This is another article from the VOR Voice, Winter 2018. The VOR Voice is a print newsletter and one of the benefits of membership in VOR. VOR, "A Voice Of Reason, Speaking out for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities" is a national non-profit organization that relies solely on private donations. Hugo Dwyer is the Executive Director and the brother of Tom Dwyer, a resident of Southbury Training School in Connecticut.
******************************
Opening Doors, Closing Doors
by Hugo Dwyer
by Hugo Dwyer
One of the presenters at the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (11/8/18) spoke of the benefits of competitive integrated employment, and the benefits of closing sheltered workshops and ending specialized wage provisions under Section 14(C) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The speaker’s contention was that closing these opportunities would somehow open doors to full-time jobs at minimum wage or better for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities.
When asked if she thought everyone with I/DD would be able to take advantage of this opportunity, she replied that some would not. She was then asked what would happen to those people. Her answer was that they would probably spend more time on the sofa watching TV or being driven in vans for meaningless trips to the local shopping malls. Asked if she thought that was a good thing, she replied that it was not, but that the plan was not to close sheltered workshops all at once, but to “phase them out” over time.
Obviously, that doesn’t solve the problem for those consigned to long days on the couch or at the mall, but it might take care of the public relations problems of those who believe they are doing what’s good in spite of evidence to the contrary. Opening a door for some, closing doors on others.
This led me to thinking about how the same misguided self-righteousness has governed our residential policies for the last thirty-five years. Admissions were closed at Tom’s home of Southbury Training School in 1986. The good people of Connecticut sought to “phase out” this type of residential opportunity, admitting that those fortunate enough to have that opportunity might continue to benefit from it, but closing the door on others who might need such a level of care. I don’t get it. Do they think that people will just adjust to having inferior care? Or do they just not want to think about the possible consequences of their actions?
At the House Judiciary Committee’s hearings examining class action lawsuits against Intermediate Care Facilities last March in Washington, D. C., Allison Barkoff of the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities testified that a settlement agreement in Virginia enabled a single mother, who was #1,025 on the Community Waiting List, to receive HCBS waiver services. Earlier in the hearing, a mother from Virginia testified that the settlement agreement Ms. Barkoff cited had forced her twin sons out of their ICF home and into insufficient, inappropriate care in HCBS waiver settings. One of Mrs. Bryant’s sons died as a result. Opening doors for some, closing doors for others.
Who are these people, opening and closing doors? Why do they believe this is a good thing? Can’t they see the pain they are causing?
We need to open all the doors. We need a system that supports all levels of care and all opportunities for employment.
************************************
Editorial comment from The DD News Blog:
This is from a blogpost for 3/30/16 on the Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council recommendation to eliminate the ability under state law of employers to pay less than the minimum wage to people with physical or mental disabilities based on an individual’s productivity and earning capacity.
"The controversy over sub-minimum wages is usually framed as a difference of opinion and ideology between people who believe disabled workers have the same right as everyone else to the protection of minimum wage laws, against those who believe that a subsidy to employers through sub-minimum wage certificates is justified to assure appropriate work experiences. For people who would otherwise not be employable in integrated, competitive work environments, wage certificates assure the availability of suitable alternatives.
"The problem is that the two sides in this argument are talking about different people in different circumstances who cannot be categorized by sweeping generalizations about people with disabilities. Individually, each person with a developmental disability has a right to appropriate services and a right to be protected from discrimination in the workplace. The federal law and regulations as they are now written do both, even though enforcement of the law and how it is interpreted may be open to question."
Sub-minimum wages are a way to subsidize employers who are willing to hire people who may not be able to keep up with their non-disabled peers and to fund special center-based programs that allow people to work at their own pace with the assistance they need combined with other needed services in addition to employment.
Supported employment for at least minimum wage in integrated settings is already subsidized through programs funded by Medicaid. Most people qualifying for work under supported employment or in center-based work programs are also eligible for other subsidies in the form of Home and Community-based Services, housing vouchers, Medicaid medical insurance, and Supplemental Security Income (social security benefits) and some are residents of Medicaid-funded Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. The argument that sub-minimum wage is unfair because it leaves these people destitute does not hold water.
See also, The DD News Blog on sub-minimum wage and alternatives to integrated competitive employment
0 comments: