Many Disabled Workers Are Making Less Than Minimum Wage

Eric Garcia at MSNBC.com points out that disabled workers are being exploited by being paid less than the minimum wage -- and sadly, it is legal. Here is part of what he writes:

This past year has seen workers in numerous industries strike for better wages. Just last week, SAG-AFTRA, which represents actors, reached an agreement with producers in Hollywood. This came after the Writers Guild of America reached a similar agreement. Similarly, autoworkers made historic gains, thanks in part to the support of President Joe Biden.

But one group has not reaped the benefits of labor’s growing power: workers with disabilities. Despite many strides for people with disabilities, in what is an incredibly degrading relic from the pre-World War II era, the United States still allows employers to pay people with disabilities below the minimum wage. A February report from the Government Accountability Office found that employers who’ve gotten a certificate from the Department of Labor to pay people with disabilities these pittance wages employ about 120,000 such workers. Half earned an absolute pittance, less than $3.50 an hour. Finally, the Department of Labor is taking a step to end the practice.

In September, the department announced that it would hold “stakeholder engagement sessions” to review the program. The first such session was held last month. The last one takes place this week.

In 2020, candidate Joe Biden and all the major Democratic presidential candidates said they’d end subminimum wage labor for people with disabilities. That they all made such a promise showed how much the disability rights movement had pushed the conversation along. 

The Biden White House and congressional Democrats wanted an end to subminimum wage labor for disabled people included in the American Rescue Plan. That bill was Biden’s signature Covid-19 relief legislation, and in it, he wanted to raise the minimum wage to $15 for all workers. But when the Senate parliamentarian said raising the minimum wage couldn’t be included in a budget reconciliation bill, efforts to pay disabled people the same as everyone else died on the federal level. . . .

As the shockingly low pay these workers get indicates, the policy practice is exploitative. The February GAO report found that “almost all 14(c) workers had an intellectual or developmental disability, and most were White and of prime working age (25 to 54 years old0.” According to that report, “employers reported few 14(c) workers engaged in competitive employment — which includes earning at least minimum wage in a work setting with individuals without disabilities.”

A 2020 report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found “Persistent failures in regulation and oversight” of employers by the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice. The report says “Section 14(c) may … raise legal issues under Title I of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was intended to ensure wide-reaching and comprehensive civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities. Categorically, under Section 14(c), people with disabilities being paid a subminimum wage are not granted the same protections, nor are they offered the same opportunities that are available to people working at the minimum wage or above.” The report also notes that such workers are not allowed to unionize. . . .

The good news is that this practice has declined. Since 2010, the number of disabled workers in 14(c) facilities has declined from 3,117 to 1,567 in 2019. That number will likely decline as numerous states have ended the practice. And not just blue states: Republican governors, including decidedly MAGA ones like Henry McMaster of South Carolina and Bill Lee of Tennessee, have signed legislation ending the practice. Similarly, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who is paralyzed from the waist down and uses a wheelchair, signed legislation banning state contractors from paying people with intellectual and developmental disabilities below the minimum wage.

Even if they bicker with Democrats about the idea of a minimum wage as a whole, it makes sense for conservatives to support ending subminimum wage labor, especially if they believe people should be self-sufficient and, as they say, off the government dole.

But the push to end subminimum wage labor will likely face staunch opposition. The parents of many disabled workers support the places that have hired those workers, such as Goodwill, which has historically used 14(c) certificates and uses the term “special minimum wage” to avoid acknowledging that it pays people below minimum wage. Indeed, one of the dissenting commissioners in the Commission on Civil Rights report argued that getting rid of subminimum wage labor would cause people with disabilities to lose their jobs. 

Many of these arguments bear resemblance to the arguments that people have against raising the minimum wage in general. However, Vermont, the first state to get rid of subminimum wage labor, saw 80% of people who were previously paid less enter into competitive integrated employment. The other 20%, according to the National Council on Disability, went into a community support program.

The main argument against subminimum wage labor is that the work that people with disabilities do is no less valuable. Hiring  people with disabilities is not an act of charity; it’s not kindness.   People who are disabled who work do so for the same reason nondisabled people do: to support themselves and their families. They should be paid the same, too.

Texas AG: It's OK To Discriminate Against LGBTQ/Disabled

The Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council is the agency that regulates social workers in the state. A few months ago, they changed their policy and allowed social workers to refuse service to a person based on their disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

This was met with an intense backlash from some social workers, lawmakers, and advocates, so the board reversed its decision only two weeks later. But other social workers, unhappy that they couldn't use their religion to discriminate, objected -- and the board asked Texas Attorney General Paxton for a legal ruling on the matter.

AG Paxton released his ruling on Monday. He came down on the side of those who wanted to discriminate. Paxton said the board could punish social workers who refused to work with clients based on age, race, or religion -- but not disability status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.. Paxton argued that discrimination based on sexual orientation could be legal based on the First Amendment's protection of religion. In other words, if a social worker claimed that working with LGBTQ clients violated their religious freedom, then they can not be punished for refusing to serve them.

Evidently, Paxton hasn't read the Fourteenth Amendment to that same Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law to ALL citizens. He seems to think the term "all citizens" doesn't include the LGBTQ community or the disabled. I think he's wrong.

If a Texas social worker refuses service to any member of the LGBTQ community or a disabled citizen, that person should file suit in federal court. All means all, regardless of what Paxton and other religious bigots think!
 

Hillary Clinton's Stand On Helping Disabled Americans

(This photo of Hillary Clinton, from her web site, is by Kat Kane.)

From hillaryclinton.com:

Hillary will: 

• Realize the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
• Improve access to meaningful and gainful employment for people with disabilities. 
• Provide tax relief to help the millions of families caring for aging relatives or family members with chronic illnesses or disabilities.

