-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
20 cents an hour
- Thread starter VoidCat
- Start date
Labor is a market commodity. If someone is performing a task to standards, they should be paid the market rate, disabled or not.
What if a disabled person is unable to perform a task at standards, yet society, as well as the disabled individual, wants them to have the ability to do some work, have some independence. What is the balance between the needs of the disabled person, the employer, and society? What if the main goal of employing some severely disabled persons is to give them a socializing activity and prevent seclusion/isolation? If their needs for food and shelter are already provided or subsidized, could it be appropriate to give them less than minimum wage to give them that socializing opportunity that would be otherwise denied them because they are not providing market productivity?
We would have to learn the specific facts involved in the case involving a wage of 22 cents/hr in order to judge it appropriately.
What if a disabled person is unable to perform a task at standards, yet society, as well as the disabled individual, wants them to have the ability to do some work, have some independence. What is the balance between the needs of the disabled person, the employer, and society? What if the main goal of employing some severely disabled persons is to give them a socializing activity and prevent seclusion/isolation? If their needs for food and shelter are already provided or subsidized, could it be appropriate to give them less than minimum wage to give them that socializing opportunity that would be otherwise denied them because they are not providing market productivity?
We would have to learn the specific facts involved in the case involving a wage of 22 cents/hr in order to judge it appropriately.
PureX
Veteran Member
The "market" is not God, and should not determine who lives and who dies, who is free and who is enslaved, who is "valuable" and who isn't. Any business enterprise that cannot pay the people engaged in it a living wage is not an enterprise that humans should be engaged in. The purpose of business enterprise is to serve the well being of humanity, and not the other way around.
VoidCat
Use any and all pronouns including neo and it/it's
Do you ask nondisabled people if all their needs of shelter and food are already provided or subsidized before paying them? I mean teenagers are under their parents roof when they get a job. It's likely their parents are paying for meals. As for providing up to the same standards how many able bodied folk do you see working who don't do the standard yet still have the job? Also if a disabled person couldn't do a job they wouldn't be doing said job. No one applies for a job they cannot do.
Then there's the fact teenagers are also not as capable as adults. Not able to do as much. Should we pay them below minimum wage as well seeing as they can't meet the same standards as adults?
I think if you work you should get paid the amount for that work. 22 cents an hour for several hours of work I cant imagine ever being acceptable. People at sheltered workshops work really hard and work for hours. They deserve to be paid an acceptable amount for it.
I don't see why sheltered workshops can't just have said opportunities available and pay them properly for it
Last edited:
It is good they presented both sides of the discussion. I think for some the need is less about the wage and more about the purpose having a job brings. No one should be pushed into this. Works for some. For others, they are free to pursue other job opportunities.
The government can't force a business to hire people. It can only provide incentives to do so.
I think I'd rather see government programs to explore the types of jobs people with different disabilities are capable of doing. Providing mentorship and education so they can go into the marketplace as capable of preforming the job as well as anyone. Also educating businesses in the the disabled can be just as capable as anyone.
The government can't force a business to hire people. It can only provide incentives to do so.
I think I'd rather see government programs to explore the types of jobs people with different disabilities are capable of doing. Providing mentorship and education so they can go into the marketplace as capable of preforming the job as well as anyone. Also educating businesses in the the disabled can be just as capable as anyone.
PureX
Veteran Member
Whether one is a teenager living at home or an adult living with roommates, or an adult living alone or an adult raising a family is completely irrelevant to what they should be paid for their time. The minimum compensation for 40 hours per week should be a living wage (a wage that one person can live, alone, on. And to do that in our culture will mean they have to be able to afford an apartment, a vehicle, a phone, internet, insurance, and so on. If they share the costs with family or roommates to save money, that's their own business, and is NOT AN EXCUSE FOR THEIR EMPLOYERS TO PAY THEM LESS.
Many people apply for jobs they can not do. Often, they hope that they can learn on the job. Sometimes an employer is faced with no applicants that have the desired experience. An employer evaluates applicants based on prior experience and must make a decision as to which candidate will hopefully work out best, and that may mean picking a candidate with no specific experience in the required task.
Non-disable get no special consideration based on disabledness, so they get paid the market rate for whatever particular job is under discussion. As I said before, if the disabled person can perform the job to standards, they must be paid the going rate.
Disability is a spectrum, including both physical and mental impairment. For those with large deficits that dramatically impact productivity, no one will hire them without some accommodation, for there is always a surplus of able-bodied labor. Should such a burden fall solely on a small or medium sized business, or should that burden be shared throughout society? What mechanisms will allow disabled persons to work and engage in society at their level of ability without unduly burdening employers?
Abled bodied teenagers enter the workforce in low or no-skill entry level jobs. Society has created a minimum wage for those types of jobs and so that is what they get paid. With increased skill and experience, they have the opportunity to rise above minimum wage, even as a teenager.
