What would you do in this situation?

Hello 1

If your employer told you they were unable to pay you for full time hours in your job, unless you sign up to a scheme for 'disabled' staff, where the employer gains a Social Welfare grant towards wages , due to a loss of productivity in 'disabled' employees..
Would you sign up to it to get full time work?

pablo128

You would be committing fraud, surely?

AllForIt

I'd look for a new job and when that's done report your former employer.

LegacyUser

it's easy to check your status against your PPS and when you're not "disabled" on the system you're all caught. so don't.
sorry you're stuck with this clown and money is involved.

OMM 0000

Assuming what they're saying is false (i.e. they want to commit fraud), I would immediately start looking for a new job. I would not sign anything.

If I recall you work in a creche. What's the job market like at the moment?

Loveinapril

From your other posts, it is clear that you were on such a scheme before. If it is a toss up between signing up for the scheme (because you are eligible) for full time hours that you want, or not and getting less hours, then the choice is an easy one.

Hello 1

Loveinapril wrote: »

From your other posts, it is clear that you were on such a scheme before. If it is a toss up between signing up for the scheme (because you are eligible) for full time hours that you want, or not and getting less hours, then the choice is an easy one.

In hindsight, I believe I made the wrong choice in going along with the scheme the first time it was put to me by an employer.

I do not wish to make the same mistake twice.
I now firmly believe that if an employer needs to go to such lengths to meet a wage bill every week, then should they really be running a business??
It's nearly like they are trying to insinuate it's the potential employee's problem that they can't pay them out of their own pocket..
Besides, even if an employee has a medical condition that may result in them having productivity issues in a job, surely that's their own business, and no way should they have to use that in order for their employer to pay them a week's wages.

OMM 0000

I'm confused now. Are you actually disabled in some way? Or are they trying to scam the government?

Loveinapril

Hello 1 wrote: »

Besides, even if an employee has a medical condition that may result in them having productivity issues in a job, surely that's their own business, and no way should they have to use that in order for their employer to pay them a week's wages.

I agree that your employer was underhanded in employing you without being clear of their intentions. It also seems odd that they require their employees to avail of this scheme to get full hours. To be honest, if you are less productive than a typical member of staff due to a condition, then why shouldn't your employer get a benefit from the state for employing you? It can be an incentive for employers to employ people who may be struggling to get jobs due to health issues.

Hello 1

Loveinapril wrote: »

I agree that your employer was underhanded in employing you without being clear of their intentions. It also seems odd that they require their employees to avail of this scheme to get full hours. To be honest, if you are less productive than a typical member of staff due to a condition, then why shouldn't your employer get a benefit from the state for employing you? It can be an incentive for employers to employ people who may be struggling to get jobs due to health issues.

I just think the way they go about it is absolutely disgusting.
I'd love to know how so called 'productivity" is measured working in a creche?
I know for a fact that one employer had all their staff on that scheme ( they admitted it to me)..
How likely is it that all staff are disabled in a workplace?
Fair enough if there was a genuine employee with a disability, but the scheme is just being so blatantly exploited by employers, and Ive seen this first hand.
Besides, what if the employee refused to partake in it?
Totally dishonest.

Hello 1

OmegaGene wrote: »

Surely the people on the scheme would have to be registered as disabled or something along those lines and it would be checked, I’m not sure how it works but I find it hard to believe an entire workforce could be put down for this falsely

I was told the employer simply could nt afford to pay the wages from their own funds, and basically 'If you want a job here and full time work, you need to go on the scheme'

OMM 0000

Hello 1 wrote: »

I was told the employer simply could nt afford to pay the wages from their own funds, and basically 'If you want a job here and full time work, you need to go on the scheme'

I've looked at your old posts and you do appear to have severe anxiety issues and difficulties doing your job.

Is it possible your employer is trying to give you a reality check?

Are you able to function the same as your colleagues?

Hello 1

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I've looked at your old posts and you do appear to have severe anxiety issues and difficulties doing your job.

Is it possible your employer is trying to give you a reality check?

Are you able to function the same as your colleagues?

