Employing people with disabilities.
David Fulford-Brown
Does anyone know of any umbrella organisation concerned with employing
people with disabilities in Cambridge?
My boss has announced that we have something like 30,000 pamphlets
that need folding. He is thinking we could employ some peole on a
temp basis to do this. He wouldl ike to offer the work to people with
disabilities.
Trouble is I have no idea who to approach. I did try Remploy but they
have no-one in Cambridge.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Cheers
David
Islander
"David Fulford-Brown" <removedf-...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:pbntpvslqj0jn1def...@4ax.com...
task.. would you supply re-training after every tea break because we are
really thick folk you know!! It is strange how years of senior management,
huge qualifications, and a involved political agenda all disappeared when I
became disabled and now I am only fit to fold F'''''ing leaflets!!!!
Stuff the job where the sun don't shine and find someone more qualified...
(your manager for instance)..
Dave
Bill
"Islander" <Daveisla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bnmt53$aou$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
oops you off on one Dave - you think you are better than this err.....Listen
David Fulford-Brown has done a lot for the disabled so don't start this with
him - one job can lead to another just because you don't want to work
there's no need for you to start dragging people down to your level - I have
done some really meaning full jobs before and after my disability. Its time
you give people a chance to help.
Bill
Don Moody
Fulford-Brown <removedf-...@ntlworld.com> writes
that term? If so, where are the employees going to work, and what are
they going to work on?
As for folding, do you really mean it is a hand job? What accuracy and
consistency is required? Why can't the job be taken to a printer or
print finisher with a folding machine? A run of 30,000 on a folding
machine is a worthwhile job in itself for a small printing firm, and it
would be a hell of a lot cheaper and more precise than having it done by
hand.
There is something screwball about this enquiry. It doesn't make sense
in its own words.
Don
--
Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot, Devon,
England TQ12 6EY
Tel: +44(0) 1626 821725 Fax: +44(0) 1626 824912
Islander
"David Fulford-Brown" <removedf-...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:pbntpvslqj0jn1def...@4ax.com...
Now that I have calmed down I agree with Dons assessment here. As a
qualified printer, a member of the IoP, a representative on the Printing NIG
for many years and at one time in charge of 200+ printers I am baffled why a
company would offer such employment. Any decent Folding machine would do
either a straight, bi or triple fold in a matter of minutes for a run of
this length.. Total cost would be less than £50 and if a regular 'run', a
company could buy a used desk top machine for less than £100. I wonder if
perhaps these leaflets would need to be folded and inserted in envelopes and
the company would prefer folk to work from home.. ergo, yet another envelope
stuffing scam! I see no mention of a company here, no mention WHY disabled
are preferred as opposed to unemployed etc. I am sure that by offering this
work to disabled etc he/she is giving (or trying to give) the impression of
being a caring person, but if the opinion is that any 'normal' person
wouldn't be able to cope with the boredom, or that only desperate folk would
be willing to do the work, or perhaps the assumption is that this would suit
the mentally disabled under the wrong opinion that these folk are 'happy'
doing anything at all, then this person is both out of touch, and being
insultingly patronising IMHO.
Strange indeed, patronising certainly, suspicious definitely! I would
suggest either a LOT more details should be forthcoming, or that folk treat
this with a great deal of suspicion.. Just my humble opinion of course.
Dave
Bill
"removespam" <jn...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:op0vpv8euv7avu1t5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:29:13 +0000, David Fulford-Brown
> <removedf-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Trouble is I have no idea who to approach. I did try Remploy but they
> >have no-one in Cambridge.
> >
> >Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> them for advise. We are at the other end of the country, but if
> closer I am sure some members of our social club would have been
> interested.
>
> j
Give out the name of the social club and I'll contact them myself - or are
you also taking the piss?
Bill
Bill
Read my other post again Dave... why is it you and smicker can't makeup your
own minds does Don have to pull your strings also?
Bill
smicker
Yes for years there have been very common print firms that not only
print but automatically fold or even staple leaflets. It is either a
wrong un or the boss is way behind the times in which case it would
not be a good idea to do work for him especially on a monthly or
piecework basis. In fact I would be rather wary of even allowing my
name and addy to be known to him. He would lose it where somebody else
was looking for just such contacts.
smicker
Islander
> >in its own words.
> >
> name of any organization similar to Remploy they can out source work
> in the Cambridge area. The poster is not recruiting individual workers
>
> j
I agree with Dons assessment, so perhaps there are more issues here than
finding menial tasks for crips IMHO! Had the OP been asking for someone to
help organise factory space to accommodate Disabled, or looking for regular
employees from the disabled community I could accept and welcome such a
post,, but stating that there are thousands of bits of paper that need
folding, and assuming that some disabled person would find the mind numbing
tasks to be within their abilities, and then claiming it is some favourable
and Christian offer is somewhat bizarre and I personally take it as an
insult to the abilities of disabled folk! The days of "give the crips some
raffia to play with" are gone, and I would like to think that many
disability employers would have a great deal of trouble finding ANYONE to do
such a boring and menial task, and WHY someone assumes that these 'jobs'
could be done on the cheap with disabled labour is beyond me. It shows a
Dickensian methodology that is long gone. I worked for many years as a
District Printing Manager with the Trent Regional Health Authority, and one
of my units was based in a mental health units Hospital grounds and staffed
entirely by patients, both out-patients and residential. They were trained
the same as every other printer and finishing of this nature was done by
machine. Any hand work was undertaken by specialist operators and ANY job of
this nature would NEVER have been given to the staff for fear of insulting
them. If I was still doing this job, I would NEVER have paid 10 staff to sit
at a table for 8 hours at £9.50 per hour, when a 20 minute run on a machine
would do the same job,, and why should I do so? Ergo, why would someone in
business assume that there are teams of disabled gagging for the chance to
do something like this?.. Sorry Jim,, it winds me up.. ALL disabled are
worth more,,, MUCH more, than this kind of attitude!
Dave
Just my opinion as usual.
Derek Hornby
> You could contact http://www.peoplefirst.org.uk/pflinks.html and ask
> them for advise.
Good idea.
> We are at the other end of the country, but if
> closer I am sure some members of our social club would have been
> interested.
The OP couuld also ask Mencap if they have any centres in the area that
maybe interested.
Derek
Don Moody
<Daveisla...@hotmail.com> writes
business for 17 years, was an FIOP, was chairman of an IoP Branch,
served more than a decade on the Council of the IoP, and was not
entirely unknown in the councils of BPIF.
The point is that we both have enough technical knowledge to know that
the original post doesn't make sense in it's own words. There are three
possible reasons.
1. The enquirer doesn't know anything at all about print finishing
or its economics.
2. The enquirer is engaged in some naive do-gooding, but has not
thought through the project.
3. It's a scam.
The reasons I tend to No.3 are (a) I don't believe that anybody
seriously looking in the Cambridge area couldn't find dozens of places
to get a one-off job done cheaply - or even free for a genuine charity -
by using any number of local contacts, even the simple Yellow Pages; and
(b) I don't trust any offer of anything where the offeror is not
up-front with the full truth and does not give a registered office
address where they can be found for legal purposes.
It is up to the offeror to persuade us otherwise. It will be interesting
to see whether he re-surfaces when he knows he has two readers who are
technically competent to spot any dodginess to do with printing and
related work.
