The article in the url below frames a challenging debate by asking, "Is it ever right to pay disabled workers pennies per hour?" Although, on the face of it, the answer seems like an emphatic 'no,' the article suggests the reality is more complex (see also Strategic CSR – Discrimination and Strategic CSR – Dementia):
"Jeffrey Pennington sits at a desk packing ten-piece sets of zip ties. A diagram on a piece of paper helps him count before he drops the ties into a resealable bag and begins again. Mr Pennington, who has Down's syndrome and autism and struggles to speak, once dreamed of waiting tables at Wendy's, a fast-food joint. Today he is one of 77 disabled people working in 'the shop' at Creative Enterprises, a Georgia non-profit. Mr Pennington and his co-workers assemble allergy-test and home-repair kits for big companies. Each week Mr Pennington proudly takes home a pay cheque, but after about ten hours' work it amounts to only about $3.00."
According to the article, the federal government in the U.S. can certify companies like Creative Enterprises to pay their employees with disabilities less than the minimum wage. These certifications were created by legislation passed in 1938 that was intended to create employment opportunities for disabled veterans:
"Today these workers—most of whom are intellectually disabled—make hotel beds, do corporate laundry, pack pharmaceutical pill boxes and shred files, among other jobs. Because they are paid based on their productivity rather than time worked, some, like Mr Pennington, earn mere cents each hour. Roughly half of those employed in these 'sheltered workshops' … make under $3.50 an hour, … or less than half the federal minimum wage."
Understandably, advocates for the disabled argue strongly against these certificates. Jill Jacobs, who leads the National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, for example, protests on the grounds that such employment is abusive and unconstitutional, but also because it is anti-competitive:
"Barely having to pay for labour, she says, allows [these companies] to undercut other bidders for competitive contracts with companies like Amazon. Georgia advocates point to Creative Enterprise's $1.6m profit last year … as evidence for this view."
In contrast, the CEO at Creative Enterprises, Leigh McIntosh, argues that this legislation creates opportunities for people who otherwise would be hard-pressed to find work:
"By her estimation those at Creative are about 15% as productive as standard workers, and it would not be economically viable to pay them a full hourly wage. Each year she places about 40 people from her non-profit in outside jobs. Those who choose to stay, who tend to have much lower abilities, take pride in their work."
By this point in the article, I was still on the side of those seeking to ban "sheltered workshops," which is currently the case in 18 states in the U.S. (and is under consideration in a few other states, such as Georgia). But, the article finishes with representations from the parents of these employees, implying that they support these opportunities for their children who face extreme levels of discrimination elsewhere in society:
"Mr Pennington's mother says he loves his job and does not know the difference between $0.25 and $25. She feels frustrated by disability activists insisting that someone like her son can do more and ought to be treated like a regular worker. 'He has the mental capacity of a kindergartener,' she says as her eyes well with tears. 'How could a five-year-old work at Target?'"
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
The zip ties that bind
April 5, 2025
The Economist
Late Edition – Final
21
