<html>
<body>
Good is Simply Not Good Enough<br>
<br>
By Anil Lewis<br>
<br>
I received a copy of
<a href="http://www.ndrn.org/en/media/releases/505-press-release-supporting-section-511-of-the-rehabilitation-act.html">
a memorandum written by Curt Decker</a>, executive director of the
National Disability Rights Network (NDRN). The memo purported to be
a rebuttal of
<a href="https://nfb.org/images/nfb/documents/word/sam%20bagenstos%20analysis%20of%20section%20511.docx">
an analysis of Title V, Section 511 of the Workforce Investment Act
reauthorization</a>, written by Professor Samuel R. Bagenstos, who was
requested by the National Federation of the Blind to give his
professional opinion of the reauthorization language. Mr. Decker is
unjustly critical of Professor Bagenstos’s findings. Contrary to
Mr. Decker’s assertion, in his report Professor Bagenstos does not ignore
the positive components of the overall bill, nor does he ignore the fact
that there are over 400,000 individuals with disabilities currently
employed at wages far below the federal minimum. Moreover, he does
not ignore what Mr. Decker states is “the largest segment of people with
disabilities that Section 511, in conjunction with other provisions of
the bill, will ultimately help.” (Note Mr. Decker’s careful wording that
includes “in conjunction with other provisions of the bill,” which
confuses the matter of determining whether Section 511 is helpful or
harmful on its own merit.) Professor Bagenstos properly considered the
section in context and determined, overall, that the language would
represent “a stunning step backwards.”<br>
<br>
We appreciate NDRN’s continued support of the growing effort to repeal
the unfair, discriminatory, and immoral subminimum-wage provision found
in Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). We
continue to point out that the subminimum-wage provision is the root of
the problem and we, along with
<a href="https://nfb.org/images/nfb/documents/word/repeal_14(c)_support_list_8_21_13.doc">
over fifty other national and local cross-disability organizations</a>,
believe that Section 14(c) of the FLSA should be repealed.
Moreover, we agree with NDRN’s assessment of the other forward-thinking
provisions in the WIA language. However, we choose not to mask the
detrimental consequences of Section 511 with the numerous other positive
improvements listed in Mr. Decker’s memorandum. <br>
<br>
The mantra of the Decker memorandum is, “I choose to not let the perfect
be the enemy of the good.” As the executive director of the
Protection and Advocacy System charged with the responsibility to
zealously advocate on behalf of people with disabilities, it is truly
disappointing that Mr. Decker is so passionate about defending a piece of
legislation that he concedes is inadequate to address the real
problem. Some are afraid that our advocacy efforts to strike
Section 511 from the bill will kill the WIA reauthorization. We cannot
afford to be afraid. We are not advocating for the perfect versus
the good; we are advocating against the bad. We seek only the most
basic step toward the fair and just treatment of individuals with
disabilitiespayment of at least the federal minimum wage, in line with
the protection provided to all other American workers. The true
enemy is the unfair, discriminatory, and immoral subminimum-wage
provision found in Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
<br>
<br>
Mr. Decker’s argument rests on the assumption that we must accept
incremental progress toward the elimination of subminimum wages. We
believe that such incremental progress is inappropriate, even as an
interim goal. Furthermore, Professor Bagenstos’s analysis reveals that
Section 511 will not make even the incremental progress that we are urged
to accept. It will instead authorize subminimum-wage work as a training
and work-readiness component of the rehabilitation system and, therefore,
will ultimately, if unintentionally, lead to more rehabilitation clients
being tracked into subminimum-wage work. Our response to Mr. Decker is
that if he feels Section 511 is good, then good is simply not good
enough. <br>
<br>
Those who advocate for the elimination of the wage disparity between men
and women, or for the raising of the minimum wage itself, or for better
services to assist the unemployed to re-enter the workforce, are not
asked to, and would never accept the suggestion that they should accept
only incremental progress toward their goals, or that they should accept
solutions like commensurate wages or employment training in
subminimum-wage environments as a step to achieving goals. It appears to
only be problematic for people to advocate on behalf of fairness and wage
equality when the advocates are people with disabilities. The
unfortunate reality is that we cannot align our efforts to obtain
fairness in the workplace with those of the general public because
society fails to understand that with the proper training, opportunity,
and supports, individuals with disabilities can be productive
workers. Until we overcome this pervasive misconception, hundreds
of thousands of individuals with disabilities will continue to be denied
the proper training, opportunities, and supports to obtain competitive,
integrated employment. As long as society can legally relegate
workers with disabilities to subminimum-wage employment, we will never
change societal perceptions that such work is all that can be expected of
workers with disabilities. <br>
<br>
The different standard to which advocates with disabilities are held has
been apparent throughout the process of producing the WIA bill. We
attempted to discuss our concerns with HELP Committee staff before the
committee vote. However, we were only able to secure a few meetings
in the time provided. In fact, members of the HELP Committee staff
were discouraged from communicating with us. We were assured that
amendments to the Rehabilitation Act language would be offered during the
committee markup, but no such amendments were offered or considered. Our
attempts to engage in informed advocacy have been labeled a smear
campaign. Many of our members are requesting meetings with their
Senators during the recess, but are being ignored. How will good
policy be developed without open, honest, informed dialogue? <br>
<br>
There is a false perception that there is tremendous support for Section
511. That is because support for Section 511 is being wrongly
conflated with support for the WIA bill in its entirety. However,
there is, to our knowledge, only one stakeholder entity that is opposed
to the removal of Section 511 from the WIA reauthorization, and that
entity is NDRN. More to the point, the question is not who supports
Section 511? The question should be: who opposes the removal of
Section 511? Again, the answer is only one entity: NDRN.<br>
<br>
Section 511 is doubtless well-intentioned, but its proponents would do
well to remember the famous proverb regarding good intentions being
paving stones on a particular, and undesirable, road. Section 511
cannot and does not accomplish its purported purpose and will actually
make matters worse. We urge the Senate to remove it from the WIA
reauthorization, and we urge all organizations of people with
disabilities to affirmatively support its removal rather than silently
accepting it. <br>
<br>
<br>
The below organizations all oppose Section 511 and support its removal
from WIA:<br>
<br>
APSE<br>
Autistic Self-Advocacy Network<br>
Autism Society of America<br>
National Coalition of State Rehabilitation Councils<br>
National Council on Disability<br>
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind <br>
National Down Syndrome Congress <br>
National Down Syndrome Society <br>
National Federation of the Blind <br>
National Fragile X Foundation <br>
National Organization of Nurses with Disabilities <br>
Parent to Parent USA <br>
Physician-Parent Caregivers <br>
TASH<br>
<br>
<i>As of August 23, 2013<br>
</i> <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>