I cannot speak to what work is being done, how productive the workers are, etc in a sheltered workshop. There certainly may be exploitation. My point is that without detailed facts about what is occurring and why, we have no real means of evaluating.
Time is not the only factor when considering wage value, productivity over time must be considered. For example, if one plumber can solve a plumbing issue in 4 hours and another takes three 8 hour days to complete the task, and both are charging $100 per hour of work, which plumber gives the most bang for the buck?
Last edited:
VoidCat
Use any and all pronouns including neo and it/it's
Agree 100%
IMO
No, the purpose of business is business. The purpose of society to is to serve all the varied needs of society and its members. And in all of that, there are no gods involved, just people making choices.
No, the purpose of business is business. The purpose of society to is to serve all the varied needs of society and its members. And in all of that, there are no gods involved, just people making choices.
Shouting now?
I don't think an argument has been put forward to pay able-bodied people less than the minimum wage, unless you are putting teenagers into the category of the disabled.
To your point above, should we also take away the home mortgage deduction, any take breaks related to having children, being married etc? Why allow breaks and incentives for those choices at the expense of others who make different choices? Why give any exceptions, deductions etc, based on life experience and life choices? Why not simply have an impartial tax bill strictly tied to earnings?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Wonder how that fits in with discrimination protections of disabled and handicapped?
Looks like a form of slave wages and in a 1st world country?
Alien826
No religious beliefs
What I am about to say is not directly related to the OP, but it is about disabled people. It's something that shocked me when a friend qualified for disability a while back. I could also mention how difficult it is to even get disability. It's so complicated that people get paid to assist applicants. The first one or two applications are routinely rejected, it seems. My friend applied and reapplied over a period of 18 months and eventually get her appeal supported in court. To be fair she did get 18 months back benefits paid.
Then they calculated how much she should get. They start with a standard amount (which may vary by person, I don't know that much about it). Then they start deducting stuff. If you have some income, off it comes. If you stay with people that don't charge you, or in some kind of subsidized facility, that has a standard "value". Off it comes. If someone helps you out financially, that comes off too, effectively making the gift of no value as the benefit is reduced by that amount, with the obvious result that a would-be charitable person will say screw this let the government pay it. Effectively, they are saying that if you are receiving any amount in benefit then there is a maximum income you are allowed to have at all.
Then they calculated how much she should get. They start with a standard amount (which may vary by person, I don't know that much about it). Then they start deducting stuff. If you have some income, off it comes. If you stay with people that don't charge you, or in some kind of subsidized facility, that has a standard "value". Off it comes. If someone helps you out financially, that comes off too, effectively making the gift of no value as the benefit is reduced by that amount, with the obvious result that a would-be charitable person will say screw this let the government pay it. Effectively, they are saying that if you are receiving any amount in benefit then there is a maximum income you are allowed to have at all.
VoidCat
Use any and all pronouns including neo and it/it's
Yeah im on SSI. Im not allowed to save more then $2000. It's basically forced proverty. Im not even sure i can work due to my disabilities but imma try so i wont live in proverty and can get off of it but i dont know if that's a possibility for me
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Im not donating to Goodwill anymore until this extremely corrupt charity changes its stripes.
Disabled workers paid just pennies an hour – and it's legal
Disabled workers paid just pennies an hour – and it's legal
stvdv
Veteran Member
Not really, really not
22c/hr is wrong period
One need not be a genius to know why
Just common sense,
decency
a little pschology empathy
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member
I really like the boy presenting in your video
VoidCat
Use any and all pronouns including neo and it/it's
Trevor Noah is a comedian. A pretty good one too from South Africa
stvdv
Veteran Member
Wow, that's really "bad"
And that company is a shame for the country, and such leaders are scum
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is a complex problem. And this system desperately needs federal oversight. Allowing companies themselves to test their abilities and set their wages based upon their tests can very easily be abused.
I can see the program continuing provided that they made some changes. Number one would have to be close federal oversight of those workers. Second, the employers would have to provide some sort of program to help raise these workers out of that status. Many of these workers are physically disabled and could be trained for full wage jobs. If they are just earning money at a steep discount that does not do them any real good and only the business profits. That would mean that people would have to be treated as individuals.
I do not see how they can possibly justify paying as low as 22 cents an hour, even ten years ago. One thing that the government must learn in such programs is that money is not a constant. Twenty two cents an hour when this program started would be over four dollars an hour today.
I can see the program continuing provided that they made some changes. Number one would have to be close federal oversight of those workers. Second, the employers would have to provide some sort of program to help raise these workers out of that status. Many of these workers are physically disabled and could be trained for full wage jobs. If they are just earning money at a steep discount that does not do them any real good and only the business profits. That would mean that people would have to be treated as individuals.
I do not see how they can possibly justify paying as low as 22 cents an hour, even ten years ago. One thing that the government must learn in such programs is that money is not a constant. Twenty two cents an hour when this program started would be over four dollars an hour today.