Don Moody
<billbr...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> Dave... why is it you and smicker can't makeup your
>own minds does Don have to pull your strings also?
>
I don't pull Dave's strings and he doesn't pull mine. We're both experts
in printing and related activities. What is so surprising in two experts
on a technology agreeing on a problem involving that technology? We've
also both been in business. We both know the smell of dodgy customers.
What is surprising about us both reacting in the same way to the same
iffy 'pitch'?
Why bring Smicker into it at all? As far as I know, he isn't a printer.
I don't pull his strings either, and I don't suppose he would want me to
try.
Peter V Rawlings
>
.........
...Yours and mine too, Dave (and Don!).
The veiled inference that a crip org is sought does boil down to the same
bottom line: Who will do this chore reliably and cheaply - together with the
possible use of the logo, "positive about disability"?
I agree with all items in your expansion there Dave and I will never come
cheap!....('said the actress to the....') :-O
Cheers,
Pete.
Islander
"Don Moody" <d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2LmT8kYnH8n$Ew...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk...
> In message <b2Onb.6110$xS2.4...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, Bill
> <billbr...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> > Dave... why is it you and smicker can't makeup your
> >own minds does Don have to pull your strings also?
Yet again Muffin brain strikes out! Bill,, I try to accept your personal
mental health issues, but is it SO hard to understand that your posts do NOT
show up unless replied to by someone else. Your opinions are meaningless to
me, the bile you spout is of no interest to me, nor I suspect ANYONE with
one iota of common sense or decency. TRY to understand that IF you feel the
need to discuss anything with me,,, send it via email to my GENUINE email
account and I will treat it as a PERSONAL message. I cannot imagine why you
would post to me knowing I cannot see it....DUH!
Dave
Islander
I would assume that this 'Printing' is probably DTP (the added cost for
folding on a genuine print run would be negligible compared to out sourced
work) and IMHO would normally be given to whoever the most junior members of
staff are. The only time I have used outsourced ops were when doing a
newspaper drop shot in which case the distributor would include any fold in
with the price for including the drop into the newspaper. Seems stranger by
the minute to me. One thing is obvious though, the OP silence is deafening.
Dave
Bill
"Peter V Rawlings" <peter_v.rawl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:fSRnb.841$jq6...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
Bill
Bill
qualified printer?
Bill
Bill
So this job should be a doddle for you DAVID ISLANDER.but will you do it? I
doubt it.
Bill
Bill
You read all my posts Dave - I have the proof my man - I know DFB and I know
he has done lots for disabled people you have tried to demean him for trying
to help. I have no interest in posting to you Dave as you have moaned in
the past calling it unsolicited post. if you want to insult me give me your
address.
Bill
Bill
Listen this could be checked by contact either a DEA or job-broker so
there's no need this day and age to follow this up alone.
Bill
Bill
"Don Moody" <d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yvhSFVX5$7n$Ew...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk...
Don you are 73+ years old the printing game has changed competely its a
different world now, with the introduction of computers - I feel you have
taken this offer as a threat without even giving the guy a chance to
explain - he hasn't asked for £9.99 for an information pack. I'd love to
see you proved wrong on this, if I had the time I'd check it out myself. I
personally feel that DFB will just think he has wasted his time.
Bill
Bill
Don you have either been in the printing game or the doctor game now which
one is it?
Bill
Bill
"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b70qv0thb21r7gk2...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:37:13 +0000 (UTC), "Islander"
> <Daveisla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >do something like this?.. Sorry Jim,, it winds me up.. ALL disabled are
> >worth more,,, MUCH more, than this kind of attitude!
> >Dave
> >Just my opinion as usual.
>
> mean on the windows of course I worked in the bookbinders where we
> folded things for the DSS or whatever it was at the time for shillings
> a week. A better job was doing something with driving licences. Now
> that was handy because many had mates without licences and many others
> had multiple licences when they got out LOL.
> smicker
>
of course - what else would you mean - I had to laugh though - talk about
covering your back.
Bill
Bill
> >worth more,,, MUCH more, than this kind of attitude!
> >
> disabled himself I accept that he knowing the disadvantage people with
> a disability face in gaining employment, is doing what he can to
> direct works their way.
>
> j
Jim, you know that islander,smicker & Don are out to demean anybody who
mentions 'Work' to them - it makes you wonder don't it?
Bill
Derek Hornby
> the OP is a long time poster to this group, being
> disabled himself I accept that he knowing the disadvantage people with
> a disability face in gaining employment, is doing what he can to
> direct works their way.
I agree, it's great to see that some companies are trying to give some
wrok to those that don't stand much chance in the job market.
Derek
Islander
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:37:13 +0000 (UTC), "Islander"
> <Daveisla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >worth more,,, MUCH more, than this kind of attitude!
> >
> disabled himself I accept that he knowing the disadvantage people with
> a disability face in gaining employment, is doing what he can to
> direct works their way.
>
That is as maybe OM, but wouldn't the needs of disabled folk be better
served by the OP TELLING his boss that the disabled are worth more than such
tasks, and perhaps if a REAL job comes up he/she should consider a DP for
the position?
Dave
Don Moody
<billbr...@hotmail.com> writes
>Don you are 73+ years old the printing game has changed competely its a
>different world now, with the introduction of computers
> - I feel you have
>taken this offer as a threat
> without even giving the guy a chance to
>explain
proper description of the problem and for whom the work is required on
what terms. It is his choice not to do so, so far.
> - he hasn't asked for £9.99 for an information pack.
Not a necessary first step in a scam.
> I'd love to
>see you proved wrong on this,
Wrong about what? DFB now knows there are at least two printing experts
on this ng. He therefore knows that if he has a wholly genuine
proposition for a wholly genuine organisation that he can get expert
advice FREE by letting us know the actual problem.
There is no doubt whatever in my mind that if the job is a one-off
simple fold of, say, A4 to one-third A4 for putting in DL envelopes,
then hand-folding - by people who are or are not disabled - would be a
ridiculously expensive way to go for a run of 30,000. Furthermore, if
the paper was A4 and 80 gsm (taking the smallest and lightest likely
size) the weight of the job is 150 kg. A lot of bulk for disabled people
to move around.
If on the other hand the fold is a very complex fold, with perhaps other
hand operations, which cannot be done on a simple machine, then the work
won't be suitable for anybody but trained operatives in print finishing
handwork. If you ever see the flying fingers of a (usually middle-aged
female) hand finisher you will realise why complicated folding and other
operations are not jobs for amateurs.
It is knowing about that range of work, and things like book section
folding and map folding, which make both Dave and I suspicious about
what DFB has written. If taken at face value, it doesn't make any kind
of technical sense.
It also doesn't make any kind of legal sense to talk of a one-off job of
this size and to use the word 'employ'. It wouldn't be worth the admin
and training costs to take on a group of disabled, or non-disabled,
unskilled people as 'employees' for a single job of this size.
> if I had the time I'd check it out myself.
Why don't you? It only needs a single communication from you to him.
> I
>personally feel that DFB will just think he has wasted his time.
If it was a scam, he certainly has wasted his time because it looks as
though he has been sussed. If it was not a scam, he certainly has wasted
his time by giving a technically incomplete and incompetent description
of what he wants done.
Bill
No - like I said before Dave I have done some real awful jobs in the past -
I needed the money - I had 'NO' Choice. Tell the truth Dave do you see
yourself back in work? <anytime> if no why not? you have to look on the
positive side stop knocking people who want to help.
