[Ct-nfb] Good News from Rhode Island

Richard McGaffin rmcgaffin at snet.net
Mon Mar 17 10:01:18 UTC 2014


Good morning all;
 
You're statements are very well stated Nathanael, please understand although I think these folks should be rehired somewhere else, by no means do I don't believe any of these individuals should be exploited.  

From: Justin Salisbury <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu>
To: NFB of Connecticut Mailing List <ct-nfb at nfbnet.org> 
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] Good News from Rhode Island



Friends and Colleagues:
 
I have compiled a comprehensive response to all involved in this discussion with further explanation of the issue at hand.  If people with disabilities are going to achieve equality, we must face the dignity of risk in the job search process.  
 
Rich: You said “I hope they are rehired at a decent wage.”
In order to be rehired, these people would have to be hired in the first place.  I’m not sure that I would say that they were hired in the first place.  You are obviously right that other placements will be necessary, and we have seen their successful achievement in Vermont.  Just because the article doesn’t explain that the disabled Rhode Islanders will be empowered to the next level doesn’t mean that it won’t happen.  In fact, it appears that this is the obvious goal.
 
Len: You explain that someone will have to find you another job, or you will be unemployed.  They are cutting your hours and benefits already.  
The sheltered workshops have every incentive to bluff at this measure in hopes that it will be repealed.  They want to continue to prey on disabled people because it makes them a ton of money.  It will continue to make them a lot of money once they have to pay minimum wage, but not quite as much.
 
Susan: You believe that sheltered workshops provide a host of services as well as a social atmosphere and acceptance; it is already difficult to connect with peers.  You believethis will be a way to further isolate and separate those with the most need for services.  You believefolks will be less able to advocate for their needs and languish in communities where there are already too few services.
What a lot of people do not realize is that sheltered workshops actually are the forces isolating their clients and limiting self-advocacy.  If we, the Federation, could reach into every sheltered workshop and teach those people and their families that they deserve better, the sheltered workshops would lose their employees.  There are plenty of successful people with disabilities who could be interacting with the sheltered workshop employees if they were out of the sheltered workshop and in a competitive employment setting.
 
Rich explained that there are other social settings available in the community, and we should not fund them if they continue to exploit the disabled.  Employment exists with a goal of earning a living.
I absolutely agree.  Rich is one example of our success.  He wears the dignity of risk.  Employment is employment, and social opportunities are social opportunities.
 
Susan: You believe we need a continuum of services because everyone has different levels of ability.  You have raised many children and know all of their abilities.  
I understand that you have not a single negative intention for your children and all Americans with disabilities.  I seriously do.  There are many others out there who support sheltered employment as a measure of what they believe to be compassion and empowerment, but the expectations are not as high as real people prove that they can be.  Innovative job training and placement services can and do get people with any disability competitive employment.  Sheltered employment is not, has never been, and will never be anything close to a stepping stone to competitive employment.  Research demonstrates that people who start working in sheltered workshops actually become less productive because of their time in sheltered employment.
 
Only 5% of people who start working in a sheltered workshop ever go on to earn a minimum wage in their entire lives, according to a Government Accountability Office report.  95% remain permanent wards of the government and never achieve competitive employment.
Independent academic research indicates that supported employment produces far better vocational outcomes than sheltered employment.  Supported employment provides all of those benefits that Susan Harper credits sheltered workshops with providing.  This research includes people with all types of disabilities.
 
The State of Vermont got smart many years ago and decided that spending millions of taxpayer dollars each year (matched by federal tax dollars) to fund enterprises paying less than the federal minimum wage was an ineffective use of public funds.  The State of Vermont de-funded sheltered employment, and sheltered workshops in Vermont converted to competitive employment models, often harnessing supported employment mechanisms in order to maintain the continuum of services.  The employers paid at least minimum wage and kept their government funding.  In supported employment scenarios, workers with disabilities are paid at least the minimum wage.  
 
