Some of the sweetest, most reliable people I've ever worked with were developmentally disabled. They're human beings and they deserve to be paid like human beings
I'm not sure what they're asking. Should they be ALLOWED to? Are these people ASKING for the right to work for less than minimum wage? I mean, I guess, if they're capable of making that decision and truly WANT to do it. I know there are people with disabilities who can't work properly and get government assistance, but might also just want something to do a few hours a day or something.
.
But by "allowing" them to, you then open yourself up to people being forced to work for less than minimum wage and endless exploitation. Which is kind of the whole reason minimum wage exists in the first place.
The knee jerk reaction to this is generally going to be negative for most people. But let’s dig deeper. In general you usually hire the “most bang for your buck” up to “overqualified” (which can mean several things but usually they all equate to thinking that you’ll be hard to train, rigid, and or complain and cause issues- be used to better treatment and be aware of labor laws and not just comply with even illegal policies without causing legal trouble...) If I’m interviewing a cashier- the competitive advantage is going to go to a person who is skilled, seems reliable, seems like they can grow in the organization etc. depending on the nature of a persons “condition” they may actually or may come off as disadvantaged in certain areas- especially “soft skills” much the same as a person who is otherwise equally abled but introverted or with poor social or interview skills might. That’s just fact.
What’s more- an employee who based on their actual abilities and capabilities cannot do certain aspects of the job, is slower or otherwise less suited than another person- I might just decide that for $10 an hour I can get someone else who can do the whole job better. But- for $6 an hour I might be willing to hire the less able person.
You might have MOST of the skills soft or otherwise to be be a good network admin or salesperson etc- but ignoring wether you’re “differently abled” or not- you just don’t make the cut and you’d never qualify for a promotion or hiring to that position unless there were no other skilled applicants and the position needed filled badly. However- while it wouldn’t be justifiable to pay you the salary of the position based on your perceived ability to do the job- it would be a risk but perhaps justifiable to pay you less. This already happens. It’s called a salary range.
An analyst job might range $45-65k. Big range. Someone coming from an analyst job with lots of experience is likely to get paid near the top. Someone promoted from within the company might get near the bottom. No way to be sure who will be “better” in the role- but if they had to pay the kid $65 he probably wouldn’t get promoted at all because that’s a big risk. At $45 it’s still a risk but if you get a good worker for $45 it pays of and offsets the fact you might hire a dud. That happens all the time with any employee regardless of their mental condition.
So there is an argument to be made that there are people who are capable of doing a job to the bear minimum or not quite- non competitively- and wouldn’t get a chance to work at all if the choice was between hiring them for a given wage or a worker without their potential or measurable complications. That such workers could be prevented from recieving promotions and the ability to grow their careers and skill sets because of it.
Ultimately the REAL question is more about the ways such a law might be abused or the individual may be abused- and finding a way to both protect those who are at a disadvantage in the work force as well as empowering them to be able to find gainful employment.
My dad told me about a guy in his hometown who simply couldn't comprehend complex tasks, and who couldn't keep a steady schedule.
So he became one of the county's "Special Helpers". He and people like him would help with public attractions, "assist" law enforcement and fire fighters at community events, be offered opportunities to help with harvest or farm animals, and be tapped for whatever low skilled labor the community needed done. Thing is, the work was never critical or else it would be offered to skilled and expensive workers. These people who would've otherwise had nothing to do were afforded opportunities to be a visible and popular part of the community. It wasn't "legit", otherwise they would've never been able to do anything truly productive and helpful.
Alternate phrasing of the question #2: Should employers be forced to allow disadvantaged people to take advantage of their company's customers, owners, partners, and employees?
The current reality is no employment at all, so there is some real value to this debate. Shame on the Angry Woman for her attempt to shut down conversation.
What do you mean no employment? Developmentally disabled people get jobs if they're capable of perming a task. Do you think they're actually not allowed to work?
Yeah, fuck retarded people, and don't adopt orphans because they grow up to be criminals, and old people should go ahead and die because they aren't useful anymore. Jesus Christ dude, no one is saying they should be fucking accountants, and they're just fucking fine for a diner if the job is washing dishes or doing simple prep work.
And yes, I've actually worked in a variety of positions with disabled people and it's not like you hire people that are giggling at their own farts and pissing themselves, there is a standard
That’s part of the discussion. The “standard” and those who don’t meet it. Of course there’s a minimum level of ability to comport oneself that is required in most jobs- but beyond that- a minimum ability to do a job to a standard. The issue isn’t as black and white as one either believes “fuck retarded people” or “they should all be accountants” but there’s nuance to the thing. If a differently abled person is great with numbers but terrible with certain aspects of organization or being an accountant- perhaps they could serve in an accounting capacity- but it wouldn’t necessarily be as a full fledged accountant and depending on the limitations they have it might not make sense to pay the average wage for the position and it’s full duties.
But let’s look at the other end of that spectrum. The barely functional person, who might find something like “door greeter” or “shopping cart collector” a challenge. Giving them just what they can handle- on a schedule that they can handle- that is a lot of special effort, administration, consideration, and a huge disadvantage to a person who isn’t disabled.
If we aren’t talking about some type of tax break or publicity or “good feeling”- what is the business incentive- the profit motive- for a company to choose between two employees- one who carries a certain risk in performance and progression inherent to them as an unknown quantity with different abilities- or a person who is at no more or less assumed risk of impairment in fiction and progression on the job than any other random “average” person?
Without passing some sort of law which provides a quota- giving tax incentives, or otherwise enforcing a way which would eliminate bias to the The differently abled and prevent circumvention of anti discrimination- what methods are there to compel a business to give a job at a flat rate to a person who is more likely to be less able at the rest and growth?
Obviously (I hope) that simply BEING differently abled shouldn’t be grounds to pay less. A person of high function who is as capable of a job as another would be expected doesn’t magically deserve less pay- but where a demonstrably known probability of insufficient performance against a baseline standard is at play- there needs to be a mechanism of incentive to level the odds against candidates who don’t carry that potential liability.
It may seem insulting or degrading- but isn’t “well- just give em all the simplest jobs and pay minimum wage” itself insulting or degrading? Is the real or emotional harm more or less when we compare hiring people who otherwise wouldn’t meet a minimum standard or wouldn’t be competitive candidates for a job are unable to get hired at all vs hiring those same people at reduced capacity to their abilities and commiserate pay?
@guest_ I know it's your thing, but as an editor I really want to choke you sometimes lol. All good writing these days is based on saying as much as you can in as few words, being concise. I'm not saying you need to change for me but it really kills me
@nicenglman- no insult taken. I apologize if my writing style causes you consternation. It’s not for everyone to be sure. I grew up when writing was about using words to paint, and painters weren’t graphic artists trying to neatly convey a brand or send a message in the flash of an image from a billboard across the street- or even trying to sell their paintings necessarily- simply they had something they wanted to put to canvas, and so they did. To be clear I am by no means saying I am any sort of artist- just some random person with a brush and a desire to paint I suppose.
The whole thing of course being exacerbated by two factors- the first being that one must be very clear in a world where not only does their word endure on the digital record; but where it is so easy for nuance to be overlooked and words misconstrued. The second being that I work with executives and technical professionals. My every word in my working day is counted and measured- distilled to an almost binary point, engineered to impart only the most vague and necessary details, and then scrubbed through the combined total sum of many tokes on the subject of “effective professional communication” to best serve in establishing and cultivating the thoughts and emotions desired from “executive bulletin point.” It’s quite torturous spending all day in essence saying “this good. This bad.” “You do this. No do this.” And having to deal with others defaulting to such simply terms when presenting options to me.
Where the written word exists there exists trust between author and reader. The reader trusts the authors skill and knowledge to take them somewhere they will benefit from. The author trusts the reader to.. well... read. It’s 2019- on the Internet. Everyone’s an author so there’s very little trust between strangers, and it is a foolish author who trusts the reader when the reader is a random stranger in a chat room. People tend to read what it is they want to see online regardless of what is said. So I will gladly sacrifice brevity for clarity at the lowest common denominator- even if such a low bar is often slid right under.
@nicengleman- I’m glad you were able to do so and hope it’s working well for you. It seems to be. Those who fail to adapt tend to get left behind in society if they lack the fortitude or ability to stand contrary to fashion. The world needs all sorts so I’m glad you’ve cast your lot.
Does electricity/gas/water/food cost less? I know there are subsidised housing and discounts for public transport, but it still costs roughly the same to live with some level of dignity regardless of your level of developmental ability.
