[nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.

[Cynthia Bennett]

I know this does not add to or respond to the issue at hand, but I
wanted to publicly say that I think Sean wrote a really amazing
response. I had no idea that you had that experience, and it makes me
wonder how many people with disabilities that I personally know have
been treated unfairly in this way. Thank you for sharing.

Cindy

On 6/10/12, Gmail <smwhalenpsp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> One of the primary purposes of the boycott is to garner media attention for
> the minimum wage issue. The boycott effort and PR/media efforts are
> complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
>
> We "pick on" Good Will because they are one of, if not the, largest and
> most
> visible nonprofits who take advantage of the current law to pay workers
> with
> disabilities subminimum wages. When you're the biggest fish in the pond
> you're going to get noticed and your actions will be scrutinized by people
> in and out of your field. That's just the way it goes.
>
> Most of these workshops do the vast majority of their business with the
> federal government, providing goods and services through non-competitive
> set-aside contracts. These goods and services are frequently provided at
> costs that exceed their fair market value. Obviously Good Will has their
> hands in other activities as well, but the point stands. If taxpayers are
> being asked to subsidize nonprofits to create employment opportunities for
> blind or otherwise disabled individuals, and we all, in effect, subsidize
> the very good, and sometimes exorbitant, salaries of the management of
> these
> non-profits, why is it a bad idea to subsidize the wages of disabled
> individuals, even those who may not be able to produce output justifying
> the
> minimum wage in the market?
>
> I think that the number of disabled folks in these workshops who are
> incapable of truly earning the minimum wage is much lower than most people
> assume. And, again, if there is somebody whose level of output truly only
> justifies $1.50 per hour, I am happy to subsidize the wage to give them the
> dignity of equal treatment under the law.
>
> I myself worked for a time in a shop and was paid less than $4 per hour.
> I'm
> worth more than that. I saw others in the very same boat. The law is
> discriminatory, and the system is corrupt and fails to achieve its stated
> goals. Not only should the minimum wage apply, but organizations wishing to
> receive preferential treatment in government contracting should have to
> fill
> a stated percentage of their managerial positions with folks with
> disabilities and offer true training and upward mobility. As it stands now,
> there is no real opportunity in the vast majority of these workshops.
>
> While it is true that, generally speaking, the NFB only speaks for the
> blind, on this issue we have over 40 different disabilities rights
> organizations standing shoulder to shoulder with us saying that it is
> reprehensible that we, today in the United States of America, have a law on
> the books that codifies the inferiority and lesser ability of those with
> disabilities. We, and they, are completely correct. The boycott of Good
> Will
> is but one piece of the larger effort. It is incumbent upon each of us to
> keep pressure on our Members of Congress to change the law. Will it cost
> Good Will and other non-profits more money to pay all their workers minimum
> wage? Yes, it will. Is the tiny increase in cost realistically going to
> lead
> to the loss of job opportunities as many of the workshops claim? I can't
> see
> how it would. In fact, it won't. And the argument is disingenuous and,
> frankly, pretty disgusting. Say a shop worker currently makes $1.50 an
> hour.
> Say the law is changed and minimum wage now applies. Say the employee is
> now
> paid $7.50 an hour. That's an extra $6 an hour, an extra $240 a week, and
> $12,480 a year. Say Good Will has 100 employees of whom this is the case
> (in
> reality there are fewer). This would represent an annual cost increase of
> $1,248,000 to Good Will. That's a lot of money to you or me, but a pittance
> to this giant non-profit. The same can be said of smaller shops, just on a
> smaller scale. The argument that all the poor unemployable disabled folks
> will be sent home jobless if the law is changed is bogus and cynical. As I
> said before, the majority of these shops get the majority of their business
> through non-competitive contracts with the government, so the additional
> labor cost would be built right into the price the government pays. And, as
> I also said, I am happy to have my tax dollars go to affirm the dignity,
> value and legal equality of all individuals rather than to support the 70,
> 80, 100k salaries of the management types at these shops who somehow sleep
> at night under the illusion, or maybe delusion, that they are doing
> something positive for people with disabilities. It's wrong, it's
> disgusting, and, yes, it hits a raw nerve with me because I've lived it. If
> there is a minimum wage it should apply to everybody in the employment
> market, full stop.
>
> Sean
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/clb5590%40gmail.com
>


-- 
Cynthia Bennett
B.A. Psychology, UNC Wilmington

clb5590 at gmail.com
828.989.5383