Bill
Bill
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:29:04 +0000 (UTC), "Islander"
> <Daveisla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That is as maybe OM, but wouldn't the needs of disabled folk be better
> >served by the OP TELLING his boss that the disabled are worth more than
such
> >tasks, and perhaps if a REAL job comes up he/she should consider a DP for
> >the position?
> >
> work for anything other than monetary gain. But it is a fact that many
> disabled people do gain a great deal from being employed, the money is
> really of little importance . The OP I am sure realizes this and is
> attempting to place work through an organization similar to
> http://www.remploy.co.uk Sadly he is not getting a great deal of help
> from this NG in finding one in his locality.
>
> j
Listen Jim - I have worked voluntary in the past - no monies past - I did
this to get my foot in the door plus - what ever I earned would have been
taken from me - so at the time I decided I'd rather not take anything from
the DWP.
Bill
Bill
No - like I said before Dave I have done some real awful jobs in the past -
Peter V Rawlings
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:29:04 +0000 (UTC), "Islander"
> <Daveisla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That is as maybe OM, but wouldn't the needs of disabled folk be better
> >served by the OP TELLING his boss that the disabled are worth more than
such
> >tasks, and perhaps if a REAL job comes up he/she should consider a DP for
> >the position?
> >
> work for anything other than monetary gain. But it is a fact that many
> disabled people do gain a great deal from being employed, the money is
> really of little importance . The OP I am sure realizes this and is
> attempting to place work through an organization similar to
> http://www.remploy.co.uk Sadly he is not getting a great deal of help
> from this NG in finding one in his locality.
>
> j
Sanctimonious clap-trap as is your wont, j. :-(
j said:-
"But it is a fact that many disabled people do gain a great deal from being
employed, ..."
Where are the provable statistics for this "fact"? I don't even think that
the postulation is reconciled with a significant proportion of the disabled
population of working age. Not on terms such as the OP implies.
"....the money is really of little importance".
I don't know which "many" you are generalising about! The money is a
Maslovian high-ranker, right where I'm sitting!
Pete.
Islander
> Personally Dave I have never understood why anybody should choose to
> work for anything other than monetary gain. But it is a fact that many
> disabled people do gain a great deal from being employed, the money is
> really of little importance . The OP I am sure realizes this and is
> attempting to place work through an organization similar to
> http://www.remploy.co.uk Sadly he is not getting a great deal of help
> from this NG in finding one in his locality.
>
> j
But that is exactly my point,, though from a different perspective perhaps!
I personally have no problems whatsoever with a disabled person working,,,,
good on 'em. BUT (you knew there was a 'but' didn't you?) let us put this
'offer' into perspective. Both Don and I have shown that this work can be
done quicker and cheaper by a print finishing house (and for many years I
was described as an expert on in-house printing) so one has to ask WHY a
company is willing to lose money in this kindly fashion? IF they are paying
the industry standard rate of around £7 per hour for print finishing then
who would complain? IF, as I suspect, they would be offering the work at
about 50p per 1000 and need disabled workers as cheap labour, then the offer
is both bogus and discriminatory.
How about this for a solution...... The OP tells his boss to buy a print
magazine, in the back are hundreds of pages of second hand sales,, the Boss
buys a small desktop folder,,, I will travel to the workplace for expenses
only and then TRAIN any disabled person they can find, to DO THE JOB
properly! This would enable a disabled person to learn a skill, and to work
as required for full pay. Why someone is looking for a company which will
sit a mini bus load of disabled folk around a table and watch them fold
paper for a few hours is beyond me completely.. It is time that disabled
folk were given the chance to do a days work for a days pay and not handed
crumbs.
It may be worth asking why Remploy and other places are getting hard to
find. They have to be profitable to keep in business and in the past few
years they have lost quite a bit of money from various places. They should
have looked around them and seen what was coming and adjusted their business
plans accordingly. The days of silly repetitive work being 'farmed' to these
places are gone and perhaps NOW is the time for companies to accept disabled
as part of the work force and train them in proper procedures, rather than
sticking them in cold factories and feeding them the dregs of industries
cast offs!
Finally, and before the 'nutter' brigade pipe up.. I could not do the tasks
required with these leaflets, it would be physically impossible for me to
do,, BUT I could train ANYONE with two arms to set up and operate a machine
that could do the job quicker and cheaper. Isn't that what companies should
also be doing?
Dave
Pat Winstanley
d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk says...
>
> It also doesn't make any kind of legal sense to talk of a one-off job of
> this size and to use the word 'employ'. It wouldn't be worth the admin
> and training costs to take on a group of disabled, or non-disabled,
> unskilled people as 'employees' for a single job of this size.
>
Perhaps the poster simply used the word "employ" instead of "paid temp
work".
Don't forget that there are people who can't cope with permanent full-
time work because of long-term illness/disability and/or caring
commitments, but could do a few hours a week for a few weeks here and
there on a 'piece *of* work' basis at reasonable rates for that sort of
occasional work... and would welcome the opportunity to earn that extra
few quid now and again without it affecting their benefits.
This sort of small work can sometimes lead to a networking increase that
in the longer term brings in more regular occasional work and even
leading to part time actual employment and/or the opening for starting a
small service business of their own.
And in the shorter term it can lead to a feeling of satisfaction,
achievement and boost in self-confidence for those who have very little
confidence left in their abilities.
The opportunity the other poster mentioned may or may not be a 'scam'.
It didn't actually sound like it to me... just an odd job that had
cropped up that they were trying to give those who find it hard to find
*any* work first dibs at.
And remember, normally when a business or charity or whatever announces
the availability of employed or self-employed casual/temp work, be it in
the jobs section of a newspaper or online, things like the registered
office of the business, names of directors etc are *rarely* *if ever*
mentioned in the *initial* notice. It is not normal practice to do so,
even though you seem to demand it every time as a matter of course.
There is generally a return snail/e address/number for contacting the
advertiser if you want to know more about the background/details of the
operation advertising and the work on offer.
These aren't permanent, professional employed positions of the sort you
were perhaps used to. They are occasional unskilled or minimal skilled
casual work tasks lasting maybe a few days or weeks at most! Just
because you might feel such 'menial' tasks beneath you doesn't mean
every disabled person sees things the same. Nor should you assume that
someone willing to do this sort of occasional work is automatically
gullible. A person may well be perfectly aware of the pros and cons yet
wish to take part anyway. Their choice, not your choice on their behalf.
Meanwhile, you still have no clue whether the work is/was a scam or not,
nor whether or not people reading about the opportunity here have been
scammed or not... since you don't know whether other readers have
contacted the adverstiser away from the NG to enquire about what they
need to know in a quiet manner.
Don Moody
Rawlings <peter_v.rawl...@ntlworld.com> writes
mind workers, i.e. professionals.
In that cadre, once a minimal amount of money is secured, what becomes
far more important is regaining professional identity by being seen to
do a professional job at professional rates of pay. The minimal amount
varies with personal circumstances, but always struck me as remarkably
low. These are people capable of distinguishing between essential
'needs' and luxury 'wants'. Once they've covered their needs, more money
is accepted but does not motivate. The acceptance is not of money as
such but of it as a token of recognition of regaining full respect as a
practising professional.
