In the US it is currently legal to pay physically and mentally disabled employees less than the federal minimum wage if they are deemed to produce less than other employees.
So a better question would be, why do we do that?
Edit: The original picture was people asking "should we do this" I realize that the original picture is people in the UK talking about this. A lot of people arent aware the US does this. I replaced it with the question "why do we do this" But if you want to get all worked up and spout off, call me stupid, explain why people who produce less should be paid less, get angry, I encourage you to let it all out.
Also you should know the the proposed bill changing the US federal wage to $15 an hour also eliminates types of subminim wage.
I’ll probably get some flak for this, but I’d just like to emphasize that if a company hires someone with a mental disability, it’s up to management to babysit them, not fellow employees. I worked an overnight cleaning job for a fast food restaurant and two different mentally disabled people were hired to clean during the day. They got virtually nothing done and I was basically doing 2-3 jobs because management was more concerned with how this situation looked for photo ops rather than ensuring the employees had a reasonable workload.
I can recall coming in to most shifts and the restaurant was absolutely filthy. There was one time where managers had allowed the day shift to stack 53 bags of garbage in front of the compactor rather than put the disabled employees through the hassle of hoisting the bags up above their waists. They were not fit for the job and it should have been up to the closing managers to compensate.
I understand the need to integrate the disabled into society and allow them a means of providing for themselves but it shouldn’t be at the cost of a single employee’s unreasonable workload. They were constantly falling behind their work and it was up to me to pick up their slack for the same pay. I’m not a charity, I’m just trying to get my work done and go home. Bonus: I became so overworked I ended up getting a hernia and needed surgery. Yay.
It's kind of a loaded question. People don't think about both sides of the story. I worked with people with mental disabilities for 9 years. It's a debate we have all the time. If they make as much money as everyone else they lose their benefits. The government pays for them to have staff, food, and pays their rent. Most of them barely can do the job at all. The ones that can work at Burger King or whatever that are higher functioning make more. But mostly there are facilities that our people go to where they work That is meant for someone who is disabled. The job would be something like taking tape off of boxes to go to recycling or sorting screws. I had one girl that would maybe do four boxes a week. Her paycheck was like $0.20. But her rent and food is covered. Her staffing is covered.
For them to get paid the money would come from the government. You have no idea how short on mental health funds the government is. How badly they're cutting back on these programs. There's no money there. Everyone votes against it. Well not everyone obviously. People don't want to pay more taxes. If the government had to pay them then they would just shut them down. They would have to they can't afford to pay them normal wages. Then suddenly they don't have jobs. Regular jobs aren't going to hire someone who needs a staff and they can't perform even the basic functions of the job. Those people need those jobs. It gives them a sense of worth. They don't care how much their paychecks are they're just happy to have something to do all day.
I guess it depends on the functionality of the person. You don't see them often but there are people who are highly disabled. You pay for work programs for people who can't talk, walk, see, and usually have some sort of emotional disorder. The reasoning behind it is job training and that they will become a functioning member of society one day after training. People are in those programs their entire lives. They will never get a real job. It's not plausible. There were people at the job program that just sat in corners and screamed all day. On top of that you think that if they had money they would budget it correctly? You think they would save for rent and food and a bus pass? No they buy McDonald's and toys. I'm not even joking. McDonald's is like the Mecca for people with disabilities. We would go after work and get a pop and it would be the highlight of their day. I've never seen someone so happy to get a pop until I worked there.
Everyone always thinks of cute high functioning Debbie down syndrome. But that's not the case for 90% of those people.
CH47hooker on February 2nd, 2020 at 20:39 UTC »
In the US it is currently legal to pay physically and mentally disabled employees less than the federal minimum wage if they are deemed to produce less than other employees.
So a better question would be, why do we do that?
Edit: The original picture was people asking "should we do this" I realize that the original picture is people in the UK talking about this. A lot of people arent aware the US does this. I replaced it with the question "why do we do this" But if you want to get all worked up and spout off, call me stupid, explain why people who produce less should be paid less, get angry, I encourage you to let it all out.
Also you should know the the proposed bill changing the US federal wage to $15 an hour also eliminates types of subminim wage.
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/subminimumwage
TaintModel on February 2nd, 2020 at 20:54 UTC »
I’ll probably get some flak for this, but I’d just like to emphasize that if a company hires someone with a mental disability, it’s up to management to babysit them, not fellow employees. I worked an overnight cleaning job for a fast food restaurant and two different mentally disabled people were hired to clean during the day. They got virtually nothing done and I was basically doing 2-3 jobs because management was more concerned with how this situation looked for photo ops rather than ensuring the employees had a reasonable workload.
I can recall coming in to most shifts and the restaurant was absolutely filthy. There was one time where managers had allowed the day shift to stack 53 bags of garbage in front of the compactor rather than put the disabled employees through the hassle of hoisting the bags up above their waists. They were not fit for the job and it should have been up to the closing managers to compensate.
I understand the need to integrate the disabled into society and allow them a means of providing for themselves but it shouldn’t be at the cost of a single employee’s unreasonable workload. They were constantly falling behind their work and it was up to me to pick up their slack for the same pay. I’m not a charity, I’m just trying to get my work done and go home. Bonus: I became so overworked I ended up getting a hernia and needed surgery. Yay.
Merismare on February 2nd, 2020 at 21:01 UTC »
It's kind of a loaded question. People don't think about both sides of the story. I worked with people with mental disabilities for 9 years. It's a debate we have all the time. If they make as much money as everyone else they lose their benefits. The government pays for them to have staff, food, and pays their rent. Most of them barely can do the job at all. The ones that can work at Burger King or whatever that are higher functioning make more. But mostly there are facilities that our people go to where they work That is meant for someone who is disabled. The job would be something like taking tape off of boxes to go to recycling or sorting screws. I had one girl that would maybe do four boxes a week. Her paycheck was like $0.20. But her rent and food is covered. Her staffing is covered.
For them to get paid the money would come from the government. You have no idea how short on mental health funds the government is. How badly they're cutting back on these programs. There's no money there. Everyone votes against it. Well not everyone obviously. People don't want to pay more taxes. If the government had to pay them then they would just shut them down. They would have to they can't afford to pay them normal wages. Then suddenly they don't have jobs. Regular jobs aren't going to hire someone who needs a staff and they can't perform even the basic functions of the job. Those people need those jobs. It gives them a sense of worth. They don't care how much their paychecks are they're just happy to have something to do all day.
I guess it depends on the functionality of the person. You don't see them often but there are people who are highly disabled. You pay for work programs for people who can't talk, walk, see, and usually have some sort of emotional disorder. The reasoning behind it is job training and that they will become a functioning member of society one day after training. People are in those programs their entire lives. They will never get a real job. It's not plausible. There were people at the job program that just sat in corners and screamed all day. On top of that you think that if they had money they would budget it correctly? You think they would save for rent and food and a bus pass? No they buy McDonald's and toys. I'm not even joking. McDonald's is like the Mecca for people with disabilities. We would go after work and get a pop and it would be the highlight of their day. I've never seen someone so happy to get a pop until I worked there.
Everyone always thinks of cute high functioning Debbie down syndrome. But that's not the case for 90% of those people.