That’s very true. In fact- it can cost MUCH more to live when one has a condition. Often there are other health issues or risks that come with hereditary or acquired mental issues. You may need special care takers or accommodations which have a price tag higher than what a person without that condition could make do with. If you happen to have no family or friends supporting you- well... while programs exist to help low income and specifically differently abled people- finding them and navigating the paper work for them is often a challenge for the most mentally able. Not to mention scarcity of resources, waiting lists, and often still insufficient quality of service to meet basic needs.
But that’s really a problem faced by everyone isn’t it? Certainly the physically handicapped, disabled, diseased, etc. face such conditions. Certainly those born into poverty and systemic lack of opportunity. Those mentally able but with behavioral or cognitive issues, emotional issues, those with poor social skills and so on. That argument speaks to some sort of “basic living wage” or some sort of stipend for citizens- not to anything specific to this particular issue. Does a person need to be mentally differently abled to be afforded basic dignity? “It’s not their fault...” “many are born this way or have accidents...” yes. Yes. True of many socioeconomic hurdles.
“But we aren’t discussing paying those people less than minimum wage are we?” Well- effectively most anyone making minimum wage will attest that in most cases- minimum wage is not sufficient to live on to any standard reasonable to a developed and wealthy nation. So we already basically DO have a standard that allows employers to pay less than what a sensible person would find all but barely livable- or in some places essentially “survivable” if not livable. So a tiered system which pays people less money because they lack skills, knowledge, ability, etc. is already in place isn’t it?
Of course- we could simply pay more to everyone- but that’s not really a good solution. It ends with more competition, less employment opportunities total, more automation, price increases which offset any gains, and of course- it reduces the earnings potential of anyone making more than the minimum- with those in “blue collar” jobs who worked years to reach a number approaching 1.5x or so minimum wage- and reduces them to minimum wage or sub minimum wage. Unless of course we raise everyone’s pay, or anyone who makes less than $X... but that itself is fraught with peril.
We like our solutions simple. Life is complex. Throwing money at problems only works to a point- and only if you put it int the right places. Regulation is intrusive- but necessary as the “market” isn’t suited for making decisions that are humanitarian- it makes decisions based on want and profit. Having a place to live is the cornerstone of life- but there really isn’t any regulation on what can be charged for property nor regulation on “monopoly” or “responsible use” which leads to prices low income people can’t afford.
Making sure that those in need have access to basic staples of living, making sure we have systems in place to assist those in need- those go further than just trying to give people more money. The solution to problems like this one- problems facing those at a disadvantage caused by a system that’s fundamentally built to favor the advantaged aren’t usually fixed by just shuffling around disadvantage- robbing Peter to pay Paul. They are systemic problems requiring systemic solutions. They require systems by built which equalize advantage when it comes to opportunity.
Reply
deleted
· 5 years ago
The thing is people with disabailities often receive benefits from the government in the form of monthly payments for rent, utilities, food, etc. So I believe in some countries it's legal to pay the person less because they receive this money from the government and other governments may choose to lower your monthly payment if you are working to compensate for your additional income. I can't imagine someone with a mental or learning disabaility not being on some form of financial assistance.
Sadly it is often those with mental issues and without assistance or a support system (like family) who make up a fair percentage of the chronic homeless. To be clear- the majority of homeless people in America are either “hidden homeless” who have a roof to sleep under but are “couch surfing” or the like with friends- or are temporary homeless- with an average of a year or less “on the streets.” So the majority of TOTAL homeless (at least in the US) are short term and able- but encountered challenges that overwhelmed their ability to cope and are just “on the rebound.” But a sizable number of “chronic” long term homeless are people with mental health issues who don’t have help.
deleted
· 5 years ago
Sources? And the post isn't talking about homeless people, who often have addiction issues along with mental illness.
These demographics etc. vary by country etc- and some countries have better mental health services than others- but few of any have mental health services which are adequate to deal with large numbers of people with mental conditions requiring long term or life long care. It’s one of the areas that as a country (for the US) and as a world we have improved much over even a short span but still have a long way to go. The truth is that with no “cure” for so many conditions and a high cost for relatively low direct economic return the mentally effected who lack loved ones with the resources and ability to care for them tend to get swept aside.
Yeah @mrmuffins, this was supposed to be about people with developmental disabilities and it spiraled wildly out of control, I just bailed
1
·
Edited 5 years ago
deleted
· 5 years ago
I have no idea why guest is going so off topic so I'll just say that people with developmental disabilities who work often have a set income from the government which allows for wages under the minimum
This thread was not, um, reasonable. You raise and interesting point that I do not think came up, apparently a lot of people are not fond of the idea of mentally disabled people doing certain things and for how much
@mrmuffins- goes to relevance. “I can’t imagine a person with a mental or learning disability not being on some form of assistance.” Now you can. They are often- homeless. It’s on topic. You opened that door councilor. Objection overruled. It is impractical to discuss the mentally disabled, their care, and not discuss that without proper care many will find themselves homeless.