On the other hand, I agree fully that working for free, or peanuts,
BECAUSE one is disabled is not on. I wouldn't take any job to be done by
disabled and disadvantaged professionals at anything but the full hourly
rate for that level of professional. The problem for the individual is
then how their current condition determines how long it takes to produce
an effective hour's work, and which times of day they can do that work.
If an able-bodied professional would get Ł1000 for doing a piece of work
to a particular quality by a particular time, then as far as I am
concerned the same piece of work produced by a disabled or disadvantaged
professional will be charged out at Ł1000. The client isn't paying for
when and how the work was done, or even how long it actually took. The
client is paying for the result. Same result, same price. And same
recognition of the worth of professional work and hence of professional
standing of the individual who did it.
Peter V Rawlings
>
..........
A gem of democratic humanitarianism, OM!
Every point a valid and <non-discriminatory> gem!
A fine offer indeed, re the 'better way of working' :-)
Cheers,
Pete.
I bet they ain't even <cake> crumbs, BTW, ROFL!
Peter V Rawlings
> In message <Ko5ob.107$eV1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>, Peter V
> Rawlings <peter_v.rawl...@ntlworld.com> writes
> >
All logical premises (IMHO) except, perhaps the latter: The different terms
of contract - i.e. 'piecework' rather than salaried contract - is not an
entirely equal playing field in this post-1995 'DDA'-couched era! It's
certainly true that many more middle-ranking professionals are faced with
short-term contracts these days but such 'flexibility' is all to the benefit
of the contract paymaster. :-( The contractor must budget some
non-earning time to ensure end-on-end continuation of income to pay the
'standing charges' of mortgage, insurances etc. etc. As individuals, they
must accept the terms offered or leave the 'opportunity' for an even
hungrier player. As a supplier of (disabled) labour, we are on a
competitive hiding to nowt! Seldom as mobile as our AB competitors and (as
you point out, Don) not as '24/7' reliable as the result of many disabling
conditions.
Piecework is a way of levelling the playing field to the accountants: Doing
'mind work' can take a little longer for some disabled types, but it is
still fraught as an operational productivity metric and has all the
advantages stacked-up in favour of the paymaster - especially as the 'safety
net' of permanent health insurance is not something that returners can
readily spomsor - nor obtain, in many cases - perhaps.
I don't <see> the answers(!) but certainly <feel> the questionable bits,
Cheers,
Pete,
Derek Hornby
> I personally have no problems whatsoever with a disabled person working,,,,
That's not the impression you're giving.
Here we have someone that is actually putting some work forward, for the
disabled, and what do you, and Do, just rubbish it.
> Both Don and I have shown that this work can be
> done quicker and cheaper by a print finishing house
Irrelevant pooit, what really matters is that some disabled wilp be
happy to-do the work in question, that's what really matters.
Derek
Don Moody
<wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Meanwhile, you still have no clue whether the work is/was a scam or not,
>nor whether or not people reading about the opportunity here have been
>scammed or not... since you don't know whether other readers have
>contacted the adverstiser away from the NG to enquire about what they
>need to know in a quiet manner.
I don't know because the OP has not seen fit to explain on this
newsgroup exactly what it is he wants done.
It is not my problem if he misuses words in ways which could create
endless problems with the Revenue and the Benefits Agency for people
doing temp work. What I did, and will continue to do, is point out when
an enquiry does not make technical or legal or managerial sense.
This one didn't make sense, as I said. I have no means of finding out
whether it does make sense if described correctly. Only the OP has the
information with which to do that; and he has not. The ball is in his
court, as Dave and I have explained several times. Furthermore, Dave has
made a generous and serious offer to solve the problem in an efficient
way (and to the benefit of a disabled person) if the OP does indeed have
a genuine need. Non-reply by the OP could reasonably be taken as an
admission that the offer of work was not genuine. We'll see.
There is NO reason whatever for not naming the legal entity which has
the work to place. That does not breach any commercial confidence about
what is on the 30,000 leaflets. It could redound to the benefit of the
entity if it shows that entity as willing to use disabled people as
'employees' or even as contractors at proper rates of pay.
The technical point is, and will remain, that 30,000 simple handfolds is
inevitably a maximally expensive and unprofitable way of doing the job;
and 30,000 complex handfolds plus other operations is beyond the
capacity of anything but a team of highly-trained hand-finishers.
NEITHER pole makes technical and economic sense in the context
presented.
Attacking Dave, me or both of us will not make technical sense of a
nonsense. The only person who can do that is the OP by coming clean as
to exactly what is required to be done and by when. The longer the OP
does not come clean, the more reasonable it is to assume that the first
message was an attempted scam.
I don't speak for Dave but I can say that my print business did indeed
have a small folder as one of its range of finishing tools, and did
manufacture leaflets for sundry technical purposes, and did fold and
otherwise hand finish them in a variety of ways. Right up to and
including enveloping, addressing, sorting as required by the P.O., and
even taking the output to the P.O. and paying for the mailing. Been
there, done that, got a whole wardrobe of T-shirts. Moreover it was
usually done against some ridiculous (and unnecessary if client
management had been sorted) deadline. We'd be doing some highly complex
technical manual for launch with a product on a particular exhibition
date, and three days before some marketing nitwit would conceive a
technical mailshot to alert potential customers to come to that
exhibition. From a standing start we'd have two days to design, write,
edit, typeset, print, fold, finish, envelope, and mail at the P.O. first
class. We'd have it, not the creative marketing nitwits, because the
content was highly technical and the pretty boys and girls couldn't cope
with the engineering or chemistry or whatever. It always turned out that
the leaflet could have been predicted three months before, when we
started on the manual.
The most important piece of equipment we had for the emergency was 'our
Rene'. 'Our Rene' was 50 and had been a print finisher since she was 14.
When 'our Rene' started moving paper with her fingers you could hear
even 50 gsm airmail 'click' because she was moving it so fast that it
behaved as a stiff sheet. I've seen 'our Rene' outputting faster than 10
amateurs together. And she'd be chatting about her daughter's latest
boyfriend while working at that speed. If it was a simple fold, 'our
Rene' wouldn't bother to try. She'd pull out the folding machine, set it
up, and feed the sheets through because that was faster still and
cheaper. I have a suspicion that she did that also because simple
handfolding was so undemanding that it bored her. She wanted the
uninteresting work out of her way a.s.a.p.
Finally, I know I wouldn't, and I don't suppose Dave would, pass on the
OP's enquiry to any contacts we may happen to have in the Cambridge area
unless and until we were fully satisfied by disclosures from the OP that
the work was genuine and not a scam.
Derek Hornby
> j said:-
>
> "But it is a fact that many disabled people do gain a great deal from being
> employed, ..."
I agree.
and Peter says:
> here are the provable statistics for this "fact"?
Where are the stats that show Jim is wrong?
Jim says:
> "....the money is really of little importance".
I agree.
But Peter says:
> I don't know which "many" you are generalising about! The money is a
> Maslovian high-ranker, right where I'm sitting!
Not if you were not greedy, or a snob.
Would you be willing to wash bottles, and be paid minimum rates,
if not why not?
Not every onb has the same attitude as yourself, some of us are willing to
do *any* work that we are able to do.
As Jim clearly understands some people just feel happy, and
satisfaction doing what they feel is something useful.
Money isn't everything.
Derek
Derek Hornby
> Personally Dave I have never understood why anybody should choose to
> work for anything other than monetary gain.
Well for many people money, money, a nd yet more money is what
they want, it's greed and selfish attitude.
>But it is a fact that many disabled people do gain a great deal from being
> employed,
Very true and there are few such people on the news group.
Derek
Islander
>
Snipped for brevity only.
I do agree with Don completely although I didn't notice an attack. The
simple FACT of the matter is that this post does NOT make sense in any
commercial way. One can dispute the abilities of myself and Don if one
chooses, but the FACTS are that both of us were at one time very heavily
involved in top end print production albeit on two sides of the same fence,
one inplant and one commercial, and I was recognised as an expert with a
National industries group responsible for printing within the UK. No amount
of bluster can remove the fact that this post rings alarm bells. I have used
folding equipment from a small desktop model to a huge 10 rack machine
capable of complex folds in anything from A0 to A6, and the thought of a
group of people being asked to fold tens of thousands of sheets is abhorrent
to me. There is NO logical reason for anyone to do this, unless it is in
order to save a relatively small amount of money (about £50 on the first run
costs) which once again makes no sense.
It matters not what some folk think of me or about my abilities, but it DOES
matter that a small group of disabled folk MAY be exploited under the guise
of 'charity' work. I accept that DPs enjoy working, I would love to work
myself, but if a persons willingness is exploited for financial gain, then
the system is wrong IMHO and I could not sit here, knowing what I do, and
say nothing, anymore than others here could. As I said, I would be happy to
train a DP in the workings of a desktop folder and help both the company AND
a DP obtain genuine casual employment, and this IMHO would be a damned site
more helpful to the disabled community than a few hours casual work for
nothing.
I don't want this to descend into yet another battle here.. my opinions will
remain so, just as the facts here will always be facts.
Dave
Don Moody
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> writes
advantage of whether by outright scams or by payment at slave labour
(and now illegal) rates. Dave and I can both see that the OP's offer has
to be one or the other UNLESS one posits that the 'owner' of the work
actually wants to lose money on it by placing it in the least efficient
way. If the 'owner is a charity, such an action would be a breach of
trust and illegal. If the 'owner' is a commercial business then such an
action would be a breach of fiduciary duty by its directors, and hence
illegal.
Real work at real rates of pay would be acceptable. I'm sure by all of
us. But what the OP is signally failing to do is to demonstrate that
there is any real work at real rates of pay from an identifiable 'owner'
of the job to be done. It is neither Dave nor I who is failing to put
forward the proof that real work exists. What we have both said, as past
members of the Institute of Printing, is that what has been put forward
does not make any kind of sense if the OP's words are taken at their
normal English meanings and if reasonable assumptions are made about the
'value' of the work.
Take it up with the OP.
Islander
Just checked my hotmail account.... nothing from Mr Hornby there.. perhaps
you sent it to the wrong address Derek? It is daveisla...@hotmail.com
in case you copied it wrong. WHY you respond in a negative way to a warning
of an improbable offer is beyond me,, why you criticise me knowing that I
cannot see the response is just cowardly,, but typical.
I WILL just say that if anyone wants to accept the offer of work they have
every right to do so, and good luck to them all! If disabled folk are happy
to do menial tasks for little or no pay then of course this is their right.
ANYONE who desires a better deal for disabled workers would of course be
wary of this offer due to the FACTS produced here about the work required,
but of course if they then decide to do it anyway, or can show that the
offer is indeed intended to be seen as charitable, then that is their
inherent right. ANYONE who ignores the warnings, or calls for others to do
so, just because they came from certain individuals, and regardless of the
accuracy of said warnings, has no right to plead ANY afinity with disabled
folk, and should desist from posting here.
Who fits what category is not for me to say,, but I am pleased that my
knowledge gave me the opportunity to expose a possible abuse of disabled
workers,, if everyone ignores both myself and Don, then so be it, but at
least I have tried to do something positive... unlike some!
Dave
Pat Winstanley
d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk says...
> Subject: Re: Employing people with disabilities.
> From: Don Moody <d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: uk.people.disability
>
> In message <MPG.1a0aff821...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Pat Winstanley
> <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >Meanwhile, you still have no clue whether the work is/was a scam or not,
> >nor whether or not people reading about the opportunity here have been
> >scammed or not... since you don't know whether other readers have
> >contacted the adverstiser away from the NG to enquire about what they
> >need to know in a quiet manner.
>
> I don't know because the OP has not seen fit to explain on this
> newsgroup exactly what it is he wants done.
>
No, you *don't* know.
*That's* the point.
You have *assumed* that it is a scam with no evidence of that at all,
and then gone on and on about it on that basis.
There was and is no reason I can see to assume that the poster was
scamming or trying to scam in requesting information that would let
him/his employer place the available work with a disability organisation
in Cambridge.
The guy wasn't even asking for people here in the NG to apply for the
work!!
Derek Hornby
> What really matters, Derek, is that disabled people are not take
> advantage of whether by outright scams or by payment at slave labour
> (and now illegal) rates.
Was the rate of pay quoted?
> Dave and I can both see that the OP's offer has
> to be one or the other UNLESS one posits that the 'owner' of the work
> actually wants to lose money on it by placing it in the least efficient
> way.
So you're just assuming?
Far better you consider another option and that is, there are some businesses
that actually do want to put work over to those that can't manage to work at
full production (commercial) speeds.
> If the 'owner is a charity, such an action would be a breach of
> trust and illegal. If the 'owner' is a commercial business then such an
> action would be a breach of fiduciary duty by its directors, and hence
> illegal.
So what're you views regarding state subsidised companies like
Remploy that mainly emplo6y the disabled.
Derek
Pat Winstanley
@hotmail.com says...
> Subject: Re: Employing people with disabilities.
> Newsgroups: uk.people.disability
>
>
> "Don Moody" <d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:H95$BL3mNRo$Ew...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk...
> >
> Snipped for brevity only.
> I do agree with Don completely although I didn't notice an attack. The
> simple FACT of the matter is that this post does NOT make sense in any
> commercial way.
>
Which still does not imply there is anything dishonest about it.
Has it occurred to either of you that the business involved may well
have been looking at it as a way of *constructively* making a donation,
a helping hand, to people who are generally disadvantaged in getting
work at all and would welcome the opportunity to do something positive?
Clearly the business is not going to make any financial gain on this
sort of deal if the folding could be done more economically by
machines... but then people aren't machines, are they.
Don Moody
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> writes
>
>Far better you consider another option and that is, there are some businesses
>that actually do want to put work over to those that can't manage to work at
>full production (commercial) speeds.
irrelevant. Under the Companies Acts the directors are REQUIRED to act,
and only act, in accord with the Objectives Clause in the Articles. If
the Objectives do NOT include loss-making support of those who can't
manage to work at full production speeds then the directors are
severally and jointly personally liable, with unlimited liability, for
all monies lost in such work.
>So what're you views regarding state subsidised companies like
>Remploy that mainly emplo6y the disabled.
Remploy and its directors act in accord with their Articles because
their Articles were drawn up in such a way as to permit loss-making on
less than full production speeds. The Government of the day realised
that meant Remploy could not possibly return an investment to
shareholders, which was the Government itself, and agreed to make good
the losses out of taxing you, me, and everybody else. NO commercial
company with ordinary shareholders who need a return on their investment
can deliberately enter into such an arrangement.
