[Colorado-Talk] Anil Lewi's Testimony on Subminimum Wages

[Dan Burke]

This is the text that Anil will deliver to the House committee at 8:15
this morning Mountain Time. There are also appendices on the web page
where I took this from, at:
https://nfb.org/programs-services/advocacy/policy-statements/anil-lewiss-written-testimony-joint-hearing-regarding



Anil Lewis’s Written Testimony Before A Joint Hearing Regarding The
Phase Out of Subminimum Wages
article
July 21, 2021

Written Testimony of Anil Lewis, Executive Director for Blindness
Initiatives, National Federation of the Blind before the United States
House Subcommittee
on Workforce Protections and the United States House Subcommittee on
Civil Rights and Human Services.

Joint Hearing – Phasing Out Subminimum Wages: Supporting the
Transition to Competitive Integrated Employment for Workers with
Disabilities

To the Honorable Members of the United States House Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections and the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human
Services, I thank
you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. My name is Anil
Lewis and I am the Executive Director for Blindness Initiatives at the
National Federation
of the Blind. I live in Atlanta, Georgia.

I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this joint hearing to
add my voice to those considering phasing out the use of subminimum
wages and supporting
the transition to competitive integrated employment for workers with
disabilities. In November 2019 I had the opportunity, honor, and
privilege to testify
in support of the phase out of Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act before the United States Commission on Civil Rights
(USCCR) (See Appendix
A). My testimony today will grant me an opportunity to apologize,
explain, clarify, and offer a charge.

Like many individuals who support Section 14(c) today, there was a
time that I believed it was the moral, compassionate strategy to
implement in order
for those that are less fortunate to achieve the benefits of “work,”
and to give them something to do besides staying at home. For that, I
apologize, because
now I understand that
Compassion Can Be Discrimination
(Appendix C) cloaked in sympathy and good intentions.

Fortunately, I came to realize that the real problem was not the
incapacity of the people with disabilities, but rather the lack of
knowledge of the training
and tools that could be utilized to assist individuals with
disabilities acquire the skills to become employed in a competitive
integrated work environment.
I outline this transition in more detail in my USCCR testimony, but
let me simply state that I transitioned from working with the
handicapped to working
with people with disabilities. As long as I perceived them as
unfortunates with no real employable skill set and my moral
obligation, the work I did may
have made me feel better, but did nothing for them. However, once I
viewed them as people, with the same desires, ambitions, and capacity
for employment
with the right to a true quality of life; not only did I feel better,
they felt better because I became aware of what is possible. Securing
competitive
integrated employment for even the most significantly disabled, which
seemed to be an impossibility then, has come to be not only possible,
but an imperative
now. Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by allowing the
lawful payment of subminimum wages to workers with disabilities,
interferes with this
imperative, so my challenge is explaining why you should support the
effort to phase out Section 14(c).

Many have previously provided data and examples of how the Section
14(c) provision is false and ineffective, so I will add that
information to the end
of this testimony (See Appendix B). Moreover, many have testified and
given examples of success stories, but that has not resulted in
consensus support
toward the phase out of Section 14(c). Many have pleaded or offered
impassioned requests to eliminate what they consider to be an
exploitive, discriminatory
piece of legislation, and although this has resulted in some phase out
in the use of the subminimum wage certificates, we have still not made
the conscious
decision to phase out the law.

My USCCR testimony explains why this is personal to me. The adverse
impact the subminimum wage provision has had on my family is real. The
low expectations
promoted and supported by Section 14(c) denied my brother the
education and training he deserved, placed an undue burden of guilt on
my mother, and offered
unnecessary employment barriers for my sister and myself. Of course,
mine is only one of many hundreds of thousands of families adversely
impacted by this
piece of legislation. Although the emotion expressed in my USCCR
testimony is real, I recognize that the emotion keeps us from
recognizing the true flaw
in this “well intended” piece of legislation.

I will refrain from referring to the use of the subminimum wage
provision as exploitation because many, as I did in the past, perceive
it as the only opportunity
for individuals with significant disabilities to achieve some
semblance of employment. I previously believed that some people with
disabilities, especially
those with significant disabilities, were incapable of competitive
integrated employment. My belief in their incapacity was not based on
any lived or learned
experience. I had no training or experience working with this
population to provide training and supports that would enable them to
live, work, and play
in their communities. I was simply driven by my compassion to create a
safe caring environment for these poor unfortunate souls . . . God’s
work. Thank
God for those that did and continue to believe in the capacity of
people with disabilities, because they demonstrate to me, time and
time again, that I
was wrong. Even individuals I was absolutely convinced had no ability
to work, were provided the training and supports to achieve better
than subminimum
wage employment. I came to have a new belief based in fact, not just
emotion. Again, I apologize for my late awakening, and ask, should
others continue
to be unintentionally harmed as a result of the lack of knowledge
possessed by those well intended individuals whose goal is to help?

Rather than referring to Section 14(c) as discriminatory, can we all
agree that it’s antiquated? After all, Section 14(c) was established
in 1938 and based
on the low expectations and lack of knowledge about the true capacity
of people with disabilities that existed at that time. This body has
subsequently
passed decades of progressive civil rights legislation, like the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Rehabilitation
Act, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), which have improved the education,
training, and employment opportunities for people with disabilities
(See Appendix A for
more information). As a result, we continue to move forward, toward
true equity for people with disabilities. Although our understanding
of the capacity
of people with disabilities has drastically improved over the years,
Section 14(c) is in direct conflict with this progress. In fact,
attempts to improve
Section 14(c) have gone counter to the intent of subsequent, more
enlightened disability legislation. Amendments to Section 14(c) have
lowered the wage
floor so that people can be paid pennies per hour. Regulations have
made it easier for entities to secure subminimum wage certificates
with less oversight.
All of which has resulted in the development and perpetuation of a
business model that serves as a disincentive to the promotion of tools
and strategies
to support competitive integrated employment.