Either way, I cannot be forced to go on the scheme.
Its up to the employee whether they choose to allow their employer to use any medical problems they may have in order to pay them.
I note this 'scheme' is only available to private sector employees. I would rather be unemployed than belitted into this.

OMM 0000

Hello 1 wrote: »

Either way, I cannot be forced to go on the scheme.
Its up to the employee whether they choose to allow their employer to use any medical problems they may have in order to pay them.
I note this 'scheme' is only available to private sector employees. I would rather be unemployed than belitted into this.

Are you disabled in some way - intellectually or physically?

Is the issue here you're too proud to admit it?

I really think you need to face up to your problems or else you're going to continue having a horrible time in work. Did you ever talk to a doctor about your anxiety problems?

Loveinapril

Hello 1 wrote: »

I would rather be unemployed than belitted into this.

Well then that is a choice you must make. Your employer has made it clear- if you want full time hours, you must avail of this scheme. It won't cost you anything.. if you want full time hours, I fail to see the issue. You could go on the scheme and work full time while looking for a new job.

mvl

I'm not seeing the full picture of what happens in this facility.

But thinking few ways to measure productivity can be:
- consistent handling of agreed workload as per staff-to-child ratio
- the pace the curriculum is delivered and understood by children in care (can have rating by external observers); does deliver correctly first time, with no waste/re-work
- staff attendance versus staff absenteeism due to illness/stress. E.g. when employing staff that might take sick leave often, the provider needs to hire someone else for backup - that is extra cost.

I do think the business owner is responsible for all the staff they employ to provide high quality care/education for children.
So as a parent that used to pay for creche services, I think the part with "even if an employee has a medical condition that may result in them having productivity issues in a job, surely that's their own business, and no way should they have to use that in order for their employer to pay them a week's wages." is insensitive coming from a creche worker.

Hello 1

Loveinapril wrote: »

Well then that is a choice you must make. Your employer has made it clear- if you want full time hours, you must avail of this scheme. It won't cost you anything.. if you want full time hours, I fail to see the issue. You could go on the scheme and work full time while looking for a new job.[/quote


Do you not think it's just allowing yourself to be belittled for a basic wage as it is?
It's like the employer has a mindset that everyone must be so desperate for work that they'd go along with it all for the sake of a job?
I see it like this - I could understand an employer availing of this if it was an above min wage job, but it's a bit rich asking this in a min wage job, surely if an employer can't afford to pay wages without help from Social Welfare, then should they really be running a business?
What if the scheme simply did nt exist?

OMM 0000

Are you disabled in some way - intellectually or physically?

Why can't you answer this question?

It's impossible for us to give correct advice if the real issue is you are actually disabled in some way but just feel offended your boss wants to use this to get a grant from the government.

Hello 1

mvl wrote: »

I'm not seeing the full picture of what happens in this facility.

But thinking few ways to measure productivity can be:
- consistent handling of agreed workload as per staff-to-child ratio
- the pace the curriculum is delivered and understood by children in care (can have rating by external observers); does deliver correctly first time, with no waste/re-work
- staff attendance versus staff absenteeism due to illness/stress. E.g. when employing staff that might take sick leave often, the provider needs to hire someone else for backup - that is extra cost.

I do think the business owner is responsible for all the staff they employ to provide high quality care/education for children.
So as a parent that used to pay for creche services, I think the part with "even if an employee has a medical condition that may result in them having productivity issues in a job, surely that's their own business, and no way should they have to use that in order for their employer to pay them a week's wages." is insensitive coming from a creche worker.

Yet; it's perfectly ok for a creche owner to employ so called 'disabled' employees to safeguard the welfare of vulnerable children, just to get a government grant to pay wages from?

cnoc

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Are you disabled in some way - intellectually or physically?

Why can't you answer this question?

It's impossible for us to give correct advice if the real issue is you are actually disabled in some way but just feel offended your boss wants to use this to get a grant from the government.

Hello 1.

Can you please answer the question from OMM.....??

amcalester

cnoc wrote: »

Hello 1.

Can you please answer the question from OMM.....??

The OP has said on previous threads that she was on this scheme with a previous employer, so stands to reason that the OP does have some sort of disability.

