112
What?!?! (i.imgur.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HeckingShepherd@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works 1 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.

[-] HeckingShepherd@lemm.ee 1 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.

this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
112 points (96.7% 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