I was honored to serve as a Presidential appointee to the AbilityOne
Commission. I believed, and still have hope, that this work has the
potential to be
the incubator of best practices that will lead to more strategies to
promote the competitive integrated employment of people with
disabilities.  While
I served, we were able to adopt a Declaration Against the Use of
Section 14(c) within the AbilityOne program. There has been a
rational, incremental progression
toward the surrendering of subminimum wage certificates by AbilityOne
participating nonprofits. However, there are a few that continue to
use their priority
access to government contracts to employ the use of the subminimum
wage certificates rather than meeting their obligation to find ways to
gainfully employ
people with disabilities.

During my last meeting as a member of the AbilityOne Commission, the
Executive Director of SourceAmerica, one of the Central Nonprofit
Agencies responsible
for providing oversight and technical assistance to AbilityOne
participating nonprofits, gave a report that highlighted their
Pathways program, which results
in real employment outcomes for individuals with significant
disabilities. However, the presentation on this program was dwarfed by
the emphasis placed
on their sheltered employment work. I asked, why didn’t they place
more emphasis on the Pathways model than the subminimum wage programs?
The answer was
that Pathways is costly and more difficult. We understand that it is
not easy, and we understand that it may be more costly, but that is on
the front end.
With each “costly” investment in the development of an innovative
employment strategy or tool that will allow someone with a significant
disability to
achieve a better employment outcome, we learn more and create
opportunities that would not otherwise exist. Moreover, through the
continued improvement
and replication, we will refine the processes, reduce the cost of the
program, reduce dependency on public assistance programs, and develop
best practices
that promote the competitive integrated employment of people with disabilities.

I have grown, and I am no longer angry at those who, as I once was,
are driven by a misguided compassion to do what they feel is right.
However, it is
overwhelmingly frustrating to have to continue to justify the right
for people with disabilities, like myself, to have the same
opportunities freely offered
and available to others.

My frustration is shared by the tens of thousands of members of the
National Federation of the Blind, an organization that knows blindness
is not the characteristic
that defines you or your future. Every day we raise expectations for
blind people because we realize it’s those low expectations that
create the true obstacles
between blind people and our dreams. You can live the life you want;
blindness is not what holds you back. This knowledge is shared by tens
of thousands
of others that have come to know that people with disabilities, with
the proper training and support, can be competitive employees worthy
of a competitive
wage.

I recognize that the competitive employment of people with
disabilities seems counterintuitive to those who have come to believe
that these individuals
do not have the capacity to work in competitive integrated
environments. The entrenched belief in the incapacity of people with
disabilities defies reason.
One of the most difficult calls I have ever had was a discussion with
the mother of a young man with significant disabilities. Her son was
dismissed from
a sheltered workshop that had discontinued their subminimum wage
program. Unfortunately, the nonprofit did not implement the best
strategies developed
by entities like the Vermont Conversion Institute, and simply closed
the shop, leaving the son with nothing to do. In talking with the
mother, I attempted
to explain to her that it would not be very difficult to provide some
assistance that would make it possible for her son to obtain
competitive integrated
work. However, she simply did not believe me. I know that this was a
result of years of conditioning by a system that made her believe her
son did not
have the capacity for competitive work, and that at least he was safe
and had something to do in the sheltered shop. As a result, both she
and her son
were prohibited from reaching their full potential, and we as a
society were deprived of their active engagement and full
participation.

The Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act has
specific provisions to prevent this scenario from happening to others
by creating a technical
assistance center and by identifying public and private sector
resources that can be used by employers to facilitate a smooth
transition to transform their
subminimum wage employees to competitive integrated employment. In
addition, the legislation will award grants to states to assure that
all Section 14(c)
subminimum wage programs in the state will have the resources to
transition to competitive integrated employment by the end of the
five-year grant period.
Moreover, the legislation provides for two cycles of three-year grants
awarded directly to Section 14(c) certificate holders, in order to
serve the same
function. Finally, the bill phases out subminimum wages over a
five-year period, providing ample time for employees being paid
subminimum wages to transition
to competitive integrated employment.

I understand that most supporters of Section 14(c) believe it to be a
means of offering opportunities that would otherwise not exist (See
Appendix B).
They are driven by their heart to help those without the capacity to
achieve a better life experience. I believe we should be led by our
hearts, but guided
with emotional intelligence. I encourage you to seek out those who not
only believe these individuals have capacity but continue to
demonstrate it. It
is not enough for us to feel good about what we are doing, if what we
do denies others the same good feeling. We cannot pass laws to change
people’s hearts,
nor should we try. Legislation can be used to continue to support
institutionalized, antiquated thinking or it can be used to create a
framework for innovation
and evolution. I charge you all, on behalf of the multitudes of people
adversely impacted as a result of this misguided compassion, to pass
H.R. 2373,
the Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act.


-- 
Dan Burke

National Federation of the Blind of Colorado Legislative Co-chair

President, NFB of Denver

"Blindness is not what holds you back.  You can live the life you want!"

My Cell:  406.546.8546
Twitter:  @DallDonal