“We should acknowledge how the disabilities community has played such an important role in changing things for the better in our country.”

HILLARY, JULY 26, 2015

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was a tremendous step forward. It opened educational opportunities to all Americans, expanded transportation, made sure everyone can enter buildings, and ensured that no one would be turned down for a job because of a disability. Hillary is committed to realizing the promise of the ADA and continuing to expand opportunity for all Americans.

Hillary has spent her life fighting for the rights of Americans with disabilities.

• Hillary’s first job out of law school was with the Children’s Defense Fund, and one of her first tasks was going door to door to figure out why so many children were missing school. She discovered that many parents were not sending their children to school because schools did not accommodate disabilities.
• The evidence she helped gather was presented to Congress, and built the case for passage of the law that ensures all children with disabilities have access to school.
• As secretary of state, Hillary worked to build strong support for the United States to join the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But despite a broad, bipartisan coalition, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked its passage.
• Now, 25 years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Hillary recognizes that there is still much work to do, including improving access to meaningful and gainful employment for people with disabilities. Too many Americans with disabilities continue to be left out of the workforce, and for those who are employed, too many are in under-stimulating jobs that don't fully allow them to use their talents.

There Is No Bottom To The GOP Barrel

(The wonderful graphic above is from the website for the Altamonte Springs Advisory Board for the Disabled.)

Many people (including me) had believed that the current Republicans in the U.S. Congress couldn't sink any lower. After all, they have proposed cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits for the elderly, cutting unemployment benefits for those without work, eliminating the minimum wage, cutting education funds for children (and eliminating free lunches for poor children), cutting welfare programs for the poor, cutting food stamps for hungry families, cutting environmental funds for clean air and water, and doing all of that just so they could give massive new tax breaks to their rich friends. How could they get any more hard-hearted and mean-spirited than that?

Well, they found a way. They decided to add disabled people to the growing list of people they are willing to throw under the bus. Last Tuesday (12/4/12), the United States Senate voted on ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This treaty required a two-thirds vote of the Senate for ratification. It would not have required any other action on the part of the United States (since with passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act a few years ago the U.S. already meets all of the rights listed in the treaty). But U.S. approval of the treaty would have shown leadership by the U.S. in providing rights for the disabled, and would have encouraged other countries to follow the U.S. lead and provide rights for their own disabled citizens.

But 38 Republican senators voted against ratifying the treaty, so it was not ratified. For most of these senators, the simple fact that the treaty bore the name of the United Nations was reason enough to vote against it (since they hate the U.N. and are convinced it has some kind of nefarious plan to take over the U.S.). I'll admit, the idiocy of this kind of thinking is well beyond my comprehension. By refusing to ratify this treaty, the United States is telling the rest of the world that it doesn't even support its own laws (guaranteeing rights to the disabled). And if the U.S. won't even ratify a treaty based on its own laws, why should other countries grant rights to their own disabled citizens? This action by Republicans will actually hurt disabled people worldwide.

To their credit, there were eight Republican senators who joined all Democrats and Independents and voted to ratify the treaty. They are:
Ayotte (New Hampshire)
Barrasso (Wyoming)
Brown (Massachusetts)
Collins (Maine)
Lugar (Indiana)
McCain (Arizona)
Murkowski (Alaska)
Snowe (Maine)

There were 38 Republicans voting against the treaty. In voting this way, these 38 Republicans have found a way to sink even lower on the scale of political depravity (and prove there is no bottom to the GOP barrel). Frankly, I don't understand how they can even look at themselves in the mirror.

Americans And Taxes

(Cartoon above is by David Horsey in the Los Angeles Times.)

Unless you've been living in a cave in the middle of nowhere, you've probably heard about Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) and his disdain for 47% of the American people. He was trying to get in good with a bunch of his rich donors, and noted that nearly half of Americans were too lazy to pay any income taxes. He claims he was misunderstood, but it was obviously an attempt to get more money from those rich people by commiserating with how they are abused because they have to pay income taxes.

The truth is that every single one of that 47% of Americans would love to have to pay income taxes. They would love that because that would mean they make a pretty good income -- enough to assure them of a decent living. The very idea that these people intentionally make a small income just so they won't have to pay income taxes is offensive -- and it shows that Willard has no idea about how hard life is in this country for low-wage workers and those who must live on a fixed income (like the elderly and the disabled).

And of course, the way Willard phrased his disdain for these people made it sound like they pay no taxes at all. That is an outrageous idea. All Americans pay taxes, even the poorest Americans. When other taxes are included (like sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, etc.), we find that the poorest Americans, those in the bottom fifth of the population in income, average paying 17.4% of their income in taxes -- which is a big hit considering the low incomes of that group. The majority of Americans pay between 25% and 30% of their income in taxes.

But even if we consider only those who pay income taxes (and disregard other kinds of taxes), the United States is pretty lucky to have such a large percentage of the population (53%) doing well enough to pay those taxes. Many other countries have a much smaller percentage paying income taxes.

Take India for instance. In that country anyone who makes $3,700 a year (or about 3 times that country's per capita income) must pay income taxes. That means a whopping 2.8% of their population pays income taxes. In China, the percentage is even smaller. Only 1.72% of the Chinese population qualifies to pay income taxes. That means 97.2% of India's people and 98.28% of China's people don't pay any income taxes (which combined represent about 1.3 of the world's population not paying income taxes -- and that doesn't include any other countries).

It is not shameful that only 53% of Americans pay income taxes. What is shameful is that 47% of the people in the richest country on Earth have such a small income that they don't qualify to pay income taxes. Guess which political party is responsible for that. It's the same party that has kept the minimum wage at such a low level (and would like to abolish it completely) -- the Republican Party. Willard should be ashamed of his statement, and so should his Republican and Wall Street cohorts.