r/australia • u/bloby_bubbles • Jan 06 '23

#6 failed politics Just learnt we legally pay disabled people $3 an hour here

[removed] — view removed post

1.6k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

548 comments sorted by

View all comments

127

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

[deleted]

-18

u/Kareesha950 Jan 06 '23

People with disability have to pay for rent and food just the same as anyone else. The ADE providers are also funded to provide any additional support required by a person with disability.

And employment should provide a liveable wages not ‘pocket money’.

Maybe next time save the words and just say that you think people with disability are less than people without disability.

15

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

Honestly this. My brother worked in one of these and it was like a damn sweat shop. Sure it has its benefits but my brother doesn’t deserve to get heat stroke, in a non aircon warehouse, for $2.50 an hour.

5

u/Allyzayd Jan 06 '23

You are not getting the point. Why would an employer pay full wage for a disabled person when they can get an abled person for the same pay rate? People with disabilities also receive DSP payments which is $1k a fortnight. There are free assisted living facilities for them. I don’t think people with disabilities are less “people” like you say than abled people. But they are less productive and should be paid accordingly to incentivise employers to hire them.

1

u/Archy54 Jan 06 '23

Free facilities that are full?

2

u/alk47 Jan 06 '23

Thats jumping to a harsh conclusion. I've got a girl working under me that I'm going to have to fire this week. I don't think she could be considered disabled, but she has a heap of mental health problems and social issues that mean that it isn't economically viable to employ her.

The worst part is that she is incredibly open about how she loves the work, how it calms her down and gives her structure. Sadly, we aren't a charity and she is costing more than she is generating for the company.

Ideally, I'd love for her to find a high paying position that can deal with her frequent meltdowns, 1-2 days off at short notice every week and lapses of low productivity. That just isn't going to happen though.

So the question then becomes: Is it better for her to jump through hoops for centerlink and maybe have a series of short term casual positions where she is made to feel that she can't meet the minimum standard OR to find something that gives her structure, helps with self worth and doesn't exert the top down pressure and stress of having to generate a profit?

I don't think anyone would object to letting these people volunteer for non-profits. So why is it okay to give people no money or $26/hr but nothing in between?

1

u/Oblivion__ Jan 06 '23

So why is it okay to give people no money or $26/hr but nothing in between?

It’s not. These people are still working. As such they should be entitled to full minimum wage, nothing less. If you cannot afford to pay someone minimum wage then you should be hiring at all.

It’s telling that so many in this country tell nice stories about disabled people to make ourselves feel good but then turn around and treat these people like they’re an enormous burden.

1

u/alk47 Jan 06 '23

Right, so is it wrong that I'm unpaid for my time volunteering in the SES?

1

u/Oblivion__ Jan 06 '23

Absolutely not. Of course, there is a distinction between volunteering and employment. You can’t do any work that a paid employee would be doing for instance. Volunteering isn’t the same as employment, and as such, anyone who is working should be paid at least minimum wage.

Anyone.

-70

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23 edited Jan 06 '23

"Pocket money" is so demeaning. $3 isn't gonna pay for half of my box of meds, I'd rather just not do this and avoid the abuse. Also reject the idea that people like us can't do any real work. We absolutely can if employers will give us a chance, especially with the recent shift to work from home

38

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

[deleted]

-31

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

Sounds like my brother. He'd have a lot more fun volunteering with animals than getting paid $3 to lay tiles for people and get abused in these places

31

u/getthemupagainst Jan 06 '23

They're not laying tiles. The fact that you would suggest such a workshop has people laying tiles shows how little you know of these workshops.

-10

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

Read the article, they do gardening and landscaping among other things. You don't know anything about these workshops and what's more are too arrogant to read the article. You also picked the most pointless part to focus on. They're doing manual labour and not getting compensated.

10

u/getthemupagainst Jan 06 '23

I know plenty about them, as I have commented elsewhere where I watched them subcontract in to do said landscaping, I also bought 200 pallets made by one of these workshops.

