[nfbmi-talk] Minimum Wages for all

[Fred Wurtzel]

Hello,

 

Why is it illegal to pay sub-minimum wages to sighted people or others
without visible disabilities?  Why is it legal to pay little or no wages to
people with disabilities?  Why do Sheltered shop owners and managers paid
six figure salaries to oversee people making a dollar or less per hour?
Aren't you angry about this bigotry?

 

Warmest Regards,

 

Fred

 

Braille Monitor

August/September 2011

(

back

) (

contents

) (

next

)

No More Subminimum Wages: The Time Is Now!

by Fredric K. Schroeder

Fred Schroeder at the podium

>From the Editor: Friday morning, July 8,  NFB First Vice President and
former Commissioner

of the Rehabilitation Services  Administration Fred Schroeder keynoted an
employment

panel with a fiery speech  laying out the injustices of subminimum wages for
people

with disabilities.  This is what he said:

On Tuesday,  October 29, 1929 [Black Tuesday], an unprecedented freefall in
stock

prices  rocked the United States  to its very foundation. Without warning
the nation

found itself in the grip of  an economic disaster, later to be known as the
Great

Depression. Literally  overnight millions of Americans lost their life
savings and

millions more lost  their jobs. Unemployment rose to 25 percent, and no one
knew

when or if the  economy would recover.

>From the  depths of unemployment, hunger, and despair, Americans looked to
the 1932

presidential election for a change in leadership, a change in direction, and
a  ray

of hope. That year, in his Democratic presidential nomination acceptance
speech,

Franklin Roosevelt said, "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new  deal for
the American

people." Thus began an aggressive series of reforms  to get America's
economy back

on track and its citizens back to work. But as desperately as  Americans
needed jobs,

they needed jobs that offered a living wage--what Roosevelt called, "a fair
day's

pay for a fair day's  work." Accordingly President Roosevelt--as a
centerpiece of

the New  Deal--undertook sweeping reform of the nation's labor laws.

In 1938 the  Congress adopted the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Act included
numerous

reforms; however it is best remembered for establishing the federal minimum
wage.

President Roosevelt characterized the Fair Labor Standards Act as "the  most
far-reaching,

far-sighted program for the benefit of workers ever adopted  in this or any
other

country." But the minimum wage was not for everyone:  not for the blind and
not for

others with disabilities. The 1938 Fair Labor  Standards Act permitted blind
workers

and others with disabilities to be paid  less than the minimum wage, meaning
that

for the blind and others there  continued to be no minimum at all.

The Fair  Labor Standards Act, with its subminimum wage provision, reflected
society's

beliefs and assumptions about the impact of disability on an individual's
productivity.

While others were guaranteed the minimum wage, people with  disabilities had
to prove

their worth. That was the thinking in 1938, and,  given the attitudes of the
day,

it is not surprising. What is surprising is  that today--seventy-three years
later--the

law continues to countenance  subminimum wages for blind people and others
with disabilities.

But that must  end. As we call for in Resolution 2011-17, it is time to pass
the

Fair Wages  for Workers with Disabilities Act. No more subminimum wages: the
time

is now!

Defenders  of the subminimum wage system argue that some people have such
complex

disabilities that they truly are incapable of working competitively. They
say  that,

in spite of their limited ability, they deserve the chance to be as
productive as

they can. And, we are told, the subminimum wage system enables  those
individuals--people

with the most significant disabilities--to work and  to be paid according to
their

productivity. Besides, they say, no one is forced  to go to a sheltered
workshop.

It is an option, a choice-but is it really?

Prior to  1938, with crushing unemployment, Americans were so desperate for
jobs

that  they would work for essentially any wage under any conditions. They
did not

choose to send their children to work in factories. They did not choose to
work

in sweatshops. They did not choose poor wages and long hours. They did not
choose

unsafe working conditions. They had no choice. They had to take what they
could

get. The same is true for today's workers with disabilities.

With a 70  percent unemployment rate, far too many people with disabilities
are faced

with  the Hobson's choice of sheltered work or no work. As with the
Depression era

workers of the 1930s, today's workers with disabilities cannot simply walk
away

because there is nowhere else to go. They must work for any wage under any
conditions

or have no work at all. As we know, President Roosevelt contracted  polio as
a child

and, as a result, had limited use of his legs. Ironically, had  he not been
born

into wealth and privilege, he might well have ended up working  at a
subminimum wage--paid

according to someone's assessment of his  productivity--instead of becoming
president

of the United States.

The  question is not whether there are people with complex disabilities that
impair

their productivity; the question is whether it is equitable and just to
require

people with disabilities to prove their worth and to do so by performing
mind-numbing,

repetitive work. People with disabilities are not given menial,  monotonous
work

because it is the only work they can do but because it is work  that fits
society's

low expectations. There is no justice in requiring people  with disabilities
to prove

their worth while others are guaranteed the minimum  wage. The time has come
to pass

the Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities  Act. No more subminimum wages:
the

time is now!

