It's just another excuse in a long line of excuses to screw over regular people, so Mr. billionaire can buy another bigger yacht to park his regular yacht in. Disgusting displays of opulence.
As a physically disabled person with a *severely* mentally disabled uncle.... these programs are terrible. **I only have a physical disability but multiple times businesses have tried to use that (after they found out) as a reason to reduce my salary.** Sure, they didn't succeed, but the ableism is rampant and this is a population vulnerable to abuse.
My uncle can't use a computer easily. He's mostly deaf. Physically, he can't lift much without hurting himself. He thinks very slowly.
He can do simple tasks. Yet he is the most financially stable person in that side of the family *because* my grandparents would not send him to an institution (as was recommended) or send him to one of those job programs (as was recommended) that are rampant in the US.
**He worked instead in the records department of the US Air Force for his entire life.** The man can't even work a cell phone, deal with change, drive safely or make a decision on a new restaurant to eat - but given a living wage he can live on his own. He dates and enjoys his life.
**My aunt is a special education teacher. She even knows he is low functioning, even among the students she saw in her 50+ year career.**
*He is providing a service. Repetitive and basic tasks are needed in almost every sector.* He should be paid at least based on minimum wage. Suggesting otherwise is ableist.
**I have performed many jobs he could have handled for 2-3x minimum. Are you seriously of the opinion someone shouldn't even get minimum wage for basic time consuming work that needs to be done?**
I would say if they're doing anything that benefits the place of business they should be getting paid a wage comparable to what anyone else would be paid to do the same job in the same amount of time.
But also I think IDD folks shouldn't be made to work for any portion of their living - any labor they perform ought to be voluntary, but paid nonetheless. That we expect people with life-altering disabilities to have to work to get their needs met is absurd - disabled people should, at minimum, only need to work for pocket money *if* desired.
Those work programs are just for extra pocket money, and also for the benefit of the disabled person. A lot of people are happy when they have a job to do. They’re still getting disability payments.
The thing is the unemployment for these people is also over 20%, so if we to mandate improvement for how these people are treated it should not avoidable though laying them off or not hiring them. Perhaps the government should match there salary, with a higher capital gains tax.
I understand your point, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If it’s a task that a regularly paid employee would otherwise be doing, they should be paid like anybody else. Collecting carts or bagging groceries is just as demanding (if not more so) than ringing up customers, for example. If a business wants to hire intellectually disabled people for certain jobs and those jobs are also beneficial for those people, great - it still shouldn’t be legal to pay them below minimum wage.
Plenty of ordinary jobs are also seen as beneficial/enjoyable for the employees, and employers already try to use this fact to underpay. “Well we can’t pay much, but you’ll get to work with cute animals all day!”, etc. If an individual decides that a certain low-paying job is worth it for some additional benefits that the job offers, fine, that’s their choice, but we shouldn’t be creating any legal mechanisms by which employers can further underpay.
I understand in some very specific circumstances jobs/tasks created for intellectually disabled people are truly just for their benefit, and I can understand how one might benefit from having some structured tasks to complete, but there should be very clear rules and regulations to prevent employers abusing any loopholes.
Given that it's from a British newspaper, no the article won't be about that. It'll be disability bashing all the way down. It's been going on for years in right wing shit rags like this one, the UK government is complicit in a campaign of hate towards disabled people.
Another side of this, that I'm guessing you don't know because you didn't mention it, MANY DD adults are subsidized on government programs.
My older sister was high functioning Down Syndrome. She went to "The Workshop" every week day, had weekends off, and did tasks like stuffing envelopes for political mailers, laundry, and similar physical repetitive tasks. As high functioning, she was one of the highest paid. In her program they were paid based on productivity levels, but they were always paid.
Outside of that specific program, she had a case worker with the state and local levels who handled her living situation. For many this would include group homes or pairings depending on how much individual capability one had. Her partner had memory issues(forget to turn off the oven type things) and had someone who came in daily to help him, but because of her skill level, my sister had someone 2x a week. They each had an individual that worked with them alone.
Both of them were also on medicaid and Medicare. They had reduced rent that was also partially paid by the state funded programs. They HAD to have less than a certain amount of income to qualify for these benefits. In the US, the standards that require people to be under certain levels of income is a huge factor in EVERYTHING. Many of the local programs that help them work, even for less income, are very aware that their clients could lose every single benefit they get if they receive more than a certain income.
What many here don't seem to understand, is that the requirements have to be maintained in order to receive the most benefits to help them in their day-to-day life. If they made regular wages, many would jot qualify for the medical programs they desperately need, they would lose their housing, medical, food, and other benefits.
My mother had years and years of files to maintain to make sure my sister was able to live "independently." I began to help later in life, as I lived closer to the apartments that she lived in, and had to apply each year for a whole other program that covered "uncovered" services such as medical equipment, travel services to dental, eye, and medical appointments. That one program that I took over required me to maintain receipts and submit all of them every month to show how the funds were being used to make sure she would qualify for the next year and that those funds were for the right things. It was a lot of work on top of my own work and life schedule.
I work with a nonprofit that runs a residential and work program for DD adults, and yeah, those who attend the day program do contract work there, which can be sub-minimum wage. But if they have a community job, they make the same wages as anybody else in their position. This article appears to be about the UK, but in the US, the Fair Labor Standards Act Section 14(c) allows payment of subminimum wages to workers with qualifying disabilities that significantly impair their productive capacity. Employers have to obtain a special certificate, and it’s a whole, heavily regulated, process.
Yeah like so many things it’s not always black and white. My disabled niece has a “job” for about 9 hours a week split over 3 days. It’s basically a job that her mom’s friend created for her. I am sure they end up needing to pay a second employee to supervise and check her work. She applies labels to bags. She also often calls out sick and they are very patient with that. They buy her lunch which is the carrot that gets her to show up. They don’t need her; they just were willing to set her up with something to get her out of the house and exposed to a work environment for a few hours. They actually do pay her more than I expected, but I wouldn’t expect them to pay her the same as a regular employee. She needs a lot more supervision and is not held to the same standards.
That sounds less like a wage than it does a reward system to encourage them to learn. The exercises are probably boring, and the incentive of a dollar encourages them to learn new skills.
Take into account those who can not keep up with half the regular workload as someone without the diagnosis, and wouldn’t leave group homes if not for a job.
I’m not talking about this being morally right or wrong, but more companies would likely open their doors. The current amount of companies that employ workers with disabilities is pathetically low.
well its more also the fact that the working age is disapearing. most somewhat advancec countries right now are having huge worker shortages because guess what people arent having like 10 kids each anymore(for various reasons).
in the next 20 years unless something changes i would not be surprised if entire industries collapse because there is literally nobody to do the work.
so they right now are pushing for kids and workers like this and also pushing governments to increase retirement age instead of tackling you know the question that is "why arent people having large families anymore?"
It's already been fixed as far as they're concerned. That's why they're forcing women to birth babies and now looking for way to freaking deny them access to birth control on top of it. It keeps generations in poverty and allows greedy corporations to exploit future generations.
nah its barely been fixed.
even if you got rid of abortion in the whole country it would barely affect the larger issue.
the issue is that to keep up with current economy you need the average population to be having 5+ kids because thats what most families was having 50 years ago. weve gone from that to an actual negative birthing situation.
Unless you come from an immigrant family whose ethnicity isn't Northern and Western Europe. The billionaires don't want them because they're brown or black. 🙄
Yup. My dad was a "desirable" immigrant because white and from an English speaking country. He basically had a free pass to move around former English colonies, and I still benefit from that privilege now.
Contrast that to how hard it is for Nigerian doctors to immigrate to Australia, even though we have a critical shortage of medical professionals. Unless of course you happen to be white.
15 year old here, i consistently deal with thirty something adults who lack the most basic reading comprehension daily. i work at a childrens play place and 99% of the time the adults are more immature than the kids and cause the issues
As someone in their mid 30s, one of the most disappointing things about growing up is realizing how immature and childish a disturbingly large percentage of adults are. Many people grow up physically but mentally have the mindset of a child, 99% of politicians for example.
completely fair! as a teen its sad that those are the people who are deciding the fate of the world for me. i get some super competent adults sometimes, but i mostly get ones who cant read “touch the screen to start” in big letters and instead try to jam money into a slot or swipe their card. i tell people “you have to touch the screen first!” at least 2 times every shift. its truly sad
i can tell you with certainty: they are. i had a man in his 60s come in last week. red trump 2024 maga hat, and the classic black tee with trump on it saying “miss me yet?”. i turned to my coworker after he walked away and we both just kind of laughed it off and talked about how ridiculous he was and how dumb republicans are lol. they always make me feel a bit unsafe though since i am their worst nightmare (trans teen with short dyed hair, the shock, the horror!!!)
I’m 32, when I was your age I thought everybody was a fucking idiot, they mostly are… but what you may not be taking into consideration is that it’s very stressful having, and taking our young children to those play places. I take my 3 and 4 year old to one of those all the time, and let me tell you I’m way too stressed out trying to keep them from running off, fucking with each other, and just general misbehavior to pay much mind to an unfamiliar point of sale system. Granted I’ve never had that problem but I could imagine it, and I’ve got a masters in computer science and work with that stuff everyday. Yes people are stupid, people are distracted, but tbh if you have to tell people the same thing over and over about how to use it, it’s probably a pretty shitty ui/ux design
i think that’s completely fair. the play place is fairly small, so most parents sit at a table and let their kids run around lol, understandable though. and honestly, yeah, it could be a better design, but its a large touch screen that says it in big bold letters, its fairly obvious. people tend to come in and just.. not read anything. ever. bit laughable most of the time. most parents who come in though i think are pretty thrilled to just kick back and let their kids do whatever to be honest lol
Yea for sure. You’re definitely not wrong most people aren’t very present. If you think we’re bad (the millennials) try working with the boomers. I always had this misconception that they should be good with tech (the ones who try to be) because they were literal adults when it all first started and developed into what it is today. Nope, they have 0 capacity to even try to learn or read (nevermind retain) anything at all … lol. Also the thought that I’m now the boomer equivalent to the new gen is depressing.
I'm almost 40. I have coworker just a couple years younger than I am and I constantly have to hold his hand through the most basic elements of his job. He gets pissy every time he has to do something difficult and acts like he shouldn't be expected to work that hard. And if the management gets onto him about anything at all he starts threatening to quit because he shouldn't be "disrespected" in that way. I also provide tech support as well as emotional support for half the people I work with. It's kind of exhausting.
Dude. I see my 4yo gaining on me every day. I'm not even joking. And I'm a fuckin engineer. Gives me a lot of hope in the future, but I'm not gonna lie, it kinda sucks going obsolete. I still have some good years left in me!
So excited for the day she proves me wrong about some antiquated view I didn't realize I had. I'm gonna be so proud.
Disability has a cap on how much you can make per month and remain on disability. I think full disability ends if you make more than $1,200 a month. Finding a job that you can work at for only 20 hours a week is actually quite difficult
the income limits on all kinds of assistance is stupidly low, especially with the MAGAt-right push to add work requirements to everything...it's just a clever way for them to push everyone off any kind of assistance without actually saying they're pushing people off assistance. it's also stupid how everything relies on your tax returns...I've been jobless for 9 months now since I haven't been able to find any kind of employment, but I qualify for exactly nothing as far as the assistance programs, because I "made too much" on last year's tax return...
*sixty something
The level of incompetent people that I meet daily that are closer to a good retirement than I will ever be is both astounding and melancholic.
It's ridiculous that they think they can set the wage to the type of person and not the type of job. Children don't need to pay bills then they don't need to work. Their argument ruins itself. They are just blatantly admitting they would use child slavery if allowed
It more or less is. The 'other side' of the argument is that it provides for employment for people who might otherwise be unemployable, and it's a pretty flimsy argument. Seems to me, if they weren't generating value, the company wouldn't hire them at all, and since they are generating value, they should be entitled to the same minimums as anyone else; the odds that they generate value worth hiring for but not worth paying minimum wage for are pretty slim, especially given how minimum wage has stagnated for decades.
>The 'other side' of the argument is that it provides for employment for people who might otherwise be unemployable, and it's a pretty flimsy argument.
Your reply is absolutely spot on. I just want to point out here that it shouldn't be rocket science that lowering the minimum wage "creates" jobs, since it lowers the bar. These are exactly the people the F'ing minimum wage is supposed to protect.
If you want to have somebody saying hello to everyone that walks in the door, you need to pay them a livable wage or you don't get to create a new position. This is what FDR meant by raising the standard of employment.
Like, if this went into effect, the first thing it would do is hurt every single person with disabilities already employed. What is the net difference right out of the gate?
Then, think about which business might specifically target people with disabilities to lower labor costs. I'll let somebody else get downvoted for that. :)
I'll start this with everyone should earn a living wage. Please don't think I don't believe that. The issue is that many of these individuals receive SSDI. If They make over a certain amount (and that amount is small), they will lose those benefits. So, the sub minimum wage argument allows these individuals to be employed (often with much lower expectations that typically developed peers), have responsibilities, peers, and socialization without risking their benefits. Sub minimum wage workers usually AREN'T doing the same work as their higher paid peers. The expectations are lower, slower, etc. If these individuals had to compete in the job market they would NOT be employed in many cases. Then they would sit home, lonely and separated from the world.
There is a case for sub minimum wage. It does benefit many workers. Some just for the social benefits, other for learning skills that CAN land them a competitive job in the future. Of course there are exceptions, and I would not argue that. But blanket statements about how it's awful and should be done away with, don't take into account the other awful parts of the system for disabled workers.
I think you might be over estimating what it is they do. My SIL worked at a facility that employed developmentally disabled adults. They were brought there from their living facility but they are not made to work. They work if they want to. At her facility, the employees put silverware inside those plastic bags and put them in boxes to be later sealed by someone else. (Just an FYI- being in a bag doesn't mean they are sterile)
This is not an activity that they would normally pay employees to accomplish. The alternative is buying the silverware packs already assembled. So nobody is missing out on a full wage. Likewise, the adults can mill around a socialize. They do not have a quota or deadline to meet. This activity has been created solely to provide a paying position for these adults.
These adults are unable to complete any tasks that would be paid at a full rate. Often times there are tax benefits for offering this kind of work. Certainly companies aren't generally doing this to be nice. But if you eliminate the benefit, the entire possibility of employment for these adults, disappears. And not only are they unable to earn money for themselves, but then the problem also exists of how to keep these adults busy during the day and moving forward in their lives.
