[nfbmi-talk] Integrated employment

Sat Jun 16 21:25:04 UTC 2012

Hi,

I think we can objectively break down those attributes of the non-integrated
setting that make it most attractive and then attempt to find an integrated
setting that provides those same attributes.  

I, absolutely, disagree that integrated is always preferable over
non-integrated settings.  The important attribute, to me, is choice.  Each
person ought to have a choice of the facility, school, setting, employer
that most closely meets their personal needs.  Such dogmatism around an
ideology is counter-productive.  Chris and Joe, I am not accusing either of
you of these things.  I have simply seen the School for the blind trashed on
the ideological principle of inclusion when, in fact, for many students, the
included setting is far more restrictive than the residential choice.  You
can get me going on this topic without much provocation.

This extends to the whole society.  If blind people Republicans, women,
Labrador dogs, ethnic groups, each want to create enclaves for their own
improvement, more power to them.  We still have rights of free association,
I think, unless homeland Security has limited that, too. 

There is certainly a possible inconsistency with the 14th Amendment when we
think about targeted programs, though society, more or less, has agreed to
programs or services targeted at assisting individuals to gain
opportunities.  The Rehab Act, IDEA, Enterprise Zones, the farm bill and tax
breaks for all kinds of stuff are examples.

Warmest Regards,

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Christine Boone
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:48 PM
To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Integrated employment

				I certainly applaud  any working and living
environment with such community social activities as you describe; and the
means to get to and from those activities on a regular basis.  I will always
support an integrated setting over a non-integrated one as long as the
resulting work life and social life of the individual are consistent with
that individuals abilities, capabilities, interests, aptitudes and informed
choice.  

Integrated is always best.  Perhaps I am wrong, and there is a way truly to
be sure that persons with disabilities really can be integrated into the
competitive workplace in all situations, with the proper supports.  Listen,
I may be an old dog...getting older all the time, but I remain willing to
learn new tricks!  I can not ever close my mind to the possibility that
something that I once thought to be impossible or at least highly unlikely,
is indeed a possibility.  I'll tell you this, I would be glad enough to be
wrong in thinking that there will always be folks with significant, multiple
disabilities for whom a non-integrated employment setting is indeed most
appropriate and most satisfactory.  

Christine
  Jun 16, 2012, at 3:21 PM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:

