Presumably, though , the "hundreds of thousands of pounds" is the total bill, not just to one family? I mean I know private education is expensive, but surely not that expensive? Eton charges about £30,000 a year, doesn't it? Two children, six years or so each - it mounts up. What I want to know is how they managed to fund her placement in Poland. |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Nov 16, 2010 18:26:35 GMT
As it happens, I knew a girl whose dad was a diplomat who went to Kent College as a boarder. I've just checked and their boarding fees are about £24,000 a year. But I have a feeling that children are often educated in the country of posting.
Anyway, weren't the costs of the specially trained inerpreter for just two years? And there is always the possibility that the deaf diplomat will have children and need them to be educated.
I keep thinking of the people I meet who have to give up their manual jobs because of injury. Take a lorry driver, who can still drive, but is no use because he can no longer lift, so can't offload. Does his employer have an obligation to employ someone to ride around with him and do the lifting at either end, thus doubling the overheads for the job? The answer, of course, is no, but they do have to try to find him some alternative work within their organisation - which isn't always possible.
We are talking about the cost of five people's jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Nov 16, 2010 18:28:43 GMT
Jean : I'm guessing that in Poland it wasn't so hard to find trained interpreters, and it was only when they looked into the situation in Kazakhstan that they ealised how expensive it would be...just speculation of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on Nov 17, 2010 0:17:48 GMT
my bias is for disabled people my son has a autism disability and as far as i am concerned for his future in employement . These new laws are to protect and give all people a fair equal oppertunity to work,regardless of ability. They have laws to protect against racial and sexual discrimintation,this one that now stretches to disabled people who rightly should be treated equally. Being deaf,blind or legless is no excuse for employers to discriminate anymore. A interpretuer for foreign langauges is no more expensive than someone who can sign or lip read for deaf people,its just a excuse from the government not to spend more money when they are cutting like mad. Why don't they sack a few surpulous managers to make savings/ I shouldn't care to board a bus driven by a blind person. There are some jobs that disabled people cannot do, in much the same way as there are jobs I wouldn't be able to do (such as heavy lifting - like Housey has said) |
|