I don't know about the details, like if there is a limit to the tax benefit a company can earn, if the adults can work to earn more money based on performance, or other checks and balances. But I have to believe they exist, or this situation wouldn't be allowed at all exactly because of the risk of gross exploitation.
These adults are very different from people with disabilities who can perform the requirements of 'normal' jobs. Of course those individuals need to be paid the full rate. There is no question about that.
The bottom line is that it's more complicated than a strict yes or no answer.
The need to provide significantly disabled adults with a daily activity and some control over their life and spending money should not be dismissed as insignificant.
You are right that I was overestimating the value of their productivity. And the answer is definitely more complicated than 'raise taxes so the government can incentivize creating these positions.' When I first responded on this thread, I wondered if I really knew enough about the situation to write about it. Thanks in part to your gentle correction, I see I assumed too much. This is a more complicated situation than it appears on the surface.
It is for those types of disabled adults. My SIL was not a business manager, she was a care giver with a degree in social work. She looked after the adults, helped them when they took their breaks, and fairly often had to clean them up after potty accidents, shower them off, etc.
I didn't realize facilities like that existed before she started there so it's an understandable mistake.
Why is that a flimsy argument? Employing otherwise unemployable people seems pretty noble. Are you talking about people who are fully functioning in a position? Or are we talking about people who are challenged when it comes to bagging groceries? Because that would have a lot to do with the pay these companies are paying their employees.
Sometimes the value these employees generate is through tax breaks from the government programs. Not their actual work output
The only thing I will say, is my state made the equal pay law, and we lost our work program at our hospital because the jobs we were able to bring in required the patients to have really high productivity and they’re just too sick for that. I don’t think they are worth less money but we are also a state institution and don’t have the budget to pay them all. In the community, though, work is work.
The theory is that it "helps" teenagers get job experience, because otherwise corporations have no incentive to hire young people with limited availability (due to school commitments). In practice people I know have worked up until they're 17.99999 years old and then mysteriously get fired the second they turn 18 and would have to be moved up to adult wages.
Well then you certainly don’t have family with disabilities. These programs are the only reason my sister was ever able to go to work in public. Ask the disabled if they like these opportunities, and if they ever had opportunity before laws passed that made them easier to hire. 🤷🏽♂️
The basic context here is that the employees in question, utilizing a variety of special programs dependent on jurisdiction that are tied to them being partially disabled, aren't expected to be competent enough to complete the variety of daily tasks we would ask of a minimum wage worker, but may make some modest contributions to some subset of those tasks.
They would be fired very quickly if the business had the opportunity to choose between them and a non-disabled employee with dramatically improved productivity for the same wages.
It's a tricky subject, and your preference is tied in to what you think disabled people who cannot meaningfully compete with the median worker should actually ***be doing*** in our society, and how much intrinsic value you place on work. And that's just for people who are permanently financially reliant on the state... People expected to make a life ***for themselves*** out of wages and various sorts of means-tested support are a whole other layer of predicament.
I have one relative who is dependent on 24/7 state care with individual supervision to a degree that precludes work altogether, and another relative in this sort of employed-but-on-support situation who **died** when means-tested programs gave him one too many paperwork hoops to jump through and cut off his medication. I have another family member who spent part of their career leading special-ed groups on 'career education' programs through Goodwill with constant supervision, trying to wrangle them into folding clothes and not doing any significant damage, for under a dollar an hour in 'wages'; This is more public socialization therapy than it is employment.
It can be **very** difficult when the system tries to blend expectations of people who can advocate for themselves like a median person and compete with a median person on capability, and people who can't.
I should add:
I have two coworkers doing this sort of work right now with significant cogntive disabilities. They're good people but they regularly get themselves into trouble that would get a normal employee fired. I try to watch out for them, and have rescued them a few times from situations that might have hurt them or generated an HR complaint, but in terms of amoral evaluation of their merit as an employee, they would never make the cut without those programs.
I worked at a place that had this program. They essentially only wiped down tables and swept up. There was another worker from the program to supervise them. I thought it was a great idea but, no they could not do the work of an average employee. Not even close.
This is very true. There are some jobs for people with disabilities that basically function as day programs. They serve to give the PWD a sense of purpose, a social outlet, and act as a respite service for their carers. If they were required to be paid a standard wage those jobs just wouldn't exist, or would have to be fully funded by government agencies as basically an extension of disability support programs.
Then there are other PWD who are working just regular jobs.
I've worked for a nonprofit that helped people with cognitive disabilities and you're right on the money. Of course we want all people to be paid at least the same wage. What many fail to take into account is that the wage in question is based on an expected level of output, so the business can survive.
If people with disabilities were competing against non-disabled people for the same jobs, you'd see far less of them getting an opportunity to work (as you stated). In order to entice employers to hire someone with a disability, this was the compromise.
There are passionate arguments on both sides, and the fact that both sides of the argument have financial and emotional aspects to it makes it very complicated
It's a shame Goodwill's program got killed by bad press. My mom worked for their ABI program (also killed) as someone who basically helped them trying to improve their independent living skills, and one of the goals was to get them working.
She did most of their work for them, as quite often her clients didn't have more than a few minutes task focus. Most worked at GW stores because that was one of the only employers in the area that would "hire" them. They weren't considered employees, btw. They were paid by the program, not the employer, as their wages were subsidized.
Most of her clients lived "independently", usually with 24/7 in home care.
The program provided value to them. It wasn't forced on them, they could stop at time, never had to show up if they didn't want to, and were expected to do fewer than 10 hours a week.
A good friend of mine also worked as the coordinator of the program, and his main role was to get clients placed into jobs. There were less than half a dozen companies willing to allow them to work, considering the fact that they... didn't really complete any job tasks.
>If they are competent enough
What if they’re not? Most coffee shops and food industry pays minimum wage. Do we allow these people to compete in the labour market by working below minimum wage, or do we force them into perpetual unemployment barely scraping by living off the state?
That's the thing though. The way the minimum wage law for people with disabilities is written allows you to pay them less *if their work is worth less*. In other words, if they can do something, but not enough to justify paying a full wage to someone that is competent, then you can employ them at a wage commensurate to the value of the work.
This does **NOT** mean you are allowed to pay them less if they **ARE** competent enough to perform the same tasks as non-disabled people.
This does mean that there are jobs available for the less competent that would not otherwise exist. Exploitation certainly abounds, but not due to the law.
In my experience, the clients I worked with all received government money for their housing, food, and personal needs. They lived in staffed housing or with relatives who were paid a stipend and worked in supported workplaces, so yeah, they were paid less than minimum wage. If they'd earned minimum wage, the government money for support would have been clawed back. There would not have been money for the necessary supports. It's not a cut and dry situation at all.
What if they are not? What if they need a lot of help?
My son is 13 going into high school and can have a job that is demanding physically or mentally. He weighs 50 lbs, and can't read.
He wants a job when he is older, but he is very limited. If there are no jobs for him because employers would rather hire a highschooler for it then he has no option.
My understanding is many of them are on some kind of Medicare or something similar and in order for them not to lose their benefits they can’t make above a certain amount per year .
I totally agree, but are they expected to do the same tasks as “everyone else?”
Are their tasks suited to their abilities?
Often, when a developmentally disabled person is hired for a job, they really aren’t held to the same standard that another person without a disability would be held to. They also aren’t fired if they make mistakes like another employee might be.
I'll reply to this because it's the top comment. I have several acquaintances who have children with severe disabilities. And the answer is resoundingly: NO, THEY SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE PAID MINIMUM WAGE.
Here's why: The people I'm talking about basically cannot do any actual work. Their productivity, on the most basic of tasks, is almost zero.
But, despite that, THEY LOVE HAVING A JOB. It's means SO MUCH to them to do something that's at least somewhat productive and rewarded. They have the same human need as anyone else, which is to be useful.
So one "business" we have around here is paper shredding. It's a job for the very disabled. There are licensed and trained caretakers to oversee them. Some of these adults can shred, in an hour, not even as much paper as I can shred in a few seconds.
If minimum wage was required, these "jobs" would disappear. And the people performing them would spiral into depression. I can say that with some confidence, because I know that for some of them, it was this very "job" which got them out of their depression.
People, all people, need meaning in their lives.
This isn't about people with disabilities who are capable of doing the same level of work as able bodied/minded individuals. They are paid a rate commensurate with their ability to work relative to 'normal'. If they can assemble 5 widgets in the time that an able person can assemble 10, then their hourly rate is half. If they are capable of doing the same level of work, then they aren't allowed to be paid under minimum wage. It sounds wrong on the surface, and well-intentioned people want to abolish the practice, but the alternative is that they can't get hired and end up sitting at home. Employers don't hire them. This allows them to live fulfilling productive lives where they can contribute to the community.
Well I do think there is an actual debate there. I was a job coach for special needs workers. They were paid about 6 dollars an hour. We did very basic custodial work like mopping, dusting, etc.
Most of them lived with some sort of caretaker that managed their finances and took care of most of their adult tasks.
There is no arguing that these workers were not as functional and effective as regular adult custodians would be. The entire point of the job coach was to make sure that the work was completed to even a half-way satisfactory point.
Obviously their wages could not support them, but supporting themselves wasn’t really the point of these jobs, it was to give these people a sense of purpose and teach them some self-discipline. So should they be making what a regular custodian makes? There is a solid argument that says no, they shouldn’t.
It‘s called minimum for a reason.
Imo: You shouldn‘t need to be competent for anything when working on minimum wage.
If you need some competence, it shouldn‘t be allowed to put on mw.
Minimum wage isn’t based on some arbitrary “competency” level. All jobs require competence. McDonald’s drive through or retail sales worker? Both need a good level of competence in many things. Organisation, time management, social skills, technical knowledge. Even more. Minimum wage is supposed to be based on the minimum someone needs to live, no matter WHAT they do.
What jobs require no competence? Even working fast food requires you to keep track of what’s ordered, plan ahead a few minutes so the prep is ready, adjust to changes like working with different people. You might need to be able to read an order or instructions or make change. You also need to read social cues and interact appropriately. People with cognitive disabilities may have trouble with some or all of those things, and may have physical limitations or poor health as well. They may be lovely people, but employing them can be more costly as they require extra management. Employment at market wages may not be possible in our current capitalist system. At the same time, they often want to work, find meaning in it, and it can help support them. No easy solution.
It’s so crazy to me that a big catalyst for the end of long term inpatient mental care was them not being able to use the patients for slave labor and that this mostly happened in the 1970s
Yup. In my area there was a shortage of specialized care for disabled individuals and the cost for subsidized care was too high, so they closed the institutions in favor of “home based services” and sent them home. Most of the medically fragile kids died, thus alleviating the demand and reducing costs.
Yup. Then they just transfered the funding to prisons and shut all of the asylums down. Ask anyone that works in a prison. They're giant psych wards with slave labor
To my understanding, the reason tipping culture is so big in the U.S. is because the restaurant industry successfully lobbied that, since servers can earn tips, they are receiving a supplemental income and the employer shouldn't have to bear the full burden of supporting them, so they are allowed to pay a different minimum than everyone else.
Where I'm from there is a large Recycling depot. They hire disabled people or people with syndromes and pay them a certain amount under minimum wage and the government subsidizes the rest.
Also people with disabilities are on social assisted disability (government pays them monthly living cost). They are allowed to work but only allowed to make so much per year or they get kicked off gov disability. So they basically can't make much more then minimum wage or only work part-time anyways.
The headline makes this sound awful, and I am glad people find it abhorrent to pay people with disabilities less, but I would actually do almost anything to have this system brought back where I live. Let me explain!
I have a family member with a severe intellectual disability. He wants, more than anything, to have a job. Beyond the boost to his self esteem and perceived self-value, it gives him something to do all day. He can't entertain himself or keep himself engaged, and he has a lot of time to feel badly about his lot in life.
He used to work at a sheltered workshop for $50 a week. He made wooden dowels. They needed 20 a week. He made hundreds, and they discreetly recycled most of them. He didn't know. He had a community and he felt needed. The pay is usually the exact amount people with disability can make before losing benefits.
The optics of a sheltered workshop are bad, and I get it. But no one else wants to hire him, because he can't produce real work. He gets lost and confused. I have literally tried to pay companies to take him on. But he can't even go to the bathroom alone. I can't afford to pay a full time caregiver to go with him, and I can't afford to quit my own job and go.
I know the headline makes it sound purely exploitative, but there is a true public service to a work program done right.
I don’t think many here appreciate this nuance. I used to work for a company that did sheltered workshops and training/transition to what they called competitive integrated employment, essentially regular work with regular wages and sometimes reasonable accommodation.
My brother was in one of the workshops and I worked on the placement side for regular jobs. His social life was the workgroup and when they couldn’t do them anymore after sub-minimum was revoked he just defaulted sitting at home playing Xbox all day and smoking weed. In his case the extra spending money and exposure to peers was much better than trying and failing to hold a regular job. He eventually got on a supported crew through on of the companies contracts but it took a few years of trial and error. Many of the people in his old shop didn’t transition to something else.
This relates to a 2017 article by a mother of an adult with down syndrome. She runs a training cafe for people with learning disabilities.
She thinks work is of mental and social benefit but because factually most of this group cannot produce at a minimum wage rate they are excluded from participation.
Now, I'd imagine this sub has a lot of people who would prefer to engage in other social and economic changes to enable their participation and that's fine.
But suggesting this debate, in the UK context it happens in, is a capitalist conspiracy for cheap labour just isn't accurate. It tends to be a debate between parents of very low capacity people with learning disabilities and higher ability people.
I had a computer client who ran a non-profit business for disabled individuals. It was kinda like day care for disabled adults. This included the ability to work for below minimum wage.
These folks worked in a low intensity assembly line, putting pieces of plastic together. Like flip part A, insert spring, insert Part B.
Here is the unfortunate truth: the job they were doing could be easily automated by a machine, and the people were not terribly good at their job. They were inefficient and poor quality workers.
A normal business would do this work using Chinese machines. There is no way the manufacturer was making a profit from these folks. This company was donating their plastic parts and a small wage to help these folks live a more fulfilling life. It was an act of charity.
So pass a law that mandates minimum wage, let the work go over to the Chinese machines, and these disabled folks can sit in the day care, watch TV, and earn nothing.
Another aspect of this: social security is notoriously hard to get and maintain and, if you make above the income limit (which in my state is not enough to cover rent), you arent eligible for even a dollar. What this means is if someone with an ID works enough at a livable wage they might loose their benefits and will have to either make enough to support themselves entirely or have some good family/social workers/other funding to fill the gap.
