this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
1028 points (96.1% liked)

Thanks! I hate it!

444 readers
1 users here now

1. Post title must start with "Thanks, I hate..." or "TIH"

2. Reposts should be avoided

3. No extreme NSFW-Posts

4. No Memes

5. No Low-Quality-Content

6. No Spam

7. Keep comments civil; no bigotry

8. No Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I think for a lot of people it’s about having some place to go during the day that they don’t have to pay for. If someone is unable to work a regular minimum wage job but is able to do simple tasks it could be either be stay at home and do nothing everyday or having either the government or the family pay for care. This allows a company to provide the supervision and a place for safe social interaction. People in these programs get to feel like an actual member of society rather than just a burden on their family. They can have something to do all day and come home and talk about their day at work instead of what they watched on TV. It’s unfortunate that they can’t provide enough value to justify a company to pay minimum wage but at least this way they get to have some money to help their family with bills or spend on their hobbies.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why you pay them minimum wage or more and get a kickback from the government, that ends up being cheaper for everyone in the long run and you're not exploiting them.

[–] affiliate 23 points 1 year ago

exactly. the free market has shown it is not able to take care of society's most vulnerable. instead, the government should be tasked with taking care of its people.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There are volunteer positions for anyone wanting to simply just do something through the day.

If EMPLOYERS want to have these people on staff, they should pay them. Period. We give people minimum wage regardless of their job. Whether a toilet scrubber, trash handler, or floor mopping person, these are all jobs worthy of minimum wage.

If a job needs to be done and they need to hire someone to do it, that person should get minimum wage, regardless of who it is, what their situation is, etc.

If companies really want relief about this stuff, maybe they should lobby for the wages that they spend on differently capable persons to be offset with a tax break or something..... Let that person go home with a full paycheque. Twisting this into doing everyone a favor for giving those people something to do, is the same mentality that was used to enslave entire races. People literally thought that some races didn't have the intellectual capability to handle their business, so by enslaving them, we were doing them a favor. The justification was always insane, they thought that by providing the bare minimum of food for their table and a space to sleep, they were entitled to own that person. It's fucked up.

Now we're trying to justify paying them less or not at all because they operate different to NT people?

.... I'm sorry, that's a twisted and toxic perspective.

[–] arbitrary 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

volunteer positions

So instead of getting paid below minimum wage you'd rather they don't get paid at all?

Volunteer positions also often cannot provide the often increased need for supervision and guidance, especially for new or atypical tasks.

To be honest, I don't know every individual business, but the vast majority of businesses that I know that hire people with mental (or sometimes physical) impairment do so as part of a social goal to give back to society. We have a shop around my hometown where they fix bicycles. Takes longer and you often have a neurotypical supervisor that jumps in if needed, but at the end it's a great way to give these people a place in society and a small pay that they can see as their contribution to their family (or their own lives).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I worked with in a garage where they employed someone to valet the hire fleet. He was incredibly slow but did a decent job. Half his wage was paid for by a government agency, he was originally on an unpaid work experience thing and the agency asked the boss if he would hire him. He said no so they offered to partially fund his wages so boss said ok. This is similar(better imho) but there are people you simply would not employ (unless you are doing it for charitable reasons) because you can get someone else for the same money.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SixTrickyBiscuits 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I really doubt volunteering fills the same need. They want to feel like they're contributing something back to the family that is taking care of them. They want (and deserve) a paycheck for their work.

And the problem is companies don't want them compared to a neurotypical employee for the same wages.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] S_204 20 points 1 year ago

My firm works with at risk youth, we provide training and resources to assist them in pursuing a career in the trades.

We pay them $18/hr, the government gives us a subsidy of something like $8-12/hr depending on the situation.

The employee is still paid pretty much what their colleagues are. There are ways to handle this that don't end up with mentally challenged people working for slave wages.

[–] Viking_Hippie 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

they can’t provide enough value to justify a company to pay minimum wage

Bullshit. Showing up at all is worth more than $7.25/h. If you can't afford to pay decent wages, you can't afford to have employees.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It’s unfortunate that they can’t provide enough value to justify a company to pay minimum wage

What's unfortunate is when people don't understand that everyone, even mentally disabled persons, deserves a living wage at minimum.

