[nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.

[David Andrews]

Please get your information straight.  The ADA does not currently 
cover web sites.  It is likely too in the future but currently doesn't.

Apple stuff is primarily consumer-oriented, and while they should be 
applauded for their efforts in accessibility, they do not even come 
close in giving us the tools we sometimes need to make 
employment-oriented web sites and software accessible.

Dave

At 02:19 PM 6/12/2012, you wrote:
>I'm hoping, some what fancifully, that five years from now all employers
>will be using Apple products and  many jobs will become accessible.  If
>we sue employers for not having accessible soft ware, it might push them
>towards the accessibility conversion.  I have two clients right now who
>may get fired because JAWS isn't working well with the employer's
>technology.  This is a form of discrimination and it violates the ADA in
>the same way that inaccessible web cites violate the ADA. I have a
>client who was denied a job interview even though he's worked in the
>field because he wasn't working with the Lighthouse.  All of these
>people should have jobs and probably would if the ADA were enforced.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>Behalf Of Sophie Trist
>Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:40 PM
>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>
>You make some very good points. I did not know that most employers ask
>for Lighthouse certification. This is bad for people like me who are not
>affiliated with a Lighthouse because they remind oo much of the schools
>of the blind. As to the inaccessible computer programs, maybe we should
>institute a program where we payed them to install acessible programs?
>I'm not entirely sure, that's just an idea.
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>From: "Wasif, Zunaira" <Zunaira.Wasif at dbs.fldoe.org
>To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
><nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>Date sent: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:00:57 -0400
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>
>Sometimes extreme measures are required to overcome attitudinal hurdles
>such as this one.  I haven't made up my mind about the quota but I know
>that it helped African Americans enter the work place.   Maybe
>the only
>way to quickly and effectively remedy this employment issue is through
>reverse discrimination.  The legislation is there in the form of the ADA
>and rehab acts, but it isn't implemented.  I work with clients every day
>who can't get a job because the employer's computer system is running a
>program that is incompatible with JAWS or Zoom text.  The fact that
>employers are still purchasing this type of software is discriminatory!
>It is the equivalent of not providing an elevator in a multiple level
>building. Maybe the best antidote for this type of discrimination is
>reverse discrimination.  The NFB is advocating for "more programs," but
>the potential applicant shouldn't have to go through a lighthouse or
>through any program.  They should be able to apply off of the street
>like anyone else.  A blind applicant shouldn't require a certification
>from a Lighthouse saying that they can type before an employer will even
>interview them.  I'm working in this field and I see that happen every
>day.  If a visually impaired client calls Hilton for a customer service
>job the first question the recruiter asks is, "are you working with the
>Lighthouse?"  The reason that companies do this is because they want
>their corporate tax credit and they want assurance from the Lighthouse
>that the blind person has the skills for the job.  My question is, how
>do they find out if a nonvisually impaired employee has the skills?
>They want an incentive to hire disabled people.  The attitude is "oh,
>yeh?  You want me to hire a blind person?  You better give me a tax
>break."  In other words, they are saying, "Oh yeh?  You better pay me to
>hire that blind person."  This is the current situation.  Our government
>pays people to hire disabled workers and companies like Goodwill thrive
>off of this.  In job development exercises we are taught to market the
>corporate tax credit, not the client.  How is this any better than the
>quota system?  I'm not saying the quota system is perfect, but maybe
>it's the best option we have right now. Maybe its an effective way of
>proving that "we are worth something."    If there is a better
>option I
>would love to hear it so I can advocate for it in my agency and make
>change.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org
>[mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>Behalf Of Sophie Trist
>Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:26 AM
>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>
>The issue of hiring quotas for minority groups has popped up in the
>past, and it has caused nothing but controversy. If there is to be
>ahiring quota for disabled people, non-disabled people who were rejected
>or whose jobs were taken away and given to the disabled could argue
>reverse--discrimination. Besides, we want them to hire us because we're
>worth something, not just because they have to fill a certain quota.
>Evem mentally disabled individuals can perform simple factory jobs.
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>From: "Wasif, Zunaira" <Zunaira.Wasif at dbs.fldoe.org
>To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
><nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>Date sent: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:57:06 -0400
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>
>What do people think about a hiring quota for disabled people?
>This
>would render Good Will's argument, that disabled people need to settle
>for subminum wages or no wages, obselete.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org
>[mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>Behalf Of Kirt Manwaring
>Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:03 PM
>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>
>Ashley,
>   You said there may not be a set corporate policy, and I suppose you're
>probably right.  But there should be, and that's why this boycott makes
>sense to me.  If you have some branches paying any employees below the
>minimum wage, you really do need a national policy to set that straight.
>Unfortunate, but true.  I really think it is that simple...this is one
>of those few issues where there isn't much of a grey area, in my humble
>opinion.
>   Take it or leave it,
>Kirt
>
>On 6/11/12, Ashley Bramlett <bookwormahb at earthlink.net> wrote:
>  Elizabeth,
>  Perhaps, the figure supports my theory that in fact most employees are
>
>  paid
>
>  above minimum wage. As Arielle said, most locations vary in what they
>pay. I
>
>  don't think there is a set corporate policy.
>
>  Ashley
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Elizabeth
>  Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 2:24 PM
>  To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>  Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>
>  Hi Greg,
>
>  Please forgive me as I did not read through the entire article you make
>reference to in your post. However, now that I have read it, I am
>
>  still wondering how they can come up with an average of $7.47 when
>someone is only making $1.44. I am not a math genius by any means, but
>
>  it would seem to me that if someone is only making $1.44, and the
>average is $7.47, then that would mean someone is making a considerable
>amount more than what most people are making to achieve  such an
>average. Does this make any sense? I am not necessarily questioning the
>information you cited from the article, but rather  questioning the
>information that was cited in the article itself.
>  There is just something about it that does not make sense to me.
>I am
>  sorry that I cannot find a better way to explain it.
>
>  Warm regards,
>  Elizabeth
>
>  --------------------------------------------------
>  From: "Greg Aikens" <gpaikens at gmail.com
>  Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:26 PM
>  To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
>  <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>  Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>
>  Hi Elizabeth,
>  I should have included my sources.  The first was the article recently
>posted to the list by Anil Lewis:
>
>http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/208068/189/Goodwill-Pays-Disabl
>ed-E
>  mployees-Less-than-Minimum-Wage This article gives the number of
>employees impacted and their average wage.  The reason that an average
>wage of $7.47 could still be below minimum wage is because  many states
>have minimum wage laws that are higher
>
>  than the federal minimum wage.  For  a quick list of minimum wage by
>state, go to:
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages
>
>  Please check my facts in case I misread.
>
>  -Greg
>
>  On Jun 11, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Elizabeth wrote:
>
>  Hi Gregg,
>
>  I have to say that your numbers to not make much sense to me. If these
>employees are making $7.47 as mentioned in your post, , then  how
>exactly
>
>  does that constitute as a subminimum wage? Is it possible the
>calculated
>
>  average of these employees also includes the outrageously high salaries
>of those who may hold management positions which in effect would cancel
>out the extremely low subminimum wages paid to the factory worker or the
>
>  average employee thus creating an average that appears to be above  the
>national minimum wage? I am not sure where you found your numbers, but
>if
>
>  what you state is true, then I do not see how this would be an issue
>
>  of paying people subminimum wage.
>
>  Warm regards,
>  Elizabeth
>
>
>  --------------------------------------------------
>  From: "Greg Aikens" <gpaikens at gmail.com
>  Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 10:46 AM
>  To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
>  <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>  Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>
>  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