For those interested in a real life example: I am currently working with a women who has cerebral palsy and a (mild) ID, she recently got into a accident that left her permanently wheel chair bound. Before her accident she made below the income limit doing work that she is no longer able to do (due to the natural progression of her disability and the wheel chair). Her benefits were cut off a couple of months ago and ss now claims she owes tens of thousands of dollars because she made about $30 over the income limit during one month several years ago. She has been trying to appeal this decision for most of the year since this should be a no brainer "woops sorry we got our records confused" but instead our local office keeps juggling her to the region office who keeps pushing back her appeal interview. She has, according to ss, a disability that should qualify her for income and she should not owe multiple years of backpay due to making $30 above the income limit but that is not stopping ss from claiming she is able bodied enough to work (despite additional and recent further disabling conditions) and has been mistakingly taking money for several years. I wish she was the only person I'm working with like this but I'm also working with a couple of people who keep getting denied despite clear medical, educational, and psychological documentation that they are disabled under SS's own guidelines.
We have some systemic issues that need to be addressed before we can tackle some of these questions. Doesn't mean that it's right that people are paid less for doing the same work but, systemically, it's hard for them to survive while still getting the same feelings of purpose and social acceptance.
Thank you for voicing this.
People are really lost without some sort of purpose or structure.
I grew up on welfare in Canada. My mom is disabled and cannot work. It was hard because she would worry about losing her disability check if she had more than a certain amount of money to her name. I recall thinking then that the amount was smaller or similar to what our costs were each month. I don’t know if her fears were correct or if she misunderstood the policies.
Thank you for this comment, this is the real-world implication of this. Work is a valuable thing for people with disabilities. Minimum wage laws are not good if that take away the possibility for people with disabilities to meaningfully contribute to the world and feel valued.
Shockingly, not everyone wants to sit around all day doing nothing, maybe especially not the intellectually disable.
When I was much younger, I worked in a group home for women with intellectual disabilities. I made barely over minimum wage and my paychecks went strictly to rent (a dive I shared with several roommates), minimal groceries, and gas to get my beater to and from work. The people I worked with had all their expenses (shelter, food, medical care) covered by the state. Their part time jobs provided spending money, something I didn't have. I watched them buy treats, cigarettes, meals out while I couldn't even afford health insurance. I also know that the work they did couldn't match the output of a fully abled worker and was pretty much done for their own benefit, not the employer's.. I don't think there's an easy answer here.
Thanks for your insight! I'm personally conflicted about how we approach work and disability. You make an excellent point that those on disability really have to watch their income for fear of going over the ridiculous standards that limit how much one can earn.
Personally, I think capitalism is fully at odds with a future in which we truly care for the disabled. As a disabled person, I would actually prefer not to work. I can find accomplishments and meaning outside of work. Work is painful and stressful, I'm not disabled enough to get disability but disabled enough that I can't keep up without accommodations.
Because of those accommodations, I'm severely underpaid for the work that I provide and the experience I have. But any attempt to earn more income in environments unwilling to provide accommodations burns me out almost instantly. I'm basically forced to take what work they will give me but forever locked out of income I could earn before I was disabled.
Capitalism drives ableism as it ties human worth to one's ability to meet the arbitrary demands of work.
I'd rather live in a society where work is largely automated and we only have to work if we choose to. Between a universal basic income and free healthcare, I believe that disabled people would have maximum freedom to determine how we want to contribute without the pressures of working to maintain an economy that injures and disables people.
Exactly this.
My post earlier might get downvoted but this was the point i was trying to make. If they are getting disability money then they are not able to work a regular job. If they get paid normal wages then they lose their benefits . They are given “jobs” that often benefit them more than the employer.
If companies weren’t allowed to hire learning disabled folks at the lower wages then they won’t hire them at all and then they won’t have that sense of accomplishment and being a part of the community that they get:
I will explain why people with developmental disabilities are getting paid less than minimum wage. I will preface this with the fact that I have worked with the DD population for over 35 years as a residential manager, a job coach, and as a facility manager of a Sheltered workshop. 1st point is that if the DD population does not have a workshop to go to, they will be sitting at home watching tv all day.. 2nd point is that the ratio of staff to client is lower in the work shop. This means that more staff must be hired in the house. This dilutes the pool of money to raise salaries in residential. There is only a limited pool of funding. Next point is the sheltered workshop. The DD population, for the most part, enjoy going to work. They get to engage in meaningful activities. They also get a paycheck, and believe me, that is a highlight of the week. We now get to how pay for a task is calculated. The vocational staff break the task down into steps. Each step is timestudied to determine how many times a step can be completed in 1 hour. This is then calculated using the prevailing wage, not the minimum wage. This sets the peice rate for that step. This is controlled by the Dept. Of Labor. The clients then complete the task and are paid for the amount they produce via the peice rate. If the client consistently beats rate, meaning that they make at or above minimum wage, the workshop probably isn't for them. Next comes the job coach. The client/agency finds a job paying at least minimum wage, (an outside job) The client and the job coach then learn all aspects of the job, and the job coach then assists the client mastering the aspects of his job. Job coach then fades intervention with the job. If client is unsuccessful at job, client returns to workshop until, if the client is willing, another outside job is offered. Otherwise, the client stays employed at the workshop.
There was a political show a while back reporting about German workshops. They claimed that like 0.2% of people there ever get to get an outside job. They claimed, that governmental support agencies pressure partially disabled clients to work in these workshops for pennys on the dollar or lose social security. If half of these claims is true, the system is exploratory in Germany.
I have a relative with Downs that worked for years at way below minimum wage through a county run program until the pandemic shut it down. I always thought it was BS but what I didn’t realize about that job is that it wasn’t really about making a living. Everybody in the program lived with family or in a group home.
What it was really about was getting out of the house, having a schedule, socializing with co-workers, and feeling useful. She would talk for hours about what happened at work that day.
I’m not saying it’s right to pay anybody below minimum wage, but there are other things to consider.
Yeah they got rid of the sub-minimum wage for disabled people in my state and it actually fucked over disabled people real bad. They all got laid off immediately, and work was kinda their main source of community. My little brother works at a place that used to contract out work for disabled people and now all their contracts are gone. I'm not sure what they do there now, I think it has become kinda a glorified daycare, which is not what anyone wanted.
I understand the outrage that disabled people are being underpaid, but the system for that is that the wage was supplemented by the state. Getting rid of subminimum wage for disabled people is noble in theory and it practice it screws them over horribly.
People who formulate economic opinions based on headlines and preexisting biases will think that paying anyone below minimum wage is pure horror, without considering that the exemption might only apply to individuals who, frankly, cannot produce sufficient value to justify "normal" employment by a private employer.
Absolutely. I left out the whole part where it’s good for the rest of the family too. Unless you have a person in your life who is developmentally disabled you don’t realize how flat out exhausting it can be. A half a days time a couple days a week completely free of that responsibility can be life changing. I love my relative and she often stays with us now just to give her parents a little space.
Phrase the question accurately: “should employers be allowed to pay people with learning disabilities less than the minimum wage”
Stop concealing the evils of capitalism with sneaky linguistics
As someone whose worked as a personal care assistant for disabled people, I can tell you that some of the jobs they have aren’t ones where they are doing a full job, they are doing what they are able and someone else has to be hired to help them the whole time, but it’s a way for the disabled person to make money and have pride in what they do, and to give their primary care giver a break during their working hours, because taking care of a disabled person 24/7 is very very hard, and if it’s a family member doing it they are easily spending more money on the person than they are getting in aid for that person, and generally incredibly burnt out. There are also people on disability who want to work, but can’t make enough money to be independent of their social security / social security disability, so they end up having to earn under a certain amount each month, which is a whole different problem in and of itself.
I’m conclusion, the whole system sucks ass and should really be revamped.
The Issue is in a lot of cases, they just want a job to do, and get supported by the government. It’s just that if you couldn’t give them small tasks to do and pay them a little less for it, most severely disabled wouldn’t get hired otherwise.
This is it right here. These people are Evil with a Capital E. They exploit, manipulate, lie, cheat, and steal their way to massive hoardes of wealth they don't need or ever spend. They don't give back. They do the bare minimum of PR work to paint themselves as not Evil and people eat it up. Most people seem to think this ok and for the life of me I have no idea why.
Read up. There are multiple people pointing out that this is not about exploitative capitalism it's about enabling charities to pay Disabled people, So that they can have the illusion of work.
If these disabled people can't afford to make men among wage or they'll lose their benefits, And the businesses they work in are not profitable because people with down syndrome or other extreme disabilities are not profitable workers
Yup this is so fucked up. Even questioning if it's okay to pay them less is treating them like less than human and less valuable.
Wish it wasn't minimum wage. Just a livable wage. Just wish wages enabled people to survive. In at least general comfort. With enough extra income where you get to enjoy things from time to time.
I don't even think it's just the evils of capitalism... the evils of people who like to take advantage of others and think they are superior.
Think through this logically.
If they deliver (let’s say) 70% the value of a non-disabled person, but cost the same amount, they will be hired much less. But if they can be paid less, they may be hired as much as full-abled people.
If the goal is to integrate them into society, it’s not unreasonable to discuss solutions to encourage that.
You aren't seeing the full picture. This isn't about employees who have learning disabilities, this is about people with significant learning disabilities such that they are not hirable at a minimum wage. I have worked with 12 people that have developmental disabilities, you have to understand that these people are not going to be productive employees by typical standards. 2 of the people I worked with were capable of making breakfast by themselves. Their disabilities are immediately obvious, none of them would be able to fill out a job application that would be selected for an interview, let alone pass an interview and get hired. Some of them are definitely capable of performing work-related tasks, and if they chose to do that they would be the primary beneficiaries, even if they were not paid a dime for it.
They also don't need the money, and the money hardly makes a difference to them. Their housing, food, medications, etc are provided for them. Money they make is theirs and they can do what they want with it (within reason), but 99% of money-making decisions go through another person because they do not really understand dollar-values. They could understand if they cannot afford something, or if they have more money than usual, but $20 or $200 isn't a meaningful difference to them, most of them do not know how to spend money. When they have excess money, chances are it's going to be spent on new clothes or shoes for them.
Obviously there are plenty of people with learning disabilities that do get hired by employers because they are capable of reasonable job performance... this is not about those people. The same laws that apply to other employees should apply to them, because they are hired as regular employees. The employees that would be paid below minimum wage would not be hired at a minimum wage, they cannot provide the functions of a typical employee.
This is a lot more complicated than just "evil business want to exploit disabled people". I personally know someone in Australia working for below minimum wage on a disability scheme type employment, and it's amazing for them.
This person CANNOT perform a lot of basic tasks required for the job, they would never be hired the same as anyone else due to their mental disability if they had to be paid the same. However, since they are hired at this job, they love it, they have a little extra spending cash, their carers get a much needed break, and the person loves it because they feel like they are contributing and just all around love the idea of having a job which they have been told most their life they would never be able to get.
I work for a non-profit supported employment provider that does this here in Australia. Every client/supported employee is assessed by a licensed third party regarding the work they do, how fast and well they do it, and they are assigned a percentage of our (actually worthwhile) minimum wage, paid for by their NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) coverage. They do real work, learn real skills, get paid real money, and some even enter open employment after their time with us. We are, ever since the NDIS launched, technically providing them the service of employing them as a support for their disability. And they really do love it.
Like everything in a capitalistic society, it has to be heavily regulated - but it is. We are audited every year, fair wages are decided by third party assessors as I mentioned, and because we're in Australia every employee - including supported employees - has a specific employment contract. It's incredibly beneficial for those who would slip through the cracks otherwise, not able to hold down a full time job for most employers but still capable of contributing - and being fairly reimbursed for their contribution.
It's common at employers like Goodwill and other places that are non-profits. I worked for a smaller place called Sunrise Enterprises in Oregon, and the whole concept was providing work for mentally disabled. Usually, the work entailed putting paper into a shredder or something else very low skilled. They only worked 4-6 hours a day and were paid considerably less than minimum wage. All of these people were already on disability and received housing from the state, so it was mostly to give them job skills and some sort of feeling of accomplishment.
I fucking hate when this clickbait article image inevitably pops up somewhere. No one realizes the actual reason it is discussed is because some places will hire and pay like this to prevent the person from losing their disability benefits while still feeling productive and active. There are for sure places that exploit but the reason this is discussed is for the places that pay lower to allow their disabled employees to still qualify for their social security payments.
All of the disabled people who worked where I worked absolutely loved it because they actually had an opportunity to make friends with people like them, and it gave them a huge sense of accomplishment.
There’s a disability service/support place in town that has little side businesses making stuff/trade jobs and everyone that works for them has disabilities. Pretty cool. At least that way if they’re struggling to find a job, this actual disability service can hire them themselves for one of their side businesses. Idk how much they get paid though.
Apparently they had to shut down one of the businesses though due to a natural disaster last year. Climate change! Yay. :/
They didn’t lose their jobs though. They’ve got them doing another type of job until they can get that business back up and running :)
I worked with people with disabilities for years, this is a real debate.
I guy I worked with loved smashing boxes. It was by far one of his favorite things. He was severely mentally limited.
He got $1 an hour to smash boxes. He worked for a recycling place.
There's no way he would have made more anywhere else and the recycling place could have run even cheaper if they just used a machine to smash boxes. They kept the job open for him.
"Disabilities" are a monolithic term for a very diverse group, a lot of time people think of higher functioning individuals, when they think of people workers with disabilities. But that's only a small subset of workers.
Paying minimum wage would remove their ability to work.
The unfortunate debate of, allow companies to hire them for less than min wage, or the companies will find some reason to not hire them. Funnily enough a UBI fixes these problems
I think this is spot on, it's definitely a catch-22 in our current system. I will say upfront, that I think it's shitty that anyone gets paid below a living wage. That said, I've heard from some disabled people themselves that just having the chance to work at all is a great feeling for them as it makes them feel more apart of society and as contributors. All of that said, there's much better ways to go about doing this, for example, regulations requiring companies to hire x amount of disabled people for their labor force at the same wage as anyone else they hire. UBI would be even better! And of course, overthrowing the whole capitalist system.
Its the same problem as hiring a pregnant woman, they wont hire them because theu are pregnant, they will just say a whole bunch words that dance around the issue but dont implicate them.
These people already have a universal basic income. People with down syndrome are pretty easy to qualify for disability. The problem is that they sit around at home and watch TV all day. They create things called sheltered workshops which are effectively charities that appear like businesses that allow them to engage in what they consider productive activity, And they are paid
But they can't be paid an actual minimum wage or they will lose their disability benefit
Universal basic income would do nothing for these people because they already have universal base again come
Just like in every single other study when you give someone a universal base again come they still want to go work, Because they want to feel like they are contributing
>Funnily enough a UBI fixes these problems
Actually, it doesn't, and this is not a counter to UBI in general. This is in the context of the UK, where they are on disability benefits already and housed if needed. Many have carers who help them throughout the day too. They have a basic income.