Do-gooding and the kinds of decision to deliberately incur losses that
can be made by natural persons handling their own money are complete
ultra vires the purpose of a company. In simple terms a natural person
can do with their own money anything they please which is not proscribed
by law. A company can do only what is prescribed in its Articles, and
anything else - however desirable to anybody - is ultra vires the
Articles and establishes personal liability (and potential criminal
charges) on any director who has knowingly acted ultra vires. In order
to change the Articles it would be necessary to pass resolutions at an
AGM or SGM with a 75% majority. No commercial company would ever get
that proportion of its shareholders agreeing to a change which had the
inevitable effect of losing those shareholders' monies.
If you are going to get into discussions on what commercial companies
can do, for God's sake make yourself knowledgeable about company law
before you open your mouth.
Don Moody
<wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
in the context of what a company legally can and cannot do.
Derek Hornby
> Just checked my hotmail account.... nothing from Mr Hornby there..
Correct
> perhaps you sent it to the wrong address Derek?
Perhaps you're confused, why would I want to email you, off news group.
> It is daveisla...@hotmail.com
So, I feel sure those that wish to email you, off news group, will note
your email address.
> in case you copied it wrong. WHY you respond in a negative way to a warning
> of an improbable offer is beyond me,, why you criticise me knowing that I
> cannot see the response is just cowardly,, but typical.
Actually, I knew you would see my response, and you did!
> I WILL just say that if anyone wants to accept the offer of work they have
> every right to do so, and good luck to them all! If disabled folk are happy
> to do menial tasks for little or no pay then of course this is their right.
Money, isn't everything.
> ANYONE who desires a better deal for disabled workers would of course be
> wary of this offer due to the FACTS produced here about the work required,
> but of course if they then decide to do it anyway, or can show that the
> offer is indeed intended to be seen as charitable, then that is their
> inherent right. ANYONE who ignores the warnings, or calls for others to do
> so, just because they came from certain individuals, and regardless of the
> accuracy of said warnings, has no right to plead ANY afinity with disabled
> folk, and should desist from posting here.
You're arrogance sigh, only those that express same veiws as yourself can post,
how childish.
> but I am pleased that my knowledge
or lack of knowledge.
> gave me the opportunity to expose a possible abuse of disabled
> workers,, if everyone ignores both myself and Don, then so be it,
The OP was making a fair, and reasonable offer, but what does he get,
abused, and or rubbished by you and Don.
Derek
Derek Hornby
> Which still does not imply there is anything dishonest about it.
>
> Has it occurred to either of you that the business involved may well
> have been looking at it as a way of *constructively* making a donation,
> a helping hand, to people who are generally disadvantaged in getting
> work at all and would welcome the opportunity to do something positive?
Good points.
Dave and Don are just reading what wasn't posted.
Quotes from the OP
"Does anyone know of any umbrella organisation concerned with employing
people with disabilities in Cambridge?"
(so the question relates to organisations)
"My boss has announced that we have something like 30,000 pamphlets
that need folding. He is thinking we could employ some people on a
temp basis to do this. He would like to offer the work to people with
disabilities."
(and it's clear from the question, that this is to be done via
a disability related organisation)
"Trouble is I have no idea who to approach. I did try Remploy but they
have no-one in Cambridge."
(and so, OP came here for help, but gets rubbished by Don and Dave.
Derek
Don Moody
Are you completely incapable of reading ordinary written English from
two independent people who have technical expertise in the area of the
OP's enquiry?
smicker
Dreks rules are that everybody else should work for a pittance but he
is above that and he probably reckons he is above us too. He has come
back here because nobody would debate with him in uk.legal so don't
let the fool wind you up Dave as this group is just starting to get
back to half civilised again LOL.
smicker
Bill
David things have changed when were you last in the printing business (how
many years be honest) though you have admited being able to train somebody
up you could be a tutor - thats work david.
Bill
Bill
"Peter V Rawlings" <peter_v.rawl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bnr15q$14nf09$1...@ID-173824.news.uni-berlin.de...
Listen Pete are you sure you are on this Planet - you seem to have no idea
about anything - grow up and think for yourself.
Bill
Bill
"Derek Hornby" <derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bns1en$b8b$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Don't fall in to his trap Derek I have emailed him a couple of times about
six months ago and he was moaning saying I was sending him unsolicited mail,
the guy isn't that important to email so why all of a sudden is he begging
people to email him?
Bill
Bill
"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f443qv8eortdjlij8...@4ax.com...
Listen smicker, Derek believes everybody should work if they are fit enough,
there's always top up money - there's no excuse for being out of work.
Bill
Bill
These people would rather take from the state - ISLANDER has already
admitted he could work by training up somebody to do this printing job - or
does he deny that now.
Bill
Bill
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:33:11 +0000, Don Moody
> <d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >If you are going to get into discussions on what commercial companies
> >can do, for God's sake make yourself knowledgeable about company law
> >before you open your mouth.
> >
> knowledge in running a company is self evident.
>
> j
Hangon he reckonns he ran his own Printing company for 17 years - wonder
what happen the other 32 years of a working life.
Bill
Bill
"Pat Winstanley" <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a0b89ce3...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
No wonder disabled people have problems getting jobs with the likes of DAVID
ISLANDER saying these things.
Bill
Bill
we can only take your word for it.
Bill
Bill
He certainly dosen't want to work again in his life time Derek.
Bill
Peter V Rawlings
.......
>
> The OP was making a fair, and reasonable offer, but what does he get,
> abused, and or rubbished by you and Don.
> Derek
>
No. The OP made no offer at all! What the OP did do was ask for a source
of labour of a specific type. They positively discriminated in favour of
disability......on the perverse face of it!
No recompense was mentioned and no detail as to the other terms (timescale,
workplace, training or delivery, for example) was offered. It was a
<tentative> feeler - nothing more. What I and others are drawing from its
rather too brief an outline is that it sounds - in the absence of any other
data (still not provided!) - that the nature of the task to be undertaken by
the DPs is of a semi-skilled manual labour type that attracts a certain
short-term contract 'market rate' and that the market rate is to be expected
by anyone who is engaged. The suspicion by some is that the hirer may not
intend to pay the relevant self-employed rate. The fact that the main
contention originates from folk who declare that they would not be
interested in doing the work themselves does not detract from the basic
concern. 'A fair day's work for a fair day's pay' is the basis.
In the absence of further expansion by the OP, there is reason to agree with
the contention, IMHO.
Pete.
Bill
you are just another of dons and ISLANDERS puppets.
Bill
Islander
Having read the usual arguments for arguments sake I will personally leave
the matter where it lies. I have said all I can say on the subject and find
it a shame, though not unusual, that certain posters took a warning about a
potential problem for DPs, and turned it on its head! I am certainly not
going to spend the next few weeks with the usual "I said", "you meant"
threads that ruin many posts here. Anyone with an IQ will read the posts and
be able to determine the true messages both Don and I posted, and will take
whatever actions they see fit as they have every right to do. Once a thread
becomes personal here it is pointless continuing it, when offers to help a
company are attacked for not offering to help another company, the argument
is lost. As usual those choosing to turn helpful advice into a battle ground
will be seen for what they are, but at least for once the subject matter was
disability related.
Dave
Pat Winstanley
Are you totally incapable of seeing that *just* because it makes
accountant/commercial sense to get a job performed at the minimum
financial cost to the business that is *not necessarily* what a business
will do... if they want to make a 'charitable donation'?
