<html>
<body>
Content-Language: en-US<br>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
boundary="_000_72D51A25A403F249A0FC4A94A0D9640D53356F25CH1PRD0710MB380_"<br>
<br>
<br>
<h1><b>The Sin of Omission: A Rebuttal of Goodwill’s Policy Statement on
Subminimum Wage Payments to Workers with Disabilities</b></h1>Submitted
by alewis on Fri, 06/21/2013 - 08:40 <br>
Blog Date: <br>
Friday, June 21, 2013<br>
By Anil Lewis<br>
<br>
With the pending broadcast of a national news story
<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rock-center/52257275/">on
NBC</a><a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rock-center/52257275/"><i>
Rock Center</a></i> tonight making the public aware of the legal ability
for employers to pay workers with disabilities wages less than the
federal minimum wage, Goodwill International, a self-proclaimed leader in
the employment of people with disabilities, has decided to make a
preemptive case for taking advantage of this unfair, discriminatory, and
immoral provision.
<a href="http://www.goodwill.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Goodwill-14c-Fair-Wages-Position-Paper.pdf">
Goodwill’s position paper</a>, entitled "Employment of People with
Disabilities through FLSA Section 14(c)," is a failed attempt to
justify the unjustifiable. By using more palatable language, and
stating a biased perspective without giving full information, Goodwill is
committing a sin of omission, one that threatens to keep over
four-hundred thousand people with disabilities from receiving the proper
training and support to secure gainful employment at the federal minimum
wage or higher. <br>
<br>
Throughout the paper, Goodwill uses terms that attempt to soften the fact
that it advocates for the payment of subminimum wages to workers with
disabilities. Goodwill prefers the term Commensurate Wage, which
masks the fact that these wages are below the federal minimum, some as
low as one cent per hour. Goodwill prefers to use the term
Community Rehabilitation Program, which is essentially the same old
sheltered workshop setup that existed in 1938. I have written blog
posts on how Goodwill is using
<a href="http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/new-normal/compassion-can-be-discrimination-sign-petition-against-subminimum-wages">
compassionate discrimination</a> to paint themselves as the
<a href="https://nfb.org/blog/vonb-blog/victims-exemption">victims of the
exemption</a> who are only using existing law to take advantage of the
<a href="https://nfb.org/blog/vonb-blog/commensurate-wage-fallacy">
commensurate wage fallacy</a>. The following paragraphs disclose
what Goodwill chose to omit.<br>
<br>
Goodwill chooses not to restate in this paper that 101 of its 165
affiliates do not use a subminimum wage certificate. <br>
<br>
Therefore, by Goodwill’s own admission, the overwhelming majority of its
affiliates are successful without the use of this “Essential Tool.”
I guess that is why the paper offers the following disclaimer: “The
information contained in this document represents the current view of
Goodwill Industries International on the issues discussed as of the date
of publication.” This means Goodwill International, where the blind
CEO is paid over $500,000 per year by an organization that pays other
people with disabilities 22 cents per hour, endorse this paper, but not
all of its affiliates did. Moreover, it is not legal to pay workers
with disabilities subminimum wages in Canada, so the Goodwill Canadian
affiliates do not have the legal ability to pay subminimum wages, and are
still successful.<br>
<br>
Goodwill chooses to play on the pre-existing misperception that people
with disabilities do not have the capacity to be productive
employees. <br>
<br>
This has been proven false, over and over again, by people with a variety
of disabilities, including those that Goodwill would label too severely
disabled to work. The dismal picture Goodwill paints is more of a
condemnation of its inability to properly train individuals with
disabilities than a reflection of the potential of the worker with a
disability. Other entities, similarly situated, working with the
same population of people with disabilities, are successful in providing
the proper training and supports for these workers to secure employment
at the federal minimum wage or higher. Again, the majority of the
Goodwill affiliates are doing it. Why not all?<br>
<br>
Goodwill states that people with disabilities and their families choose
to work in these subminimum wage work environments. <br>
<br>
The only choice they are being presented with is work at subminimum wages
or no work at all. This is the Goodwill choice, but not the only
choice. Goodwill chooses not to reference the reports that describe
the innovative, alternative training and placement strategies that are
being used to employ people with significant disabilities in competitive
integrated work environments. It does not reference the research
that demonstrates that the innovative alternative strategies cost less
and produce better outcomes for workers with disabilities. <br>
<br>
Goodwill states that the National Council on Disability (NCD) has
concerns about the significant unemployment rate of people with
disabilities, but does not mention that
<a href="http://www.ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/d086c5a0_4410_43ff_83ff_c0cb31ea0e8b?document.docx">
NCD has said</a> that Section 14(c) of the FLSA should be repealed and
subminimum wage payments to workers with disabilities should be phased
out. <br>
<br>
Goodwill states that it agrees with the position of the U. S. Business
Leadership Network (USBLN) that for-profit employers should not be
allowed to obtain Special Wage Certificates, but does not explain that
USBLN only represents for-profit employers and therefore chose to limit
its position statement to the businesses it serves.<br>
<br>
So many questions go unanswered in the Goodwill paper. If
subminimum wages are such an essential tool for the employment of people
with disabilities, why is it such a secret? If the use of the
subminimum wage is such a successful tool, why is there still an over 70
percent unemployment rate for people with disabilities? If
subminimum wage payments are such an essential tool for Goodwill, why do
almost two thirds of the Goodwill affiliates choose not to use this
“tool?”<br>
<br>
Goodwill’s solution is to maintain the status quo, and to continue to use
the revenue generated from the labor of its workers with disabilities,
the revenue from the charitable contributions, the revenue from federal
contracts, and the revenue resulting from its non-profit status, to
compensate its executives with substantial salaries, rather than fairly
compensating the workers with disabilities. Moreover, Goodwill uses
the revenue to market its message of low expectations to people with
disabilities and their families, leading them down the path to perpetual
public dependence, not full participation. <br>
<br>
The most offensive use of the revenue received by these sheltered
workshops is paying their lobbyists to persuade members of Congress to
continue to allow them to legally pay these workers pennies per
hour. Finally, Goodwill suggests that its preferred solution is for
the federal government to spend even more money to increase regulation
and enforcement of this discriminatory policy, burying the exploitation
under additional mountains of bureaucracy. All of these funds would
be better spent creating real training and employment opportunities for
all people with disabilities. <br>
<br>
We recognize that the competitive employment of people with disabilities
presents significant challenges. However, we feel that the use of
subminimum wages is simply a cop-out, especially when we are aware of
training and employment strategies that work. We applaud all of the
success stories that Goodwill uses to promote its services. We just
want and insist that Goodwill’s employees are paid a fair wage. If
Goodwill, or the other entities currently taking advantage of this
subminimum wage provision, cannot adopt a new business model that
provides the training and support to allow the worker with a disability
to earn at least the federal minimum wage, why should our public and
philanthropic dollars continue to support them? <br>
<br>
<br>
Mr. Anil Lewis, M.P.A.<br>
Director of Advocacy and Policy<br>
<br>
“Eliminating Subminimum Wages for People with Disabilities” <br>
<a href="http://www.nfb.org/fairwages" eudora="autourl">
http://www.nfb.org/fairwages<br>
</a>NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND<br>
200 East Wells Street at Jernigan Place<br>
Baltimore, Maryland 21230<br>
(410) 659-9314 ext. 2374 (Voice)<br>
(410) 685-5653 (FAX)<br>
Email: alewis@nfb.org<br>
Web: <a href="http://www.nfb.org/" eudora="autourl">www.nfb.org<br>
</a>twitter: @anillife <br>
</body>
</html>