[nfbmi-talk] Fw: [Nfb-legislative-directors] The Glass is HalfFull: Investing inthe Capacity of Workers with Disabilities

Fri Feb 7 04:47:24 UTC 2014

Dear Fellow Federationists,

If you have not read the below article, please do in its entirety.  This
speaks to all that NFB was founded upon, has been for nearly 75years, and is
all abot today.

On a personal note, this summarizes and further demonstrates that which my
professional experience in the developmental disabilities and blindness
communities has confirmed about what is possible within these populations,
given the will and dedication to the value, dignity and respect for and to
persons with dis	abilities.  The article also summarizes that which I
have often and repeatedly written, and clearly demonstrates why I am a
Federationist personally and professionally.  

Great job Anil!

From: Lewis, Anil 
Subject: [Nfb-legislative-directors] The Glass is Half Full: Investing inthe
Capacity of Workers with Disabilities

The Glass is Half Full: Investing in the Capacity of Workers with
Disabilities 

by Anil Lewis

>From the Editor: Anil Lewis is the most visible member of our organization
working with Congress to repeal Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the section which allows the payment of less than the federal minimum
wage to blind people and others with disabilities. In this article he
addresses questions some have about the consequences of repealing this
section, explores the faulty assumptions that argue for its preservation,
and demonstrates his belief in the innate ability of the human spirit to
overcome obstacles too many of us think insurmountable. As we consider his
arguments, it is instructive to remember that Anil was initially diagnosed
as a person with a developmental disability, and only through his mother's
perseverance and belief in him was he able to attend public school,
graduate, and go on to earn a master's degree in public administration. Here
is what he says:

Members of the National Federation of the Blind believe that, given the
proper training, support, and opportunity, people with disabilities can live
the lives we want. Although some specialized public services may be required
for our full participation, those provisions that exclude us from the same
rights and protections as everyone else limit us to a lesser existence.
Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is an unfair, immoral,
discriminatory provision that allows entities to obtain a Special Wage
Certificate from the US Department of Labor permitting them to pay workers
with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage. These entities are
almost always sheltered workshops, segregated workplaces that employ workers
with various disabilities-including sensory, physical, and cognitive or
developmental disabilities-at subminimum wages that are sometimes pennies
per hour. This has been considered by some to be an essential tool for
workers with disabilities. There are so many rationalizations touting the
value and purpose of this provision. Some state that it is employment;
others state that it is a training program; still others state that it is
both training and employment. The last group states that it simply provides
something for people with disabilities to do during the day. Regardless of
which of these excuses is used to attempt to justify the existence of this
provision, they all promote the misconception that people with disabilities
are less capable and less productive than those without disabilities. The
truth is that most, if not all, people with disabilities, when they receive
specialized rehabilitation and training, can acquire a job skill that allows
them to be competitive with nondisabled workers and to earn the federal
minimum wage or higher. Most people are unaware of the rehabilitation and
training strategies that make this possible and therefore believe that it is
impossible. The fundamental question is whether we should, out of ignorance,
support programs that believe the glass is half empty or whether we should,
as an enlightened society, invest in programs that realize the glass is half
full. 

We must start with the facts. As a result of the antiquated Section 14(c)
model, there are over four hundred thousand people with disabilities
currently working for wages less than the federal minimum wage.
Approximately two hundred thousand of these people are paid less than half
of it, and approximately one hundred thousand are paid less than one dollar
per hour. 33 percent of students with significant disabilities are being
prepared for segregated subminimum-wage employment rather than competitive
integrated work. The demonstrated outcome is that fewer than 5 percent of
these people will transition into competitive integrated employment (work in
a non-segregated environment at the federal minimum wage or higher).
Therefore, 95 percent of these people will spend their entire working lives
in a segregated subminimum-wage environment performing tedious, sometimes
disgusting tasks promoted as work. 

The segregated subminimum-wage employers peddle their programs as the
solution, when they are really the problem. These employers reference the 70
percent unemployment rate of people with disabilities and assert that the
existence of subminimum-wage payments is an essential tool to keep this
statistic from getting worse. These "employers" have had over seventy years
to use this "essential tool" to effect a positive change in the employment
of people with disabilities and their strategy has failed miserably. It
should be no surprise that a strategy founded on the belief that a person
cannot be a productive employee results in nonproductive employees. The
pseudo-work environments that pay individuals pennies per hour for
performing mundane tasks are no better than the day habilitation
environments they profess to replace. These shelters of low expectations rob
individuals with disabilities of their real self-worth and the opportunity
to achieve a better life. It is past time for us to invest our time and
energy in the development of new models that result in more positive
outcomes.

