[nabs-l] the accessibility of newer versions of Windows and Microsoft Office

David Andrews dandrews at visi.com
Tue Jun 19 20:17:38 UTC 2012


Well, National Braille Press has published command guides over the years 
-- I am not sure what they have right now.

Microsoft has also put out guides of keyboard commands, search on bung 
or Google and I am sure you can find them -- they will be windows 
commands, not JAWS commands.

Dave



On 6/18/2012 10:10 PM, Becky Sabo wrote:
> Hello
> My name is Becky I also have a updated version of Microsoft 2010.  I was
> wondering is there a cheat sheet of all of the different short keys to use
> for word, xcell and outlook or any other products?
> I am using JAWS 11 right now trying to get a updated version of JAWS.
> Thanks again.
> Becky Sabo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
> Of Chris Nusbaum
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:50 PM
> To: 'National Association of Blind Students mailing list'
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] the accessibility of newer versions ofWindows and
> Microsoft Office
>
> Hi Ashley,
>
> Good. I did, then. Thanks!
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
> Of Ashley Bramlett
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 11:41 AM
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] the accessibility of newer versions ofWindows and
> Microsoft Office
>
> Chris,
> If you cannot tab through the ribbon bar, you turned on virtual ribbons.
> They are in a menu then.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Nusbaum
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 9:57 AM
> To: 'National Association of Blind Students mailing list'
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] the accessibility of newer versions ofWindows and
> Microsoft Office
>
> Hi Humberto,
>
> Well, I'm not sure, but I don't think so. When I press alt in a program that
> has the ribbons, JAWS will say "virtual ribbons." I don't know if this means
> anything as to whether virtual ribbons on JAWS are turned on or not. Sorry
> for my ignorance!<Smile!>
>
>
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
> Of Humberto Avila
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:16 PM
> To: 'National Association of Blind Students mailing list'
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] the accessibility of newer versions of Windows and
> Microsoft Office
>
> Chris, do you have the virtual ribbon menus turned on on JAWS? This makes
> things so easier! PS in case you don't have them turned on.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
> Of Chris Nusbaum
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:44 PM
> To: 'National Association of Blind Students mailing list'
> Subject: [nabs-l] the accessibility of newer versions of Windows and
> Microsoft Office
>
> Hi Kirt, Ashley, and everyone,
>
> With this message, I'm changing the subject so it reflects the new topic of
> this thread more clearly.
>
> Don't forget about Microsoft Outlook! I've been using Outlook for about two
> months now, and I love it! Gmail's Web interface is pretty accessible, but
> it only works in basic HTML view, which doesn't have all the features of
> Gmail's standard view, which isn't accessible in the least. Outlook, on the
> other hand, is totally accessible, easy to learn and to use (much easier
> than Gmail's Web interface, I believe,) and all of its features are
> accessible. By the way, I'm using Outlook 2010, which is part of Microsoft
> Office 2010, on a laptop running Windows 7 Home Premium and JAWS 12.
>
> I actually think the virtual ribbons are pretty easy to use, once you get
> the hang of it. They're very much like the submenus in older Microsoft
> Office menu bars, except the ribbons are set up in the form of tabs which
> appear across the top of the screen for a sighted person with lower ribbons
> inside those tabs. This may seem a little confusing, as I'm describing
> partly what it would look like to a sighted person, based on what sighted
> people have told me. If you are using JAWS, the ribbons, like older menu
> bars, are accessed by pressing the alt key from within a program that has
> them, such as Microsoft Word or Outlook 2010. You will first see tabs, which
> are the "top" part of the ribbons. You navigate through these tabs by
> pressing the left and right arrow keys. Once you find the tab you want,
> press down arrow, which takes you into that tab's lower ribbon, which is
> like its submenu. Each option in this submenu is interpreted by JAWS as a
> button. So, for example, if you are wanting to reply to all in Outlook, you
> would go to the message tab, then down arrow on it, then go to the respond
> submenu, right arrow, and down arrow until JAWS says "reply all button" and
> hit enter. So, the ribbons are similar to menu bars once you get used to