Pat Winstanley
d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk says...
> Subject: Re: Employing people with disabilities.
> <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >In article <bnrevu$9lo$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Daveislander1955
> >@hotmail.com says...
> >> Subject: Re: Employing people with disabilities.
> >> From: "Islander" <Daveisla...@hotmail.com>
> >> Newsgroups: uk.people.disability
> >>
> >>
> >> "Don Moody" <d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:H95$BL3mNRo$Ew...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk...
> >> >
> >> Snipped for brevity only.
> >> I do agree with Don completely although I didn't notice an attack. The
> >> simple FACT of the matter is that this post does NOT make sense in any
> >> commercial way.
> >>
> >
> >Which still does not imply there is anything dishonest about it.
> >
> >Has it occurred to either of you that the business involved may well
> >have been looking at it as a way of *constructively* making a donation,
> >a helping hand, to people who are generally disadvantaged in getting
> >work at all and would welcome the opportunity to do something positive?
> >
> >Clearly the business is not going to make any financial gain on this
> >sort of deal if the folding could be done more economically by
> >machines... but then people aren't machines, are they.
> >
> Read my reply to Derek.
I have.
> You simply don't know what you are talking about
> in the context of what a company legally can and cannot do.
>
False.
Pat Winstanley
> Subject: Re: Employing people with disabilities.
> From: Don Moody <d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: uk.people.disability
>
> <derek.h...@btopenworld.com> writes
> >
> >Far better you consider another option and that is, there are some businesses
> >that actually do want to put work over to those that can't manage to work at
> >full production (commercial) speeds.
> What individuals in business may 'want' to do as individuals is
> irrelevant. Under the Companies Acts the directors are REQUIRED to act,
> and only act, in accord with the Objectives Clause in the Articles. If
> the Objectives do NOT include loss-making support of those who can't
> manage to work at full production speeds then the directors are
> severally and jointly personally liable, with unlimited liability, for
> all monies lost in such work.
>
So explain why:
1. A business that is not 'incorporated' with Companies House etc has to
follow the legal rules that an incorporated business (company,
partnership or whatever) has agreed to do?
2. A business that IS incorporated (see above) cannot make a charitable
donation in cash/kind (for instance in the form of subsidising the wages
of otherwise unemployable individuals for a while)?
3. A business incorporated with Companies House *cannot* have as part of
its Articles that x% of turnover/profit/whatever is to be put towards
charitable purposes and/or subsidising disabled workers?
Please state the section of the *current* Companies Act that makes 1-3
illegal!
Pat Winstanley
> can do, for God's sake make yourself knowledgeable about company law
> before you open your mouth.
>
Don, take your own advice.
Pat Winstanley
peter_v.rawl...@ntlworld.com says...
> Subject: Re: Employing people with disabilities.
> Newsgroups: uk.people.disability
>
>
> "Derek Hornby" <derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bns1en$b8b$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> .......
> >
> > The OP was making a fair, and reasonable offer, but what does he get,
> > abused, and or rubbished by you and Don.
> > Derek
> >
>
> No. The OP made no offer at all! What the OP did do was ask for a source
> of labour of a specific type. They positively discriminated in favour of
> disability......on the perverse face of it!
>
> No recompense was mentioned and no detail as to the other terms (timescale,
> workplace, training or delivery, for example) was offered.
>
Which isn't surprising since the poster was not (at least on the
surface) trying to get people from this NG to apply directly for the
work, but simply asking where they could approach to broach the subject
with organisations that help place disabled people in work.
Pat Winstanley
@hotmail.com says...
> when offers to help a
> company are attacked for not offering to help another company
>
I saw no such attacks.
Bill
It's not often I agree with you Pat - but I do today. Don & Islander tried
to demean this poster for no other reason than to cause trouble. How on
earth can we beleive Don, he reckons he was a printer and signs his name Dr.
Bill
Bill
Pat Winstanley
derek.h...@btopenworld.com says...
> "Don Moody" <d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > What really matters, Derek, is that disabled people are not take
> > advantage of whether by outright scams or by payment at slave labour
> > (and now illegal) rates.
>
> Was the rate of pay quoted?
No rate of pay was quoted.
>
> > Dave and I can both see that the OP's offer has
> > to be one or the other UNLESS one posits that the 'owner' of the work
> > actually wants to lose money on it by placing it in the least efficient
> > way.
>
> So you're just assuming?
>
Yes, he is.
> Far better you consider another option and that is, there are some businesses
> that actually do want to put work over to those that can't manage to work at
> full production (commercial) speeds.
>
Exactly.
>
> > If the 'owner is a charity, such an action would be a breach of
> > trust and illegal. If the 'owner' is a commercial business then such an
> > action would be a breach of fiduciary duty by its directors, and hence
> > illegal.
Wrong.
>
> So what're you views regarding state subsidised companies like
> Remploy that mainly emplo6y the disabled.
>
<giggle>
> Derek
>
>
>
Bill
Listen DAVID you tried to demean the poster, you tried to put doubt in
everybody's mind, when Pat, Derek, myself, & grant started asking you (in
roundabout way) to prove this was a con you then started to think maybe you
were wrong. If you want to end it here because you lost the argument "that
you started" that's upto you, but be a man about it. And another thing stop
asking people to email you direct - you aren't important enough old man. You
have no idea - Plus hang-on what true messages - how on earth do we know you
were a printer you are just a guy who moved from Birmingham to the
slander - you are nobody special you don't tell us what to do - sod off.
Bill
Bill
> becomes personal here it is pointless continuing it, *when offers to help
a
> company are attacked for not offering to help another company*, the
argument
> is lost.
whats this double dutch?
Bill
Don Moody
<wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>In article <kmFHHI9XOYo$Ew...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk>,
>d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk says...
>> Subject: Re: Employing people with disabilities.
>> From: Don Moody <d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk>
>> Newsgroups: uk.people.disability
>>
>> In message <bnrt69$21h$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>, Derek Hornby
>> <derek.h...@btopenworld.com> writes
>> >
>> >Far better you consider another option and that is, there are some
>> >businesses
>> >that actually do want to put work over to those that can't manage to work at
>> >full production (commercial) speeds.
>> What individuals in business may 'want' to do as individuals is
>> irrelevant. Under the Companies Acts the directors are REQUIRED to act,
>> and only act, in accord with the Objectives Clause in the Articles. If
>> the Objectives do NOT include loss-making support of those who can't
>> manage to work at full production speeds then the directors are
>> severally and jointly personally liable, with unlimited liability, for
>> all monies lost in such work.
>>
>
>So explain why:
>
>1. A business that is not 'incorporated' with Companies House etc has to
>follow the legal rules that an incorporated business (company,
>partnership or whatever) has agreed to do?
Companies Act! So this one is irrelevant.
>
>2. A business that IS incorporated (see above) cannot make a charitable
>donation in cash/kind (for instance in the form of subsidising the wages
>of otherwise unemployable individuals for a while)?
do anything which is not proscribed. A body corporate can do only that
which is prescribed in its Objectives clause. If the Objectives do not
explicitly include a power to make donations or overpayments for
purposes unrelated to the main objects, then it is illegal to make any
such donations or overpayment. It is also illegal to make them even if
they are related to the main objects UNLESS the Objectives clause does
include subsidiary objectives to do anything legal which is related to
the main objects. Sensible writers of objectives clauses are quite
skilled at making the main objectives narrow and clear but the
subsidiary objectives wide and woolly.
