[nfbmi-talk] Integrated employment

Sat Jun 16 21:51:08 UTC 2012

Hi Joe,

I simply say that the best setting is the one that serves the individual the
best and is their choice.  No one ought to be denied the simple benefit of a
minimum wage based solely on their disability or any other characteristic.

Warmest Regards,

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:39 PM
To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Integrated employment

We open up a can of worms on residential, non-integrated schools like the
school for the blind. Let me say this and only this on the issue:

I would prefer quality education in the mainstream for all blind kids. But,
in so many cases including ones I've seen recently the school for the blind
has been replaced in this county at least by basically non-integrated sped
schools, local residential schools that are very ill equipped to meet the
unique instructional needs of those students.

So, from a practical standpoint, and with all the ills of any residential
school I would never sacrifice basic core educaional opportunities over the
ersatz notion of mainstreaming for mainstreaming's sake.

As we know some of our blind kids get the resources and quality educators
they need and the next school district just screws them and passes them
along to the kids great detriment.

Tragic.

But, back to the fundamentals and of which you, I and Chris and all agree on
the sheltered shop issue, whether or not we work more for an integrated
pplacement we all agree that all who work deserve at least a minimum wage. 
In fact I go a step further and think all who work deserve a living wage
disabled or not.

Peace,

Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Wurtzel" <f.wurtzel at att.net>
To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Integrated employment

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f.wurtzel%40att.net