There’s a handful of sources. If you finish reading those and need more feel free to ask. Or just google it. There’s a lot out there and it’s not hard to find.
@guest_@mrmuffins Alright, I gave this some thought. Lots, lots of people are on government assistance, I'm on government assistance. Regardless, of the reason. You're right, a lot of developmentally disabled people are on government assistance. You don't pay them less than minimum wage so they can work full time, you pay them minimum wage and have them work less hours. I've worked with several people with down syndrome or other similar conditions and most were part-time workers
I’m personally a fan of a different approach. I feel that you incentivize people towards jobs in public service and treat these organizations as if they are part of our national defense. Because they ARE. There’s NO shame in government assistance. I’d like to see such assistance be more practical than just “here’s (not enough) money. There. Bye.” For many- education, training, opportunity, and “soft skills” are a large factor in an inability to succeed on their own. We should build those things.
For the disabled- these challenges may still exist in addition to their disability- or their disability may be the sole challenge. A “disability” however is just that. There is SOME level of ability. However every case is different and requires a more personal oversight and solution. Tailoring what a person may be able to do- finding something productive that suits both their ability and their threshold given their condition. And every single person on government assistance is entitled to dignity and a standard of living. Entitled. Yes. This is still America and I’m sick of hearing “entitled” as a pejorative. That’s what “America” means. It means entitled. The arrogance of America comes from a promise to every American. If a single American doesn’t receive the gifts of that promise then we are failing.
But wages aren’t the answer. We lack the regulation of the private sector to control the inevitable abuses and consequences. A profit driven system will self equalize towards profit- and in not a pinko so dropping capitalism isn’t an option until we can have post scarcity economics. Instead we need a government which is structured to provide for those in need. And sure- we can and should make corporations and the wealthy pick up the tab. Why not? Taxation WITH representation.
Any person or entity that can amass such a fortune in these United States owes a TREMENDOUS debt to this country. Could Bill Gates have done what he did anywhere else? Maybe- but not likely. Could Walmart have? Doubtful. This money is made off of the infrastructures like roads, bridges, security, and YES, the very population of the United States. Without worker pools and security and stability and the consumer- these fortunes wouldn’t exist.
So the money is owed. The private citizen and corporation have a debt to their country. To their fellow citizens. We live the promise that is America. The wealthy especially benefit from it every day. That promise is to everyone- and it is the duty of anyone who benefits from that to ensure that those who do not get a chance to do so. It’s not excusable that so many people, through little or no reasonable fault of their own, do without basic fundamentals promised in the United States constitution. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are Core to American values. A home is the root of all those.
America's promise is negative rights.
Everyone has the right to have a home, nobody is entitled to have one given to them.
The rich already pay far more than their fair share. Keep taking from them and watch as they take their money and jobs elsewhere, while those who are not yet super rich employers decide they're better off leaving, or staying on a lower rung.
.
But by "allowing" them to, you then open yourself up to people being forced to work for less than minimum wage and endless exploitation. Which is kind of the whole reason minimum wage exists in the first place.
So he became one of the county's "Special Helpers". He and people like him would help with public attractions, "assist" law enforcement and fire fighters at community events, be offered opportunities to help with harvest or farm animals, and be tapped for whatever low skilled labor the community needed done. Thing is, the work was never critical or else it would be offered to skilled and expensive workers. These people who would've otherwise had nothing to do were afforded opportunities to be a visible and popular part of the community. It wasn't "legit", otherwise they would've never been able to do anything truly productive and helpful.
https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_IllnessDOTpdf
https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-mentally-ill-homeless-20170807-htmlstoryDOThtml
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_and_mental_health
https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-by-the-numbers
https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/How_ManyDOThtml
https://projecthome.org/about/facts-homelessness
https://www.bigissue.com/latest/hidden-homelessness-cold-hard-facts/
Everyone has the right to have a home, nobody is entitled to have one given to them.
The rich already pay far more than their fair share. Keep taking from them and watch as they take their money and jobs elsewhere, while those who are not yet super rich employers decide they're better off leaving, or staying on a lower rung.