> Oops on the June 16 thing. Guess I was getting ahead of myself...Smile.
> 
> I understand the issues you presented yesterday. I do disagree with them.
But, as you note that was not germane to the issue at hand. My disagreements
with the comments you made are complicated as all these issues are but I do
know that they are heartfelt and you've always been honest about them which
I highly respect.
> 
> In the future I'll send information out about the segregated environment
issue.
> 
> But, let me say this for now:
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with having programs for the socialization of and
recreational programs you alluded too yesterday. I support day programs
devoid of a pretense of renumerative employment for people with all sorts of
disabilities.
> 
> I do not support any longer, personally speaking center based shops over
not only the pay issue, but also because they in documented fashion become
dead end lifelong segregated environments.
> 
> By the way I know of plenty of folks even with severe disabilities like
say Downs syndrome who get union scale for say bagging groceries in the
community and who are simply happy human beings living independently or at
worse in small group homes in their communities. And there are plenty of
great evening and other community programs where they can "let their hair
down" garner friends and develop other relationships.
> 
> Joe
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christine Boone"
<christine_boone at comcast.net>
> To: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 2:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] open letter to cannon
> 
> 
> Nicely done.
> As you may imagine, I was specifically directed to speak on the issue,
yesterday.  I chose to speak on a rather tangential issue which is not
related in any way to the payment of sub-minimum wages in sheltered
employment.  I did not say anything yesterday that was not completely
consistent with my own long-held beliefs.  I am sorry that I took valuable
board time speaking off topic.
> 
> I have not ever worked for any organization that paid sub-minimum wages,
nor have I ever permitted any customer of mine or a client of any worker
whom I happened to supervised, to be placed in an employment setting in
which they received less than the federal minimum wage.  .  When I directed
the PA Bureau We had the  policy that we did not ever enter into any
contractual arrangement or do business of any kind with any agency or
organization that paid any worker  piece rate or  sub- minimum wage.
> 
> Thank you for not mentioning my ramblings of yesterday in your letter.
> 
> Christine
> PS. It is June 16, not July 16 as your letter indicates.
> 
> On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:15 PM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
> 
>> Open Letter to Cannon Sub-minimum Wage
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> July 16, 2012
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
>> 
>> 1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
>> 
>> Mt. Morris, MI  48458
>> 
>> E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To: Patrick D. cannon
>> 
>> Director, Michigan commission for the Blind
>> 
>> (Via e-mail)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Mr. Cannon,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You are fond of denoting your experience with NCASB and quote or
summarize their activities in all of your MCB Reports. I denote the official
position of NCASB regarding HR 3086 in full after my "cc" lines. Yet, at the
Michigan Commission for the Blind board meeting yesterday you and Leemon
Jones in particular "pushed back" at the courageous motion by the board to
not contract with CRPs which  pay even one worker sub-minimum wage in its
centerred based employment. (And as Commissioner Shuck noted there are 13 in
this state which MCB plows thousands in to annually for various services.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> . Jones in particular was arrogent in his whining about the issue before
the board. But, regardless you constantly pull NCASB findings or actions
that you like even out of context to quote them and then when the rubber
meets the road you are insubordinate to your bosses (the MCB Board) and we
the people. Say would you and Jones both making salaries in excess of
$100,000 wish to be paid sub-minimum wage because you are blind and clearly
not as productive in documented fashion as you should be?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I also denote that aside from the leadership of NFB on this issue there
are numerous advocacy organizations of various people with disabilities who
support the elimination of sub-minimum wages for any person with any
disability. These organizations are clearly denoted here and include by the
way the American Council of the Blind. So this is an issue where there is
broad consensus amongst not only organizations of the blind, but those
representing, again a wide range of disabilities.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The only organizations that do in fact support sub-minimum waivers are
the highly profitable and federally funded "sheltered shops" themselves.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regardless, I applaud the actions yesterday of the Michigan Commission
for the Blind and decry your open hypocrisy on this issue.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cc: MCB Board
>> 
>> Cc: NFB MI
>> 
>> Cc: MCBVI
>> 
>> Cc: Michigan ADAPT
>> 
>> Cc: MPAS
>> 
>> Cc: several
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Source:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.ncsab.org/alert/2011/statement_of_endorsement_.htm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Statement of Endorsement by: Barbara Madrigal
>> 
>> December 9, 2011
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At its monthly teleconference, the NCSAB Executive Committee agreed to
support the Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act (H. R. 3086). The
NCSAB
>> 
>> had been asked by the National Federation of the Blind to lend our
support to H. R. 3086 that would end the payment of sub minimum wages to
people with
>> 
>> disabilities. By way of background, following is some historical
information.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> H. R. 3086 The Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On October 4, 2011, Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Congressman Tim
Bishop (D-NY) introduced the Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act of
2011
>> 
>> (H.R. 3086). The bill would phase out Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), which allows employers holding special wage
certificates to
>> 
>> pay their workers with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The planned phase out of section 14(c) of the FLSA under H.R. 3086, the
Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act of 2011, follows:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 1. Phased out after one year for all for profit entities
>> 
>> 2. Phased out after two years for all governmental and public entities
>> 
>> 3. Phased out after three years for all not for profit entities
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> After three years 14(c) would be repealed and all certificates revoked.
While very few blind individuals are today being paid subminimum wages, the
overall
>> 
>> number of people with disabilities being compensated below the minimum
wage is significant. According to data provided by the DOL Wage and Hour
Division,
>> 
>> on November 10, 2010 there were approximately 2,552 employers holding 14c
certificates, employing approximately 368,106 individuals with disabilities.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> History and Background
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In 1938 the Congress adopted the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Act
included numerous New Deal 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 Act did not
extend the guarantee of the minimum wage to all workers. Section 14(c) of
the Fair
>> 
>> Labor Standards Act allows blind people and others with disabilities to
be paid below the minimum wage under certain prescribed conditions. The
employer
>> 
>> must apply for a special wage certificate and must conduct and document
that a time study has been made of the productivity of the worker with a
disability
>> 
>> to determine his or her wage. The special subminimum wage is known as the
"Commensurate wage."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Definition of Commensurate Wage (Code of Federal Regulations-29 CFR Part
525)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> i) Commensurate wage is a special minimum wage paid to a worker with a
disability which is based on the worker's individual productivity in
proportion to
>> 
>> the wage and productivity of experienced nondisabled workers per-forming
essentially the same type, quality, and quantity of work in the vicinity in
which
>> 
>> the individual under certificate is employed. For example, the
commensurate wage of a worker with a disability who is 75% as productive as
the average
>> 
>> experienced non-disabled worker, taking into consideration the type,
quality, and quantity of work of the disabled worker, would be set at 75% of
the wage
>> 
>> paid to the non-disabled worker. For purposes of these regulations, a
commensurate wage is always a special minimum wage, i.e., a wage below the
statutory
>> 
>> minimum.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The following groups have endorsed and urge the immediate passage of H.R.
3086, the Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act of 2011(as of
November
>> 
>> 17, 2011):
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ADAPT (formerly known as American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today)
>> 
>> ADAPT Montana
>> 
>> American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD)
>> 
>> American Council of the Blind (ACB)
>> 
>> APSE (formerly known as Association for Persons in Supported Employment)
>> 
>> Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL)
>> 
>> Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN)
>> 
>> Autism Society of America (ASA)
>> 
>> Blind Industries and Services of Maryland (BISM)
>> 
>> Center for People with Disabilities (CPWD)
>> 
>> Chicago Lighthouse for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired
>> 
>> Collaboration to Promote Self-Determination (CPSD)
>> 
>> Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF)
>> 
>> Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA)
>> 
>> Houston Center for Independent Living
>> 
>> Little People of America (LPA)
>> 
>> National Association of the Deaf (NAD)
>> 
>> National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery (NCMHR)
>> 
>> National Council on Independent Living (NCIL)
>> 
>> National Disability Leadership Alliance (NDLA)
>> 
>> National Disability Rights Network (NDRN)
>> 
>> National Down Syndrome Society (NDSS)
>> 
>> National Federation of the Blind (NFB)
>> 
>> National Fragile X Foundation (NFXF)
>> 
>> Not Dead Yet (NDY)
>> 
>> Self Advocates Becoming Empowered (SABE)
>> 
>> Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
>> 
>> Texas Association of Centers for Independent Living (TACIL)
>> 
>> United Spinal Association
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> If you have questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Barbara J. Madrigal
>> 
>> Barbara.Madrigal at dars.state.tx.us
>> 
>> President NCSAB
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfbmi-talk mailing list
>> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbmi-talk:
>>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/christine_boone%40co
mcast.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbmi-talk:
>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.n
et 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbmi-talk:
>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/christine_boone%40co
mcast.net

_______________________________________________
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbmi-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/f.wurtzel%40att.net