Jeebus, is it really this bad?

The remaining 54 factories are projected to make losses of £138.6?million this year.

A Whitehall source said: “Remploy factories are effectively paying disabled people to do nothing. Most factories have no work. We realise this is not something that will go quietly or smoothly, but it is important for the Coalition to do this is in the right way.”

3,000 people employed….a subsidy/loss per job of over £40,000 a year?

Yes, there really must be a better way of dealing with this. A cheaper way at least…..

4 thoughts on “Remploy”

  1. It might not be worth £40,000 to us, but we have no idea how much it is worth to the people working there.

    The simple fact that they now know they are running at a loss makes those jobs immediately worth less to the people doing them.

    Anyways, we’d have to minus off their salaries to find the true amount of money being wasted, as their salaries aren’t an expense at all, they are a transfer payment.

  2. Mark W,

    I dimly recall similar arguments being used by most nationalised industries; ignore the large financial losses and focus on the social value/something else.

    It didn’t end well for any of them and I doubt it will end well for Remploy.


  3. I think that you have been stung by a badly researched article, Tim. Remploy does two things: it directly employs disabled workers on a long term basis (my blind uncle made beds and soft furniture for them for years) but also operates as a training agency (10,000+ beneficiaries per annum). The two functions need to be analysed independently.

    Remploy, the manufacturer, might be expected to operate at break even. Small losses are acceptable.

    Remploy, the training agency, is a cost that we endure so that disabled people can go back to work. We can try to reduce training costs, but it will never be free.

    Tim adds: They do note that the training agency/employment agency part will be kept separate and running. It’s the direct factories they’re on about.

  4. Cheers, Tim. I have read the article for a third time and remain unclear about real costs.

    If the factories that make stuff lose money (accepting the cost of acting as a training agency), we have to ask questions.

    Remploy trains many people who get jobs in a conventional business. Thus, with a few bob from the government to pay for special work tools, disabled people become regular employees.

    The Telegraph article does not inform us about how Remploy operates or give figures. It is just corridor gossip.

    The real meat is whether Remploy factories make stuff that people want to buy and whether trainees are genuinely given appropriate skills. A £139 million deficit for them is trivial given our current pickle.

    Tim adds: I recall, years ago, that one of the main buyers at GEC was a profoundly disabled man. Stephen Hawkings level of disability….and with very much the same sharpness of mind (if not the physics ability).

    He needed wheelchair, vocoder (such as the technology could produce at the time), very specialist computers etc. I’m all in favour of that. That the disabled get the extra cash needed to make them competitive with non-disabled labour. (Although, I have to admit, the brain in this guy probably made him a great hire anyway.)

    But factories which, even with each Govt department allowed to give them one no bid contract (I’ve looked around a little more and yes, Remploy can indeeed be granted a no bid, no competition contract by each and every department) then still lose money?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *