[nabs-l] The Subminimum Wage Issue

Thu Apr 3 04:59:36 UTC 2014

Michael and Andy, and all,
Your logic makes sense at first glance, and it is how I used to think about this issue. It seems as though the NFB is fighting to take away “jobs” from people with severe disabilities who might not otherwise be able to have them. Several ideas promoted by the NFB and others involved in this cause have changed my mind though. 

First, people who are blind only and have college degrees have gotten stuck in this system and are paid sub minimum wages. The NFB has highlighted their stories. I would encourage you to find the highlights from last convention. A couple from Montana had both been employed for sub minimum wages. 

Second, if several organizations who work with people with multiple and severe disabilities have been able to change their training and business formats to better make use of the skills of their workers and so afford to pay these workers minimum wage or higher, why should other organizations be allowed to continue the outdated practice of having low expectations for people with disabilities and paying them less than the minimum wage? It has been demonstrated that it can be done several times, including the story from Walgreens referenced earlier. Even Good Will, who NFB has blasted time and again for their defense of the lower wage certificates, has many of its centers paying workers with disabilities more than minimum wage. Organizations who defend the reduced wage certificate are essentially making a decision to not adjust their practices to better serve the people they are claiming to help. This is a problem, particularly because these centers receive government subsidies and charitable donations to  to provide training to the people they serve.

Third, this is not an NFB only issue. The NFB has joined hands with groups across the spectrum of disabilities, including advocacy groups for people with multiple and severe disabilities. The fact that these groups are aggressively supporting this campaign tells me there is more to the issue than just a group of well-educated and well-equipped blind people who want to eliminate a system for employment because it does not line up with their philosophical values. 

Fourth, I think eliminating sub minimum wages will contribute to changing the employment atmosphere for people with disabilities. You and I can sit and make distinctions between people who are only blind or people who have multiple disabilities. I suspect this distinction is often lost on employers with little or no experience with disability. I’m not even sure it is a distinction we should really be emphasizing, as though being only blind automatically makes one more capable of earning a wage than being blind and having an additional disability. In my experience, this may or may not be true. It may be true that those who are only blind may require less accommodations in the typical workplace than those who have additional disabilities, but this may have as much to do with the workplace than the person. In situations where the workplace can be controlled, such as supported employment workshops, the workplace should be adjusted to allow the workers to be more productive. It sounds as though Walgreens has been experimenting with this concept in a for profit business. 

I know these are not complete arguments but they are the beginnings of ideas that helped me change the way I think on this issue.

Best,
Greg

On Apr 2, 2014, at 11:50 PM, Michael Forzano <michaeldforzano at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Arielle,
> 
> I agree with everything Andy said. I also read the article you
> mentioned. What Wallgreen's is doing is great. However, it seems that
> the people they hire are either capable of doing the job productively
> or being trained to do so. It mentions people with behavioral issues
> that would normally not be permitted in the workplace and how they are
> making exceptions for that, which again, is really a great thing. I
> don't think it proves that it makes business sense to employ people
> who actually are unable to do the job even close to as well as the
> employees paid minimum wage, though.
> 
> Mike
> 
> On 4/2/14, Andy <musicproandy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I thought I'd chime in here.
>> Arielle, you say:
>> "Some employees are being paid subminimum wages who are blind with no
>> other disabilities."
>> If this is true, I'm baffled as to why NFB is not using this approach
>> for lobbying.  Every article I've ever seen has discussed multiple
>> disabilities.  I think the NFB would have a stronger argument if they
>> could find people with blindness as the only disability, and could
>> procure evidence that they were, essentially, being exploited.  I read
>> an article, for instance, about a woman with cerebral palsy and
>> blindness.  The highest paycheck she earned was somewhere around $18.
>> I've read many other such articles that detail similar cases.
>> 
>> You also say that productivity is subjective.  I certainly agree.
>> However, according to various articles, companies have been performing
>> tests to try and find an acceptable salary based on the capabilities
>> of the employees at their specific jobs.  I would argue that employers
>> are doing the best they can with the employees they have working for
>> them.  In one article I read, for instance, a woman's job was to hang
>> clothes.  Her salary was adjusted based on how well she did the job -
>> essentially, her productivity.
>> 
>> Finally, you mention companies having prejudiced attitudes towards the
>> disabled.  I disagree.  If these certificates were declared unlawful,
>> then, from a business perspective, the only option is to lay off the
>> employees.  If an employee makes, say, an average of only a few
>> pennies per hour, paying that employee the federal (or state) minimum
>> wage is an exponential increase in their salary.  This is obviously
>> fantastic news for the employees; however, the business can't possibly
>> sustain that model.  Thus, the only option is to lay off the
>> employees.  I'm failing to understand how this helps them in any
>> significant way; indeed, I would argue that, without a job, they would
>> surely be hurting.
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/2/14, Arielle Silverman <arielle71 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>> 
>>> I might write more about this when I have more time, but the short
>>> answer is: (1) some employees are being paid subminimum wages who are
>>> blind with no other disabilities, and (2) how productive an employee
>>> can be is highly subjective. Many employees with developmental
>>> disabilities are thought to be less productive than they actually can
>>> be, and a lot of what affects productivity depends on the type of job,
>>> the employer's expectations, and the training and support that the
>>> disabled employee gets. It is not at all obvious that disabled
>>> employees cannot be productive enough to justify paying them minimum
>>> wage. Companies may lay off employees if forced to pay them minimum
>>> wage, but only if they have prejudiced attitudes against the disabled
>>> and falsely believe their disabled employees won't be productive
>>> enough.
>>> 
>>> I would encourage you to read the excellent article Anil Lewis sent
>>> out about how Walgreen's employs a large number of employees with
>>> developmental disabilities on their production lines, at minimum wage
>>> or higher. Their experience has been very positive and they contend
>>> that including the disabled employees as equal-status participants on
>>> their staff has helped the morale and efficiency of their entire team.
>>> 
>>> Arielle
>>> 
>>> On 4/2/14, Michael Forzano <michaeldforzano at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> 
>>>> I've been hearing a lot about the subminimum wage issue that the NFB
>>>> is involved in, and the NFB's position honestly doesn't make sense to
>>>> me.
>>>> 
>>>> My understanding is that the people being paid subminimum wages have
>>>> disabilities in addition to blindness that prevent them from doing the
>>>> job as productively as someone being paid minimum wage, such as
>>>> cerebral palsy. If subminimum wages are eliminated, it seems pretty
>>>> clear to me that the employers would lay off the people in question.
>>>> After all, if you suddenly have to pay an employee hundreds of times
>>>> more than you were paying them for the same amount of
>>>> work/productivity, I don't think you'd have much choice.
>>>> 
>>>> People being paid suvminimum wage are likely in that situation because
>>>> they have no other choice, that is, their disabilities prevent them
>>>> from working even a minimum wage job. If the NFB succeeds, these
>>>> people will likely have no job at all and be forced to spend their
>>>> lives sitting at home on SSI. How is that helping them? at least right
>>>> now, they have a job, something to keep them busy.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm curious to see how the NFB is arguing against this because it
>>>> seems pretty clear to me from a business perspective. As much as the
>>>> employers may want to continue to employ these people it just won't
>>>> make sense.
>>>> 
>>>> Mike
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/musicproandy%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/michaeldforzano%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/gpaikens%40gmail.com