[nabs-l] NFB Philosophy

Sun Jul 22 14:37:19 UTC 2012

Hi,

We all need to realize that while it may be true now that the subminimum wage issue doesn't impact the blind directly all that much, blind people have 
been very 
impacted by the minimum wage waivers over the years.  In addition, the legislative proposals made last year that were being made as an effort to try to 
correct some abuses, would have made these exemptions more of a part of rehabilitation than they have been for some time.  Finally, when blind people 
were affected, the ACB didn't support changes then, either.  They sided with the agencies then saying many of the same things that those who oppose 
this change now are saying, that blind people would be put out into the street and that our sheltered shops just couldn't afford it.  It was our pressure 
alone, as far as I can see, that is responsible for the fact that this issue doesn't impact us directly now.  During the last part of the last century, we stood up 
to unfair testing that kept blind people making less money than they should have been making, and comparing the work of blind people to national 
averages but having those people use older machinery that was commonly used in the mainstream.  From what I remember, the ACB thought we were too 
hard on sheltered shops at that time.  The ACB's  vote didn't surprise me, therefore, 
although I am glad to hear that some of their members wish the vote had gone the other way.  People are foolish, though, if they believe this issue could 
not affect us again if these exemptions continue to be permitted.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 20:49:08 -0400, Jedi wrote:

>According to an audio record of the day the resolution failed, it was 
>because, according to Michael Byington, their subject matter expert for 
>this resolution, the sub-minimum wage issue does not impact the blind; 
>those who are paid sub-minimum wages have multiple disabilities 
>including blindness where blindness is not the primary disability. 
>Also, subminimal wages are paid to those with severe disabilities. And 
>finally, Byington says that one hundred percent of NIB establishments 
>pay at least minimum wage to their blind production workers. The 
>original writer of the resolution was also not present to defend it 
>when it was being discussed by the committee. That is why the 
>resolution failed.

>Respectfully,
>Jedi

>Original message:
>> Josh,
>> Like I said, before you go organization bashing and flap your lips, you
>> should probably ask someone in ACB who knows about it. There's been
>> things that the NFB has voted against too, I'm sure.

>> On 7/19/2012 10:30 PM, Joshua Lester wrote:
>>> Arielle: that was a great post.
>>> I just have one question about this.
>>> If our philosophies aren't at odds, then why did the ACB vote, "Do Not
>>> Pass," on the "Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act,"
>>> resolution at their convention?
>>> Evidently, they're okay with disabled workers being paid below the
>>> federally mandated minimum wage.
>>> Hmmm!
>>> Thanks, Joshua

>>> On 7/19/12, Arielle Silverman <arielle71 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I think Sean's description of "NFB philosophy" as he sees it was
>>>> excellent. I would also add two things:
>>>> 1. I don't think the NFB has a patent on this philosophy. In fact, I
>>>> would argue that most committed ACB members and many other successful
>>>> blind people who choose not to affiliate with organizations also
>>>> espouse the positive philosophy of blindness that Sean described. The
>>>> NFB has chosen to make this philosophy a central focus, but that does
>>>> not mean that non-NFB members cannot live by it themselves or
>>>> encourage others to accept it. It is important to remember that the
>>>> ACB split off from the NFB, and although I am not an expert on what
>>>> happened, everything I've read about the split suggests that it
>>>> occurred because of disagreements about how leadership in the
>>>> organization should be structured, not about fundamental philosophy of
>>>> blindness. In more recent years the NFB and ACB have taken differing
>>>> approaches to some policy issues, but that does not necessarily mean
>>>> that their core philosophies of blindness are at odds. I don't think
>>>> the two organizations should merge into one super-organization of
>>>> blind Americans because I like the fact that individuals have choices
>>>> about which organization to join and that there's not one big group
>>>> monopolizing the organizational stage. But I also think that the NFB
>>>> and ACB have more in common in terms of their goals for changing what
>>>> it means to be blind than we might think on first glance.

>>>> 2. To address Marc's point about universal design: In the nine years I
>>>> have been a part of the NFB, I have observed that the NFB increasingly
>>>> takes a pragmatic dualistic approach to promoting both individual
>>>> coping with accessibility barriers and advocacy to bring them down. I
>>>> would urge you to read the NFB 2012 resolutions once they become
>>>> available online, and you will find that most of these resolutions
>>>> address access barriers in one form or another and advocate for their
>>>> removal. I believe the NFB is moving further in the direction of
>>>> pushing for accessibility and I have seen change on this front even
>>>> since the time when I first joined nine years ago. However, though we
>>>> are committed to doing what we can to promote universal access for
>>>> blind people, we also are aware that, realistically, it will take time
>>>> for all those in power to make it happen. In the meantime, we are also
>>>> working to help blind individuals figure out how to adapt to those
>>>> barriers we are not yet able to control. For example, we will fight
>>>> for full access to educational technology, but instead of waiting to
>>>> enroll in college until this access happens, we will also work to
>>>> harness the support of human readers and other adaptations so that we
>>>> can still be successful in spite of these barriers. In other words,
>>>> instead of pitting individual adaptation and universal design against
>>>> each other as mutually exclusive options, why not take a dual approach
>>>> toward both of these goals?
>>>> Arielle

>>>> On 7/19/12, Justin Salisbury <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu> wrote:
>>>>> I have a few notes for a few different people on this thread.

