this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
175 points (96.3% liked)

Work Reform

9823 readers
1234 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Or instead of continuing to treat disabled people as less than, the government actually creates some anti-discrimination laws with some teeth and then enforces them

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Equal work for equal pay is important, yes.

Businesses might be willing to "give a chance" to someone with a disability if they don't have to pay them as much as anyone else.

If there are no other incentives, and someone with a disability is unable to perform the job as well as someone without a disability, then the business would likely choose the more capable employee regardless of any disabilities. And by definition, that'd usually be an advantage for the person without a disability.

You can't fire someone for having a disability in a lot of places. You can usually fire someone for not performing well enough at the required duties.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

If you could hire an able bodied person for $16/hr, and they can glaze 100 pieces of pottery a day, or you could hire a disabled person for the same pay who can only glaze 25 a day because of their disability, who are you going to hire? I'm talking about a local small business pottery shop who hires people to glaze the pieces.

If a lazy but able-bodied person took the job and refused to meet the 100 pieces a day quota, they'd be fired, and rightfully so. So why are disabled people special? Why do they deserve a pay rate and a quota that an able-bodied person would be fired for? Or maybe you think that firing a lazy person is calling them "less than" and is unethical. Well, at least you'd be consistent.

If you think a small business could survive hiring people who can only produce 1/4 of the normal output at a full wage... I don't know what to say. It's just not feasible.

I'm sorry for the harsh truth, but sometimes in some ways some disabled people are "less than". As in sometimes they can only do less work per hour as an able bodied person. A small business can't survive while being charitable to disabled workers.

These disability wage laws exist so businesses can legally hire disabled people and pay them something when otherwise they would have no job at all. In my state, the business has to prove they can't produce the same work in the same time as an able-bodied person. And their wage has to reflect whatever percentage of the work they can do.

I'm 100% in favor of government subsidies for making up the wage difference for disabled people, and not making any benefits dependant on having such a job. The job would be purely a choice for disabled people.

I know it sounds weird in this day and age to say this, but having a job can be very rewarding. I can totally imagine a disabled person preferring to work a job at low pay, having a routine, and interacting with coworkers rather than staying home all day doing hobbies and watching TV.