Under the Employment First paradigm, proven models exist that help people
with significant disabilities acquire practical job skills and competitive
integrated employment. These strategies have been proven successful for
people who were previously trapped in segregated subminimum-wage work
environments, where they were told every day by the so-called experts that
this is the best they can achieve. Customized employment and supported
employment strategies are being used to successfully transition people with
significant disabilities into competitive integrated work environments after
years of institutionalization. We should abandon the archaic segregated
subminimum-wage model and embrace the proven Employment First model that
recognizes the true value of workers with disabilities, costs less, and
produces better outcomes. 

We know that it can be done because, as a result of our advocacy, it is
being done. Many organizations formerly using Special Wage Certificates have
converted to a competitive integrated model in which every employee is paid
at least the federal minimum wage. All but one of the National Industries
for the Blind (NIB) affiliated agencies pay the federal minimum wage or
higher to all of their workers with disabilities employed under the
AbilityOne program, a special program created by the federal government and
formerly known as the Committee for People Who are Blind or Severely
Disabled. Already, 101 Goodwill affiliates operate successfully without
paying subminimum wages. These affiliates work with similar populations of
people with disabilities as the sixty-four Goodwill affiliates that assert
that the Special Wage Certificate is an essential tool. When challenged with
this fact, Goodwill representatives state that the difference between these
two operational philosophies comes down to a local choice. The sixty-four
subminimum-wage Goodwill affiliates are permitted to choose to use the
Special Wage Certificate and Goodwill International refuses to adopt a
policy that prohibits them from making this choice. Thankfully our advocacy
efforts have driven Goodwill affiliates and other segregated subminimum-wage
employers to begin to adopt similar non-discriminatory business models. We
could just cling to the hope that once our efforts have resulted in an
increased number of Goodwill affiliates making the successful transition to
this proven business model, Goodwill International would finally adopt a
policy that prohibits the use of this immoral discriminatory provision, and
all segregated subminimum-wage entities would transition to this proven
business model. Unfortunately, as long as it is legal, entities will
continue to choose to pay workers with disabilities less than the federal
minimum wage-business will always cut labor costs when the economy or the
law allow it. In order to effect real systemic change, this ineffective
provision must be eliminated. 

The Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act of 2013, HR 831, will
responsibly phase out and eventually repeal Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. As a result, people with the most significant disabilities
will no longer be trapped in segregated subminimum-wage workshops. Entities
will no longer be able to choose to employ workers with disabilities at
subminimum wages. For-profit entities will have one year, public and
governmental entities will have two years, and nonprofit entities will have
three years to transition to a proven competitive integrated training and
employment business model that helps people with significant disabilities to
obtain real jobs at real wages. 

We cannot guarantee that every individual currently employed at subminimum
wages will be employed at the federal minimum wage or higher at the end of
this three-year period. However, these people will be on a path toward
competitive integrated employment, rather than being condemned to a lifetime
of segregated subminimum-wage pseudo-work. The legislation does not require
an employer currently paying an individual with a disability twenty-two
cents per hour to immediately pay this individual $7.25 per hour. Therefore,
it places no financial hardship on existing employers in the form of
increased labor costs. The goal is not to subsidize wages; the goal is for
workers with disabilities to acquire a job skill that will allow them to
earn at least the federal minimum wage. If an entity is unable to provide
proper training and support to assist an individual in obtaining competitive
integrated employment, why should we continue to allow people with
disabilities to suffer because of the inadequacy of the service provider? HR
831 eliminates the ability for an entity to be considered a successful
employer by paying people subminimum wages rather than providing real work
at real wages. As with any mainstream training or employment program, the
entity must adopt a business model that provides quality training leading to
the acquisition of a marketable job skill and competitive integrated
employment for the majority of its students in order to continue to operate.

