Nobody’s mentioned it here, but at least some states in the US have income thresholds for people with disabilities, where if they make a certain amount of money, they lose benefits, housing and other resources because the state sees them as self-sufficient.
I definitely agree with fairness and equity as everyone else mentions here, but would add to round out the scope of this: these are situational, and the system should be set up to protect them or give them a choice of pay.
Source: worked at a special needs home for 4+ years where clients were happy to have very underpaid jobs.
Note: The state also looks at how much is in the bank account and when it gets too close to a threshold, the clients will go out shopping for larger ticket items. Otherwise, the state could say they have enough money to live on their own, and thus don’t need the community home.
I live in NY, where for several years I taught an art class for mentally disabled adults. Several of the most high-functioning had jobs.
One thing to keep in mind is that the US government is already supporting them with disability. Disability is, in part, acknowledging that a person cannot support themselves and/or care for themselves. Likewise, their group homes and round the clock counselors were paid for by the government. (However, many other quality of life items, like recreational activities and home decor, were paid for by the community, which has a great relationship with the home.) The same understanding that allows this population such benefits also allows specified work plans.
Should the government continue paying for the home and care of these adults, even the ones that work? Of course! No one would confuse working with the ability to self-support in these cases.
Now, as for the work itself: the individuals are employed as grocery baggers, dog walkers, doormen, receptionists, farm hands, etc. In almost every one of these cases, the job was either unnecessary- ie, a grocery were people had been bagging their own goods for years and a building that never had a doorman- or was done together with another employee who had never needed extra help, ie a shelf stocker who had not been overwhelmed.
In most of the cases that I’ve seen personally, with around 200 such individuals in a span of 3 years, every job but two was charity. Every job required the employer to more provide supervision for minimal work. They paid under minimum wage for people who were doing under minimal work while already being fully supported by the government. The only way this works is with under minimum wage and tax benefits for hiring disabled people.
In the two cases that mentality disabled people were doing full jobs without support- one worked for a butcher and one was a suit-fitter- they were paid the same as any other employee, including regular raises. These two people also eventually moved out of group homes and into their own homes.
Now, if the argument was about able-minded people with physical disabilities, that would be different. They are paid an amount of disability that reflects their difficulties, but they’re not generally provided with housing and on-site work support. Mostly, though, they do 100% work.
Anyone who wants to wage social justice war on exploitive hiring practices is better off looking at unpaid internships and employers hiring full-time, long-term employees as freelancers.
FireShooters on May 31st, 2021 at 13:03 UTC »
This is several years old...
Just look at how poor the quality had become of the hundreds of reposts it's been through.
IGuyWI on May 31st, 2021 at 13:37 UTC »
Nobody’s mentioned it here, but at least some states in the US have income thresholds for people with disabilities, where if they make a certain amount of money, they lose benefits, housing and other resources because the state sees them as self-sufficient.
I definitely agree with fairness and equity as everyone else mentions here, but would add to round out the scope of this: these are situational, and the system should be set up to protect them or give them a choice of pay.
Source: worked at a special needs home for 4+ years where clients were happy to have very underpaid jobs.
Note: The state also looks at how much is in the bank account and when it gets too close to a threshold, the clients will go out shopping for larger ticket items. Otherwise, the state could say they have enough money to live on their own, and thus don’t need the community home.
RandomRavenclaw87 on May 31st, 2021 at 13:37 UTC »
I live in NY, where for several years I taught an art class for mentally disabled adults. Several of the most high-functioning had jobs.
One thing to keep in mind is that the US government is already supporting them with disability. Disability is, in part, acknowledging that a person cannot support themselves and/or care for themselves. Likewise, their group homes and round the clock counselors were paid for by the government. (However, many other quality of life items, like recreational activities and home decor, were paid for by the community, which has a great relationship with the home.) The same understanding that allows this population such benefits also allows specified work plans.
Should the government continue paying for the home and care of these adults, even the ones that work? Of course! No one would confuse working with the ability to self-support in these cases.
Now, as for the work itself: the individuals are employed as grocery baggers, dog walkers, doormen, receptionists, farm hands, etc. In almost every one of these cases, the job was either unnecessary- ie, a grocery were people had been bagging their own goods for years and a building that never had a doorman- or was done together with another employee who had never needed extra help, ie a shelf stocker who had not been overwhelmed.
In most of the cases that I’ve seen personally, with around 200 such individuals in a span of 3 years, every job but two was charity. Every job required the employer to more provide supervision for minimal work. They paid under minimum wage for people who were doing under minimal work while already being fully supported by the government. The only way this works is with under minimum wage and tax benefits for hiring disabled people.
In the two cases that mentality disabled people were doing full jobs without support- one worked for a butcher and one was a suit-fitter- they were paid the same as any other employee, including regular raises. These two people also eventually moved out of group homes and into their own homes.
Now, if the argument was about able-minded people with physical disabilities, that would be different. They are paid an amount of disability that reflects their difficulties, but they’re not generally provided with housing and on-site work support. Mostly, though, they do 100% work.
Anyone who wants to wage social justice war on exploitive hiring practices is better off looking at unpaid internships and employers hiring full-time, long-term employees as freelancers.