>>>>> Tyler:
>>>>> I understand the hesitancy about getting involved when you don't fully
>>>>> agree
>>>>> with everything that everyone else believes.  I once had that hesitation
>>>>> about getting involved with organized religion.  I started going to a
>>>>> campus
>>>>> ministry at my college because a friend sold me on the free dinner, and I
>>>>> quickly learned that no church is homogenous in beliefs.  In some
>>>>> churches,
>>>>> the leadership will try like mad to perpetuate the idea that everyone in
>>>>> the
>>>>> church believes exactly what they do and that anyone who disagrees
>>>>> slightly
>>>>> is against them.  In my church, we aren't like that, and we understand
>>>>> that
>>>>> people have differing views.  We unite under the idea that it's okay to
>>>>> disagree on individual issues and discuss them, but we have generally the
>>>>> same core beliefs.
>>>>> That's how we are in the Federation.  If you don't agree with something
>>>>> we're doing, I'll make an effort to help you come to terms with it
>>>>> because
>>>>> that's my individual personality.  I often find that, when someone
>>>>> disagrees
>>>>> with something we're doing, it is because of a lack of understanding of
>>>>> what
>>>>> we're doing or the underlying issue.  At the end of the day, I won't shun
>>>>> you.

>>>>> Marc Workman:
>>>>>   Of course we, in the Federation, fight to break down the barriers.  Why
>>>>> do
>>>>> you think we do legislative lobbying?  Washington Seminar is an
>>>>> absolutely
>>>>> amazing experience, and you should try it!  We honor adaptability because
>>>>> there's no sense in being helpless in the meantime while we work on those
>>>>> barriers.
>>>>> On the mention of Sean's place in social stratification:  I am a colored
>>>>> person, I'm the first person in my family to go to college, and I don't
>>>>> bother wallowing in the lack of advantage that I face because of it.
>>>>> Quite
>>>>> frankly, I'm not even convinced that I am disadvantaged by being a
>>>>> colored
>>>>> person.  With the first generation college student part, I have to seek
>>>>> mentors in the academic process from outside my family, and I know many,
>>>>> many educated Federationists who have eagerly fulfilled that role for me.
>>>>> Lastly, I've made comments like "i've had this conversation with you
>>>>> before"
>>>>> in a public manner to other people-trust me, I have-but I've realized in
>>>>> retrospect that it only creates distance between everyone who hears me
>>>>> and
>>>>> myself.  A lot of people take that as an implied personal attack.  I'm
>>>>> not
>>>>> saying Sean took it that way, but I'm sure plenty of people did read it
>>>>> that
>>>>> way.

>>>>> Brandon Keith Biggs, I loved reading this part of your email:
>>>>> In my book, there is no larger crime than depriving someone of their
>>>>> dreams
>>>>> and the second biggest crime is taking away the chance for people to
>>>>> reach
>>>>> for those dreams. For while there are dreams, there is hope. With hope
>>>>> life
>>>>> always has enough energy to turn the corner and keep going.  The NFB to
>>>>> me
>>>>> is that hope and the rock and refuge that is always there for me if I
>>>>> need
>>>>> it.

>>>>> Yours in Federationism,

>>>>> Justin Salisbury

>>>>> Justin M. Salisbury
>>>>> Class of 2012
>>>>> B.A. in Mathematics
>>>>> East Carolina University
>>>>> president at alumni.ecu.edu

>>>>> G€œNever doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
>>>>> change
>>>>> the world; indeed, itG€™s the only thing that ever has.G€    G€”MARGARET MEAD

>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nabs-l mailing list
>>>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>> nabs-l:
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com

>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nabs-l mailing list
>>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> nabs-l:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/jlester8462%40students.pccua.edu

>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nabs-l mailing list
>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/tyler%40tysdomain.com

>> --
>> Take care,
>> Ty
>> http://tds-solutions.net
>> The aspen project: a barebones light-weight mud engine:
>> http://code.google.com/p/aspenmud
>> He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he 
>> that dares not reason is a slave.

>> _______________________________________________
>> nabs-l mailing list
>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net
>_______________________________________________
>nabs-l mailing list
>nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com