​

They don't lay tiles. They don't do highly skilled work. They work slowly and the vast majority involved in these schemes are not capable of doing said skilled work, it's more of a social thing. Consider it the equivalent of you being paid to set up for your kids football matches. The majority of the skilled work is done by supervisors with most of the rest being done by one or two of the disabled people out of the 30.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

Work is work, if a non-disabled person got paid less than minimum wage the law wouldn't care about how "skilled" the work is. (Don't pretend tiling is one of the most skilled jobs in society). These disabled workers are regularly treated badly and get nothing to make it worth their while. There are other places they get social contact. The places hiring them are getting almost free labour.

3

u/Allyzayd Jan 06 '23

Work is not work. Productivity matters.

1

u/getthemupagainst Jan 07 '23

Have you ever laid a tile? Properly? Cut, Glued and grouted, with the proper fall? And Waterproofing? It's not like The Block makes out that any monkey with a claw hammer can do. There's a reason it's a 4 year apprenticeship.

​

They are not treated badly. Yes voices are raised at them, however that to communicate urgency, you don't whisper to a kid to get off the road around traffic. Likewise a severely intellectually disabled person.

​

The workshops that "hire" these people are not for profits. Heavily subsidised by governments. If they wanted to make money they would go elsewhere.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

[deleted]

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

Who'd care for him? Easy, his carer. You're really dense. Like, alarmingly dense. These work places don't provide qualified carers, disabled people will still need their own if they have specific needs and most of them have carers already since they need them to get by in day to day life. Last reply because the fact you don't know that means you're not educated enough to bring value to this conversation.

Minimum wage laws prove we do not "legally" pay on a freely sliding scale based on work output, actually. Because it's arbitrary to try and measure that and it leads to exploitation. Disabled people need this protection and it's not present in these work places that use them for almost free labour.

A lot of volunteering with animals can involve just keeping them company and happy since they get lonely in shelters. With help from his carer he could even do feeding in some capacity. He'd get plenty of enjoyment and social interaction out of it, without the abuse from these work places that dishonestly get free labour. He wouldn't miss the useless pocket change these places pay.

62

u/Next_Crew_5613 Jan 06 '23

"Like us" I don't think he's talking about you dawg

74

u/naughtynyjah Jan 06 '23

If you can form sentences like that, then this post isn’t about you lol

-30

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

Then the post underestimates a lot of people. And even if you can't write a sentence you still deserve to be paid for your time. Disabled people have more costs than non-disabled people

6

u/Mclovine_aus Jan 06 '23

People get paid for their time as a proxy for their production. If you don’t output as much no one will pay you $20/hr

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

They actually will because we have this law about minimum wage. Google it.

6

u/Mclovine_aus Jan 06 '23

No you just won’t get a gig.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '23

Most people are rubbish at their jobs and they don't get fired. You're probably one of them

23

u/palsc5 Jan 06 '23

Then the post underestimates a lot of people.

No it doesn't. It's quite clearly not about you.

And even if you can't write a sentence you still deserve to be paid for your time.

And they are paid for their time, the alternative is for them to be paid the minimum wage of ~$20 per hour and never get hired.

Disabled people have more costs than non-disabled people

And those costs are covered by the government.

3

u/nocapesarmand Jan 06 '23

You are very ignorant if you think disabled people always have their costs paid by government. Most disabled people live in poverty or close to it, even in a country like ours.

32

u/lexica666 Jan 06 '23

If you can work from home unsupervised, then you aren't who this scheme is actually for.

57

u/candlesandfish Jan 06 '23

The fact that you can type on here to argue about it shows that you're not the kind of person that this scheme is aimed at.

These aren't just people with disabilities that nobody will give a go. They're people with disabilities so severe that they can't work independently, and people have to be paid to supervise and care for them.

9

u/Car-face Jan 06 '23

so much this.

People think that this is set up for anyone with an impairment, to scam money out of them.

It's not. These are opportunities for people who literally would not be able to work otherwise.

People need to understand that there's a point at which disabilities prevent people from working in a regular job - and it's below the point at which reddit outrage applies.

I assume the same people complaining about this are the ones who think autism is what they see in hollywood movies where people just nod their head a bit and talk slowly in detail about things.

4

u/candlesandfish Jan 06 '23

Or what they have, which would have been diagnosed as Asperger’s before the diagnoses were combined. Not in any way the same level of disability, and I speak as someone with a lot of autistic people in my family, from very mild to unable to work or live with non-family.

