[nfbmi-talk] Integrated employment
Linda Bloodsaw
lbloodsaw2018 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 17 06:32:14 UTC 2012
Sometimes rants are informative to people like me who are relatively new to the blindness community. It gives me a better understanding of what has been going on. So I would say teachable moments and not rants.
On Jun 16, 2012, at 11:25 PM, "Fred Wurtzel" <f.wurtzel at att.net> wrote:
> Hi Pauline,
>
> Yes, Pauline, and Christine also made this point, yesterday. She pointed
> out that sometimes, maybe even often, integrated employees are isolated and
> demeaned. On the other hand, sheltered work employees seldom move up or out
> and their upward mobility is statistically poorer than integrated employees.
> unfortunately statistics do not account for individuals who may thrive in
> certain segregated settings like the Business Enterprise Program or fail in
> integrated settings as Christine observed. One of our members did very well
> in medical transcription until technology changed and the Commission nor the
> employer would assist to upgrade her work station and she struggled.
> Another example is darkroom technicians who were blind. Their technology
> changed and they were not prepared to change.
>
> There is some kind of built-in bias against blind people grouping together
> to afford better opportunities. Remember how the teachers at Louis
> Braille's school burned his books. Look at how sighted people have taken
> over sheltered shops that were originally started by blind people and now
> exploit those same people who they allegedly were created to serve. A E R
> was A A W B which started as an organization of blind people. It is now
> primarily sighted people and they often are at odds with our goals. it is a
> struggle to gain and hold on to freedom, every day, every place we go.
> Remember that John F. Kennedy, when he was a Senator, sponsored a bill that
> assured the right of blind people to organize. it is difficult to imagine
> that some people denied our right to form the N F B, but, it is true and is
> one of the first lines in our NFB song which says "The right of the blind to
> organize is truly here to stay. . ." .
>
> yesterday, Joe Sibley described us as angry. I suppose there is some anger
> within me. I consider it righteous anger as described in the Bible.
> Mostly, though, it is a vigilance. A constant effort to maintain and
> improve our rights and opportunities for justice and liberty. Our constant
> effort to maintain a level playing field and hopefully gain toward our goal
> of first-class citizenship.
>
> Actions like the Executive order make me really angry. Part of the anger is
> at myself for not doing a better job educating people like Governor Snyder
> about our needs and explaining why we need a consumer driven agency to
> deliver consumer services. We cannot let our anger prevent us from engaging
> those who can help us do what we need done. We need to do all we do out of
> love: love for one another and love for freedom and justice. Our
> willingness to work with others cannot be interpreted as meekness or
> weakness or a willingness to be walked on like so many rugs under the feet
> of sighted bureaucrats. We are willing to work with anyone. We are also
> willing to go toe to toe and head to head with anyone who stands in the way
> of progress for blind people.
>
> my goodness, I can get on a rant, can't I? )smile)
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Fred
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf Of Pauline Smith
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 9:55 PM
> To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Integrated employment
>
> Well said Fred in our effort to provide that we have equal rights and equal
> opportunities. We must be careful not to swing for the other extreme taking
> only integrated program, settings and activ... ... Are successful ones,
> people should have the right of choice of what they want to participate
> in... And so forth. (F?) was said, many of the so called integrated program
> have done more to damage. ... and enforce the inferior opinion of people
> with individual differences both among general society and within those
> people themselves, then the non-integrated programs may have...
>
> Pauline Smith sent you this voice-to-text generated email using Voice on the
> Go.
> To listen, click on the voice message link or open the attachment.
> http://vemail2.whitelabelapp.net:8080/enterprise/Recordings/EqwVzcDC-2012061
> 6-2149.wav
>
>
>> Original Message:
>> ---------------------------------
>>
>> From: Fred Wurtzel <f.wurtzel at att.net>
>> Sent: June 16, 2012 5:25:04 PM
>> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List' <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> 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_boon
>> e%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%40com
>> cast.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_boon
>> e%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%40at
>> t.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/zim1993%40gmai
>> l.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/lbloodsaw2018%40gmail.com
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list