[Ohio-talk] The Commensurate Wage Fallacy

COLLEEN ROTH n8tnv at att.net
Tue Apr 16 22:26:44 UTC 2013 

Hi Suzanne,
I think that this material you pulled out for us regarding Conmensurate Wage was very useful.
I do think that some of the money earned by sheltered Shop executives could be used to provide job coaches for employees who really should be trainees.
There are so many exceptions for those who are workingstsweating at Sheltered workshops.
There may be some people who are at the workshop because it is a type of daycare for their families but I do not think it is a common practice in most workshops.
Again thanks for sharing.

Colleen Roth
President
At Large Chapter



----- Original Message -----
From: Barbara Pierce <bbpierce at pobox.com>
To: "'Ationfb of Ohio Announcement and Discussion List'" ohio-talk at nfbnet.org
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:22 pm
Subject: Re: [Ohio-talk] FW: The Commensurate Wage Fallacy

>
>
> Thanks Suzanne for pulling that out and showing it to us. I did not take the
> time to read it when the email came in from Anil, and he did an excellent
> job of arguing the case.
> 
> Thanks again, 
> Barbara
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ohio-talk [mailto:ohio-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Suzanne
> Turner
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:23 AM
> To: ohio-talk at nfbnet.org; Delcenia at prodigy.net; Steven Friedman; Joel
> Zureick; Alexis Vinick; Sterling Garrett; Janice Hannah-Hardy; Jim Hlavaty;
> Carlton Toppin; Nicole Kahn; Krystle Williams; rskill2008 at bellsouth.net;
> CRDavisjm at gmail.com; Anthony R. Easley; Brooke Dowdy
> Subject: [Ohio-talk] FW: The Commensurate Wage Fallacy
> 
> I thought I would share this perspective.
> Suzanne
> 
> From: "Lewis, Anil" <ALewis at nfb.org<mailto:ALewis at nfb.org>>
> Date: April 15, 2013, 1:35:33 PM EDT
> Subject: The Commensurate Wage Fallacy
> 
> 
> The Commensurate Wage Fallacy
> https://nfb.org/blog/vonb-blog/commensurate-wage-fallacy
> Submitted by alewis on Mon, 04/15/2013 — 09:36 Blog Date:
> Monday, April 15, 2013
> By Anil Lewis
> 
> Under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a flawed formula has
> been used for years to calculate the commensurate "piece rate" wage for
> workers with disabilities.  This formula, based on average wages and survey
> data, works mathematically, but fails the common sense test.  My
> twelve-year-old stepson asked me the following question from his math
> homework: If Johnny can run one mile in two minutes, how fast can Johnny run
> two miles?  He knew that the expected answer was four minutes.  However, he
> also had the common sense to know that Johnny would get tired, and it would
> take Johnny more time to run each consecutive mile.  I told him to put four
> minutes as the answer.  He got an A on the homework, but he did not
> understand why he got an A for the wrong answer.  I validated his common
> sense and applauded the fact that at twelve years old, he understood the
> root of the commensurate wage fallacy.  The commensurate "subminimum" wage
> formula used by over three thousand employers to determine how much they
> should pay their workers with disabilities is based on the same flawed logic
> as the math problem.
> 
> Before we get to the real commensurate wage fallacy, we must discuss how the
> prevailing wage is determined.  A subminimum wage employer must conduct an
> annual wage survey of private sector jobs in the employer's geographic area
> that are similar to the jobs being performed by the workers with
> disabilities.  Then the employer takes the average of at least three of
> these industry wage rates to determine the hourly prevailing wage for the
> job.  For example, if three private sector employees are being paid $8.25,
> $8.30, and $8.35 respectively, the average wage rate of $8.30 would be the
> prevailing wage used in the commensurate wage formula.
> 
> The math is correct, but common sense tells you that the subminimum wage
> employer gets to shop around to determine which industry wage rates to use,
> so if there is a private sector employee being paid $9.00 for a similar job,
> there is no requirement for the employer to use this higher wage in the
> calculation.  It is more likely that there are no similar jobs in the
> community, in which case the employer should use the federal minimum wage of
> $7.25 (or the higher state minimum wage, if one applies) as the prevailing
> wage.  Some subminimum wage employers illegally use less than this amount;
> and with little to no oversight, this exploitation goes unaddressed for
> years.
> 
> The most convoluted and manipulative step used to determine the commensurate
> wage is for the employer to conduct a time study.  The employer chooses an
> experienced nondisabled worker to perform the job for twenty minutes.
> Ideally, this is done for at least three cycles by the same person or three
> different people.  This provides three productivity rates that are then
> averaged to determine the average "piece rate."  Therefore, if thirty-eight
> items are produced in the first cycle, forty items are produced in the
> second, and forty-two items are produced in the third, the benchmark would
> be set for the workers with disabilities to produce forty items in twenty
> minutes, or two items per minute.  This means the expectation is for the
> workers with disabilities to produce 120 items per hour in order to be paid
> the $8.30 prevailing wage.
> 
> Again, the math is sound, but common sense tells you that the employer can
> conduct many more time studies and choose the results to manipulate the
> commensurate wage outcome, ignoring those time studies in which less than
> thirty-eight items are produced.  Essentially, the employer can conduct as
> many time studies as necessary to justify the wage that the employer would
> like to pay for the job.
> 
> Common sense also tells you that it is unfair to set a productivity
> benchmark for an entire work day using only a twenty-minute time study.
> Think of it as another version of my stepson's math problem:  if Johnny can
> produce 120 items in an hour, how many can he produce in two hours?  My
> twelve-year-old stepson knew the answer.  He realized that Johnny would get
> tired, and his productivity would decrease over time.
> 
> The commensurate wage professionals state that they take all of this into