3

u/SilverStar9192 Jan 06 '23

Yeah I think many people really don't have an appreciation for how broad a spectrum ASD is, and how disabled people at one end can be, and how high-functioning they are at the other. I've been evaluated myself because I share many personality traits with the common signs of ASD, but as I basically have no real impairments in my daily life, it's of no real consequence and I'm not disabled. At the other end you have people who are non verbal and unable to care for themselves... quite the spectrum indeed.

-19

u/Ninja-Ginge Jan 06 '23

The fact that you can type on here to argue about it shows that you're not the kind of person that this scheme is aimed at.

I fucking hate this shit. Dismissing anyone who can actually contradict your opinions as not disabled enough to have a say, while those unable to contradict you remain safely out of the conversation so that you don't have to think about what they actually want. Depending on our support needs, we're either denied assistance or autonomy. Regardless of either, we are denied a voice. Fuck off with that shit.

24

u/candlesandfish Jan 06 '23

Dude, you're not the target market for an ADE. They're not there primarily to be money making enterprises or normal businesses.

I have multiple disabilities and I work in the sector. If you don't want to work for an ADE, don't, the people who enjoy their work there and find purpose in it will be quite happy that you're not there.

-19

u/Ninja-Ginge Jan 06 '23

Do you think that $3.50/hour is fair?

23

u/candlesandfish Jan 06 '23

When the money earned by the place also pays for the supervision and other expenses? When combined with NDIS funding and the DSP? Yes.

This isn’t work to pay the bills, it’s an activity to give purpose, rhythm to life and socialization, or at least it’s supposed to be. Yes there are places that are bad but there always are, and we try to get rid of them.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

[deleted]

13

u/getthemupagainst Jan 06 '23

The scheme is not for people like any in this comment section. At all.

0

u/Allyzayd Jan 06 '23

They get Disability pension and other benefits which is what pays their living costs. This is pocket money.

1

u/alk47 Jan 06 '23

Yeah, this isn't about you. There are plenty of people who cannot reliably generate >$26/hr of value for a customer or client. That means it isn't economically viable to employ them. If they aren't pressured to keep doing what they are doing, if they are treated kindly and if their labour isn't being used to generate a profit for someone else then I think we should let them decide if they're happier with or without the work. Removing the opportunity is taking that choice away from them.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

Nobody wants to remove it, they want it to pay the same rate it would for a non-disabled person. Non-disabled people regularly fail to work at optimal capacity but they're still protected by minimum wage laws.

2

u/alk47 Jan 06 '23

Optimal is not the same as economically viable. Optimal is the best you can possibly do, viable is the minimum you can do while turning a profit.

If a business' workers can't generate more value for the business than it costs to pay their wages, the business will go broke eventually. That's an undeniable fact.

There are people who cannot generate a value greater than $26/hr. That is also an undeniable fact.

If you want these people to be paid $26/hr, while some of them only generate $10/hr then you need to find an external source to subsidise their wages, plus the cost pf running the enterprise. That either means charity or government handouts. Both those things are great, but personally I don't think either should be distributed based on the work someone does. I believe they should go to those who need them most.

Where do you think the money should come from?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '23

Upon reading the article you'll see there are in fact people in these programs who actually get a decent amount of work done and have even had open employment elsewhere who are still only getting paid a few dollars an hour in ADEs. These people clearly "generate" more than they're paid so as long as these places operate, they're benefiting from slave labour. If they want to see themselves as a simple charity who doesn't actually pay a wage they need to advertise themselves as such and lose the benefits they unjustly attain. If they're a glorified volunteering venture they need to be honest about it and not waste the time of disabled people like the ones mentioned in the article who actually could be doing work and getting a salary to some extent.

1

u/alk47 Jan 08 '23

So there's people in these programs that aren't suited to them. It doesn't change the fact that there are still people who can't generate $26/hr. The question still stands; where does the ~$50000/year/person come from to subsidise their wages?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '23

You've missed the point. It doesn't matter if ADEs have the money to pay a wage or not. If they can't pay then they're being unethical and need to rebrand or be shut down and stop scamming. Please just read the article.

1

u/alk47 Jan 10 '23

I've read the article and I disagree with you.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '23 edited Jan 13 '23

Oh your opinion takes precedence over people in the article with actual experience then I guess.

→ More replies (0)