[Nfbk] {Disarmed} Fw: [ASBG] Subminimum Wage Plan Divides Disability Advocates

[Pamela]

FYI
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Irene Hoskins 
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; 
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:17 AM
Subject: [ASBG] Subminimum Wage Plan Divides Disability Advocates


  


- Disability Scoop - http://www.disabilityscoop.com -

Subminimum Wage Plan Divides Disability Advocates

By Michelle Diament | July 30, 2013
Disability advocates are split over a proposal in the U.S. Senate that would establish limits on people with disabilities working for less than minimum wage.

The Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is expected to take up a reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act on Wednesday. Within the proposed legislation is a plan to establish first-ever requirements that must be met before individuals with disabilities could be allowed to work for less than the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour.

Currently, many with disabilities leave high school and are referred directly to sheltered workshop environments. That would change under what’s known as section 511 of the bill. Those with disabilities could only be placed in subminimum-wage jobs if they meet certain age-related requirements and while receiving job training services to prepare them for competitive employment. What’s more, individuals age 24 or younger would be required to pursue vocational rehabilitation services first.

“I believe it is critically important that every young person with a disability have an opportunity to experience competitive, integrated employment as they transition from school to adult life,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, one of the bill’s chief sponsors, in a statement to Disability Scoop.

“Without section 511 in the bill, I am very concerned that another generation of young people with significant disabilities will end up getting tracked directly from school to sheltered settings,” said Harkin who chairs the committee where the bill is slated to be considered.

Advocates with the National Down Syndrome Society and the National Federation of the Blind, however, say the bill does little more than provide a checklist for vocational rehabilitation agencies that could ultimately put more individuals at risk for low-wage employment.

“This provision purports to introduce protections to limit the number of youth with disabilities who are placed in subminimum-wage employment, but will have the unintended effect of trapping people with disabilities in dead-end, segregated, subminimum-wage jobs with the blessing of the rehabilitation system,” said Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind, which is calling for the provision to be dropped from the bill.

The current debate comes two years after a similar effort to update the Workforce Investment Act fell apart. This time around, however, Senate aides say they have strong bipartisan support and indicated there’s a chance that a bill could be on the president’s desk before the end of the year.

Groups supporting the proposal include The Arc, Easter Seals, the National Council on Independent Living, the National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities and the National Disability Rights Network.

“What this does is create a requirement that vocational rehabilitation providers make an effort to achieve an employment outcome rather than just shrug their shoulders and place people in sheltered workshops,” said Patrick Wojahn, a public policy analyst at the National Disability Rights Network. “It’s a step in the right direction.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Comments (Open | Close) 
14 Comments To "Subminimum Wage Plan Divides Disability Advocates"

#1 Comment By Neal Folsom On July 30, 2013 @ 12:40 am 

I truly believe that the minimum wages should increase for people with development disabilities.

#2 Comment By Aldyth On July 30, 2013 @ 9:06 am 

That’ll be just dynamite in Illinois, where funding for Supported Employment has been cut so deep that most agencies have discontinued offering it as a service option. That’ll leave a lot of folks sitting at home in front of a television set, which is happening already because of the state having tens of thousands on waiting lists for service.

#3 Comment By Barb On July 30, 2013 @ 9:46 am 

Well, currently in New York State, there is no more admissions to sheltered workshops allowed as of July 1st. There is also a plan in place that will close the sheltered workshops in existence within the next few years.

#4 Comment By Greg On July 30, 2013 @ 3:47 pm 

We cannot create equality for people with disabilities simply by putting more money into their pockets. One of the realities of a free, capitalist society is that workers are generally paid for their contributions toward a finished product. If we are to retain the dignity and respect that people with disabilities have earned over the past twenty to thirty years, they must continue to compete in the workforce just like everyone else. To lay unearned entitlements upon them demeans them as human beings and will undo much of the work done toward normalization.

#5 Comment By Kathy On July 30, 2013 @ 3:56 pm 

The end result would take the disabled community backward. Currently at least the most severely disabled are out of their homes, with other people, and placed in an opportunity to see and be seen. An enriched experience leads to growth. The other issue is productivity. Do people really think that everyone should be paid the same amount regardless of the value produced? There are usually more paid supervisory staff needed and the output (profit) is usually less. Money does not magically appear.