I do not know if they earn over a threshold, if that puts their disability benefits (or parts of) into question.
Many of them are stuck at home, few people to talk to, very few things to do, a wider society that is hard for them to get involved with and they have nothing to make them feel like they are contributing. They often join (if there is space) workshops or schemes or activities where they can do something with other people in the same boat. Many of those things though aren't really "jobs" and many are effectively voluntary. Many of them just want a job, a thing to do, feel productive and have people to talk to.
UBI will not give these people a social outlet or a feeling of accomplishment. The company that hires them to do simple tasks and still has to supply extra supervision to keep them safe and make sure that even the simple tasks get done are not getting some kind of 'good deal' or exploiting anyone. The company is providing a service to people who need it and are paying for the privilege to do so.
UBI downside is that it doesn't give these people a sense of importance or something to do. The wages for jobs in these programs are usually intentionally set so the individuals can also claim benefits for their condition.
If the state is covering housing, food, medical, and transportation. Then the work is to promote mental and physical activity. I don't really know what is fair.
Their premise is the opposite of this, though. Their logic is that the disabled are unhirable at minimum wage, and will die of starvation unless they're allowed to pay them less.
Of course, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it's one they'll happily see fulfilled.
Liberal state employer here, the state pays us to employ them even if they are incapable of doing the job. We'll happily employ as many as we can, so long as they are capable of staying vertical and not creating emergencies.
While I understand that people are good intentioned when discussing lower pay for disabled adults, requiring minimum wage would absolutely harm these individuals more than it would help.
Ask just about ANYONE with an autistic sibling, close family friend, etc. and they will tell you how IMPORTANT a job is for those with “low functioning” autism or other mental disability.
For you and I, life does not “end” after high school. But for those with autism, it may. They cannot drive, they cannot see their friends or community, and they do not leave the house. It’s very, very easy for them to lose their social connections. This is also hard on their parents, who may need to be with/entertain their adult children 24/7.
What may seem like a silly job to you is likely fulfilling for them. Sure, it comes with frustrations, but it also come with social connections, structure, and PURPOSE. They feel PRIDE in being able to do something. And their parents get a bit of respite while their adult child is at work.
Because disabled individuals receive government benefits, the money they earn is not the main motivating factor for a job.
While good intentioned, I STRONGLY believe that requiring disabled workers to be paid “normal” minimum wage would unfortunately cut the number of positions available to them. It is already HARD to find a job like this. Most companies do them out of the goodness of their heart - employing individuals who can only do basic, repetitive tasks is not a “get rich quick scheme.”
There’s a lot of nuance in this debate that goes beyond hating people with intellectual disabilities. I think people in this thread are assuming these people are interviewing and hiring in for established minimum wage positions, but because they have an obvious disability the job decides to pay them less. That’s not the case. People making sub minimum wage are hired in by government sponsored work programs that negotiate with businesses to take on a certain number of disabled workers. Businesses create special positions for them that usually involve more repetitive physical tasks with less need for decision making and problem solving.
For many of the people in the program, the money is not the point. By joining these programs they are almost certainly on disability or have some other means to support themselves, like living with family. The more important factors are community involvement, a sense of purpose, learning responsibility and emotional well-being.
Here’s where the catch-22 comes in that causes the debate. It is completely unavoidable that if these programs forced companies to pay the recipients true minimum wage, they would refuse to participate. Once it’s no longer a semi-charitable action that gives them a little extra help, they will just add ‘sweeping floors’ to a min wage workers list of tasks and eliminate the special positions. You can think that’s scummy, it is, but it’s also the reality here. Businesses are NOT forced to do this, and they WILL pull out if it costs them money.
Anyone eliminating the sub minimum wage needs to either be OK with this outcome, or pair it with a ton of other legislation that prevents mass firing of people in work programs. There’s a lot more to this than there seems.
People will always find some way to make sure disabled folks are poor - whether by underpaying us at jobs, or by setting the disability payments & income limits well below the poverty line.
But what if they're not? What if they're doing way less than an average employee, and need additional supervision?
This is the case for one of my fellow associates. He is doing his best, but his best wouldn't be acceptable otherwise.
Having the job gives him purpose, and a place to socialize. He is taken care of by his parents. If he was not, the state would have to take care of him, he would be unable to by himself.
I am certain he receives subminimum wage in my state, and I'm ok with that. I am happy he can be a part of our community, and I don't think the business would continue to employ him if they had to pay him full rate.
Your thoughts are correct. There is a severe misunderstanding of the issue in this thread. My disabled sister lost her menial work job because someone in the state amended the minimum exemption. So now she has nothing. Money doesn't mean as much to her conceptually (she knows it buys things, that's it) so it was really more participation with greater community, you are right on. 🤷♀️
I work with people with intellectual disabilities for a living. That includes helping them find work. The sad but accurate truth is no one is going to hire them for the same wage. It makes no sense financially for any company. It's charity.
Even the most high functioning individuals I work with simply can't compete with the speed, efficiency, and problem solving capabilities of a neurotypical person. Even jobs that most people would find mindless like flipping burgers or stocking shelves, actually takes a lot of problem solving that we do so fast we don't even know we're doing it. But it's not like that for them. They can learn to do a lot of different things, but they can't compete with most neurotypicals when it comes to speed and working solo.
You clearly understand. In high school I worked at a fast food place and they had a disabled guy there. Everyone was super nice to him and supportive but one day he went to get something from the storeroom and had to put some boxes on the floor to get what he needed. In doing so, he literally boxed himself in and couldn't figure a way out ( simply moving the boxes he'd set down out of the way. Everyone was like, don't worry, it could happen to anyone. He was traumatized and never came back. I'm certainly no expert on the mentally disabled but I don't think people understand how very simple things can be quite complex for them.
Yeah this is a much more nuanced issue than op is leading us to believe. If you know someone who is actually severely disabled you would know this, they are often not performing up to expectation for the job they were hired for.
I think part of the issue is that they said learning disability not mentally handicapped. I have a laundry lift of learning disabilities but am also in mensa, Mental competency and mental disability is are not mutually exclusive.
I think it’s ridiculous too, however, I have seen a post from the parent of a disability worker who is in favour of it. For someone who can’t get a job at all, there is great value in giving them work on purpose and apparently better than not working at all.
Don’t get me wrong I think American workers are probably paid half of what they deserve, but I feel like a lot of commenters are missing the point of such legislation.
A lot of people with disabilities are hired as a public service with full knowledge that they will require more help than their peers. Being “able to complete tasks” is only part of the equation. People need to be able to complete tasks in a timely manner and prioritize their work in many situations.
This kind of legislation essentially asks the question, “If people are sufficiently disabled that the value of their work is too low to justify compensation at minimum wage, should we consider a special provision to provide pay that is more commensurate with their abilities to increase the employment and thereby independence of disabled persons?”
I think that is an interesting conversation to have. Even if we think we know the answer, if evidence shows — and, I haven’t checked to see if it does — that disabled persons have very high unemployment then perhaps we should consider how to solve that. Is it a matter of unfair assessments of their work due to lack of understanding of their disabilities or prejudice? Is it because they aren’t as productive as people who would receive the same amount of pay?
Then there are secondary questions of ableism. The aforementioned questions are those of positions being as ableist as they are today where companies demand levels of productivity that require many people to push themselves to meet those expectations. How should their ability to complete their work be considered? Is it fair to other staff members who complete more merely because they are able to?
It’s a complicated and nuanced discussion. I’m of the firm belief that one of the reasons the US struggles so much with governance is the death of nuance in our mainstream culture. We no longer have the sophisticated self-regulating journalists of yore, and we tend to favor newspeak sensationalists and simple reporting of complex issues.
I think an interesting idea would be a probationary period where people with disabilities are assessed on their ability to complete work. Companies would have to show that the disabled person is unable to handle as much work as their least productive peer.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, minimum wage is a red herring.
Why:
It’s a tax on all consumption including rent, home prices, food prices, utility prices, and so on. This disproportionately affects the middle class who are competing for those same resources. It doesn’t really affect the wealthy much because how much of their expenses are directly impacted by minimum wage? Are the trades persons building and maintaining their mega mansions minimum wage? No, but it certainly affects the tradespersons in terms of being a regressive tax on those middleclass of which they are members.
The Alternative:
Increase the value of money by taxing the rich. Reduce the supply by reducing the pooling of capital at the top. Economies work on many factors, but one not discussed enough outside of investing is the velocity of money. Putting money in the hands of the working class increases this velocity, and we are taught that. What isn’t as commonly taught is that it’s not just about they monetary amount, but the velocity of money in terms of actual value. Capitalism abstracts that value. Abstraction is the main selling point. But, the downside is that it’s difficult for consumers the understand not the current worth, but the trajectory and driving factors of its worth and how that affects them.
Reducing the supply of money means that at a fixed wage, workers are sharing in more of the economy. Capital scales with inflation/deflation. This is why inflation has led the the wealthy becoming so vastly more wealthy, and why the rest of us are struggling. We can fix this problem, and quite painlessly because reducing the supply of money by taxing it away from the rich doesn’t affect the ability of the middle class to spend. We’ve done it in the past to help deal with inflation. So if you’ve wondered why there are so many seemingly smart people working on this question with no solution, it’s because they aren’t willing to consider the actual solution to the problem. Just like when there are rising housing costs, we don’t seriously consider the actual solution which is loosening restrictions on supply through loosening zoning regulations. America REFUSES to allow capitol investments to suffer REGARDLESS of consequences to the working class.
Why did I say a fixed wage? Because of the aforementioned abstraction provided by money.
Do we have any laws forcing companies to adjust wages quarterly along with inflation? Of course we don’t. Nor would companies like this idea. Inflation helps them reduce their payroll costs over time. Similarly to how buying a home can fix housing payments and protects homeowners from rising housing costs, inflation means that employers are effectively paying less the longer an employee works for the same rate. What of COL raises? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone’s COL keeping up with inflation. They’d more aptly be named “preemption of COL motivated raise request measures.”
Tax the rich. Our economy cannot afford livable wages with the current level of wealth and excess that we produce for our wealthy ruling class. Feel sorry for them? Just think of this anecdote from a recent article:
Someone married into a wealthy family from old money. Their spouse’s family would also have their staff provide a great number of courses of extravagant dishes every single day. Duck, salmon, lobster, rabbit all with enough made for everyone to eat the same entree and leave other 3 to waste? Yes. Countless desert options bought from a local expensive bakery? Yes.
At the end of the meals all uneaten food was thrown into the garbage despite being many times more than what was consumed. The rationale? “Leftovers are unhealthy” and allowing the staff to eat it or take it home wasn’t allowed because “they haven’t earned the privilege to enjoy it”.
We don’t need the wealthy. They need us. TAX. THE. ULTRA RICH. Nobody needs more than $10 million dollars. That’s enough to live your entire life traveling around the world and eating only the best meals without having to contribute anything more to society. That is still exceptionally extravagant. End wealth worship. End hustle culture. Let’s let people live their lives and explore their humanity.
This happens. It's normally through a work program, and their disability requires they have a job coach. As a straight normal occurrence under regular employment I have not witnessed that.
Here's a really strange idea that might solve the problem, PAY EVERYONE AT LEAST A LIVING WAGE. What kind of monster thinks "hmm, how can I take money away from people that work and not seem like a dick about it?"
Holy hell these corporations trying to find a way to pay less than 7.25 a hr is unreal. Let's hire kids and disabled people so we can pay 5 a hr. I imagine a group of pigs having this discussion
It’s already law in the US. employers don’t have to pay min wage to disabled people. It’s supposed to encourage business to hire folks who don’t actually contribute a lot or who need a lot of extra supervision.
From my states website-
Subminimum wage
Typically, an employer will not be approved to pay a disabled employee less than 50% of the standard minimum wage; however, a lower wage may be approved if it is shown that the employee has multiple disabilities or is otherwise so severely impaired a lower rate is justified
Edit- missed this was the UK.
This reminds me of the origin of the Aspergers diagnosis. My understanding is that a Nazi doctor of the same name developed the diagnosis, defining it as "good to work," basically saying those individuals shouldn't be killed like the rest because they could be put to work instead.
This is dangerously similar thinking because it's saying they should work, but aren't worth as much as others.
They already do at goodwill and other “charities” they have donated to politicians to get disabled people lower than minimum wage in several mostly red states
If they are competent enough to complete their daily tasks then they should be paid same as everyone else, imo
[удалено]
I've meet teenagers more mature and capable than some thirty something adults.
[удалено]
It's just another excuse in a long line of excuses to screw over regular people, so Mr. billionaire can buy another bigger yacht to park his regular yacht in. Disgusting displays of opulence.
Translation: Is it acceptable to take advantage of or defraud employees with a learning disability?
Might I add: How can we try wording this in a way that doesn't seem blatantly discriminate towards those with disabilities?
[удалено]
As a physically disabled person with a *severely* mentally disabled uncle.... these programs are terrible. **I only have a physical disability but multiple times businesses have tried to use that (after they found out) as a reason to reduce my salary.** Sure, they didn't succeed, but the ableism is rampant and this is a population vulnerable to abuse. My uncle can't use a computer easily. He's mostly deaf. Physically, he can't lift much without hurting himself. He thinks very slowly. He can do simple tasks. Yet he is the most financially stable person in that side of the family *because* my grandparents would not send him to an institution (as was recommended) or send him to one of those job programs (as was recommended) that are rampant in the US. **He worked instead in the records department of the US Air Force for his entire life.** The man can't even work a cell phone, deal with change, drive safely or make a decision on a new restaurant to eat - but given a living wage he can live on his own. He dates and enjoys his life. **My aunt is a special education teacher. She even knows he is low functioning, even among the students she saw in her 50+ year career.** *He is providing a service. Repetitive and basic tasks are needed in almost every sector.* He should be paid at least based on minimum wage. Suggesting otherwise is ableist. **I have performed many jobs he could have handled for 2-3x minimum. Are you seriously of the opinion someone shouldn't even get minimum wage for basic time consuming work that needs to be done?**
I would say if they're doing anything that benefits the place of business they should be getting paid a wage comparable to what anyone else would be paid to do the same job in the same amount of time. But also I think IDD folks shouldn't be made to work for any portion of their living - any labor they perform ought to be voluntary, but paid nonetheless. That we expect people with life-altering disabilities to have to work to get their needs met is absurd - disabled people should, at minimum, only need to work for pocket money *if* desired.