So a petrol company, say, probably could legally sell underprice petrol
or give it free or even make a cash donation for a rally for disabled
drivers, and advertise that it has done so. Their argument would be that
so doing creates goodwill towards their main product and hence could
lead to increased sales of that product and increased profit for the
shareholders. If, however, the same company were asked to donate warm
winter woollies to disabled (non mobile) old folk in a residential home,
then one of their shareholders could make a case that such charity has
no relationship to the main object of selling petrol, and hence is
illegal and the directors have personal liability.
>
>3. A business incorporated with Companies House *cannot* have as part of
>its Articles that x% of turnover/profit/whatever is to be put towards
>charitable purposes and/or subsidising disabled workers?
I've already said that this is legal. It is part of the main objectives
of all charities which are also registered as companies. Such companies
are often incorporated as 'companies limited by guarantee', that is they
have no shareholders and nobody is entitled to any return for anything
they've put into the company cum charity. Even so, such a company cum
charity CANNOT legally go outside its own Objectives clause. If it is a
charity to supply winter woollies to old folks it can't suddenly decide
to supply Mars bars to poor kids. If it wanted to have such an
additional charitable purpose it would have to change its Articles with
the agreement of a substantial proportion of its members, and it
couldn't put any such change into effect unless and until agreed by the
Charities Commission. Who are very tough nuts to crack. They're whole
philosophy is tighter control on specified purposes only; and they don't
accept general do-gooding wording however much good is intended. They've
learned that vague wording opens the flood gates to incompetence,
mismanagement, and fraud.
>
>Please state the section of the *current* Companies Act that makes 1-3
>illegal!
>
See above.
I've recorded on this ng before that I've been a director of companies
limited by guarantee and I've been a trustee of charitable trusts; and
I've been involved with re-structuring such things and getting the news
structures through the Charity Commission scrutiny. I've done those
things over enough decades to have seen the tightening up that both
Charity Commission have brought to charities and shareholders' bodies
plus enforcement authorities have brought to companies. I'll say no more
about the modern tightness than that if asked again to be a director or
trustee, I'd probably refuse. Any charitable work I do now I do
personally and directly. That way I can do what I want, I can change
without formality, and I don't have to be inundated with control paper
work or with inspectors of this and that.
Derek Hornby
> Read my reply to Derek. You simply don't know what you are talking about
> in the context of what a company legally can and cannot do.
So, please clarify.
Is a company allowed to make donations to charity, yes.
Does such a donation need to be a cheque, no.
Tere are many ways a company may make donations to charity, and or, the
local comunity.
YOu and Dave, just miss the point of the OP.
Derek
Pat Winstanley
d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk says...
Since you have no idea whether the business in question is incorporated
or not, clearly it is relevant.
> >
> >2. A business that IS incorporated (see above) cannot make a charitable
> >donation in cash/kind (for instance in the form of subsidising the wages
> >of otherwise unemployable individuals for a while)?
> Explained in another post but I'll explain again. A natural person can
> do anything which is not proscribed. A body corporate can do only that
> which is prescribed in its Objectives clause. If the Objectives do not
> explicitly include a power to make donations or overpayments for
> purposes unrelated to the main objects, then it is illegal to make any
> such donations or overpayment. It is also illegal to make them even if
> they are related to the main objects UNLESS the Objectives clause does
> include subsidiary objectives to do anything legal which is related to
> the main objects. Sensible writers of objectives clauses are quite
> skilled at making the main objectives narrow and clear but the
> subsidiary objectives wide and woolly.
And most articles include a clause to the effect that donations etc for
charitable purposes are not ultra vires.
>
> So a petrol company, say, probably could legally sell underprice petrol
> or give it free or even make a cash donation for a rally for disabled
> drivers, and advertise that it has done so. Their argument would be that
> so doing creates goodwill towards their main product and hence could
> lead to increased sales of that product and increased profit for the
> shareholders. If, however, the same company were asked to donate warm
> winter woollies to disabled (non mobile) old folk in a residential home,
> then one of their shareholders could make a case that such charity has
> no relationship to the main object of selling petrol, and hence is
> illegal and the directors have personal liability.
>
> >
> >3. A business incorporated with Companies House *cannot* have as part of
> >its Articles that x% of turnover/profit/whatever is to be put towards
> >charitable purposes and/or subsidising disabled workers?
> I've already said that this is legal. It is part of the main objectives
> of all charities which are also registered as companies. Such companies
> are often incorporated as 'companies limited by guarantee', that is they
> have no shareholders and nobody is entitled to any return for anything
> they've put into the company cum charity. Even so, such a company cum
> charity CANNOT legally go outside its own Objectives clause.
And if the provision for charitable donations is specifically there (as
is usual)....
And still you pretended to know whether or not the business mentioned by
the original poster was/is incorporated (and if so what is written into
its articles), and also whether or not the business in question was
trying to pull a scam etc.
If you had known whether or not the business was incorporated, what its
articles (if so) say etc then you wouldn't have been asking for the name
of the business, its registered office, its directors etc.
You blew it.
You did exactly the same regarding that business as the other trolls
have been doing with their similarly groundless 'assumptions' about
Derek.
Drop it, Don, you assumed far too much with NOTHING to back it up.
Islander
Pat Winstanley
@hotmail.com says...
Perhaps I missed someone attacking you/Don etc for offering to help the
business involved find an answer to the question the business wanted
answering; (contacts in the Cambridge area so that the business could
offer the going work to disabled people in the area).
Was there such an attack?
Bill
Don and his cronies were attacking a well know disability rights person for
his efforts to give the group info on job move.
Bill
Bill
"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f443qv8eortdjlij8...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:01:44 +0000 (UTC), "Islander"
> <Daveisla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Just checked my hotmail account.... nothing from Mr Hornby there..
perhaps
> >you sent it to the wrong address Derek? It is
daveisla...@hotmail.com
> >in case you copied it wrong. WHY you respond in a negative way to a
warning
> >of an improbable offer is beyond me,, why you criticise me knowing that I
> >cannot see the response is just cowardly,, but typical.
> >I WILL just say that if anyone wants to accept the offer of work they
have
> >every right to do so, and good luck to them all! If disabled folk are
happy
> >to do menial tasks for little or no pay then of course this is their
right.
> >ANYONE who desires a better deal for disabled workers would of course be
> >wary of this offer due to the FACTS produced here about the work
required,
> >but of course if they then decide to do it anyway, or can show that the
> >offer is indeed intended to be seen as charitable, then that is their
> >inherent right. ANYONE who ignores the warnings, or calls for others to
do
> >so, just because they came from certain individuals, and regardless of
the
> >accuracy of said warnings, has no right to plead ANY afinity with
disabled
> >folk, and should desist from posting here.
> >Who fits what category is not for me to say,, but I am pleased that my
> >knowledge gave me the opportunity to expose a possible abuse of disabled
> >workers,, if everyone ignores both myself and Don, then so be it, but at
> >least I have tried to do something positive... unlike some!
>
> Dreks rules are that everybody else should work for a pittance but he
> is above that and he probably reckons he is above us too. He has come
> back here because nobody would debate with him in uk.legal so don't
> let the fool wind you up Dave as this group is just starting to get
> back to half civilised again LOL.
> smicker
no such person as Drek - learn to spell correctly D...Brain
Bill