No one is paid based on the actual "value" they provide to a company. If that were the case, CEOs would be paid a fraction of what they're currently paid, and the lowest paid workers would make multiple times more than what they currently make.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I agree CEO compensation is really messed up but I don’t thinks it’s really relevant. A company gets to decide how much they value labour and if someone’s work isn’t enough to justify paying them they simply won’t have a job. I know it’s awful to pay less than a living wage but it’s important to remember these people are almost universally living with their family or in group homes. The options are really only either they don’t work or they work with a company paying less than minimum wage. Obviously the government subsidizing the wages is an option but I’m not sure if that’s the best use of resources. Would it not make more sense to directly subsidize families and group homes based on economic need.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I agree but why would a company employ people with learning disabilities when they could employ people without learning disabilities and pay them the same amount. Think there is a bigger underlying issue. Governments should incentivize employing these people so it becomes a non issue.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] webz45 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm shocked this is from the UK not the US.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

It’s a problem in Germany as well.

[–] guriinii 20 points 1 year ago

Shameful. A topic that keeps coming up here in the UK. Our government, as well as being classist, racist, xenophobic, and transphobic, they're also ableist as fuck.

[–] BreadKof 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why this is even a "debate"

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I see you have a couple of straw-men responding to you, so I'll try answer with a real world actual answer from my own lived experience.

I used to know a guy, who I'll call Dave. Dave had some major developmental disabilities, like major major ones. At the time I first met him, my country had a law similar to this one being debated here, and Dave was employed for about half of minimum wage to push a broom around a carpentry workshop. It was the first and only time in his life that he'd ever earned a wage, and there was an unsaid understanding among the crew that Dave was doing would otherwise be a couple minutes work for them. Everyone loved him because he was so happy, and always wanting to help.

Dave was so proud of being part of the team, and he kept the place incredibly tidy, tidier than I've ever seen any other tradie's workshop. (Also - it's important context that over here we have good social safety nets, so Dave didn't need the money to survive, he had government benefits and a full time carer).

Then the law was revoked - suddenly the guy owning the business had to choose between paying Dave or getting a full time qualified apprentice. So he did what he had to do.

There isn't a happy ending to this story. Health and safety meant that you couldn't have an unpaid non-worker running around a workshop, and Dave was never able to come back - even though he'd have been happy to stay unpaid just to be part of the team. And a couple years later, my work happened to take me to a small government -owned townhouse, which turned out to be Dave's. His carer recognised me, but I didn't recognise Dave. He was a sad empty shell of the person I once knew; he'd lost his purpose, his armchair literally had the cartoon-style outline of his body because he was there so often, and I was told he hadn't left the house for more than six months, even for a walk around the block.

It's possible to both protect disadvantaged workers from exploitation, while also giving inducements to businesses so that it's worth hiring people who otherwise wouldn't be hireable. We had that here! And when we lost it, Dave lost his purpose and the only part of his life that had ever given him meaning.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ShittyRedditWasBetter 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because it costs money to support these individuals whether it's at the job or sitting at home. So as one other commenter put it, you can have them contributing, feeling good about themselves, and bringing in a few bucks; or you can make it so that nobody wants to hire them and they sit at home draining caretaker resources. If you want to subsidize that cost go ahead and convince everyone to do so.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jeffw 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

14(c) of FLSA will never be a simple conversation. It’s also often taken out of context. You can’t just hire someone and pay them subminimum wage for a regular job. I could rant for a long time about this, if anyone cares, feel free to ask

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Personally i think the solution is government programs for people with disabilities where their wages are subsidized so that the government provides, for example $5 an hour, to the employer who provides a job for someone with a disability.

That way the employer benefits by saving a bit of money, and the employee benefits by having a higher chance to be hired, not being devalued by making less than minimum wage or their coworkers, and they make a decent wage (hopefully).

[–] jeffw 10 points 1 year ago

That’s generally how 14c facilities work though. They’re just not subsidized enough for livable wages.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

That's just direct subsidies for the corporations, we have already enough of abuse on that lmao.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We already had someone try that here in South Carolina, and it ended up pretty much how you'd expect for South Carolina. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/551409-judge-rules-south-carolina-restaurant-manager-owes-enslaved/

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Holy shit, that restaurant owner is beyond evil 100 per week for $0 pay, how can you not even feel bad for doing that?

[–] Noodle07 5 points 1 year ago

Welcome to the mind of slaves owners

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Does this not already exist in the states?

I had a retarded uncle, not a slur, just something that happened before they were aware of the second baby Rh pheonemona. And they paid him like $3 an hour to make fishing lures. I think somehow it's a program that helps pay for services and stuff that supported him. But it always seemed really bad to me, although I lived on the other side of the country so no idea what the "services" entailed.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The alternative is that they will never have any job at all, and they might not be happy living on handouts.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The alternative is they get paid just as much as everyone else, receive some extra cash from the government because being disabled can carry big hidden costs most people don’t realize.