> consideration by providing a 15 percent time allowance for Personal time,
> Fatigue, and Delay (the PF&D factor).  This is calculated to be nine minutes
> per hour, which many employers round to ten minutes per hour.  Therefore,
> the productivity expectation set for the workers with disabilities under the
> earlier scenario would be for them to produce one hundred items per hour in
> order to earn $8.30.  This is more commonly stated to be a piece rate, where
> the workers with disabilities are paid eighty-three cents for each item they
> produce.
> 
> Although the PF&D allowance may bring the productivity expectation in line
> with the worker's reasonable ability to produce over time, this cannot be
> considered an adequate adjustment for personal time, fatigue, and delay
> inclusively.  Most subminimum wage employers do not encourage the PF&D
> allowance to be used for breaks.  Although most employers are required to
> provide nondisabled employees a ten-minute paid rest period for every four
> hours worked, the sheltered subminimum wage workshops are excluded from this
> requirement.  In fact, the ability to work without a break is presented by
> the subminimum wage employer as a benefit to the workers with disabilities,
> who are encouraged to work as much as possible in order to earn as much as
> possible.  This type of pressure produces stress; the stress results in
> mistakes; and mistakes result in defective products that the workers do not
> get paid for producing.
> 
> Delay is also out of the control of the worker.  The workers cannot produce
> anything if the employer is delayed in providing them materials to produce
> the item, and unlike the nondisabled workers that get paid an hourly rate,
> the workers with disabilities do not get paid when they are not producing
> products.  The legal requirement to pay for down time is at the discretion
> of the employer, and if an employer does not provide production supplies in
> a timely manner, the workers with disabilities can be left idle for much
> more than ten minutes without the supplies to produce anything, thus earning
> nothing.
> 
> The unspoken math is that there are currently over three hundred thousand
> people with disabilities being paid wages below the federal minimum.
> Specifically, 50 percent of these workers receive less than half the federal
> minimum wage, and 25 percent receive less than one dollar per hour, some as
> low as three cents per hour.  The common sense truth is that most of these
> individuals are already productive enough to earn the federal minimum wage;
> they are just victims of the flawed wage formula.  Others could be
> productive enough to earn the federal minimum wage if provided the proper
> training and support, but will never receive either the training or support
> while segregated in a subminimum wage work environment.  Those individuals
> being paid less than one dollar per hour are truly not ready for work, but
> the subminimum wage employers assert that these workers are being afforded
> an opportunity to experience the tangible and intangible benefits of work.
> The workers with disabilities get the extremely intangible benefit of
> subminimum wages.  The executives get the true tangible benefit from the
> public and private dollars meant to support the workers with disabilities,
> but used instead to support the six-figure salaries of the executives.  The
> subminimum wage employers are essentially getting an A for the wrong
> answer.
> 
> The fallacy here is that the workers with disabilities are supposedly being
> paid based on their productivity.  If the employers truly believe that the
> commensurate wage model is adequate and fair for workers with disabilities,
> why not use the commensurate wage formula to calculate the wages for all of
> the sheltered workshop employees, including the executives?  My
> twelve-year-old stepson would know the answer to this question as well.
> 
> Visit www.nfb.org/fair-wages<http://www.nfb.org/fair-wages> to get more
> information, and add your name to our online
> petition<https://nfb.org/civicrm/petition/sign?sid=1&reset=1> to help us
> stop the perpetuation of the commensurate wage fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 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<mailto:alewis at nfb.org>
> Web: www.nfb.org<http://www.nfb.org>
> twitter: @anillife
> 
> —
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "NDLA General List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to
> ndla-general-list-+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com<mailto:ndla-general-list-+un
> subscribe at googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
> 
> Suzanne Turner, BSW, MPA
> Employment Coordinator and Benefit Specialist
> 
> Cleveland Sight Center
> 216-791-8118 (main)
> 216-658-7350 (direct)
> 216-791-1101 (fax)
> sturner at ClevelandSightCenter.org <mailto:sturner at ClevelandSightCenter.org>
> 
> Help support our White Cane Walk — www.WhiteCaneWalk.org
> <http://www.whitecanewalk.org>
> 
> 
> 1909 East 101st Street
> P.O. Box 1988
> Cleveland, Ohio  44106-0188
> 
> Our Mission: To empower people with vision loss to realize their full
> potential, and to shape the community's vision of that potential.
> 
> ************************************** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> **************************************
> This email including any attachments, is private and is for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain copyrighted, confidential,
> protected healthcare information and or privileged information otherwise
> protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any
> unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any
> action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately
> notify the sender via telephone or return mail and destroy all copies of the
> original message.
> _______________________________________________
> Ohio-talk mailing list
> Ohio-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Ohio-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org/bbpierce%40pobox.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ohio-talk mailing list
> Ohio-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Ohio-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org/n8tnv%40att.net

More information about the Ohio-Talk mailing list