OMM 0000

amcalester wrote: »

The OP has said on previous threads that she was on this scheme with a previous employer, so stands to reason that the OP does have some sort of disability.

So what's the problem?

vectorvictor

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I've looked at your old posts and you do appear to have severe anxiety issues and difficulties doing your job.

Is it possible your employer is trying to give you a reality check?

Are you able to function the same as your colleagues?

This.

You presented your opening post as though your employer was trying to commit fraud.

The reality, from your posting history, is that you seem to be someone who is unable to go to work, do the job and go home without drama in middle. If that is the case because of your own personal needs or requirements then I would say (without judgement) that you are probably appropriate for the scheme.

If you meet the criteria and your employer is supportive then this is a big vote of confidence in you from them.

Quite frankly what they are proposing isn't worth their while unless they like and support you.

Maybe they are going about it the wrong way by being sensitive rather than supportive if you even need to ask the question you posted but I would grab the opportunity

OMM 0000

If I was unable to do my job properly because of a disability, and my employer said "Listen OMM, we're not going to let you go because we like you and you're part of our team, but we need to use this government scheme to supplement your wages going forward".

I would feel grateful and probably a weight would be lifted off my shoulders.

I certainly wouldn't be thinking screw them.

It's odd.

There must be something I'm misunderstanding.

amcalester

OMM 0000 wrote: »

So what's the problem?

I think the OP’s pride has taken a hit.

I bet when the OP applied and was offered the job there was no mention from either the OP or the employer that the job was dependent on the scheme.

So, the OP feels like less of an employee because the employer isn’t paying the full wages.

mvl

amcalester wrote: »

I think the OP’s pride has taken a hit.

I bet when the OP applied and was offered the job there was no mention from either the OP or the employer that the job was dependent on the scheme.

So, the OP feels like less of an employee because the employer isn’t paying the full wages.

I am not reading that: I could see that OP was wanting to move to a full time role, but I thought they have been part time until now ?!?

And appears with their disability OP is allowed to work in childcare part time (current employer) or with the scheme for full time (previous employer).

I am taking with a grain of salt what is said about this employer's ethics.

But if I were to promote legally staff with disability to full time workload, knowing that I might be audited, or have parents constant screaming for transparency, I would go for the scheme too, unless the employee brings certified proof that the health concern is no longer valid.

amcalester

mvl wrote: »

I am not reading that: I could see that OP was wanting to move to a full time role, but I thought they have been part time until now ?!?

And appears with their disability OP is allowed to work in childcare part time (current employer) or with the scheme for full time (previous employer).

I am taking with a grain of salt what is said about this employer's ethics.

But if I were to promote legally staff with disability to full time workload, knowing that I might be audited, or have parents constant screaming for transparency, I would go for the scheme too, unless the employee brings certified proof that the health concern is no longer valid.

Maybe.

The OP never mentioned that they were previously part time, just that the employer said if they wanted to continue working there and get full time hours, they’d need to go on the scheme.

It’s not clear.

Either way, the OP seems to be creating drama here for the sake of it.

AndrewJRenko

Hello 1 wrote: »

Loveinapril wrote: »

Well then that is a choice you must make. Your employer has made it clear- if you want full time hours, you must avail of this scheme. It won't cost you anything.. if you want full time hours, I fail to see the issue. You could go on the scheme and work full time while looking for a new job.[/quote


Do you not think it's just allowing yourself to be belittled for a basic wage as it is?
It's like the employer has a mindset that everyone must be so desperate for work that they'd go along with it all for the sake of a job?
I see it like this - I could understand an employer availing of this if it was an above min wage job, but it's a bit rich asking this in a min wage job, surely if an employer can't afford to pay wages without help from Social Welfare, then should they really be running a business?
What if the scheme simply did nt exist?

The purpose of the scheme is to cover the employer for any additional costs arising from the employee's disability. This could include changes to processes or systems to accommodate the employee, or reduced productivity arising from the disability, or additional management costs or any other increased cost.


I don't see that it's an issue whether it is minimum wage or not. The principal of the scheme still applies.