In sheltered workshops, there is negligible incentive for the workshops to increase the productivity of the employees earning less than the minimum wage.  They are paid by our government per “client” served in the shops, as well as with grants and donations.  This is not adjusted based on the client’s earnings or changes in productivity.  The permanent funding stream is used to pay the salaried administrators and staff, while the contracts are used to pay the workers and further pay the salaried employees.  The administrators get a double-dip.  When negotiating contracts, the sheltered workshops are able to factor in enough expenses to cover administrative costs, too.  Administrators of sheltered workshops call themselves human service providers, but they are paid far more than other human service professionals because of how the workshops parasitically manipulate a lucrative system.  As demonstrated in Vermont, these enterprises all have
 enough money to pay their workers with disabilities the minimum wage, but they do not do it because the government allows them to get away with paying less.  
 
The underlying problem with sheltered employment is the misperception of the lack of capacity of people with disabilities.  There once was a day when it was normal for blind people to spend their days rocking back and forth in a corner and drooling.  Then, the National Federation of the Blind was formed, and we began to correct these misperceptions about the blind.  If not for our efforts, many of us would still be drooling and rocking in a corner.  When we see people who are in such terrible situations, it is because the right intervention has not yet occurred.  It is not because the disability prevents them from reaching productivity.  With the right expectations and support, we do achieve.  To demonstrate that people with all types of disabilities would benefit from the eradication of subminimum wage employment, I have attached the list of organizations which support HR 831, the Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act of 2013.
 
Only in the case of sheltered employment does anyone consider the employer to be providing the employee a service.  This is accepted in society because of the misperception of the lack of capacity of the disabled.  With this misperception in mind, the high unemployment rate for the disabled is easily but incorrectly explained by the notion that the disability itself prevents the workers from being productive.  Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans have long had higher unemployment rates than Caucasians and Asians.  Should we take away the minimum wage protection that Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans experience today in order to create more employment opportunities?  How would we respond to that as a nation if that happened?  We would resist the drop in expectations because we would know that we were dooming the people we sent into sheltered workshops.  It is the same for the disabled.  We, the disabled, have
 capacity, and we intend to use it.  Those who do not believe in us should not try to trip us while we compete in the workforce and help others escape the bondage of sheltered employment.  We must inoculate each other against the misperceptions that may hinder us all.
 
Love,
 
Justin
 
 
From:Ct-nfb [mailto:ct-nfb-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Susan Harper
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 7:13 AM
To: Richard McGaffin; NFB of Connecticut Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] Good News from Rhode Island
 
I'm not upset.  Thanks for your concern.  There is good and bad in everything.  What I'm saying is that there is a need for a continuum of services.  Sorry your friend had such a difficult experience.  Yes many good people deserve a lot more.  That is why folks advocate for change.  
 
Blessings,
Sue H.
 
