Category: Let's talk
I do realize not everyone on here is an NFB member. You don't need to be in order to take action against this legislative bill that if passed would greatly be a step backwards in all the ACB and NFB have overcome and gotten done for the good of people that are blind or disabled.
Please take action ASAP!
Thank you!
Dear Fellow Federationists:
I am writing to inform you that a principle tenet of our organization is being threatened. We are actively developing legislation that will work toward the repeal of Regulation 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Meanwhile, the proposed language in Title V of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) reauthorization, specifically Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act, threatens to send us backward in our struggle for full participation and competitive employment at competitive wages.
Most of us are aware that in 1938, when every other employee in America was being guaranteed the workforce protection of a federal minimum wage through the passage of the FLSA, Section 14(c) of this act denied the blind and other workers with disabilities this same protection by allowing for the payment of subminimum wages. Since our founding in 1940, the National Federation of the Blind has fought against the erroneous misconception that blind people cannot be productive employees, and we have made significant strides toward a correct understanding of the true capacity of the blind. Contrarily, the proposed language found in Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act is a tacit endorsement of Section 14(c) of the FLSA and its antiquated contention that people with disabilities cannot be competitively employed.
If passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, language in Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act will create a link between the Rehabilitation Act and Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act that has never before existed. This will create legislation with a conflict between the philosophy of capacity for competitive employment set by the Rehabilitation Act, and the philosophy of incapacity toward subminimum wages set by Section 14(c) of the FLSA, setting the stage for more workers with disabilities to be inappropriately steered toward sheltered employment and a life of low expectations rewarded with subminimum wages.
The following list contains the names of members of the Senate HELP committee. If your Senator is a member of the committee, please call his/her office to respectfully express your adamant objection to linking subminimum wage to the Rehabilitation Act, and to insist that Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act be removed from the bill. If your Senator is not a member of the HELP committee, call the committee chair (Senator Tom Harkin) and the ranking member (Senator Michael Enzi) to register your objection.
Please share this information with friends and family and encourage them to assist us with this effort. Please call or e-mail me with any questions, and to keep me posted on your progress.
Sincerely,
Anil Lewis
Director of Strategic Communications
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
Telephone: (410) 659-9314, extension 2374
E-mail: alewis@nfb.org
Senator
State
Telephone
Senator Lamar Alexander
Tennessee
(202) 224-4944
Senator Michael F. Bennet
Colorado
(202) 224-5852
Senator Jeff Bingaman
New Mexico
(202) 224-5521
Senator Richard Blumenthal
Connecticut
(202) 224-2823
Senator Richard Burr
North Carolina
(202) 224-3154
Senator Robert Casey, Jr.
Pennsylvania
(202) 224-6324
Senator Mike Enzi
Wyoming
(202) 224-3424
Senator Al Franken
Minnesota
(202) 224-5641
Senator Kay R. Hagan
North Carolina
(202) 224-6342
Senator Tom Harkin
Iowa
(202) 224-3254
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
Utah
(202) 224-5251
Senator Johnny Isakson
Georgia
(202) 224-3643
Senator Mark Steven Kirk
Illinois
(202) 224-2854
Senator John McCain
Arizona
(202) 224-2235
Senator Jeff Merkley
Oregon
(202) 224-3753
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Maryland
(202) 224-4654
Senator Lisa Murkowski
Alaska
(202) 224-6665
Senator Patty Murray
Washington
(202) 224-2621
Senator Rand Paul
Kentucky
(202) 224-4343
Senator Pat Roberts
Kansas
(202) 224-4774
Senator Bernard Sanders
Vermont
(202) 224-5141
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Rhode Island
(202) 224-2921
Why does it not surprise me that the senator from Pennsylvania is on this list? This state is terrible when it comes to employment for blind people. Everyone who's named here should be ashamed of themselves.
Agreed, F&R, especially Senator Harken, who is the chairman of this committee. He raves about how he supports the rights of the blind and disabled, and employment for them, and so on, and then you have legislation like this. It makes me mad in any case, but particularly because I'm from Iowa. I know this post is an NFB press release, but I'd imagine this is one of those issues where both organizations would be on the same page.
I don't know much about the NFB or ACB, but why are such big organisations so poor at communicating? Let's have a look at this:
Damn, Senior. you truly amaze me sometimes. I should have known your anti-Federation sentiments would get in the way of your logic.
1. Fellow Federationists. Why the problem with that greeting? This was originally sent out to members. What is the difference between this greeting, and the president of the United States beginning a speech with, "My fellow Americans." Even if the speech is about something global, this often happens. Why? Because, in that instance, the President is addressing Americans. Doesn't mean his speech isn't going to be broadcast other places, as this has been posted here, but the greeting is directed at the people being addressed.
2. The only point I will give you in your post is that often, press releases of this nature are too technical, and should be better worded for those who are not as up on politics. But yes, some of what Federation gatherings involve is discussion of legislation involving the blind. It's no different than any issue that legislation is passed or repealed about. No different than any group who lobbies for or against various legislation. I imagine that, in its own way, the ACB follows politics as well. Otherwise, why have a seminar called Washington Connection?
3. No, most people, including myself, do not know of laws that were passed in 1938. That's why this letter talks about it, to inform people of that. and, so what if people are historians? Is it not important to remember history? Only by doing that can we keep past mistakes from being repeated.
Again, the only thing I'll give you is that his language could be easier to understand. But that is where, if people are interested in learning more about this, they can write to the author, or anyone else heavily involved in politics, to ask for clarification if it is needed. Yes, he is writing to people of varying interests, so if politics isn't a person's thing, they're just as free to ignore such a letter as those who are interested in it are free to pursue the issue.
As far as I'm concerned, it only reflects, "very badly," on the Federation from where you are standing: for someone so against the NFB that they can't see the logic in fighting legislation that could set all blind people back.
OK, not going to respond to any more anti-Federation rhetoric beyond this. I've probably wasted my time with this post as it is. The thread was about the actual political issue, not a war over the organizations. If you want that, go post on the NFB/ACB grafiti board. That's what it's there for.
1. If he had said dear members, that would have sounded more normal.
2. I hope that when "federationists" discuss legislation in their meetings, they don't do so in a way that alienates those who aren't up on politics and legislation.
3. I don't have a problem with people knowing about history; I have studied and am interested in history. However, I couldn't tell you anything about legislation passed in 1938, and I doubt most people who are interested in history could. The letter says however,
Here is my greatest fear regarding this:
First, you don't see this in the news, because it is to affect a very small (proportionally) segment of the populace. So to them, since deregulation is the fad right now, this means supposedly less regulation on the employers, against a supposed elite (that's us, ladies and gents), who are trying to take the rights away from the rest of the population. Add a healthy dose of vitriolic rhetoric into the mix, and you will have Fox News, weepy Glen Beck, Sarah Palin table-topping for the masses, and a certain subset of religous people claiming that we, as blind people, are asking for special rights.
Perhaps I am entirely wrong: I only have life experience watching what happens to other groups: foreigners, gays, etc., to go on. I hope I am wrong. But this vitriolic response is extremely popular, and I don't know how the NFB will manage it. Since conservatism, deregulation, and alleviating the general populace of any responsibility for any particular group is really hot and sexy right now, I don't know how the politicians can vote against it and hope to maintain their jobs.
Probably one very good reason the NFB types are them, and some of the rest of us just live life in the machine: they may know the mechanics behind this and may understand how to combat / eliminate this problem.
Before someone calls me a sodden leftist: I was a young republican of the 80s, though mainly of libertarian persuasion, and mostly for economic rather than the modern social reasons which I did not embrace.
Throughout the 90s I was full-blown Libertarian. Like any entity that can gain from life experience, I've certainly changed perspective on a great number of things based on how actual results compare to theoretical outcomes. That leaves me an independent.
But knowing what we know right now, that deregulation is extremely fashionable, that Fox News has the highest listenership because like the middle east, we have many disgruntled citizens and several extremist groups ready to provide easy answers to challenging dilemmas. I'm honestly afraid we could become the next hated group on Facebook, sob stories of employers losing their business on acount of blind people, etc.
After all, just like they have done before, all they need to do is gather the same tired old stories, do a global find and replace to put blind instead of immigrant or gay or whatever, change names and locations.
I could teach the least competent of you on here how to write such a regular expression in ten minutes or less, and I am a terrible instructor at that. In other wirds, it's really easy pickings for them.
As I indicated before, I don't think they actually hate us, or even know about us as a group or individually. They know one thing, and they have done well in acting on it: They realize that closest to everybody's heart or emotion or whatever, is first control over their own resources, and second the ability to access more resources. They have successfully modified modern versions of religions to support it so that even God supports the acquisition of resources at whatever cost. They have created a virtue out of what we used to get slapped for for being greedy, and it is amazingly sexy, hot and popular with millions of people. So successful are they at it, they can introduce policies that actually compromise economic stability while at the same time blaming government for compromising economic stability and have access to crowd mania like I personally have never seen in my lifetime.
So the NFB has their work cut out for them: they no doubt know this being experts in this area.
If the worst happens, and this does pass, not all employers will make those sorts of strides right away. However, as soon as the competition does it, as soon as someone in Finance figures it out, it will be seen as a cost-saving measure, and the people doing the wage modification will be lauded for it in the Wall Street Journal, fundamentalist churches, and on Fox News.
All we can hope for is that this particular problem stays below the radar of the media, that the NFB is capable of doing damage control ahead of time / keep out press interference, and just manage the situation in closed-door hearings.
If it ever hits the public, we will lose.
Just a heads-up of sorts:
I consider myself fairly intelligent, albeit not necessarily when it comes to politics. I had to wade through the first post two or three times before I got the whole thing. If you want your average blind person to realize what's happening, you have to appeal to the lowest reasonable common denominator (which is to say, plain English) to get the point across. If you couch your points in near-impenetrable political-speak, you'll alienate more members than you inform, and that's counterproductive.
That aside, I do hope this doesn't pass, but it's as the previous poster said I'm afraid; if it hits the bigtime and the media gets hold of it, we're screwed.
What you and I don't know is if they are aiming at the average person or at their membership. Presumably, like any club or organization, they are probably selective about recruitment, by design or by happenstance.
I have no proof or inclination your average blind person is any dumber than your average person in general: in fact, one could argue, we have to at least be less witless than your average person just to make it through school, college, work, etc. I don't know if I would go that far but we certainly couldn't afford to be dumber as a population: then you got no eyes plus no brains. More than just low vision types would need a magnifier to find the brains of many people I've known over the years, and they had greater or lesser degrees of eyesight.
So basically, the government's taking back our rights to employment? Did I read that pile of five-syllable wordage correctly? Pretty shitty if you ask me, being that my husband just got a job. Oy fricken vey! Does the injustice ever end? End of rant:
But seriously, we've gotta do something to combat this, but I don't think airing out our dirty laundry to the media & making them feel sorry or feel pissy is gonna do it. ...and we know, or at least some of us know how loud & boisterous the blind organizations can be. I just pray the end of the world comes before I'm stuck out in the street with a tin can singin' for my supper. I'll be damned if society stomps us down to that level again!
I don't follow American politics. So naturally, I didn't know about the rulings in 1938. But I didn't find the wording itself difficult to understand and they did give the history of it for those of us not in the know. Basically, if this bill is passed, it will be linked with the other one, which means that employers will have legal justification to pay the blind less money than their sighted counterparts. According to the article, it also means that counselors etc. will have more legal backing when placing blind people, who clearly don't need it, in sheltered workshops and the like. I'm personally not sure if that last is true, since I thought those were slowly being phased out, except in cases of the severely mentally retarded etc.
Eleni, you're exactly right, and thank you for posting that. I know we often disagree, but I'm glad you're able to see what this is trying to say. Yes, I think such sheltered workshops are being fazed out, though they are not gone, and this linkage would likely cause a resurgance in them.
Leo, you know I like you a lot, but how in the world, and why in the world did you bring the whole, conservative/liberal thing into this? If you've not noticed, their are democratic names on that Senators list. Tom Harken, the chair of this committee is a huge one, for example. So why you saw the need to polarize it along those lines is beyond me.
Yes, Eleni, thank you for simplifying it for me. I understood it, but not to the extent that you did. This would simply be a treachery for us. I don't know. I'm just feeling discouraged today. Don't mind me. Lol
If this were to be passed, and it is still a big if at this point, I would seriously consider leaving the country. That's not to say that something like this wouldn't creep into other developed nations, but it doesn't appear to be doing so at this point.
I did note the democrats on that list. However, I painted the picture I did because of the movements typically behind these things.
By illustration, where I live, there were conservatives as well as liberals, who kept their hands off a destructive situation out here where a family fur business was ruined by protesters. So, while there are conservatives who kept a hands-off approach to the situation, it was generally marketed by the liberals who typically, by matter of record, support the destruction of said industries. So just as I blamed the liberals out here for destroying that family's business, I have likewise blamed conservatives for this effort: mainly because like the liberals in fur, the record stands regarding how they typically manage these types of situations.
Your point is well taken, and was made by a liberal out here on the fur issue when I responded in kind on one of the forums out here. As I said to them: it has everything to do with their character, track record, and how they present themselves. On the fur issue, I never claimed every single liberal was callous to the needs of the small business owner and more interested in their own idealistic ideas. There were, of course, conservatives who went along with the situation out here, in contrast to what we normally know as a conservative position.
On this issue here, I am fully aware not every conservative is polarized that way. On both counts, though, it is the trend, and it is the way in which they are marketed.
If either group wants to be perceived differently, they have to start gaining a record of support different than what they have now, and marketing themselves differently. In other words, like we tell our kids, if they want to be thought of differently, they'll just have to do differently, and for long enough that people see and trust it.
Lol. I am gratefulto be an American, but contrary to that, I've said the same thing regarding moving to another country. But the thing is, there are quirks & idiosyncracies in other countries. Some countries are more accepting of the disabled than others & I agree, this would definitely make me consider it, but really & truly, the cost alone would make me stay here. Just out of curiosity, where the heck would you go?
The following is not directed at the last poster, I'm not assuming you have this perspective.
But I have a problem with people who say "Where else could we possibly go?" as though your choice were Great America or the uncivilized badlands.
One could easily emigrate to New Zealand, Australia, the UK or any number of otherwise first-world nations.
The Amerocentric perspective that there is no place else one could conceivably go is silly. And this comes from somebody who will stay here, who has sworn an oath to uphold my duty to flag and country. I have done so, not because there is no other place to go, but as one who has actually considered elsewhere.
Every nation does have its quirks. Some people's perspective that America is full of entrepreneurs and innovators is not entirely wrong. It is that edginess in creativity which makes me decidedly an American, not because of some illusion there is no other civilized place I might have emigrated to.
I love my country in the same way you may love a brother or sister: dreadfully honest about its faults, while you know well its finer qualities. A blind 'Where-else-might-I-possibly-go' perspective is neither patriotic nor love, IMHO.
To be honest, I was asking that in the perspective of, "Where else as a blind person might you get the same kind of treatment/resources/accessibility? Granted, other countries are probably way better off than America in a lot of respects. I no France treats parents & children very very well. I personally wouldn't mind living there, lol. But to me, thinking that other countries are better than where you're at is sort of a "grass is greener" thing. Where else could you go & get better services as a blind person? Maybe other countries do treat their disabled better than America does? ...and for that reason, I posted a new topic asking people from other countries to explain what's good for people with disabilities in their country.
Remember, the people behind this legislation aren't the insensative jerks you think they are. Those that are, are oftened frowned upon by society as a whole, at least when it comes to the disabled, not those who have it as their choice to do something. These people actually believe they are opening up opportunities to us that otherwise wouldn't exist. They aren't saying that we are incapable of performing the same tasks for the same pay as our sighted brethern, but rather the erpception is such that a lower wage is necessary to give the prospective employer incentive to take a chance on hiring us and over time the need for such a dual wage structure is unnecessary. What they fail to see is that those who will take advantage of the dual status, are those who would exploit a disabled person to begin with. What they hope is that once experience is gained, the next job will be one that pays comparableto what a sighted conterpart will get. The sad truth is this isn't the case or sheltered workshops would have had a bigger impact than they do and would be flourishing today. As far as where are you going to go, many first world countries keep out the disabled so as to not be a burden on their resources. So politics aside, this is bad legislation as it creates a legal exploited class, with know real way out. We don't have to bring politics into it.
While I understand the need for small business owners to keep their businesses, I simply can't support the fur trade. It isn't as if these are Native Americans who use the entire animal and who have nothing else at their disposal. As far as this discussion, though, I, too, fail to see why it was necessary to bring up the liberal versus conservative debate. The fact is that some people support it and some are against it and we need to work to stop the former, no matter which camp they usually follow.
I think all of you know how I feel about being seen as an American, except on paper, and even that's only until I can move to Greece and gain citizenship. But the economies of both countries are so bad right now that moving is impossible. At best, I could visit, and even then, I must be careful to avoid the chaos and insanity playing out in the streets. Plus, I still need to work on my mobility skills. Even if I move to a small quiet village, I still need to be able to get around. To LeoGuardian: I never even thought of it that way, and I'm usually quick to pick up on American superiority complexes. Odd that the thoughts should come from a patriot. I know what you mean about loving your country. I love mine as my mother. To quote what I once said on Facebook, "She is the home of my religion, my heart, my joys and sadness. She is the birthplace of my soul. For her, I'd give my life. From her, I expect nothing but the peace and completion that only she can give me, acceptance and a place to rest my head at the end of the day and my bones at the end of my life. Having served her in whatever way I can is my only goal." That said, I think it's vitally important for a patriot to be able to admit his/her country's flaws, no matter how painful they may be or how much introspection it takes. Only then can he/she begin to work out ways of truly resolving them,. Treatment of the blind is one in Greece, but right now, the problems of the nation as a whole are far more important and must be handled before any one group can be considered.
To cowboy1: Your's is a very interesting perspective. I never thought of it that way and am glad that you mentioned it. That said, I find it difficult to believe that so many misguided, ignorant and most of all, naive people exist in America. After all, weren't they the ones to start the whole civil rights movement and to push for equality? So how could they turn around and actually believe that such a move would help the blind?
I'm not up on my blind legislation. I definitely think blind people should be given a fair chance at employment. Having said that though, how much of blind people's employment really depends upon legislation. First, education in disability awareness is key, and that doesn't depend upon politics. In fact, I think acts like the ADA, are to an extent, disadvantageous. I just recently got a new job. Granted, I did participate in a Work Assessment Program. While I think this probably helped meet some of my technology needs, I'd like to think I was hired on my skills and abilities. That didn't depend upon any laws. Believe me, I know there's some really ignorant employers out there. But I'm not sure passing another law will really improve the situation all that much. If the bill that's up for debate remains in effect, do you really think that'll significantly improve the 70% unemployment rate among the blind? I'm not saying government funding isn't necessary, but the majority of a blind person's hireability is based upon factors like education, experience, and presentability, like the rest of our sighted peers. I'm not involved with any blind organizations, but I'd love to do a study that measures the effectiveness of all their lobbying. I had heard that Obama had plans to create a commission for the blind, if he hasn't already. Any comments to how effective it is? Just curious.
Tiffanitsa, I have been remise about checking this thread, the truth is that ideology doesn't make room for reason. These are the same people who propose starter wages for a number of people including our youth. some do have a goal and that is to eventually eviserate the minimum wage, others truly believe that they are helping by providing an insentive to the employer to give a person lacking experience a chance to gain it. What they either don't know or refuse to accept is the evidence of abuse that is rampid in these programs. It is disheartening that so many well meaning people exist but it is true. The ADA is a meaningful government program but very few benefits have came about as a result of its passage. true more signage in braille is present and wheel chair ramps have been built, but most physical barriers haven't been removed. In fact the unemployment for people with disabilities, blind people in particular, is roughly the same as before the ADA and won't change, regardless of the government legislation. In fact, often even the enforcement mechanisms of the law will ensure that you don't get a job as that information sometimes gets out. Even if not, the perception is such that complaints aren't made. Where government can do more is to provide better programs to train the disabled in a skill or multiple skills and how to seek and obtain employment. In that respect BLW1978, I am in agreement. Either way, this legislation should be defeated and a better approach sought.
I agree.
Ok, call me crazy but i'm one to actually agree with some of the regulations placed... I for one believe that people should be payed their worth... I know people who are getting sub minimal wages that deserve just that. People who cannot even pour themselves a glass of water or walk around their own blocks by themselves. I do understand that it is a very nasty thing that they are putting it specifically on anybody with a disability, but honestly I don't know a single person who is currently receiving sub-minimal wages who do not deserve it. One thing I highly disagree with though is the fact that they give the employee no room for growth on the monitary side of things.. I believe alot of people get exactly what they give, but I see alot of improvement from people as well and I believe they should be rewarded and that way as well.. How many people do you know in your lives cannot get a job simply because they are blind or disabled? as the numbers have shown over 70 percent of blind people are unemployed, the number would drastically jump if employers are forced to pay them minamum wage..
This just might be my ignorance that is causing me to feel this way, but I would be more then happy if someone took a shot at changing my outlook on this.
@LastPoster said:
great points leo
Except that cash registers can be made accessible, or ones that are already accessible can be provided if need be. I myself have met blind people who were employed quite successfully at jobs like that.
Really? Where at? I would have loved to have had a job as a cashier, or other seemingly blind-unfriendly job in college!
Yeah, Brian, like where?
Quite a few places actually, usually small stores or diners. In fact one of them actually owned their establishment as well as ran the cas register. They did the work with a combination of a talking cash register and one of those Note Tellers for actually identifying the bills.
Very cool! How would that work for new bills?
I work in a place like that. It's a mini-mart that's in the student union building of the college that I attend. We have two talking registers, two talking money identifiers, and an ID-mate (which is a device that scans and identifies merchandise). Our credit card machines are able to be operated by those of us who are blind even though they don't talk. The owner of the store is a blind merchant who obtained his license through the Tennessee Business Enterprise. I'm not sure what it's called in other states. A lot of people who go through the program work exclusively with vending machines.
But returning to the original topic, does anyone know the latest? I haven't heard anything in awhile.
Becky
Nor have I. This is a real shame.
As it would work for the new bills, the Ibill is a great device. I've recently purchased one, and it works well both on new and old bills. I especially like the fact that you can set it to vibrate a certain number of times for each bill rather than tell the whole world what you're holding lol.
Now that's pretty cool.
Yeah, and it fits in the palm of your hand. It definitely works much better than I expected.
I should really look into that.