Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is a pretty harsh story and should be studied for truth. It's a disgrace , though, if it's true.


http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/10/19916979-more-disabled-workers-paid-just-pennies-an-hour

Seems very harsh, but - and I hate to say it - I can almost understand the reasoning....

I'm surprised this is in the news again, it was a big story about 6 months ago and than nothing,

I don't agree with the exemption.

Honestly if you only do 3 cents of work in an hour, you should only get paid 3 cents an hour.

Imperial Deceit wrote:
Honestly if you only do 3 cents of work in an hour, you should only get paid 3 cents an hour.

That's why I say this story merits looking into. On the face of it, though, if someone is doing that little work, why keep them around? On the other hand, if they are just shadowing someone doing the real work and the aim is to get them out of their house and used to a routine along with a sense of pride at getting some money, then I can see it.
The trouble is, something like that can be abused.

Imperial Deceit wrote:
Honestly if you only do 3 cents of work in an hour, you should only get paid 3 cents an hour.

I know plenty of healthy people who show up for 8 hours a day and do sweet FA and still get paid their regular wage. Why shaft someone who is mentally or physically incapable of being as productive as the "average" worker? Every dollar paid through a wage is one less dollar which you don't have to pay to support them through taxation. As an American I would have thought you would be all for anything which means "your" tax dollars don't go towards helping people who need it...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Imperial Deceit wrote:
Honestly if you only do 3 cents of work in an hour, you should only get paid 3 cents an hour.

I know plenty of healthy people who show up for 8 hours a day and do sweet FA and still get paid their regular wage. Why shaft someone who is mentally or physically incapable of being as productive as the "average" worker? Every dollar paid through a wage is one less dollar which you don't have to pay to support them through taxation. As an American I would have thought you would be all for anything which means "your" tax dollars don't go towards helping people who need it...

This is the line of thought I am leaning towards.

Their speed of work is judged against some 'average' worker. Well everyone does things at a different pace. Who sets this average, how is it justified given the range of people in any workforce, who checks the validity of that?

Simply lots of people are a bit shorter or slower or less strong than others. Imagine if older people were being paid less because they can't shift as much stuff in an hour as a younger worker? Lets roll that out everywhere and see how people react. What's that? Got a bad back or knee injury? Can't lift a much as everyone else or walk as far/fast as everyone else? Well you should have your pay reduced. Imagine if everyone was paid on a scale according to how they supposedly measure up to some average?

When you only do it to people classed as disabled, they're a minority with a label, so you can get away with it. Do it to everyone, and there would be a problem.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Their speed of work is judged against some 'average' worker. Well everyone does things at a different pace. Who sets this average, how is it justified given the range of people in any workforce, who checks the validity of that?

Simply lots of people are a bit shorter or slower or less strong than others. Imagine if older people were being paid less because they can't shift as much stuff in an hour as a younger worker? Lets roll that out everywhere and see how people react. What's that? Got a bad back or knee injury? Can't lift a much as everyone else or walk as far/fast as everyone else? Well you should have your pay reduced. Imagine if everyone was paid on a scale according to how they supposedly measure up to some average?

When you only do it to people classed as disabled, they're a minority with a label, so you can get away with it. Do it to everyone, and there would be a problem.

I'd be quite happy if the CEO's etc were measured against the average worker in the shipping department.

"So, it looks like you loaded a total of zero lorries this month... shame but we are going to have to let you go for being completely worthless"

Imperial Deceit wrote:
Honestly if you only do 3 cents of work in an hour, you should only get paid 3 cents an hour.

Except the people who decide what the minimum amount someone should be paid should be the populace at large, which has, though their elected representatives, decided that wage should be $7.25 an hour.

It should not be decided by an organization which solely decides the value, which controls the entire process, and which also has a vested interest in making that figure as low as possible.

If you want to be charitable, be charitable. But this isn't charity, this is exploitation.

What ^^^ Ouze says...

Unless I'm missing something... this is very distasteful.

(Playing Devil’s Advocate) It maybe a lousy thing to do however they are still technically obeying the letter of the law, if not the spirit. The alternative is to not pay them at all, or not even hire them. Some would argue that using the disabled to perform menial labor is exploitation no matter what you pay them. On the other hand, do you think it’s fair that someone who cannot perform the same level of labor should get the same pay? In a lot of cases these people aren’t a little slower than normal, they are severely handicapped. Thus the amount of cash is meaningless to them anyway, and the point they are trying to fill, social interaction, is their real pay.

Imperial Deceit wrote:
Honestly if you only do 3 cents of work in an hour, you should only get paid 3 cents an hour.

This also ignores things like standby shifts.
Be forced to wait for 8 hours just in case somewhere? Better not get paid then for slacking.

Relapse wrote:
On the face of it, though, if someone is doing that little work, why keep them around?

Subsidies and/or tax breaks at either the municipal, state, or federal level.

 Ouze wrote:

If you want to be charitable, be charitable. But this isn't charity, this is exploitation.

Yep.

Dan Buron makes a compelling argument, but such people need to be in therapy or a home for the disabled, not a workplace. And $1.85? You may as well send the handicapped to prison.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
On the face of it, though, if someone is doing that little work, why keep them around?

Subsidies and/or tax breaks at either the municipal, state, or federal level.

 Ouze wrote:

If you want to be charitable, be charitable. But this isn't charity, this is exploitation.

Yep.

Good point.