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Richard McGaffin <rmcgaffin at snet.net> wrote:
Good morning all;
> 
>Look Sue I'm not trying to upset you, I understand your situation and I have a certain compassion for those who aren't able to compete with the rest of the world. Itoo worked in a sheltered workshop for about 6 months in 1996, that's how I met my friend Leonard. However when they wanted to remove me from being a staff worker for $6.00 an hour and have me work on a bench for half day because they needed another client to fill their list of clients, so they could put another man on as a staff member. I decided it was time for me to quit. That dishonest practice is basically the way B.E.S.B. industries in West Haven was run.  Fortunately the manager welcomed me back to the Orange S&S which is now closed. Since my leaving Stop & Shop in 1999 I have discovered the computer, and have developed quite a nack for it. I worked in several telemarketing, and customer service place since them. Yes it's true I'm currently unemployed as I stated before, but I'd
 rather be unemployed than work for less than minimum Wage. 
> 
>As far as my friend Leonard is concerned I think it's terrible that he was even placed in one of these places to begin with. Here a veteran of our own military how dare the Connecticut state services place him in such a situation. Again I say shut these sweat shops and stop funding them with Federal & State funds.
> 
>Rich 
> 
>From:Susan Harper <sueharpernp at gmail.com>
>To: Richard McGaffin <rmcgaffin at snet.net>; NFB of Connecticut Mailing List <ct-nfb at nfbnet.org> 
>Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 4:09 PM
>
>Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] Good News from Rhode Island
> 
>Richard, I love your thoughtful reply. 
> 
>I just know that for a lot of folks, those things just aren't options for a lot of reasons.  Not all sheltered workshops are equal.  I agree there are many other ways to do the social piece.  But not everyone can access those options.  We need a continuum of services so that no one gets left out.  I've always advocated Independence for all my children of varying degrees of abilities.  I'm not disabled, at least I don't think I am.  Don't tell me if I am.  I like laboring under the illusion of who I am.  I am the legal parent to 14 children and fostered many more.  I believe in  the worth of all my children and have worked diligently to get them into the adult world with as many skills as they can muster.  I love these kinds of conversations, that may be hard.  However, they are necessary to get the many points of view and educate each other as to our collective needs.
> 
>Blessings,
>Sue H.
> 
>On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Richard McGaffin <rmcgaffin at snet.net> wrote:
>Good afternoon all;
>>Sue you bring up some interesting views on this subject, however those individuals whe are or were employed at sheltered workshops are there for one reason and that is to earn a living. If indeed they're earning a competitive wage, and manage to make some social contacts this is a good thing. I have met a number of individuals the several different work places. In fact I met my wife at Stop & Shop while I was employed there. However a place of business is just that, and there are a lot of other places such as church, and other so called social settings. I don't believe that either the state of federal government should fund a place just for people to go and hang around and be soically excepted. If indeed they're looking for social hangouts than let's call them social hangouts and forget exploiting the disabled by paying them less than minamum wage. I am afraid I will have to side with Justin (which by the way is a rarity for both us) on this one. Let
 me also add that I am currently unemployed and have been for over 2 years, this is partially due to the fact that I was hospitalized for 2 months of last year, and it has taken me pretty much a whole year to recover. 
>> 
>>Rich McGaffin
>> 
>>From:Susan Harper <sueharpernp at gmail.com>
>>To: NFB of Connecticut Mailing List <ct-nfb at nfbnet.org> 
>>Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 9:05 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] Good News from Rhode Island
>> 
>>I disagree that this is a good idea.  Sheltered workshops do a lot more than provide employment.  Generally they provide a host of services as well as a social atmosphere of acceptance and a peer group.  It is already difficult to connect with others and find support and important information regarding many issues and rights.  I think this will be a way to further isolate and separate those with the most need for services.  Folks will be less able to advocate for their needs and languish in communities where there are already to few services.  Be careful what you wish for!  There are pros and cons to everything.  I strongly agree that there should be real pay for real work.  There still needs to be a stepping stone and a continuum of services, a bridge if you will to get there.   
>> 
>>Blessings,
>>Sue H.
>> 
>>On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Len Schlenk <lfs40 at optonline.net> wrote:
>>The closing of all workshops in Ct will take its effect on me the end of June. They will either find me another job or I will be unemployed.
>>> 
>>>Len Schlenk ---- Original Message ----- 
>>>From:Justin Salisbury 
>>>>To:nfbwnews at nfbwis.org ; ct-nfb at nfbnet.org 
>>>>Sent:Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:43 AM
>>>>Subject:[Ct-nfb] Good News from Rhode Island
>>>> 
>>>>Stenning’s goal: Close all ‘sheltered workshops’ for adults with disabilities within three years
>>>>January 16, 2014 11:20 PM
>>>>>CRANSTON — The head of the state agency that serves adults with disabilities has set a goal of closing all “sheltered” workshops in Rhode Island within the next three years.
>>>>>Craig S. Stenning, director of the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH), on Thursday outlined an aggressive effort under way to move disabled adults out of what federal civil-rights officials say are segregated work settings and day programs and into jobs and activities in the community.
>>>>>The effort, he said, represents a “major transformation of the system” akin to the movement to deinstitutionalize the disabled in residential settings with the closing of The Ladd School in the mid- 1980s.