The largest obstacle to our achieving this necessary systemic change is the
ignorance and prejudice that has stunted the progression toward equal status
of minority groups in our society time and time again. As a society we
believe that those who are different are inferior. We feel that if we were
faced with blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy, or another physical or
developmental disability, we would not be able to succeed. Society asks
representatives of entities that profit from this misconception for their
opinion and we are told that these environments are necessary. These
entities allow us to observe people with disabilities who, having received
poor training and minimal support, are unable to effectively perform tasks
in pseudo-work environments, and our beliefs of incapacity are reinforced.
As a society we do not question the quality of the training or the
qualifications of the professionals. We do not attempt to understand whether
the assigned job task meets the individual's unique skills, interests, and
abilities. What job skill can you acquire sorting hangers all day? How
competitive an employee can you become by screwing caps on pens for a
living? Although we know this environment would not be appropriate for us,
we, with no knowledge of appropriate strategies or interventions, acquiesce
and agree that this is an appropriate and even essential environment for
others. 

How many of us would continue to send our children to schools that openly
state that they cannot teach our children? How many of us would attend a
vocational training program that would not teach us an employable skill? How
many of us would choose to work at a job that pays less than the federal
minimum wage? None of us, but it seems acceptable to have different answers
to these questions when we are referring to people with disabilities. Even
many of us with disabilities make this assumption about others with
disabilities that we perceive to be more significant than our own. We simply
assume that these "other people with disabilities" cannot learn a
competitive job skill and that they should therefore be pleased to work at
subminimum wages to get the so-called "tangible and intangible benefits of
work."

Segregated subminimum-wage workshop representatives ask, "Would you pay a
full wage to a person who only works at 30 percent of normal productivity?"
This is the wrong question. We should ask why the workshop, with its
purported expertise in the training and employment of people with
disabilities, is only able to assist the individual to reach 30 percent
productivity when other entities are assisting similar people to acquire
competitive job skills. No one challenges the competence or qualifications
of the entities that represent themselves as quality training and employment
programs for people with disabilities. Despite the fact that there are
countless examples of people faced with significant disabilities who are
successfully working in a variety of jobs, society believes that these
people have no potential for competitive integrated employment because the
program directors tell us so. We continue to support these programs even
though they do not teach self-confidence, self-worth, alternative
techniques, or any skills that would empower people with disabilities to
secure employment and leave the rolls of poverty and public assistance. In
any other instance it would be pure foolishness to use public funds to pay
for schools where students do not learn, to pay for vocational programs that
do not teach a marketable skill, or to provide public support for jobs that
pay less than the federal minimum wage. 

Phasing out the use of segregated subminimum-wage training environments is
supported by research, countless case studies, and cost benefit analysis. So
why is it so difficult to gain support for the long overdue repeal of
Section 14(c) of the FLSA as outlined in HR 831, the Fair Wages for Workers
with Disabilities Act? The simple fact is that it is easier to place people
with significant disabilities in segregated environments to keep them away
from the rest of society. We even cloud this outrageous act of
discrimination by masking it as a demonstration of compassion for those less
fortunate by placing them in safe sheltered environments for their own
protection. We yield to those who profit from their false assertions of
incapacity rather than fight for the rights of those being exploited. It
takes courage to confront discrimination. It takes time and energy to invest
in strategies and programs that work. We can take the easy way out and
prepare the next generation of workers with disabilities for the segregated
subminimum-wage workshops, or we can phase out the use of Section 14(c) and
invest in the true capacity of workers with disabilities.

The employment statistics for workers with disabilities are far from ideal,
but this is not a reason to accept the glass-half-empty logic of allowing
workers with disabilities to work in useless jobs that pay them less than
the federal minimum wage. The glass is in fact half-full, because strategies
exist that allow workers with disabilities to obtain competitive, integrated
employment. As a society we must invest time and resources in expanding the
use of these strategies. This approach will ultimately create a more
positive future for all Americans with disabilities.

Mr. Anil Lewis, M.P.A.

Director of Advocacy and Policy

"Eliminating Subminimum Wages for People with Disabilities" 

http://www.nfb.org/fairwages

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

200 East Wells Street at Jernigan Place

Baltimore, Maryland   21230

(410) 659-9314 ext. 2374 (Voice)

(410) 685-5653 (FAX)

Email: alewis at nfb.org

Web: www.nfb.org

Twitter: @anillife 

The National Federation of the Blind needs your support to ensure blind
children get an equal education; to connect blind veterans with the training
and services they need; and to help seniors who are losing vision continue
to live independent and fulfilling lives. To make a donation, please go to
www.nfb.org

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

_______________________________________________
Nfb-legislative-directors mailing list
Nfb-legislative-directors at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfb-legislative-directors:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-legislative-directors_nfbnet.org/presi
dent.nfb.mi%40gmail.com