[nabs-l] A Ridiculous Question

[Mikayla Gephart]

I agree. It has really helped me understand what is going on. 

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 2, 2014, at 8:34 PM, Chris Nusbaum <dotkid.nusbaum at gmail.com> wrote:

> Anil,
> 
> Great appeal to the public mind regarding subminimum wages. Well done. I
> will be sure to share this with my sighted friends and colleagues.
> 
> Chris Nusbaum
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Lewis, Anil
> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 11:52 AM
> To: Affiliate Presidents (state-affiliate-leadership-list at nfbnet.org);
> nfb-legislative-directors at nfbnet.org
> Cc: NABS List (nabs-l at nfbnet.org); NFB Chapter Presidents discussion list
> (chapter-presidents at nfbnet.org)
> Subject: [nabs-l] A Ridiculous Question
> 
> A Ridiculous Question
> Submitted by alewis on Thu, 01/02/2014 - 11:32 Blog Date:
> Thursday, January 2, 2014
> By Anil Lewis
> https://nfb.org/blog/vonb-blog/ridiculous-question
> 
> 
> So you go to work tomorrow, and it is pay day. You receive a paycheck for
> $15.00 for two weeks of work. You speak to your supervisor, and you are
> informed that the company has switched to a new payroll model based on a new
> law, Section D (9) (u), that calculates wages based on a new commensurate
> wage formula. This new formula is only used to calculate the wages paid to
> you and others like you. Although you are as productive as the other
> employees, no one else but you and others like you are subjected to this new
> wage formula, especially not management or the company executives. In fact,
> the executives are now receiving six-figure salaries as a result of the cost
> savings created by the new wage structure for workers like you. You
> complain, to no avail. Managers attempt to convince you that this new
> structure still offers you the ability to receive the tangible and
> intangible benefits of work. After all, it is not about the money, it is
> about fulfillment.
> This is not acceptable to you, so you seek vocational training that allows
> you to be a more productive employee. You go to a section D(9)(u) vocational
> training program that claims to be the best training program for people like
> you. This community training program is operated in a sheltered, segregated
> environment comprised of other people like you. The program assists you in
> developing the work and interpersonal skills necessary to be a competitive
> employee. They focus on teaching you real-world job skills like how to fold
> letters, stuff envelopes, sort hangers, hang clothes, and screw caps on
> pens. Although none of these tasks match your unique skills, talents,
> abilities or interests, it is what the training program has to offer. If
> there are no letters to be folded, envelopes to be stuffed, hangers to be
> sorted, or pens to be capped, the program offers you the opportunity to play
> video games, play cards, read books, or sleep.
> The section D(9)(u) program costs more than other conventional training
> programs, but it is subsidized with public funds and operates as a
> charitable 501(c)(3) organization. The program has a competitive employment
> placement rate of less than 5 percent and therefore, most of the workers
> spend their entire vocational existence in this "training" program. Even
> though the program has no measureable positive impact on improving the
> employment of people like you, the marketing team is successful in their
> efforts of convincing public policy makers and philanthropic funding sources
> to feel that this is the best employment strategy for people like you.
> It is obvious that this new policy is denying you the opportunity to reach
> your full vocational potential, while endorsing incompetent training
> programs and substandard employers. You want this policy repealed and you
> want the same workplace and wage protections as every other employee.
> Okay, there is no Section D(9)(u) that exempts you from receiving equal wage
> protections, but there is a Section 14(c ) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
> (FLSA) that exempts people like me from being guaranteed the federal minimum
> wage. So my question is, "Why is this type of discriminatory policy not so
> ridiculous when it applies to people like me?"
> For more information, visit http://www.nfb.org/fair-wages.
> 
> 
> Mr. Anil Lewis, M.P.A.
> Director of Advocacy and Policy
> 
> "Eliminating Subminimum Wages for People with Disabilities"
> http://www.nfb.org/fairwages
> NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
> 200 East Wells Street at Jernigan Place
> Baltimore, Maryland   21230
> (410) 659-9314 ext. 2374 (Voice)
> (410) 685-5653 (FAX)
> Email: alewis at nfb.org
> Web: www.nfb.org
> twitter: @anillife
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/dotkid.nusbaum%40gmail.c
> om
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/mikgephart%40icloud.com