#6 Comment By Justme On July 30, 2013 @ 4:25 pm 

Greg, your belief, that laying unearned entitlements upon them demeans them as human beings and will undo much of the work done toward normalization, is completely backward. Here is why. EVERYONE else is entitled to minimum wage but our people. Your assumption that people with disabilities can’t produce is false based on the experiences of Walgreen’s project and my own years placing seriously disabled people in community based jobs. Stop putting people with disabilities down. We can and do produce with workplace accommodations and assistive technology. If I need someone to limit me I will call you. Until then each of us deserves the civil rights protections we have under the Rehabilitation Act which are never enforced without a fight. Now, if WIIA is authorized, children won’t be funneled into the school to workshop pipeline that purports to be some sort of training. No it is not training since the work done in sweatshops, I mean workshops, is rarely if ever a job one can duplicate in the community. That explains why my state’s vocational rehabilitation agency will not pay for workshop placements. No training means no actual paid servvice was delivered. Let’sget this straight. I understand people with intense needs may be better served in a day program that is eriching for the participants and provides a safe place for people to enjoy the community. That is different than the sheltered workshop scam that makes big money for Goowill and thier ilk. Here’s how it works. The goverment entity pays for the sheltered workshop – revenue source 1. The individuals in the community donate free items for resale – revenue source 2. The company that gives the product to the sheltered workshop in order to complete the work also pays for that work to be done – revenue source 3. The workshops pay subminimum wage to workers – revenue source 4. The workshops do not have to pay taxes – revenue source 5. We, the taxpayers prop up this whole mess because people with disabilities who want to work in the community can’t when they are stuck in workshops so we the people support them via SSI. Day programs are not work programs and work shoud be paid.

#7 Comment By Annee On July 30, 2013 @ 4:25 pm 

Once again, the government is interfering with good intentions, but with no real understanding of the law of unintended consequences. If the disabled person is capable of training leading to competitive employment, then they would not need this bill. If I am hiring a disabled person, and that person requires a personal supervisor, and/or special equipment, and/or is not likely to be able to produce as a non-disabled person, and then I am told I have to pay them more, well, I am just not interested in hiring that person. Businesses are not charities. They must pay taxes, more now than ever. And, sorry, but they are entitled to profit from their endeavor. 

I used to live in Flint. The AC Plant wanted to hire disabled persons for $5/hour (30 years ago) to sweep floors in the shop. It was thought to be a win/win idea. Good for the bottom line, good for the disabled community. The unions threw a hissy fit. Oh NO. Those were UNION jobs. ($15/hr.) AC backed off of course. (They ultimately went bankrupt. )

#8 Comment By Mike On July 30, 2013 @ 4:27 pm 

Many that support the elimination of Section 14 c and the payment of commensurate wages have little idea the doors that this provision have opened for people with significant intellectual disabilities (ID). Or they do not care. The opportunity to work is important to thousands of Americans that,primarily because of their intellectual disability, can not compete for a job at a competitive wage. For some it is more an opportunity to be productive and have a day that is meaningful and structured-just as work in part provides for all- more so than earning a living. Sometimes I think when some mock the wages earned by people with significant ID they are in a backdoor way mocking the ability of a person with a significant disability to make a contribution in the world of employment.

#9 Comment By Rosella A. Alm On July 30, 2013 @ 5:17 pm 

Wait staff in restaurants have worked for subminimum wages for as long as I remember. They depend on their income from tips, and must share that income with the bus staff, (people who clean the tables). In recent years many of the positions in the bus staff have been filled by people with disabilities (also on subminimum wages) but sharing in the tip revenue, if the wait staff is honest.

#10 Comment By TFred On July 30, 2013 @ 6:25 pm 

This a great idea. Every advocate that supports eliminating 14c and workshops can simply start a company and hire 20 people from the local CRP at local minimum wages. Those 20 should not be just the people with the highest production rates but be equally spread across all the ability levels. In our production operation, what we package is sold in big box retail/grocery stores throughout North America. It is very likely readers of this list buy some of these products regularly. Our customers come to us because we have good quality and on time delivery. Our competition is private, for-profit organizations who pay minimum wage. Many of the people we serve had communty jobs of all kinds until they were fired for being too slow. We have other people working all over our community and we strongly encourage that. If I had to pay minimum wage to everyone in our CRP production areas, I would not hire 90% of the people I work with everyday. By having a subminimum wage option they are working at the same types of jobs done by our competitors.

#11 Comment By Nancy On July 30, 2013 @ 6:29 pm 

The population we serve needs MORE options, not less. I think the skills-based sub-minimum wage has its purpose in this industry, and I think that sheltered workshops have value as well. The problem is trying to pigeonhole all of the clients into one type of program. They are all individuals and should have a choice in the type of employment they want to pursue. I am more than annoyed at NBC for making everyone think that ppl with disabilities are all making two cents an hour. That’s simply not true. It’s safe to say that at some level, we *all* work for a skills-based wage. If the government wants people working out in the community, they really need to do a better job of funding supported employment programs.

#12 Comment By Judith Greenbaum On July 30, 2013 @ 6:54 pm 

My daughter functions in the range of moderate-severe intellectual disability. She loves to work and is very proud of working – in a sheltered situation. She works 20 hours per week. There is no way on earth she could function in a competitive employment situation. If sheltered work options are eliminated by the bill, people like my daughter would be unemployed and this would be a tragedy for her.

#13 Comment By Cheryl Felak On July 30, 2013 @ 9:33 pm 

“What this does is create a requirement that vocational rehabilitation providers make an effort to achieve an employment outcome rather than just shrug their shoulders and place people in sheltered workshops,” – I don’t see this as an “Either/Or” issue – it is a continuum. 

As a parent of a 19 year old in transition I know that he is not capable of earning a competitive wage but that does not mean that he cannot do some work. In order for him to work in any type of “typical” job he would have to have 1:1 constant supervision with continual coaching which would then turn into behavior issues – I do not know any employer that would want to pay competitive wages for him to not be very productive and the 1:1 “coach” too. Where does the payment for the coaches come into this plan?
He currently goes to school and when school is out he attends a “sheltered workshop” He gets paid for work he does – since he’s not interested in doing work nor motivated by money or rewards, he does not have much interest in the work past the first minute but he loves going to ATP (Adult Training Program). He loves going because it gives him something meaningful (for him) to do – he loves listening to the music on the radio, changing the station, talking to the staff, talking to the people who bring snacks, and monitoring everyone’s business.
He is interested in people and in interacting with people and he has the opportunity to do that in his work – yet he gets paid hardly anything – and he shouldn’t because he doesn’t do anything that one would consider “productive” there.
We need to have a continuum of services and not force people into tracks that are not appropriate for them. We need to provide meaningful opportunities for work, learning and leisure for our citizens with ID/DD. Just as they all have different abilities and interests, we need to provide variety of meaningful opportunities to match those abilities and interests. Making rules that ALL must be required to pursue vocational rehabilitation services first does not take the variety of abilities and interests into account.
Where does Person-Centered Care fit into requiring all those 24 and under to pursue vocational rehabilitation services first prior to trying other opportunities?

#14 Comment By Jean Daniello On July 30, 2013 @ 11:07 pm 

I have young adult twins with I/DD. I think the schools should not be able to take children out of school to participate in “work study” while in HS at least before they are 18, but should receive opportunity to learn as much as possible in school. Then, they will have more skills to bring to a job and more normal HS experience. I have objection to sub-minimum wage under certain conditions. I don’t know if there are ever conditions where it is OK. I would rather a day program take on small work projects and provide each worker a stipend for their efforts, than have someone tied to a sub-minimum wage job, especially if the company is making large profits. There are no easy answers, but no other group, no matter how unproductive, gets paid below minimum wage. Just think of Congress or Wall Street traders.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Printed from Disability Scoop: http://www.disabilityscoop.com

Direct URL: http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2013/07/30/subminimum-wage-divides/18409/

Click here to print.

Copyright © 2008-2013 Disability Scoop. All Rights Reserved.


__._,_.___Reply via web post  Reply to sender  Reply to group  Start a New Topic  Messages in this topic (1)  

Recent Activity: a.. New Members 1 
Visit Your Group 
 Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback .
 
__,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130731/7477d1de/attachment.html>