[nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.

[Greg Aikens]

Sean's post got me thinking about how many employees are actually impacted by this policy and how much it would cost for them to actually make these changes.  According to the article Anil Lewis posted, 7300 employees are hired on their certificate to pay disabled workers less than minimum wage, but the average wage paid them is $7.47, which is actually higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25.  I can't say what the average minimum wage for these workers would be because each state is different, but I wouldn't imagine it could be higher than $8.50.  So they would have to on average pay workers with disabilities $1 more per hour, $40 more per week, $2080 per year.  Multiply that by the 7300 employees on the certificate and you get $15,184,000.  

I was surprised that the number of workers impacted by this policy is so high.  

Anyway, I thought these numbers were interesting and thought I would post in case others are interested too.

-Greg
On Jun 10, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Gmail 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/gpaikens%40gmail.com