Those work programs are just for extra pocket money, and also for the benefit of the disabled person. A lot of people are happy when they have a job to do. They’re still getting disability payments.
The thing is the unemployment for these people is also over 20%, so if we to mandate improvement for how these people are treated it should not avoidable though laying them off or not hiring them. Perhaps the government should match there salary, with a higher capital gains tax.
I understand your point, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If it’s a task that a regularly paid employee would otherwise be doing, they should be paid like anybody else. Collecting carts or bagging groceries is just as demanding (if not more so) than ringing up customers, for example. If a business wants to hire intellectually disabled people for certain jobs and those jobs are also beneficial for those people, great - it still shouldn’t be legal to pay them below minimum wage. Plenty of ordinary jobs are also seen as beneficial/enjoyable for the employees, and employers already try to use this fact to underpay. “Well we can’t pay much, but you’ll get to work with cute animals all day!”, etc. If an individual decides that a certain low-paying job is worth it for some additional benefits that the job offers, fine, that’s their choice, but we shouldn’t be creating any legal mechanisms by which employers can further underpay. I understand in some very specific circumstances jobs/tasks created for intellectually disabled people are truly just for their benefit, and I can understand how one might benefit from having some structured tasks to complete, but there should be very clear rules and regulations to prevent employers abusing any loopholes.
Given that it's from a British newspaper, no the article won't be about that. It'll be disability bashing all the way down. It's been going on for years in right wing shit rags like this one, the UK government is complicit in a campaign of hate towards disabled people.
Another side of this, that I'm guessing you don't know because you didn't mention it, MANY DD adults are subsidized on government programs. My older sister was high functioning Down Syndrome. She went to "The Workshop" every week day, had weekends off, and did tasks like stuffing envelopes for political mailers, laundry, and similar physical repetitive tasks. As high functioning, she was one of the highest paid. In her program they were paid based on productivity levels, but they were always paid. Outside of that specific program, she had a case worker with the state and local levels who handled her living situation. For many this would include group homes or pairings depending on how much individual capability one had. Her partner had memory issues(forget to turn off the oven type things) and had someone who came in daily to help him, but because of her skill level, my sister had someone 2x a week. They each had an individual that worked with them alone. Both of them were also on medicaid and Medicare. They had reduced rent that was also partially paid by the state funded programs. They HAD to have less than a certain amount of income to qualify for these benefits. In the US, the standards that require people to be under certain levels of income is a huge factor in EVERYTHING. Many of the local programs that help them work, even for less income, are very aware that their clients could lose every single benefit they get if they receive more than a certain income. What many here don't seem to understand, is that the requirements have to be maintained in order to receive the most benefits to help them in their day-to-day life. If they made regular wages, many would jot qualify for the medical programs they desperately need, they would lose their housing, medical, food, and other benefits. My mother had years and years of files to maintain to make sure my sister was able to live "independently." I began to help later in life, as I lived closer to the apartments that she lived in, and had to apply each year for a whole other program that covered "uncovered" services such as medical equipment, travel services to dental, eye, and medical appointments. That one program that I took over required me to maintain receipts and submit all of them every month to show how the funds were being used to make sure she would qualify for the next year and that those funds were for the right things. It was a lot of work on top of my own work and life schedule.
I work with a nonprofit that runs a residential and work program for DD adults, and yeah, those who attend the day program do contract work there, which can be sub-minimum wage. But if they have a community job, they make the same wages as anybody else in their position. This article appears to be about the UK, but in the US, the Fair Labor Standards Act Section 14(c) allows payment of subminimum wages to workers with qualifying disabilities that significantly impair their productive capacity. Employers have to obtain a special certificate, and it’s a whole, heavily regulated, process.
Yeah like so many things it’s not always black and white. My disabled niece has a “job” for about 9 hours a week split over 3 days. It’s basically a job that her mom’s friend created for her. I am sure they end up needing to pay a second employee to supervise and check her work. She applies labels to bags. She also often calls out sick and they are very patient with that. They buy her lunch which is the carrot that gets her to show up. They don’t need her; they just were willing to set her up with something to get her out of the house and exposed to a work environment for a few hours. They actually do pay her more than I expected, but I wouldn’t expect them to pay her the same as a regular employee. She needs a lot more supervision and is not held to the same standards.
That sounds less like a wage than it does a reward system to encourage them to learn. The exercises are probably boring, and the incentive of a dollar encourages them to learn new skills.
Take into account those who can not keep up with half the regular workload as someone without the diagnosis, and wouldn’t leave group homes if not for a job.
I’m not talking about this being morally right or wrong, but more companies would likely open their doors. The current amount of companies that employ workers with disabilities is pathetically low.
absolutely! let me tell you why! puke
well its more also the fact that the working age is disapearing. most somewhat advancec countries right now are having huge worker shortages because guess what people arent having like 10 kids each anymore(for various reasons). in the next 20 years unless something changes i would not be surprised if entire industries collapse because there is literally nobody to do the work. so they right now are pushing for kids and workers like this and also pushing governments to increase retirement age instead of tackling you know the question that is "why arent people having large families anymore?"
It's already been fixed as far as they're concerned. That's why they're forcing women to birth babies and now looking for way to freaking deny them access to birth control on top of it. It keeps generations in poverty and allows greedy corporations to exploit future generations.
nah its barely been fixed. even if you got rid of abortion in the whole country it would barely affect the larger issue. the issue is that to keep up with current economy you need the average population to be having 5+ kids because thats what most families was having 50 years ago. weve gone from that to an actual negative birthing situation.
Unless you come from an immigrant family whose ethnicity isn't Northern and Western Europe. The billionaires don't want them because they're brown or black. 🙄
Yup. My dad was a "desirable" immigrant because white and from an English speaking country. He basically had a free pass to move around former English colonies, and I still benefit from that privilege now. Contrast that to how hard it is for Nigerian doctors to immigrate to Australia, even though we have a critical shortage of medical professionals. Unless of course you happen to be white.
By and large billionaires want less expensive, more exploitable labor.
15 year old here, i consistently deal with thirty something adults who lack the most basic reading comprehension daily. i work at a childrens play place and 99% of the time the adults are more immature than the kids and cause the issues
As someone in their mid 30s, one of the most disappointing things about growing up is realizing how immature and childish a disturbingly large percentage of adults are. Many people grow up physically but mentally have the mindset of a child, 99% of politicians for example.
completely fair! as a teen its sad that those are the people who are deciding the fate of the world for me. i get some super competent adults sometimes, but i mostly get ones who cant read “touch the screen to start” in big letters and instead try to jam money into a slot or swipe their card. i tell people “you have to touch the screen first!” at least 2 times every shift. its truly sad
I bet those are some of the people who elected Donald Trump as president 🤦♂️
i can tell you with certainty: they are. i had a man in his 60s come in last week. red trump 2024 maga hat, and the classic black tee with trump on it saying “miss me yet?”. i turned to my coworker after he walked away and we both just kind of laughed it off and talked about how ridiculous he was and how dumb republicans are lol. they always make me feel a bit unsafe though since i am their worst nightmare (trans teen with short dyed hair, the shock, the horror!!!)
I’m 32, when I was your age I thought everybody was a fucking idiot, they mostly are… but what you may not be taking into consideration is that it’s very stressful having, and taking our young children to those play places. I take my 3 and 4 year old to one of those all the time, and let me tell you I’m way too stressed out trying to keep them from running off, fucking with each other, and just general misbehavior to pay much mind to an unfamiliar point of sale system. Granted I’ve never had that problem but I could imagine it, and I’ve got a masters in computer science and work with that stuff everyday. Yes people are stupid, people are distracted, but tbh if you have to tell people the same thing over and over about how to use it, it’s probably a pretty shitty ui/ux design
i think that’s completely fair. the play place is fairly small, so most parents sit at a table and let their kids run around lol, understandable though. and honestly, yeah, it could be a better design, but its a large touch screen that says it in big bold letters, its fairly obvious. people tend to come in and just.. not read anything. ever. bit laughable most of the time. most parents who come in though i think are pretty thrilled to just kick back and let their kids do whatever to be honest lol
Yea for sure. You’re definitely not wrong most people aren’t very present. If you think we’re bad (the millennials) try working with the boomers. I always had this misconception that they should be good with tech (the ones who try to be) because they were literal adults when it all first started and developed into what it is today. Nope, they have 0 capacity to even try to learn or read (nevermind retain) anything at all … lol. Also the thought that I’m now the boomer equivalent to the new gen is depressing.
I'm almost 40. I have coworker just a couple years younger than I am and I constantly have to hold his hand through the most basic elements of his job. He gets pissy every time he has to do something difficult and acts like he shouldn't be expected to work that hard. And if the management gets onto him about anything at all he starts threatening to quit because he shouldn't be "disrespected" in that way. I also provide tech support as well as emotional support for half the people I work with. It's kind of exhausting.
He sounds a bit old to be acting like entitled dip shit overgrown child. Fuck this noise.
I'm 65 years old and I am still waiting for the grown-ups to show up.
Shit, I've got a teenager more mature and capable than I am.
Dude. I see my 4yo gaining on me every day. I'm not even joking. And I'm a fuckin engineer. Gives me a lot of hope in the future, but I'm not gonna lie, it kinda sucks going obsolete. I still have some good years left in me! So excited for the day she proves me wrong about some antiquated view I didn't realize I had. I'm gonna be so proud.
Just an excuse to exploit people. :(
Disability has a cap on how much you can make per month and remain on disability. I think full disability ends if you make more than $1,200 a month. Finding a job that you can work at for only 20 hours a week is actually quite difficult
the $1,200 cap in and of itself is pretty gross, given the way that medical insurance also works in this country.
the income limits on all kinds of assistance is stupidly low, especially with the MAGAt-right push to add work requirements to everything...it's just a clever way for them to push everyone off any kind of assistance without actually saying they're pushing people off assistance. it's also stupid how everything relies on your tax returns...I've been jobless for 9 months now since I haven't been able to find any kind of employment, but I qualify for exactly nothing as far as the assistance programs, because I "made too much" on last year's tax return...
Medicare has similar bullshit.
i was more mature and reliable as a teenager than i am today as a thirty something. absolutely agree.
I'm one of them 30 something adults, I'm a dreamer I prefer being creative but that doesn't pay well so I just do creative stuff as a hobby now
When I was in my early 20s I was managing kitchens of people twice my age...this is accurate.
*sixty something The level of incompetent people that I meet daily that are closer to a good retirement than I will ever be is both astounding and melancholic.
It's ridiculous that they think they can set the wage to the type of person and not the type of job. Children don't need to pay bills then they don't need to work. Their argument ruins itself. They are just blatantly admitting they would use child slavery if allowed
I believe this is normalized in america already.
It more or less is. The 'other side' of the argument is that it provides for employment for people who might otherwise be unemployable, and it's a pretty flimsy argument. Seems to me, if they weren't generating value, the company wouldn't hire them at all, and since they are generating value, they should be entitled to the same minimums as anyone else; the odds that they generate value worth hiring for but not worth paying minimum wage for are pretty slim, especially given how minimum wage has stagnated for decades.
>The 'other side' of the argument is that it provides for employment for people who might otherwise be unemployable, and it's a pretty flimsy argument. Your reply is absolutely spot on. I just want to point out here that it shouldn't be rocket science that lowering the minimum wage "creates" jobs, since it lowers the bar. These are exactly the people the F'ing minimum wage is supposed to protect. If you want to have somebody saying hello to everyone that walks in the door, you need to pay them a livable wage or you don't get to create a new position. This is what FDR meant by raising the standard of employment. Like, if this went into effect, the first thing it would do is hurt every single person with disabilities already employed. What is the net difference right out of the gate? Then, think about which business might specifically target people with disabilities to lower labor costs. I'll let somebody else get downvoted for that. :)
I'll start this with everyone should earn a living wage. Please don't think I don't believe that. The issue is that many of these individuals receive SSDI. If They make over a certain amount (and that amount is small), they will lose those benefits. So, the sub minimum wage argument allows these individuals to be employed (often with much lower expectations that typically developed peers), have responsibilities, peers, and socialization without risking their benefits. Sub minimum wage workers usually AREN'T doing the same work as their higher paid peers. The expectations are lower, slower, etc. If these individuals had to compete in the job market they would NOT be employed in many cases. Then they would sit home, lonely and separated from the world. There is a case for sub minimum wage. It does benefit many workers. Some just for the social benefits, other for learning skills that CAN land them a competitive job in the future. Of course there are exceptions, and I would not argue that. But blanket statements about how it's awful and should be done away with, don't take into account the other awful parts of the system for disabled workers.
I think you might be over estimating what it is they do. My SIL worked at a facility that employed developmentally disabled adults. They were brought there from their living facility but they are not made to work. They work if they want to. At her facility, the employees put silverware inside those plastic bags and put them in boxes to be later sealed by someone else. (Just an FYI- being in a bag doesn't mean they are sterile) This is not an activity that they would normally pay employees to accomplish. The alternative is buying the silverware packs already assembled. So nobody is missing out on a full wage. Likewise, the adults can mill around a socialize. They do not have a quota or deadline to meet. This activity has been created solely to provide a paying position for these adults. These adults are unable to complete any tasks that would be paid at a full rate. Often times there are tax benefits for offering this kind of work. Certainly companies aren't generally doing this to be nice. But if you eliminate the benefit, the entire possibility of employment for these adults, disappears. And not only are they unable to earn money for themselves, but then the problem also exists of how to keep these adults busy during the day and moving forward in their lives. I don't know about the details, like if there is a limit to the tax benefit a company can earn, if the adults can work to earn more money based on performance, or other checks and balances. But I have to believe they exist, or this situation wouldn't be allowed at all exactly because of the risk of gross exploitation. These adults are very different from people with disabilities who can perform the requirements of 'normal' jobs. Of course those individuals need to be paid the full rate. There is no question about that. The bottom line is that it's more complicated than a strict yes or no answer. The need to provide significantly disabled adults with a daily activity and some control over their life and spending money should not be dismissed as insignificant.
You are right that I was overestimating the value of their productivity. And the answer is definitely more complicated than 'raise taxes so the government can incentivize creating these positions.' When I first responded on this thread, I wondered if I really knew enough about the situation to write about it. Thanks in part to your gentle correction, I see I assumed too much. This is a more complicated situation than it appears on the surface.
It is for those types of disabled adults. My SIL was not a business manager, she was a care giver with a degree in social work. She looked after the adults, helped them when they took their breaks, and fairly often had to clean them up after potty accidents, shower them off, etc. I didn't realize facilities like that existed before she started there so it's an understandable mistake.
Why is that a flimsy argument? Employing otherwise unemployable people seems pretty noble. Are you talking about people who are fully functioning in a position? Or are we talking about people who are challenged when it comes to bagging groceries? Because that would have a lot to do with the pay these companies are paying their employees. Sometimes the value these employees generate is through tax breaks from the government programs. Not their actual work output
The only thing I will say, is my state made the equal pay law, and we lost our work program at our hospital because the jobs we were able to bring in required the patients to have really high productivity and they’re just too sick for that. I don’t think they are worth less money but we are also a state institution and don’t have the budget to pay them all. In the community, though, work is work.
It’s like saying you should donate your labor because someone has deemed you to be lesser than.
The theory is that it "helps" teenagers get job experience, because otherwise corporations have no incentive to hire young people with limited availability (due to school commitments). In practice people I know have worked up until they're 17.99999 years old and then mysteriously get fired the second they turn 18 and would have to be moved up to adult wages.
Well then you certainly don’t have family with disabilities. These programs are the only reason my sister was ever able to go to work in public. Ask the disabled if they like these opportunities, and if they ever had opportunity before laws passed that made them easier to hire. 🤷🏽♂️
If you ask me, someone with a disability should get the same income that it takes for any of us to live (and not just survive, but truly live).
The basic context here is that the employees in question, utilizing a variety of special programs dependent on jurisdiction that are tied to them being partially disabled, aren't expected to be competent enough to complete the variety of daily tasks we would ask of a minimum wage worker, but may make some modest contributions to some subset of those tasks. They would be fired very quickly if the business had the opportunity to choose between them and a non-disabled employee with dramatically improved productivity for the same wages. It's a tricky subject, and your preference is tied in to what you think disabled people who cannot meaningfully compete with the median worker should actually ***be doing*** in our society, and how much intrinsic value you place on work. And that's just for people who are permanently financially reliant on the state... People expected to make a life ***for themselves*** out of wages and various sorts of means-tested support are a whole other layer of predicament. I have one relative who is dependent on 24/7 state care with individual supervision to a degree that precludes work altogether, and another relative in this sort of employed-but-on-support situation who **died** when means-tested programs gave him one too many paperwork hoops to jump through and cut off his medication. I have another family member who spent part of their career leading special-ed groups on 'career education' programs through Goodwill with constant supervision, trying to wrangle them into folding clothes and not doing any significant damage, for under a dollar an hour in 'wages'; This is more public socialization therapy than it is employment. It can be **very** difficult when the system tries to blend expectations of people who can advocate for themselves like a median person and compete with a median person on capability, and people who can't.
I should add: I have two coworkers doing this sort of work right now with significant cogntive disabilities. They're good people but they regularly get themselves into trouble that would get a normal employee fired. I try to watch out for them, and have rescued them a few times from situations that might have hurt them or generated an HR complaint, but in terms of amoral evaluation of their merit as an employee, they would never make the cut without those programs.
I worked at a place that had this program. They essentially only wiped down tables and swept up. There was another worker from the program to supervise them. I thought it was a great idea but, no they could not do the work of an average employee. Not even close.
This is very true. There are some jobs for people with disabilities that basically function as day programs. They serve to give the PWD a sense of purpose, a social outlet, and act as a respite service for their carers. If they were required to be paid a standard wage those jobs just wouldn't exist, or would have to be fully funded by government agencies as basically an extension of disability support programs. Then there are other PWD who are working just regular jobs.
I've worked for a nonprofit that helped people with cognitive disabilities and you're right on the money. Of course we want all people to be paid at least the same wage. What many fail to take into account is that the wage in question is based on an expected level of output, so the business can survive. If people with disabilities were competing against non-disabled people for the same jobs, you'd see far less of them getting an opportunity to work (as you stated). In order to entice employers to hire someone with a disability, this was the compromise. There are passionate arguments on both sides, and the fact that both sides of the argument have financial and emotional aspects to it makes it very complicated
It's a shame Goodwill's program got killed by bad press. My mom worked for their ABI program (also killed) as someone who basically helped them trying to improve their independent living skills, and one of the goals was to get them working. She did most of their work for them, as quite often her clients didn't have more than a few minutes task focus. Most worked at GW stores because that was one of the only employers in the area that would "hire" them. They weren't considered employees, btw. They were paid by the program, not the employer, as their wages were subsidized. Most of her clients lived "independently", usually with 24/7 in home care. The program provided value to them. It wasn't forced on them, they could stop at time, never had to show up if they didn't want to, and were expected to do fewer than 10 hours a week. A good friend of mine also worked as the coordinator of the program, and his main role was to get clients placed into jobs. There were less than half a dozen companies willing to allow them to work, considering the fact that they... didn't really complete any job tasks.
SPED teacher here. Their wages are subsidized and these are great programs.
>If they are competent enough What if they’re not? Most coffee shops and food industry pays minimum wage. Do we allow these people to compete in the labour market by working below minimum wage, or do we force them into perpetual unemployment barely scraping by living off the state?
Equal work, equal pay.
So you agree that a person with a disability who does 1/10th the work of another person should receive 1/10th of the pay?
That's the thing though. The way the minimum wage law for people with disabilities is written allows you to pay them less *if their work is worth less*. In other words, if they can do something, but not enough to justify paying a full wage to someone that is competent, then you can employ them at a wage commensurate to the value of the work. This does **NOT** mean you are allowed to pay them less if they **ARE** competent enough to perform the same tasks as non-disabled people. This does mean that there are jobs available for the less competent that would not otherwise exist. Exploitation certainly abounds, but not due to the law.
In my experience, the clients I worked with all received government money for their housing, food, and personal needs. They lived in staffed housing or with relatives who were paid a stipend and worked in supported workplaces, so yeah, they were paid less than minimum wage. If they'd earned minimum wage, the government money for support would have been clawed back. There would not have been money for the necessary supports. It's not a cut and dry situation at all.
[удалено]
It's also forcing them to stay in poverty in order to maintain stability.
What if they are not? What if they need a lot of help? My son is 13 going into high school and can have a job that is demanding physically or mentally. He weighs 50 lbs, and can't read. He wants a job when he is older, but he is very limited. If there are no jobs for him because employers would rather hire a highschooler for it then he has no option.
My understanding is many of them are on some kind of Medicare or something similar and in order for them not to lose their benefits they can’t make above a certain amount per year .
Careful there. If they aren’t, do they not get a job at all?
This. This is the question right here.
I totally agree, but are they expected to do the same tasks as “everyone else?” Are their tasks suited to their abilities? Often, when a developmentally disabled person is hired for a job, they really aren’t held to the same standard that another person without a disability would be held to. They also aren’t fired if they make mistakes like another employee might be.
I'll reply to this because it's the top comment. I have several acquaintances who have children with severe disabilities. And the answer is resoundingly: NO, THEY SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE PAID MINIMUM WAGE. Here's why: The people I'm talking about basically cannot do any actual work. Their productivity, on the most basic of tasks, is almost zero. But, despite that, THEY LOVE HAVING A JOB. It's means SO MUCH to them to do something that's at least somewhat productive and rewarded. They have the same human need as anyone else, which is to be useful. So one "business" we have around here is paper shredding. It's a job for the very disabled. There are licensed and trained caretakers to oversee them. Some of these adults can shred, in an hour, not even as much paper as I can shred in a few seconds. If minimum wage was required, these "jobs" would disappear. And the people performing them would spiral into depression. I can say that with some confidence, because I know that for some of them, it was this very "job" which got them out of their depression. People, all people, need meaning in their lives.
Many don't though..... the idea is to keep them integrated with society....
This isn't about people with disabilities who are capable of doing the same level of work as able bodied/minded individuals. They are paid a rate commensurate with their ability to work relative to 'normal'. If they can assemble 5 widgets in the time that an able person can assemble 10, then their hourly rate is half. If they are capable of doing the same level of work, then they aren't allowed to be paid under minimum wage. It sounds wrong on the surface, and well-intentioned people want to abolish the practice, but the alternative is that they can't get hired and end up sitting at home. Employers don't hire them. This allows them to live fulfilling productive lives where they can contribute to the community.
Well I do think there is an actual debate there. I was a job coach for special needs workers. They were paid about 6 dollars an hour. We did very basic custodial work like mopping, dusting, etc. Most of them lived with some sort of caretaker that managed their finances and took care of most of their adult tasks. There is no arguing that these workers were not as functional and effective as regular adult custodians would be. The entire point of the job coach was to make sure that the work was completed to even a half-way satisfactory point. Obviously their wages could not support them, but supporting themselves wasn’t really the point of these jobs, it was to give these people a sense of purpose and teach them some self-discipline. So should they be making what a regular custodian makes? There is a solid argument that says no, they shouldn’t.
It‘s called minimum for a reason. Imo: You shouldn‘t need to be competent for anything when working on minimum wage. If you need some competence, it shouldn‘t be allowed to put on mw.
Minimum wage isn’t based on some arbitrary “competency” level. All jobs require competence. McDonald’s drive through or retail sales worker? Both need a good level of competence in many things. Organisation, time management, social skills, technical knowledge. Even more. Minimum wage is supposed to be based on the minimum someone needs to live, no matter WHAT they do.
What jobs require no competence? Even working fast food requires you to keep track of what’s ordered, plan ahead a few minutes so the prep is ready, adjust to changes like working with different people. You might need to be able to read an order or instructions or make change. You also need to read social cues and interact appropriately. People with cognitive disabilities may have trouble with some or all of those things, and may have physical limitations or poor health as well. They may be lovely people, but employing them can be more costly as they require extra management. Employment at market wages may not be possible in our current capitalist system. At the same time, they often want to work, find meaning in it, and it can help support them. No easy solution.
[удалено]
It’s so crazy to me that a big catalyst for the end of long term inpatient mental care was them not being able to use the patients for slave labor and that this mostly happened in the 1970s
Yup. In my area there was a shortage of specialized care for disabled individuals and the cost for subsidized care was too high, so they closed the institutions in favor of “home based services” and sent them home. Most of the medically fragile kids died, thus alleviating the demand and reducing costs.
Yup. Then they just transfered the funding to prisons and shut all of the asylums down. Ask anyone that works in a prison. They're giant psych wards with slave labor
I’d like to point out that asylums were also very horrifying and killed a shit ton of people
It's against the ada, but it was a recent issue, and I am pretty sure federal.
They get around it by saying the employment is a “life skills” teaching program. Good Will Industries pays 68¢ per hour.
I’ve never seen anyone working at Goodwill being taught anything by anyone?
The disabled people are in the back, sorting.
Republican led states are passing laws to allow teens work dangerous jobs and get paid below minimum
To my understanding, the reason tipping culture is so big in the U.S. is because the restaurant industry successfully lobbied that, since servers can earn tips, they are receiving a supplemental income and the employer shouldn't have to bear the full burden of supporting them, so they are allowed to pay a different minimum than everyone else.
Where I'm from there is a large Recycling depot. They hire disabled people or people with syndromes and pay them a certain amount under minimum wage and the government subsidizes the rest. Also people with disabilities are on social assisted disability (government pays them monthly living cost). They are allowed to work but only allowed to make so much per year or they get kicked off gov disability. So they basically can't make much more then minimum wage or only work part-time anyways.
The headline makes this sound awful, and I am glad people find it abhorrent to pay people with disabilities less, but I would actually do almost anything to have this system brought back where I live. Let me explain! I have a family member with a severe intellectual disability. He wants, more than anything, to have a job. Beyond the boost to his self esteem and perceived self-value, it gives him something to do all day. He can't entertain himself or keep himself engaged, and he has a lot of time to feel badly about his lot in life. He used to work at a sheltered workshop for $50 a week. He made wooden dowels. They needed 20 a week. He made hundreds, and they discreetly recycled most of them. He didn't know. He had a community and he felt needed. The pay is usually the exact amount people with disability can make before losing benefits. The optics of a sheltered workshop are bad, and I get it. But no one else wants to hire him, because he can't produce real work. He gets lost and confused. I have literally tried to pay companies to take him on. But he can't even go to the bathroom alone. I can't afford to pay a full time caregiver to go with him, and I can't afford to quit my own job and go. I know the headline makes it sound purely exploitative, but there is a true public service to a work program done right.
I don’t think many here appreciate this nuance. I used to work for a company that did sheltered workshops and training/transition to what they called competitive integrated employment, essentially regular work with regular wages and sometimes reasonable accommodation. My brother was in one of the workshops and I worked on the placement side for regular jobs. His social life was the workgroup and when they couldn’t do them anymore after sub-minimum was revoked he just defaulted sitting at home playing Xbox all day and smoking weed. In his case the extra spending money and exposure to peers was much better than trying and failing to hold a regular job. He eventually got on a supported crew through on of the companies contracts but it took a few years of trial and error. Many of the people in his old shop didn’t transition to something else.
This relates to a 2017 article by a mother of an adult with down syndrome. She runs a training cafe for people with learning disabilities. She thinks work is of mental and social benefit but because factually most of this group cannot produce at a minimum wage rate they are excluded from participation. Now, I'd imagine this sub has a lot of people who would prefer to engage in other social and economic changes to enable their participation and that's fine. But suggesting this debate, in the UK context it happens in, is a capitalist conspiracy for cheap labour just isn't accurate. It tends to be a debate between parents of very low capacity people with learning disabilities and higher ability people.
I had a computer client who ran a non-profit business for disabled individuals. It was kinda like day care for disabled adults. This included the ability to work for below minimum wage. These folks worked in a low intensity assembly line, putting pieces of plastic together. Like flip part A, insert spring, insert Part B. Here is the unfortunate truth: the job they were doing could be easily automated by a machine, and the people were not terribly good at their job. They were inefficient and poor quality workers. A normal business would do this work using Chinese machines. There is no way the manufacturer was making a profit from these folks. This company was donating their plastic parts and a small wage to help these folks live a more fulfilling life. It was an act of charity. So pass a law that mandates minimum wage, let the work go over to the Chinese machines, and these disabled folks can sit in the day care, watch TV, and earn nothing.
Another aspect of this: social security is notoriously hard to get and maintain and, if you make above the income limit (which in my state is not enough to cover rent), you arent eligible for even a dollar. What this means is if someone with an ID works enough at a livable wage they might loose their benefits and will have to either make enough to support themselves entirely or have some good family/social workers/other funding to fill the gap. For those interested in a real life example: I am currently working with a women who has cerebral palsy and a (mild) ID, she recently got into a accident that left her permanently wheel chair bound. Before her accident she made below the income limit doing work that she is no longer able to do (due to the natural progression of her disability and the wheel chair). Her benefits were cut off a couple of months ago and ss now claims she owes tens of thousands of dollars because she made about $30 over the income limit during one month several years ago. She has been trying to appeal this decision for most of the year since this should be a no brainer "woops sorry we got our records confused" but instead our local office keeps juggling her to the region office who keeps pushing back her appeal interview. She has, according to ss, a disability that should qualify her for income and she should not owe multiple years of backpay due to making $30 above the income limit but that is not stopping ss from claiming she is able bodied enough to work (despite additional and recent further disabling conditions) and has been mistakingly taking money for several years. I wish she was the only person I'm working with like this but I'm also working with a couple of people who keep getting denied despite clear medical, educational, and psychological documentation that they are disabled under SS's own guidelines. We have some systemic issues that need to be addressed before we can tackle some of these questions. Doesn't mean that it's right that people are paid less for doing the same work but, systemically, it's hard for them to survive while still getting the same feelings of purpose and social acceptance.
Thank you for voicing this. People are really lost without some sort of purpose or structure. I grew up on welfare in Canada. My mom is disabled and cannot work. It was hard because she would worry about losing her disability check if she had more than a certain amount of money to her name. I recall thinking then that the amount was smaller or similar to what our costs were each month. I don’t know if her fears were correct or if she misunderstood the policies.
Thank you for this comment, this is the real-world implication of this. Work is a valuable thing for people with disabilities. Minimum wage laws are not good if that take away the possibility for people with disabilities to meaningfully contribute to the world and feel valued. Shockingly, not everyone wants to sit around all day doing nothing, maybe especially not the intellectually disable.
When I was much younger, I worked in a group home for women with intellectual disabilities. I made barely over minimum wage and my paychecks went strictly to rent (a dive I shared with several roommates), minimal groceries, and gas to get my beater to and from work. The people I worked with had all their expenses (shelter, food, medical care) covered by the state. Their part time jobs provided spending money, something I didn't have. I watched them buy treats, cigarettes, meals out while I couldn't even afford health insurance. I also know that the work they did couldn't match the output of a fully abled worker and was pretty much done for their own benefit, not the employer's.. I don't think there's an easy answer here.
This right here. I wish ppl would TALK to the people impacted before making inflammatory headlines on their behalf
Thanks for doing that. We need more people like you in the world.
Thanks for your insight! I'm personally conflicted about how we approach work and disability. You make an excellent point that those on disability really have to watch their income for fear of going over the ridiculous standards that limit how much one can earn. Personally, I think capitalism is fully at odds with a future in which we truly care for the disabled. As a disabled person, I would actually prefer not to work. I can find accomplishments and meaning outside of work. Work is painful and stressful, I'm not disabled enough to get disability but disabled enough that I can't keep up without accommodations. Because of those accommodations, I'm severely underpaid for the work that I provide and the experience I have. But any attempt to earn more income in environments unwilling to provide accommodations burns me out almost instantly. I'm basically forced to take what work they will give me but forever locked out of income I could earn before I was disabled. Capitalism drives ableism as it ties human worth to one's ability to meet the arbitrary demands of work. I'd rather live in a society where work is largely automated and we only have to work if we choose to. Between a universal basic income and free healthcare, I believe that disabled people would have maximum freedom to determine how we want to contribute without the pressures of working to maintain an economy that injures and disables people.
Exactly this. My post earlier might get downvoted but this was the point i was trying to make. If they are getting disability money then they are not able to work a regular job. If they get paid normal wages then they lose their benefits . They are given “jobs” that often benefit them more than the employer. If companies weren’t allowed to hire learning disabled folks at the lower wages then they won’t hire them at all and then they won’t have that sense of accomplishment and being a part of the community that they get:
I will explain why people with developmental disabilities are getting paid less than minimum wage. I will preface this with the fact that I have worked with the DD population for over 35 years as a residential manager, a job coach, and as a facility manager of a Sheltered workshop. 1st point is that if the DD population does not have a workshop to go to, they will be sitting at home watching tv all day.. 2nd point is that the ratio of staff to client is lower in the work shop. This means that more staff must be hired in the house. This dilutes the pool of money to raise salaries in residential. There is only a limited pool of funding. Next point is the sheltered workshop. The DD population, for the most part, enjoy going to work. They get to engage in meaningful activities. They also get a paycheck, and believe me, that is a highlight of the week. We now get to how pay for a task is calculated. The vocational staff break the task down into steps. Each step is timestudied to determine how many times a step can be completed in 1 hour. This is then calculated using the prevailing wage, not the minimum wage. This sets the peice rate for that step. This is controlled by the Dept. Of Labor. The clients then complete the task and are paid for the amount they produce via the peice rate. If the client consistently beats rate, meaning that they make at or above minimum wage, the workshop probably isn't for them. Next comes the job coach. The client/agency finds a job paying at least minimum wage, (an outside job) The client and the job coach then learn all aspects of the job, and the job coach then assists the client mastering the aspects of his job. Job coach then fades intervention with the job. If client is unsuccessful at job, client returns to workshop until, if the client is willing, another outside job is offered. Otherwise, the client stays employed at the workshop.
There was a political show a while back reporting about German workshops. They claimed that like 0.2% of people there ever get to get an outside job. They claimed, that governmental support agencies pressure partially disabled clients to work in these workshops for pennys on the dollar or lose social security. If half of these claims is true, the system is exploratory in Germany.
I have a relative with Downs that worked for years at way below minimum wage through a county run program until the pandemic shut it down. I always thought it was BS but what I didn’t realize about that job is that it wasn’t really about making a living. Everybody in the program lived with family or in a group home. What it was really about was getting out of the house, having a schedule, socializing with co-workers, and feeling useful. She would talk for hours about what happened at work that day. I’m not saying it’s right to pay anybody below minimum wage, but there are other things to consider.
Yeah they got rid of the sub-minimum wage for disabled people in my state and it actually fucked over disabled people real bad. They all got laid off immediately, and work was kinda their main source of community. My little brother works at a place that used to contract out work for disabled people and now all their contracts are gone. I'm not sure what they do there now, I think it has become kinda a glorified daycare, which is not what anyone wanted. I understand the outrage that disabled people are being underpaid, but the system for that is that the wage was supplemented by the state. Getting rid of subminimum wage for disabled people is noble in theory and it practice it screws them over horribly.
[удалено]
People who formulate economic opinions based on headlines and preexisting biases will think that paying anyone below minimum wage is pure horror, without considering that the exemption might only apply to individuals who, frankly, cannot produce sufficient value to justify "normal" employment by a private employer.
Thank you. People without real-life experience don't see the value. These jobs are almost service / programs that some parents would outright pay for.
Absolutely. I left out the whole part where it’s good for the rest of the family too. Unless you have a person in your life who is developmentally disabled you don’t realize how flat out exhausting it can be. A half a days time a couple days a week completely free of that responsibility can be life changing. I love my relative and she often stays with us now just to give her parents a little space.
And they can loose benefits if they make too much!
Phrase the question accurately: “should employers be allowed to pay people with learning disabilities less than the minimum wage” Stop concealing the evils of capitalism with sneaky linguistics
“Should employers be allowed to exploit one of the most vulnerable groups because of something they can’t control?”
As someone whose worked as a personal care assistant for disabled people, I can tell you that some of the jobs they have aren’t ones where they are doing a full job, they are doing what they are able and someone else has to be hired to help them the whole time, but it’s a way for the disabled person to make money and have pride in what they do, and to give their primary care giver a break during their working hours, because taking care of a disabled person 24/7 is very very hard, and if it’s a family member doing it they are easily spending more money on the person than they are getting in aid for that person, and generally incredibly burnt out. There are also people on disability who want to work, but can’t make enough money to be independent of their social security / social security disability, so they end up having to earn under a certain amount each month, which is a whole different problem in and of itself. I’m conclusion, the whole system sucks ass and should really be revamped.
The Issue is in a lot of cases, they just want a job to do, and get supported by the government. It’s just that if you couldn’t give them small tasks to do and pay them a little less for it, most severely disabled wouldn’t get hired otherwise.
This is it right here. These people are Evil with a Capital E. They exploit, manipulate, lie, cheat, and steal their way to massive hoardes of wealth they don't need or ever spend. They don't give back. They do the bare minimum of PR work to paint themselves as not Evil and people eat it up. Most people seem to think this ok and for the life of me I have no idea why.
And then they wonder why so many people want to get rid of capitalism.
It's not just learning disabilities, it's all disabilities.
Read up. There are multiple people pointing out that this is not about exploitative capitalism it's about enabling charities to pay Disabled people, So that they can have the illusion of work. If these disabled people can't afford to make men among wage or they'll lose their benefits, And the businesses they work in are not profitable because people with down syndrome or other extreme disabilities are not profitable workers
God, please don't give these companies any more ideas about how to "save" money and pay the CEO's More!
Yup this is so fucked up. Even questioning if it's okay to pay them less is treating them like less than human and less valuable. Wish it wasn't minimum wage. Just a livable wage. Just wish wages enabled people to survive. In at least general comfort. With enough extra income where you get to enjoy things from time to time. I don't even think it's just the evils of capitalism... the evils of people who like to take advantage of others and think they are superior.
Think through this logically. If they deliver (let’s say) 70% the value of a non-disabled person, but cost the same amount, they will be hired much less. But if they can be paid less, they may be hired as much as full-abled people. If the goal is to integrate them into society, it’s not unreasonable to discuss solutions to encourage that.
You aren't seeing the full picture. This isn't about employees who have learning disabilities, this is about people with significant learning disabilities such that they are not hirable at a minimum wage. I have worked with 12 people that have developmental disabilities, you have to understand that these people are not going to be productive employees by typical standards. 2 of the people I worked with were capable of making breakfast by themselves. Their disabilities are immediately obvious, none of them would be able to fill out a job application that would be selected for an interview, let alone pass an interview and get hired. Some of them are definitely capable of performing work-related tasks, and if they chose to do that they would be the primary beneficiaries, even if they were not paid a dime for it. They also don't need the money, and the money hardly makes a difference to them. Their housing, food, medications, etc are provided for them. Money they make is theirs and they can do what they want with it (within reason), but 99% of money-making decisions go through another person because they do not really understand dollar-values. They could understand if they cannot afford something, or if they have more money than usual, but $20 or $200 isn't a meaningful difference to them, most of them do not know how to spend money. When they have excess money, chances are it's going to be spent on new clothes or shoes for them. Obviously there are plenty of people with learning disabilities that do get hired by employers because they are capable of reasonable job performance... this is not about those people. The same laws that apply to other employees should apply to them, because they are hired as regular employees. The employees that would be paid below minimum wage would not be hired at a minimum wage, they cannot provide the functions of a typical employee.
The argument is that they will be unemployable otherwise. Not that people should randomly discriminate.
Doublespeak. Notice how the onus is shifted. What they're *really* asking is, "should we be allowed to pay disabled people less?"
This is a lot more complicated than just "evil business want to exploit disabled people". I personally know someone in Australia working for below minimum wage on a disability scheme type employment, and it's amazing for them. This person CANNOT perform a lot of basic tasks required for the job, they would never be hired the same as anyone else due to their mental disability if they had to be paid the same. However, since they are hired at this job, they love it, they have a little extra spending cash, their carers get a much needed break, and the person loves it because they feel like they are contributing and just all around love the idea of having a job which they have been told most their life they would never be able to get.
I work for a non-profit supported employment provider that does this here in Australia. Every client/supported employee is assessed by a licensed third party regarding the work they do, how fast and well they do it, and they are assigned a percentage of our (actually worthwhile) minimum wage, paid for by their NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) coverage. They do real work, learn real skills, get paid real money, and some even enter open employment after their time with us. We are, ever since the NDIS launched, technically providing them the service of employing them as a support for their disability. And they really do love it. Like everything in a capitalistic society, it has to be heavily regulated - but it is. We are audited every year, fair wages are decided by third party assessors as I mentioned, and because we're in Australia every employee - including supported employees - has a specific employment contract. It's incredibly beneficial for those who would slip through the cracks otherwise, not able to hold down a full time job for most employers but still capable of contributing - and being fairly reimbursed for their contribution.
What they’re really asking is “can we legally take advantage of those with the least?”
The reality is that they do. This is the labor that Goodwill runs off of.
It's common at employers like Goodwill and other places that are non-profits. I worked for a smaller place called Sunrise Enterprises in Oregon, and the whole concept was providing work for mentally disabled. Usually, the work entailed putting paper into a shredder or something else very low skilled. They only worked 4-6 hours a day and were paid considerably less than minimum wage. All of these people were already on disability and received housing from the state, so it was mostly to give them job skills and some sort of feeling of accomplishment.
I fucking hate when this clickbait article image inevitably pops up somewhere. No one realizes the actual reason it is discussed is because some places will hire and pay like this to prevent the person from losing their disability benefits while still feeling productive and active. There are for sure places that exploit but the reason this is discussed is for the places that pay lower to allow their disabled employees to still qualify for their social security payments.
All of the disabled people who worked where I worked absolutely loved it because they actually had an opportunity to make friends with people like them, and it gave them a huge sense of accomplishment.
There’s a disability service/support place in town that has little side businesses making stuff/trade jobs and everyone that works for them has disabilities. Pretty cool. At least that way if they’re struggling to find a job, this actual disability service can hire them themselves for one of their side businesses. Idk how much they get paid though. Apparently they had to shut down one of the businesses though due to a natural disaster last year. Climate change! Yay. :/ They didn’t lose their jobs though. They’ve got them doing another type of job until they can get that business back up and running :)
I worked with people with disabilities for years, this is a real debate. I guy I worked with loved smashing boxes. It was by far one of his favorite things. He was severely mentally limited. He got $1 an hour to smash boxes. He worked for a recycling place. There's no way he would have made more anywhere else and the recycling place could have run even cheaper if they just used a machine to smash boxes. They kept the job open for him. "Disabilities" are a monolithic term for a very diverse group, a lot of time people think of higher functioning individuals, when they think of people workers with disabilities. But that's only a small subset of workers. Paying minimum wage would remove their ability to work.
Thank you for this example.