>>>>>The U.S. Department of Justice earlier this month released the findings of an investigation launched a year ago by its civil-rights division that charges the state with operating segregated employment, vocational and day programs for about 3,600 adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
>>>>>The report describes the problem of segregation as beginning when disabled students leave school and continuing throughout their lives. (The state Department of Education and the state Office of Rehabilitative Services also were named in the report.)
>>>>>In an interview Thursday at his Cranston office, joined by five other staff members, Stenning spoke about some of the challenges his department has had in integrating disabled adults into the wider community, including a lackluster job market and the fear of change among some of the programs’ clients and their families.
>>>>>The department’s (BHDDH’s) budget for “services to the developmentally disabled” has declined by about $29 million, or 11 percent, since 2009, when Stenning took over as director, state budget figures show.
>>>>>But budget cuts, he said, have not been a major impediment to change. “At one time the budget for the State of Rhode Island for developmental disability services came to $109,000 per person per year — that was the highest in the country,” Stenning said. “So I don’t think the argument that budget cuts are the reason why it [integrated employment] didn’t happen is a valid argument.”
>>>>>Stenning said that he and other department staff have begun reaching out to mayors in Cranston, Pawtucket and Warwick as part of the department’s new “Employment First” program aimed at ensuring equal employment opportunities for adults with disabilities.
>>>>>The BHDDH also has sought bids for proposals to create a “center for excellence and advocacy” that would include providing job assistance and outreach to disabled adults and their families.
>>>>>The department also is reaching out to private businesses, he said. Some companies, such as CVS and Automated Business Solutions, recently hired several adults with disabilities who were formerly in sheltered workshops.
>>>>>The department has so far placed 40 adults with disabilities who formerly worked at a sheltered workshop run by Training Thru Placement in jobs in the community since the state signed an “interim settlement agreement” with the Justice Department last June. The agreement was to settle violations Justice Department officials found at the sheltered workshop and a vocational program at The Birch School in Providence.
>>>>>To meet the goals of that interim settlement agreement — which covers about 200 adults at TTP and The Birch School — will take eight years, Stenning said Justice officials told him.
>>>>>Now, the task has expanded to include thousands of adults with disabilities in 24 day programs, including six sheltered workshops. “My goal is much shorter … closing [sheltered] workshops in three years,” Stenning said, adding, “I’d love if we could fulfill our goal in five.” Even as he stressed his commitment to the goal of moving more adults with disabilities into jobs in the community, he defended the agencies that operate the sheltered workshops, saying they were “state of the art” at the time they were created.
>>>>>Except for Training Thru Placement, which federal labor officials cited for wage hour violations, he said, the six other sheltered workshops have been operating in accordance with the state labor rules. Justice officials said in their report that many of the adults with disabilities participating in these sheltered workshops have the ability and desire to work in the community for jobs that pay at least minimum wage.
>>>>>“The Department of Justice’s definition [of segregation],” Stenning said, “is different from the Department of Labor’s definition.”
>>>>>He said that many of the recommendations made by Justice officials are “totally complementary” with efforts the department has had in the works for the last five years, such as improving how the department assess the needs and abilities of disabled adults and improving communication with their families.
>>>>>Stenning, who joined the BHDDH in 2000, was appointed director in 2008 by former Gov. Donald L. Carcieri and reappointed by Governor Chafee in 2011.
>>>>>Mr. Anil Lewis, M.P.A.
>>>>>Deputy Executive Director 
>>>>>(410) 659-9314 ext. 2374 
>>>>>Twitter: @AnilLife 
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Nfb-legislative-directors mailing list
>>>>>Nfb-legislative-directors at nfbnet.org
>>>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org
>>>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Nfb-legislative-directors:
>>>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org/president%40alumni.ecu.edu
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Ct-nfb mailing list
>>>>Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org
>>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
>>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Ct-nfb:
>>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/lfs40%40optonline.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Ct-nfb mailing list
>>>Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org
>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Ct-nfb:
>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/griswoldjp%40gmail.com
>> 
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ct-nfb mailing list
>>Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org
>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Ct-nfb:
>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/rmcgaffin%40snet.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ct-nfb mailing list
>>Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org
>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Ct-nfb:
>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/griswoldjp%40gmail.com
> 
> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ct-nfb mailing list
>Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Ct-nfb:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/griswoldjp%40gmail.com
 
_______________________________________________
Ct-nfb mailing list
Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Ct-nfb:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/rmcgaffin%40snet.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/attachments/20140317/8bc7813b/attachment.html>


More information about the CT-NFB mailing list