[Nfbnet-members-list] Good is Simply Not Good Enough
Freeh, Jessica
JFreeh at nfb.org
Sat Aug 24 03:28:59 UTC 2013
Good is Simply Not Good Enough
By Anil Lewis
I received a copy of
<http://www.ndrn.org/en/media/releases/505-press-release-supporting-section-511-of-the-rehabilitation-act.html>a
memorandum written by Curt Decker, executive
director of the National Disability Rights
Network (NDRN). The memo purported to be a
rebuttal of
<https://nfb.org/images/nfb/documents/word/sam%20bagenstos%20analysis%20of%20section%20511.docx>an
analysis of Title V, Section 511 of the Workforce
Investment Act reauthorization, written by
Professor Samuel R. Bagenstos, who was requested
by the National Federation of the Blind to give
his professional opinion of the reauthorization
language. Mr. Decker is unjustly critical of
Professor Bagenstoss findings. Contrary to Mr.
Deckers assertion, in his report Professor
Bagenstos does not ignore the positive components
of the overall bill, nor does he ignore the fact
that there are over 400,000 individuals with
disabilities currently employed at wages far
below the federal minimum. Moreover, he does not
ignore what Mr. Decker states is the largest
segment of people with disabilities that Section
511, in conjunction with other provisions of the
bill, will ultimately help. (Note Mr. Deckers
careful wording that includes in conjunction
with other provisions of the bill, which
confuses the matter of determining whether
Section 511 is helpful or harmful on its own
merit.) Professor Bagenstos properly considered
the section in context and determined, overall,
that the language would represent a stunning step backwards.
We appreciate NDRNs continued support of the
growing effort to repeal the unfair,
discriminatory, and immoral subminimum-wage
provision found in Section 14(c) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). We continue to point
out that the subminimum-wage provision is the
root of the problem and we, along with
<https://nfb.org/images/nfb/documents/word/repeal_14(c)_support_list_8_21_13.doc>over
fifty other national and local cross-disability
organizations, believe that Section 14(c) of the
FLSA should be repealed. Moreover, we agree with
NDRNs assessment of the other forward-thinking
provisions in the WIA language. However, we
choose not to mask the detrimental consequences
of Section 511 with the numerous other positive
improvements listed in Mr. Deckers memorandum.
The mantra of the Decker memorandum is, I choose
to not let the perfect be the enemy of the
good. As the executive director of the
Protection and Advocacy System charged with the
responsibility to zealously advocate on behalf of
people with disabilities, it is truly
disappointing that Mr. Decker is so passionate
about defending a piece of legislation that he
concedes is inadequate to address the real
problem. Some are afraid that our advocacy
efforts to strike Section 511 from the bill will
kill the WIA reauthorization. We cannot afford to
be afraid. We are not advocating for the perfect
versus the good; we are advocating against the
bad. We seek only the most basic step toward the
fair and just treatment of individuals with
disabilitiespayment of at least the federal
minimum wage, in line with the protection
provided to all other American workers. The true
enemy is the unfair, discriminatory, and immoral
subminimum-wage provision found in Section 14(c)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Mr. Deckers argument rests on the assumption
that we must accept incremental progress toward
the elimination of subminimum wages. We believe
that such incremental progress is inappropriate,
even as an interim goal. Furthermore, Professor
Bagenstoss analysis reveals that Section 511
will not make even the incremental progress that
we are urged to accept. It will instead authorize
subminimum-wage work as a training and
work-readiness component of the rehabilitation
system and, therefore, will ultimately, if
unintentionally, lead to more rehabilitation
clients being tracked into subminimum-wage work.
Our response to Mr. Decker is that if he feels
Section 511 is good, then good is simply not good enough.
Those who advocate for the elimination of the
wage disparity between men and women, or for the
raising of the minimum wage itself, or for better
services to assist the unemployed to re-enter the
workforce, are not asked to, and would never
accept the suggestion that they should accept
only incremental progress toward their goals, or
that they should accept solutions like
commensurate wages or employment training in
subminimum-wage environments as a step to
achieving goals. It appears to only be
problematic for people to advocate on behalf of
fairness and wage equality when the advocates are
people with disabilities. The unfortunate
reality is that we cannot align our efforts to
obtain fairness in the workplace with those of
the general public because society fails to
understand that with the proper training,
opportunity, and supports, individuals with
disabilities can be productive workers. Until we
overcome this pervasive misconception, hundreds
of thousands of individuals with disabilities
will continue to be denied the proper training,
opportunities, and supports to obtain
competitive, integrated employment. As long as
society can legally relegate workers with
disabilities to subminimum-wage employment, we
will never change societal perceptions that such
work is all that can be expected of workers with disabilities.
The different standard to which advocates with
disabilities are held has been apparent
throughout the process of producing the WIA bill.
We attempted to discuss our concerns with HELP
Committee staff before the committee
vote. However, we were only able to secure a few
meetings in the time provided. In fact, members
of the HELP Committee staff were discouraged from
communicating with us. We were assured that
amendments to the Rehabilitation Act language
would be offered during the committee markup, but
no such amendments were offered or considered.
Our attempts to engage in informed advocacy have
been labeled a smear campaign. Many of our
members are requesting meetings with their
Senators during the recess, but are being
ignored. How will good policy be developed
without open, honest, informed dialogue?
There is a false perception that there is
tremendous support for Section 511. That is
because support for Section 511 is being wrongly
conflated with support for the WIA bill in its
entirety. However, there is, to our knowledge,
only one stakeholder entity that is opposed to
the removal of Section 511 from the WIA
reauthorization, and that entity is NDRN. More
to the point, the question is not who supports
Section 511? The question should be: who opposes
the removal of Section 511? Again, the answer is only one entity: NDRN.
Section 511 is doubtless well-intentioned, but
its proponents would do well to remember the
famous proverb regarding good intentions being
paving stones on a particular, and undesirable,
road. Section 511 cannot and does not accomplish
its purported purpose and will actually make
matters worse. We urge the Senate to remove it
from the WIA reauthorization, and we urge all
organizations of people with disabilities to
affirmatively support its removal rather than silently accepting it.
The below organizations all oppose Section 511
and support its removal from WIA:
APSE
Autistic Self-Advocacy Network
Autism Society of America
National Coalition of State Rehabilitation Councils
National Council on Disability
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind
National Down Syndrome Congress
National Down Syndrome Society
National Federation of the Blind
National Fragile X Foundation
National Organization of Nurses with Disabilities
Parent to Parent USA
Physician-Parent Caregivers
TASH
As of August 23, 2013
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbnet-members-list_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130823/23f23b8c/attachment.html>
More information about the NFBNet-Members-List
mailing list