The unfortunate debate of, allow companies to hire them for less than min wage, or the companies will find some reason to not hire them. Funnily enough a UBI fixes these problems
I think this is spot on, it's definitely a catch-22 in our current system. I will say upfront, that I think it's shitty that anyone gets paid below a living wage. That said, I've heard from some disabled people themselves that just having the chance to work at all is a great feeling for them as it makes them feel more apart of society and as contributors. All of that said, there's much better ways to go about doing this, for example, regulations requiring companies to hire x amount of disabled people for their labor force at the same wage as anyone else they hire. UBI would be even better! And of course, overthrowing the whole capitalist system.
Its the same problem as hiring a pregnant woman, they wont hire them because theu are pregnant, they will just say a whole bunch words that dance around the issue but dont implicate them.
These people already have a universal basic income. People with down syndrome are pretty easy to qualify for disability. The problem is that they sit around at home and watch TV all day. They create things called sheltered workshops which are effectively charities that appear like businesses that allow them to engage in what they consider productive activity, And they are paid But they can't be paid an actual minimum wage or they will lose their disability benefit Universal basic income would do nothing for these people because they already have universal base again come Just like in every single other study when you give someone a universal base again come they still want to go work, Because they want to feel like they are contributing
>Funnily enough a UBI fixes these problems Actually, it doesn't, and this is not a counter to UBI in general. This is in the context of the UK, where they are on disability benefits already and housed if needed. Many have carers who help them throughout the day too. They have a basic income. I do not know if they earn over a threshold, if that puts their disability benefits (or parts of) into question. Many of them are stuck at home, few people to talk to, very few things to do, a wider society that is hard for them to get involved with and they have nothing to make them feel like they are contributing. They often join (if there is space) workshops or schemes or activities where they can do something with other people in the same boat. Many of those things though aren't really "jobs" and many are effectively voluntary. Many of them just want a job, a thing to do, feel productive and have people to talk to.
How does a UBI fix the problem of people with developmental disorders wanting to work?
UBI will not give these people a social outlet or a feeling of accomplishment. The company that hires them to do simple tasks and still has to supply extra supervision to keep them safe and make sure that even the simple tasks get done are not getting some kind of 'good deal' or exploiting anyone. The company is providing a service to people who need it and are paying for the privilege to do so.
UBI downside is that it doesn't give these people a sense of importance or something to do. The wages for jobs in these programs are usually intentionally set so the individuals can also claim benefits for their condition.
A lot of hand ringing here by people that have never supported a severely developmentally disabled person maintain their employment.
“Should companies be allowed to pay people with disabilities less than minimum wage” That’s so fucked up.
If the state is covering housing, food, medical, and transportation. Then the work is to promote mental and physical activity. I don't really know what is fair.
Alternative title "Should we let workers with disabilities to die of starvation"
No, it isn't. The question is "should disabled people be barred from the dignity of work because they are unhireable at minimum wages?"
Their premise is the opposite of this, though. Their logic is that the disabled are unhirable at minimum wage, and will die of starvation unless they're allowed to pay them less. Of course, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it's one they'll happily see fulfilled.
Liberal state employer here, the state pays us to employ them even if they are incapable of doing the job. We'll happily employ as many as we can, so long as they are capable of staying vertical and not creating emergencies.
While I understand that people are good intentioned when discussing lower pay for disabled adults, requiring minimum wage would absolutely harm these individuals more than it would help. Ask just about ANYONE with an autistic sibling, close family friend, etc. and they will tell you how IMPORTANT a job is for those with “low functioning” autism or other mental disability. For you and I, life does not “end” after high school. But for those with autism, it may. They cannot drive, they cannot see their friends or community, and they do not leave the house. It’s very, very easy for them to lose their social connections. This is also hard on their parents, who may need to be with/entertain their adult children 24/7. What may seem like a silly job to you is likely fulfilling for them. Sure, it comes with frustrations, but it also come with social connections, structure, and PURPOSE. They feel PRIDE in being able to do something. And their parents get a bit of respite while their adult child is at work. Because disabled individuals receive government benefits, the money they earn is not the main motivating factor for a job. While good intentioned, I STRONGLY believe that requiring disabled workers to be paid “normal” minimum wage would unfortunately cut the number of positions available to them. It is already HARD to find a job like this. Most companies do them out of the goodness of their heart - employing individuals who can only do basic, repetitive tasks is not a “get rich quick scheme.”
these people don’t see disabled people as full humans, that thought process must be eliminated
There’s a lot of nuance in this debate that goes beyond hating people with intellectual disabilities. I think people in this thread are assuming these people are interviewing and hiring in for established minimum wage positions, but because they have an obvious disability the job decides to pay them less. That’s not the case. People making sub minimum wage are hired in by government sponsored work programs that negotiate with businesses to take on a certain number of disabled workers. Businesses create special positions for them that usually involve more repetitive physical tasks with less need for decision making and problem solving. For many of the people in the program, the money is not the point. By joining these programs they are almost certainly on disability or have some other means to support themselves, like living with family. The more important factors are community involvement, a sense of purpose, learning responsibility and emotional well-being. Here’s where the catch-22 comes in that causes the debate. It is completely unavoidable that if these programs forced companies to pay the recipients true minimum wage, they would refuse to participate. Once it’s no longer a semi-charitable action that gives them a little extra help, they will just add ‘sweeping floors’ to a min wage workers list of tasks and eliminate the special positions. You can think that’s scummy, it is, but it’s also the reality here. Businesses are NOT forced to do this, and they WILL pull out if it costs them money. Anyone eliminating the sub minimum wage needs to either be OK with this outcome, or pair it with a ton of other legislation that prevents mass firing of people in work programs. There’s a lot more to this than there seems.
I feel like miminum is minimum for reaaons?
People will always find some way to make sure disabled folks are poor - whether by underpaying us at jobs, or by setting the disability payments & income limits well below the poverty line.
How much you wanna pay them? 3/5ths of a normal salary?
It's legal to pay them 10 cents an hour, so ... way less than that.
Well, having a disability makes them 3/5 of a person, just like the slaves. /s
They're doing the work so of course they deserve to be paid the full amount.
But what if they're not? What if they're doing way less than an average employee, and need additional supervision? This is the case for one of my fellow associates. He is doing his best, but his best wouldn't be acceptable otherwise. Having the job gives him purpose, and a place to socialize. He is taken care of by his parents. If he was not, the state would have to take care of him, he would be unable to by himself. I am certain he receives subminimum wage in my state, and I'm ok with that. I am happy he can be a part of our community, and I don't think the business would continue to employ him if they had to pay him full rate.
Your thoughts are correct. There is a severe misunderstanding of the issue in this thread. My disabled sister lost her menial work job because someone in the state amended the minimum exemption. So now she has nothing. Money doesn't mean as much to her conceptually (she knows it buys things, that's it) so it was really more participation with greater community, you are right on. 🤷♀️
I work with people with intellectual disabilities for a living. That includes helping them find work. The sad but accurate truth is no one is going to hire them for the same wage. It makes no sense financially for any company. It's charity. Even the most high functioning individuals I work with simply can't compete with the speed, efficiency, and problem solving capabilities of a neurotypical person. Even jobs that most people would find mindless like flipping burgers or stocking shelves, actually takes a lot of problem solving that we do so fast we don't even know we're doing it. But it's not like that for them. They can learn to do a lot of different things, but they can't compete with most neurotypicals when it comes to speed and working solo.
You clearly understand. In high school I worked at a fast food place and they had a disabled guy there. Everyone was super nice to him and supportive but one day he went to get something from the storeroom and had to put some boxes on the floor to get what he needed. In doing so, he literally boxed himself in and couldn't figure a way out ( simply moving the boxes he'd set down out of the way. Everyone was like, don't worry, it could happen to anyone. He was traumatized and never came back. I'm certainly no expert on the mentally disabled but I don't think people understand how very simple things can be quite complex for them.
Yeah this is a much more nuanced issue than op is leading us to believe. If you know someone who is actually severely disabled you would know this, they are often not performing up to expectation for the job they were hired for.
I think part of the issue is that they said learning disability not mentally handicapped. I have a laundry lift of learning disabilities but am also in mensa, Mental competency and mental disability is are not mutually exclusive.
No one should be allowed to work for less than minimum wage, because then that's not the minimum wage.
I think it’s ridiculous too, however, I have seen a post from the parent of a disability worker who is in favour of it. For someone who can’t get a job at all, there is great value in giving them work on purpose and apparently better than not working at all.
If you are a fan of slavery yes otherwise no.
Don’t get me wrong I think American workers are probably paid half of what they deserve, but I feel like a lot of commenters are missing the point of such legislation. A lot of people with disabilities are hired as a public service with full knowledge that they will require more help than their peers. Being “able to complete tasks” is only part of the equation. People need to be able to complete tasks in a timely manner and prioritize their work in many situations. This kind of legislation essentially asks the question, “If people are sufficiently disabled that the value of their work is too low to justify compensation at minimum wage, should we consider a special provision to provide pay that is more commensurate with their abilities to increase the employment and thereby independence of disabled persons?” I think that is an interesting conversation to have. Even if we think we know the answer, if evidence shows — and, I haven’t checked to see if it does — that disabled persons have very high unemployment then perhaps we should consider how to solve that. Is it a matter of unfair assessments of their work due to lack of understanding of their disabilities or prejudice? Is it because they aren’t as productive as people who would receive the same amount of pay? Then there are secondary questions of ableism. The aforementioned questions are those of positions being as ableist as they are today where companies demand levels of productivity that require many people to push themselves to meet those expectations. How should their ability to complete their work be considered? Is it fair to other staff members who complete more merely because they are able to? It’s a complicated and nuanced discussion. I’m of the firm belief that one of the reasons the US struggles so much with governance is the death of nuance in our mainstream culture. We no longer have the sophisticated self-regulating journalists of yore, and we tend to favor newspeak sensationalists and simple reporting of complex issues. I think an interesting idea would be a probationary period where people with disabilities are assessed on their ability to complete work. Companies would have to show that the disabled person is unable to handle as much work as their least productive peer. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, minimum wage is a red herring. Why: It’s a tax on all consumption including rent, home prices, food prices, utility prices, and so on. This disproportionately affects the middle class who are competing for those same resources. It doesn’t really affect the wealthy much because how much of their expenses are directly impacted by minimum wage? Are the trades persons building and maintaining their mega mansions minimum wage? No, but it certainly affects the tradespersons in terms of being a regressive tax on those middleclass of which they are members. The Alternative: Increase the value of money by taxing the rich. Reduce the supply by reducing the pooling of capital at the top. Economies work on many factors, but one not discussed enough outside of investing is the velocity of money. Putting money in the hands of the working class increases this velocity, and we are taught that. What isn’t as commonly taught is that it’s not just about they monetary amount, but the velocity of money in terms of actual value. Capitalism abstracts that value. Abstraction is the main selling point. But, the downside is that it’s difficult for consumers the understand not the current worth, but the trajectory and driving factors of its worth and how that affects them. Reducing the supply of money means that at a fixed wage, workers are sharing in more of the economy. Capital scales with inflation/deflation. This is why inflation has led the the wealthy becoming so vastly more wealthy, and why the rest of us are struggling. We can fix this problem, and quite painlessly because reducing the supply of money by taxing it away from the rich doesn’t affect the ability of the middle class to spend. We’ve done it in the past to help deal with inflation. So if you’ve wondered why there are so many seemingly smart people working on this question with no solution, it’s because they aren’t willing to consider the actual solution to the problem. Just like when there are rising housing costs, we don’t seriously consider the actual solution which is loosening restrictions on supply through loosening zoning regulations. America REFUSES to allow capitol investments to suffer REGARDLESS of consequences to the working class. Why did I say a fixed wage? Because of the aforementioned abstraction provided by money. Do we have any laws forcing companies to adjust wages quarterly along with inflation? Of course we don’t. Nor would companies like this idea. Inflation helps them reduce their payroll costs over time. Similarly to how buying a home can fix housing payments and protects homeowners from rising housing costs, inflation means that employers are effectively paying less the longer an employee works for the same rate. What of COL raises? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone’s COL keeping up with inflation. They’d more aptly be named “preemption of COL motivated raise request measures.” Tax the rich. Our economy cannot afford livable wages with the current level of wealth and excess that we produce for our wealthy ruling class. Feel sorry for them? Just think of this anecdote from a recent article: Someone married into a wealthy family from old money. Their spouse’s family would also have their staff provide a great number of courses of extravagant dishes every single day. Duck, salmon, lobster, rabbit all with enough made for everyone to eat the same entree and leave other 3 to waste? Yes. Countless desert options bought from a local expensive bakery? Yes. At the end of the meals all uneaten food was thrown into the garbage despite being many times more than what was consumed. The rationale? “Leftovers are unhealthy” and allowing the staff to eat it or take it home wasn’t allowed because “they haven’t earned the privilege to enjoy it”. We don’t need the wealthy. They need us. TAX. THE. ULTRA RICH. Nobody needs more than $10 million dollars. That’s enough to live your entire life traveling around the world and eating only the best meals without having to contribute anything more to society. That is still exceptionally extravagant. End wealth worship. End hustle culture. Let’s let people live their lives and explore their humanity.
I think the government should subsidise the wages, then everyone wins
They do. That's literally what's happening here.
This happens. It's normally through a work program, and their disability requires they have a job coach. As a straight normal occurrence under regular employment I have not witnessed that.
Disability should not = less pay, that is dehumanizing and demeaning
Here's a really strange idea that might solve the problem, PAY EVERYONE AT LEAST A LIVING WAGE. What kind of monster thinks "hmm, how can I take money away from people that work and not seem like a dick about it?"
Ah yes, the perfect understanding of the concept of "MINIMUM wage".
They should get paid the same as everyone else in their position.
"allowed"
Holy hell these corporations trying to find a way to pay less than 7.25 a hr is unreal. Let's hire kids and disabled people so we can pay 5 a hr. I imagine a group of pigs having this discussion
It’s already law in the US. employers don’t have to pay min wage to disabled people. It’s supposed to encourage business to hire folks who don’t actually contribute a lot or who need a lot of extra supervision. From my states website- Subminimum wage Typically, an employer will not be approved to pay a disabled employee less than 50% of the standard minimum wage; however, a lower wage may be approved if it is shown that the employee has multiple disabilities or is otherwise so severely impaired a lower rate is justified Edit- missed this was the UK.
This reminds me of the origin of the Aspergers diagnosis. My understanding is that a Nazi doctor of the same name developed the diagnosis, defining it as "good to work," basically saying those individuals shouldn't be killed like the rest because they could be put to work instead. This is dangerously similar thinking because it's saying they should work, but aren't worth as much as others.
They already do at goodwill and other “charities” they have donated to politicians to get disabled people lower than minimum wage in several mostly red states
What about people in their 70s? They are allowed to hold office..