Man, this makes me sick to even read.
I've been following this story for a while over twitter and other
various places around the web, and I'm still horrified about this.
I really hope they get what's coming to them.
And to think, the ceo's blind?  A blind guy, who should know better,
taking advantage of the rest of his own quote community?
Unbelievable. What a bastard.

On 6/24/13, Michael Thurman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> for those that don't want to keep up with this feel free to hit the =
> delete key. As a disabled person I feel that this must change.  and =
> change fast or there might be more protests counting the ones last year.
>>=20
>> Begin msg
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> The Sin of Omission: A Rebuttal of Goodwill=92s Policy Statement on =
> Subminimum Wage Payments to Workers with Disabilities
>>=20
>> Submitted by alewis on Fri, 06/21/2013 - 08:40=20
>> Blog Date:=20
>> Friday, June 21, 2013
>> By Anil Lewis
>> =20
>> With the pending broadcast of a national news story on NBC Rock Center =
> tonight making the public aware of the legal ability for employers to =
> pay workers with disabilities wages less than the federal minimum wage, =
> Goodwill International, a self-proclaimed leader in the employment of =
> people with disabilities, has decided to make a preemptive case for =
> taking advantage of this unfair, discriminatory, and immoral provision.  =
> Goodwill=92s position paper, entitled "Employment of People with =
> Disabilities through FLSA Section 14(c)," is a failed attempt to justify =
> the unjustifiable.  By using more palatable language, and stating a =
> biased perspective without giving full information, Goodwill is =
> committing a sin of omission, one that threatens to keep over =
> four-hundred thousand people with disabilities from receiving the proper =
> training and support to secure gainful employment at the federal minimum =
> wage or higher.=20
>> =20
>> Throughout the paper, Goodwill uses terms that attempt to soften the =
> fact that it advocates for the payment of subminimum wages to workers =
> with disabilities.  Goodwill prefers the term Commensurate Wage, which =
> masks the fact that these wages are below the federal minimum, some as =
> low as one cent per hour.  Goodwill prefers to use the term Community =
> Rehabilitation Program, which is essentially the same old sheltered =
> workshop setup that existed in 1938.  I have written blog posts on how =
> Goodwill is using compassionate discrimination to paint themselves as =
> the victims of the exemption who are only using existing law to take =
> advantage of the commensurate wage fallacy.  The following paragraphs =
> disclose what Goodwill chose to omit.
>> =20
>> Goodwill chooses not to restate in this paper that 101 of its 165 =
> affiliates do not use a subminimum wage certificate. =20
>> =20
>> Therefore, by Goodwill=92s own admission, the overwhelming majority of =
> its affiliates are successful without the use of this =93Essential =
> Tool.=94  I guess that is why the paper offers the following disclaimer: =
> =93The information contained in this document represents the current =
> view of Goodwill Industries International on the issues discussed as of =
> the date of publication.=94  This means Goodwill International, where =
> the blind CEO is paid over $500,000 per year by an organization that =
> pays other people with disabilities 22 cents per hour, endorse this =
> paper, but not all of its affiliates did.  Moreover, it is not legal to =
> pay workers with disabilities subminimum wages in Canada, so the =
> Goodwill Canadian affiliates do not have the legal ability to pay =
> subminimum wages, and are still successful.
>> =20
>> Goodwill chooses to play on the pre-existing misperception that people =
> with disabilities do not have the capacity to be productive employees. =20=
>
>> =20
>> This has been proven false, over and over again, by people with a =
> variety of disabilities, including those that Goodwill would label too =
> severely disabled to work. The dismal picture Goodwill paints is more of =
> a condemnation of its inability to properly train individuals with =
> disabilities than a reflection of the potential of the worker with a =
> disability.  Other entities, similarly situated, working with the same =
> population of people with disabilities, are successful in providing the =
> proper training and supports for these workers to secure employment at =
> the federal minimum wage or higher.  Again, the majority of the Goodwill =
> affiliates are doing it.  Why not all?
>> =20
>> Goodwill states that people with disabilities and their families =
> choose to work in these subminimum wage work environments. =20
>> =20
>> The only choice they are being presented with is work at subminimum =
> wages or no work at all.  This is the Goodwill choice, but not the only =
> choice.  Goodwill chooses not to reference the reports that describe the =
> innovative, alternative training and placement strategies that are being =
> used to employ people with significant disabilities in competitive =
> integrated work environments.  It does not reference the research that =
> demonstrates that the innovative alternative strategies cost less and =
> produce better outcomes for workers with disabilities.=20
>> =20
>> Goodwill states that the National Council on Disability (NCD) has =
> concerns about the significant unemployment rate of people with =
> disabilities, but does not mention that NCD has said that Section 14(c) =
> of the FLSA should be repealed and subminimum wage payments to workers =
> with disabilities should be phased out. =20
>> =20
>> Goodwill states that it agrees with the position of the U. S. Business =
> Leadership Network (USBLN) that for-profit employers should not be =
> allowed to obtain Special Wage Certificates, but does not explain that =
> USBLN only represents for-profit employers and therefore chose to limit =
> its position statement to the businesses it serves.
>> =20
>> So many questions go unanswered in the Goodwill paper.   If subminimum =
> wages are such an essential tool for the employment of people with =
> disabilities, why is it such a secret?  If the use of the subminimum =
> wage is such a successful tool, why is there still an over 70 percent =
> unemployment rate for people with disabilities?  If subminimum wage =
> payments are such an essential tool for Goodwill, why do almost two =
> thirds of the Goodwill affiliates choose not to use this =93tool?=94
>> =20
>> Goodwill=92s solution is to maintain the status quo, and to continue =
> to use the revenue generated from the labor of its workers with =
> disabilities, the revenue from the charitable contributions, the revenue =
> from federal contracts, and the revenue resulting from its non-profit =
> status, to compensate its executives with substantial salaries, rather =
> than fairly compensating the workers with disabilities.  Moreover, =
> Goodwill uses the revenue to market its message of low expectations to =
> people with disabilities and their families, leading them down the path =
> to perpetual public dependence, not full participation. =20
>> =20
>> The most offensive use of the revenue received by these sheltered =
> workshops is paying their lobbyists to persuade members of Congress to =
> continue to allow them to legally pay these workers pennies per hour.  =
> Finally, Goodwill suggests that its preferred solution is for the =
> federal government to spend even more money to increase regulation and =
> enforcement of this discriminatory policy, burying the exploitation =
> under additional mountains of bureaucracy.  All of these funds would be =
> better spent creating real training and employment opportunities for all =
> people with disabilities. =20
>> =20
>> We recognize that the competitive employment of people with =
> disabilities presents significant challenges.  However, we feel that the =
> use of subminimum wages is simply a cop-out, especially when we are =
> aware of training and employment strategies that work.  We applaud all =
> of the success stories that Goodwill uses to promote its services.  We =
> just want and insist that Goodwill=92s employees are paid a fair wage.  =
> If Goodwill, or the other entities currently taking advantage of this =
> subminimum wage provision, cannot adopt a new business model that =
> provides the training and support to allow the worker with a disability =
> to earn at least the federal minimum wage, why should our public and =
> philanthropic dollars continue to support them?=20
>> =20
>> =20
>> Mr. Anil Lewis, M.P.A.
>> Director of Advocacy and Policy
>> =20
>> =93Eliminating Subminimum Wages for People with Disabilities=94=20
>> http://www.nfb.org/fairwages
>> NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
>> 200 East Wells Street at Jernigan Place
>> Baltimore, Maryland   21230
>> (410) 659-9314 ext. 2374 (Voice)
>> (410) 685-5653 (FAX)
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Web: www.nfb.org
>> twitter: @anillife=20
>>=20
>