Years ago I  knew a blind woman who worked in a sheltered workshop. In
addition to

blindness, she had cerebral palsy, giving her limited use of one side of her
body.

Her job? She worked assembling large heavy rubber mats, a physically
demanding job.

She was paid on a piece rate based on the number of mats she  could assemble
each

day. She was paid according to her productivity, taking  home less than $6
for two

weeks' work. Oh, and by the way, she had a college  degree. Clearly, the job
was

a poor match. It did not reflect her ability but  her physical limitations.
Yet no

one asked if it made sense for her to be  making large, heavy rubber mats.
No one

asked if another job might be a better  fit, given her education and
interests. The

sheltered workshop made mats, and  that was the work she was given.

In 1986 I  became the first executive director of the newly created New
Mexico Commission

for the Blind. One of the programs that was transferred to the new
Commission  was

a sheltered workshop. As the new director, the first policy I issued was to
eliminate

the payment of subminimum wages. I was told that my actions were
irresponsible,

that the workshop would go broke and have to close its doors,  leaving the
workers

out in the cold with nowhere to go. But the sheltered  workshop did not go
broke,

even when we began paying better wages, even when we  began paying into the
Social

Security system, even when we began providing  vacation and sick leave, even
when

we began providing retirement benefits.

So how did  we stay afloat? How did we remain profitable? We started with
the assumption

that blind people could be competitive. We assumed that it was the
responsibility

of management to find profitable contracts and to phase out  those that were
not

profitable. We looked at whether the jobs available in the  workshop--mostly
industrial

sewing and assembly--were regarded by the workers  as suited to their skills
and

interests; and, when they were not, we helped the  workers find other jobs,
jobs

in the community. We assisted the woman who  worked assembling large, heavy
rubber

mats to set up a home-based telephone  answering service business, a much
better

match with her skills and ability and  one at which she could earn a good
wage--a

competitive wage--not some  piece-rate subminimum wage.

But, you  may ask, how big is the problem really? How many people with
disabilities

are  being paid below the minimum wage? According to the U.S. Department of
Labor,

as of November 10, 2010, approximately 2,552 employers were holding special
subminimum

wage certificates. But that does not mean that there are only 2,552  people
being

paid below the minimum wage--disgraceful as that number would be.  The
actual number

is much larger--much, much larger. A certificate is not  required for each
individual.

Many individuals can be paid below the minimum  wage under a single
subminimum wage

certificate. The U.S. Department of Labor  estimates that under the 2,552
subminimum

wage certificates approximately  368,106 individuals with disabilities are
being

paid below the minimum  wage--over a third of a million people. And there is
essentially

no oversight.  Last I knew, only three federal inspectors were assigned to
monitor

the payment  of subminimum wages to the 368,106 workers with disabilities.

So is the  answer to hire more inspectors? No. The problem has been and
continues

to be  that the subminimum wage exemption is based on the unquestioned
assumption

that  blind people and others with disabilities must prove their
worth--prove their

worth--while people without disabilities are assured the minimum wage. The
subminimum

wage system is rooted in low expectations. It operates with little
oversight and

even less accountability. When deciding an individual's  productivity, no
one questions

whether the individual has received adequate  training. No one questions
whether

the individual has been given the needed  supports and accommodations to
reflect

his or her ability fairly. No one  questions the accuracy of the time study
used

to determine the individual's  wage. No one wonders whether other jobs might
be better

suited to the  individual's strengths and interests. And no one wonders if
there

might be a  conflict of interest--whether it is fair to entrust the same
entity that

stands  to benefit from keeping wages low with the job of deciding the
individual's

productivity.

And  the federal government supports and encourages the system by granting
noncompetitive

federal contracts under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act. To work on  these
contracts,

an individual must be legally blind or must have a physical or  mental
disability

that "constitutes a substantial handicap to employment  and is of such a
nature as

to prevent the individual under such disability from  currently engaging in
normal

competitive employment." But who decides that  an individual is incapable of
engaging

in "normal competitive employment"?  The workshop does. And who decides the
individual's

productivity? The workshop  does. And who decides how many hours an
individual can

work each week? The  workshop does. And who oversees the subminimum wage
system?

Essentially no one.

It is  time to end subminimum wages for blind people and others with
disabilities.

It  is time to end the abuse, time to end the exploitation; and it is time
to end

the custodial attitudes that perpetuate low expectations, the idea that the
blind

and others with disabilities must prove their worth. It is time to end the
economic

enslavement of the blind and others, and it is most certainly time to  end
the federal

government's protection of a flawed and failed system that  operates in the
name

of charity and kindness. It is time to pass the Fair Wages  for Workers with
Disabilities

Act. No more subminimum wages: the time is now!

(

back

) (

contents

) (

next

)