Anyone working 40 hours a week should be able to support themselves. That's not a ridiculous idea. If your business depends on exploiting workers, you should not be in business.
I agree with your comment wholeheartedly and in its entirety.
With that said, raising the wages of people with special needs to be on par with that of the general minimum wage would generally be bad for people with special needs. Employers are incentivized to hire people with special needs because of the lower rate. Many employers would prefer someone without special needs if the hourly costs were the same.
In addition, many people with special needs are working fewer than 40 hours a week, and I still think they should be able to support their lives, to at least comfortably have their basic needs met.
I think the government should be stepping in to fill in the gap. If the state minimum wage is $12/h, but workers with special needs can be paid $8/h (for example), then maybe the government could be paying the extra $4/h to meet the difference.
...or they could use that money towards providing programs that people with special needs could benefit from.
Or instead of continuing to treat disabled people as less than, the government actually creates some anti-discrimination laws with some teeth and then enforces them
Equal work for equal pay is important, yes.
Businesses might be willing to "give a chance" to someone with a disability if they don't have to pay them as much as anyone else.
If there are no other incentives, and someone with a disability is unable to perform the job as well as someone without a disability, then the business would likely choose the more capable employee regardless of any disabilities. And by definition, that'd usually be an advantage for the person without a disability.
You can't fire someone for having a disability in a lot of places. You can usually fire someone for not performing well enough at the required duties.
If you could hire an able bodied person for $16/hr, and they can glaze 100 pieces of pottery a day, or you could hire a disabled person for the same pay who can only glaze 25 a day because of their disability, who are you going to hire? I'm talking about a local small business pottery shop who hires people to glaze the pieces.
If a lazy but able-bodied person took the job and refused to meet the 100 pieces a day quota, they'd be fired, and rightfully so. So why are disabled people special? Why do they deserve a pay rate and a quota that an able-bodied person would be fired for? Or maybe you think that firing a lazy person is calling them "less than" and is unethical. Well, at least you'd be consistent.
If you think a small business could survive hiring people who can only produce 1/4 of the normal output at a full wage... I don't know what to say. It's just not feasible.
I'm sorry for the harsh truth, but sometimes in some ways some disabled people are "less than". As in sometimes they can only do less work per hour as an able bodied person. A small business can't survive while being charitable to disabled workers.
These disability wage laws exist so businesses can legally hire disabled people and pay them something when otherwise they would have no job at all. In my state, the business has to prove they can't produce the same work in the same time as an able-bodied person. And their wage has to reflect whatever percentage of the work they can do.
I'm 100% in favor of government subsidies for making up the wage difference for disabled people, and not making any benefits dependant on having such a job. The job would be purely a choice for disabled people.
I know it sounds weird in this day and age to say this, but having a job can be very rewarding. I can totally imagine a disabled person preferring to work a job at low pay, having a routine, and interacting with coworkers rather than staying home all day doing hobbies and watching TV.
If they are actually exploiting people... I know this sounds like exploitation but this issue is pretty complex and there may actually be no "jobs" for a lot of differently abled people if there isn't a carve out for certain scenarios. I say jobs in quotes because there are some places that are more or less daycares where adults of certain ability levels can go to work and do end up making less than minimum wage. But they are doing so because they are receiving a level of care and supervision at the same time. These are people who you could not just teach a job and leave to their own devices for any amount of time without endangering them. But they are capable enough to complete certain tasks. I have known adult aged people who's elderly parents would not know what to do if they had to care for them every day all day.
That said, why in our society are some people put in this situation where the only thing they can do with their adult child is send them off to a menial job for daycare? It's great that some people get the option to work, but they should also be able to receive care and not have to work menial jobs for sub minimum wages.
Like I said, the whole thing is way more complex than the no nonsense sound bite. If she were to just waive a regulatory hand and eliminate this exemption, without making more comprehensive changes, it might put some families in a very tough position. Having to suddenly pay for daycare for adults who previously were earning some amount of money.
But the places I'm talking about are usually non-profits employing these people to do work for other for profit businesses. It's not the person at your local movie theater or grocery store working mostly independently and getting paid less than everyone else.
I don't buy that excuse, though.
First, we should have support services and healthcare available to people who need it. We should have job training, and occupational therapy, and every employer should be prepared to make accomodations for any qualified employee who may have a disability. We don't have that, but supervised labor camps are not a solution. Employment and care are two separate things.
Second, non-profits operating as a care provider are not subject to employment laws. They do not have to pay patients minimum wage.
Third, the person bagging groceries, tearing ticket stubs, and pushing carts deserves a living wage, and if they were paid properly, they might not need to rely on their parents for care. They might choose to live at home, but they could contribute to their expenses, their healthcare costs, transportation costs, and set aside money for retirement. Parents tend to die before their kids, and then what happens? Paying them peanuts to watch them during the day is not assistance, it's exploitation.
No excuse was given. I don't think you comprehended my comment. I literally said I was not talking about the very people you mentioned. I also said their care should not be contingent on the work and that my concern was making sure of that when changes are made.
every employer should be prepared to make accomodations for any qualified employee who may have a disability. We don't have that
Employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for disabilities. Not every position/disability combination necessarily has a reasonable accommodation that can be done (a quadriplegic probably couldn't be a baggage handler, for example) but I think you realize that with your "qualified" employee qualifier
My alma mater does this. They partner with the local school systems and have the local disabled kids enter into a work program. Anything to get them working and have a semblance of self reliance.
Right? Imagine thinking you're Mister Big macho business guy but in reality other desperate people are just letting you leech from them.
This idea only comes from people who have never seen what this is like or how it works.
I've done this kind of work, as a direct care staff helping the disabled.
People with disabilities aren't doing normal productive jobs that anyone else would do. They are being paid $1.5/hour to stuff gift bags for kids birthday parties, and the like. And they have direct care staff earning $15 to $20/hour, working right next to them to help out and keep things safe.
These laws sound good. (Accept the carve out for prisoners, not sure what's up with that) But they won't do anything for the disabled, beyond forcing them out of somewhat normal life routine. These jobs aren't productive work. They're a mental health treatment, simulating a job.
Accept the carve out for prisoners, not sure what's up with that
You don't have to accept it 😉
This is going to require some re-configuring of disability payments or a lot of people will lose benefits.
I absolutely support this, but why cant we as a society end subminimum wages period?
I need to say this, because the ableism in the comments is getting out of hand, just because somebody is disabled doesn't mean that they can't do the exact same job as an abled person with the same exact performance. For example, somebody who is missing a leg can do an office job just as well as somebody who has both legs, and somebody who's blind can be just as good as a software engineer as somebody who has 20/20 vision.
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
Our Goals