The insensitive for the business is a tax break so the disabled worker does cost them less overall, they NEED this extra bit of what otherwise would be tax money to make reasonable changes to integrate the peoples special needs. After which its easier to hire more disabled people meaning more tax breaks.

Gonna take a personal stance that if 80% of your workers are officially disabled you shouldn’t need to pay tax at all. Helping these people is enough contributing to society to be ethical.

This isn’t a perfect system but its similar to how many countries do it and its miles better then forcing them into wageslavery.

Paying the disabled worker less is a complete upside down work because they have to work so much harder to get the same result. Remember your wage isn’t just a reflection of your output, otherwise it wouldn’t be an hourly rate. Its a reflection of the time and energy your body is putting into it every day.

[–] teamevil 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The moment the monsters that want this get their way, I guarantee someone will try to manufacture more people with disabilities.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's probably why they put lead in everything back then.

[–] Noodle07 6 points 1 year ago

It disabled the boomers from critical thinking

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SuddenDownpour 11 points 1 year ago

If there could be a reasonable debate on this, we could argue: A) Even with accomodations, some people are going to be so unproductive that companies cannot justify hiring them at minimum wage -> B) Therefore, the government could subsidize their salary so that they have the option to contribute and earn their own salary.

Unfortunately, due to the pervasive interests of business, implementations of these solutions tend to result in companies suckling out of the teat of the state, underreporting on the actual productivity of their employees, and often putting them under the orders of managers who patronise them and barely see them as humans, with the subsequent issues that this provokes on one's daily life.

And this is even without getting into the terrain of people who do have the capacity to be productive, but society doesn't care about enabling that possibility. Think of people with reduced mobility who are perfectly capable of working in an office, but HR will immediately discard their application without bothering to study if they could be a good fit for the company; or autistic people, who require different sensory and social accomodations (neurotypical have sensory and social accomodation requirements too, but since they're the norm, this tends to be ignored), and will be immediately assumed to be problematic even when they could be more productive than their allistic counter-parts.

I don't mean to be defeatist, however. It is not impossible to achieve a proper integration of diversity.

https://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/casa-batllo-gaudi-emplea-50-personas-autismo-pequeno-milagro_1_10085306.html

Specialisterne helped Casa Batlló, a tourism-oriented cultural space in Barcelona, to employ and integrate 50 people on the spectrum, and everything has kept working reasonably well over there since then. This is notable because it is a common conception in business that you can't or shouldn't employ an autistic person to attend the public, but folks over there are literally getting paid to infodump tourists.

Unfortunately, I don't know how it'd be possible to systemize the good work Specialisterne and other well educated and well intentioned groups are doing, without attracting nefarious actors that just want to get public funds even if they do a shit job.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Alternate alternate headline. Are disabled people, people?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Such individuals include student-learners (vocational education students), as well as full-time students employed in retail or service establishments, agriculture, or institutions of higher education. Also included are individuals whose earning or productive capacities are impaired by a physical or mental disability, including those related to age or injury, for the work to be performed.

This is such a weird group of exemptions. Full time students, presumably while paying tuition and housing themselves and completing 20 hours of coursework per week; and specifically in exactly the types of part time or seasonal jobs full-time students could take? What is the rationale? I know this happened to me in college--the university itself paid less than minimum wage for virtually any jobs done by students.

It seems to me you have the choice of paying high taxes and socializing everything; paying EVERY worker a living wage with room to cover a dependent or two and having a functioning capitalism; or earning enough for yourself to fly to Mars and avoid the guillotine while the world crumbles in despair. Why do so many choose space?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

If minimum wage was a wage that a single income earners could support an entire household on, as it was original intended still, I might get this argument. With minimum wage being an unlivable joke, paying less is essentially slavery and textbook exploitative.

[–] query 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

At that point might as well nationalize the business, because the government is paying their employees anyway.

[–] cogman 12 points 1 year ago

Capitalists: we don't need welfare, charities can take care of those in need.

Also capitalists: it's not my fault my employees are homeless, they should have made better choices.

We already know what unchecked capitalism looks like, it's company stores and families buried under endless debt. This leads to things like the great hunger in Ireland where the island is literally exporting 10x the food it's citizens need to survive while they starve in the streets.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›