> them.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
> Of Kirt Manwaring
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:57 PM
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Getting employed/accessing the workplace
>
> Ashley,
>    You might want to enable virtual ribbons in the jaws quick settings.
> (or with insert + v in microsoft office applications, whichever you
> prefer)  I actually find microsoft office 2010 extremely accessible because
> of things like the quick access tool bar and because I don't have to tab
> through everything in a ribbon to access it...keystrokes still work, you can
> turn on virtual ribbons to make it look almost like it used to before and,
> honestly, I like the ribbons better than the menus sometimes just because
> it's really easy, in my opinion, to find what I need.  And, as I said, the
> quick access tool bar is a huge plus for me.
>    Best,
> Kirt
>
> On 6/13/12, Ashley Bramlett<bookwormahb at earthlink.net>  wrote:
>> Bill,
>> There are many barriers in accessibility in windows with software.
>> However,
>>
>> that said, I believe windows with a paid screen reader like jaws or
>> window eyes gives  us more accessibility in the Operating system. We
>> have more access too because you can customize not only the
>> applications but you can customize your screen reader settings. I do
>> not know how much customization
>>
>> you can do with  voice over. As you said, its drawbacks are it only
>> works with products produced by Apple.
>> The only way we solve the accessibility challenge is to raise
>> awareness so software makers build accessibility in the software from
>> the beginning. Too
>>
>> often its an after thought and then if you are lucky, your employer
>> may have
>>
>> scripts produced for you to access their software.
>> Accessibility is getting worse. The new ribbons from Office suite as
>> of 2007
>>
>> make finding things more a challenge because while a sighted person
>> can skim
>>
>> the row and click on stuff, we have to tab and hear all options. In a
>> traditional menu, we could scroll it pretty fast with first letter
>> navigation or a hot key if Office assigned one. For instance, In the
>> old Word, I would press alt t for tools, then w for word count.
>> If you think its bad now, the windows 8 interface is worse. I know as
>> I spoke to some computer trainers and testers.  The windows 8 system
>> looks more like a touch screen. We will not have a shut down option on
>> the start menu as we do now.
>>
>> Popular software currently isn't accessible. These include quickbooks,
>> quicken, as well as Microsoft's Access, publisher, and share point.
>> So there are certainly accessibility challenges out there but that
>> said, I think the paid screen readers give us a lot more flexibility
>> to access  a wide variety of applications and we can customize it as well.
>>
>> Ashley
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bill
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:22 AM
>> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>> Subject: [nabs-l] Getting employed/accessing the workplace
>>
>> I shutter to think that Apple becomes the standard.  The only thing
>> they have going for them is a poor screen reader built right into the
>> system.  Don't forget that VO only works fully with applications
>> produced by Apple.  MS office experience is not great, support for
>> firefox I have heard is not good to not existent.  I would imagine the
>> third party business applications, though sometimes not accessible on
>> windows probably would be less so with VO.  Until Apple and the
>> software vendors for Mac OS, I think that windows gives us better
>> access to a fully capable screen reader with access to a far wider
>> viriety of everyday and specialty programs.
>> Bill
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Wasif, Zunaira
>> <Zunaira.Wasif at dbs.fldoe.org>  wrote:
>>> It doesn't directly mention web cites, but it has been applied to web
>>> cites a long with telecommunications and other such services.   There is
>>> a miscellaneous portion as well, I believe its section 5, that may
>>> apply. What do you suggest to improve job accessibility?    The Apple
>>> conversion was just a thought.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>> Behalf Of David Andrews
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:00 AM
>>> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/zunaira.wasif%40dbs.
>>> fldoe.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/cassonw%40gmail.c
>>> om
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bill Casson
>> University of New Mexico
>> M.S. Computer Science
>> Lewis&  Clark Alumnus '11
>> B.A. Physics and Math/Comp Sci.
>> (505) 695-1374
>> cassonw at gmail.com
>>
>> Follow me on Twitter @dandrews920




More information about the nabs-l mailing list