If you think that $7.50/hr is too low of a minimum wage or that $2.13/hr is too low of a minimum wage for tipped positions, you'd surely balk at 23 cents/hr; hopefully, those who find the current minimum wages reasonable would also balk at the prospect of one making only $9.20 a week for a typical 8-hour workday. Yet, since 1939 under section 14c of the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act, it is perfectly legal for an employer to pay workers with disabilities below the minimum wage. This act allows for employers to use a ratio of how "productive" an employee with a disability is to the "average" worker without disabilities and adjust the pay accordingly; however, there are few guidelines given for how this productivity is measured and some companies, such as Goodwill, have taken this to grotesque extremes and paying employees as little as the example above.

One seldom sees non-disabled workers being compared against some "average productivity" and having their pay adjusted accordingly--less than optimal performers without disabilities do not have their wage cut beneath the federal minimum, and, in fact, many workers with disabilities are capable of being equally or near-equally as productive as non-disabled workers.

The Transition to Independence Act (S.1604) (explained more simply by the Autistic Self Advocacy Network here) aims to level the employment field. Introduced June 18, 2015 and currently being discussed, this bill would give financial bonuses to states that are a Medicaid Buy-In state (offers the Medicaid Buy-In program in which working individuals with disabilities can buy insurance from Medicaid) if said states meet certain standards.

Decreasing the population of workers with disabilities in segregated work programs.

Brown v. Board Of Education ruled in 1954 that separate is not equal when it comes to education. Separate is also not equal when it comes to employment. Many people with disabilities work or are trained in "work programs" designed specifically and exclusively for disabled workers. While this may seem like a good idea on the surface, a literature review on disabled workers and employment conducted in 2008 by Tony Powers of the International Labor Office concludes that segregated work programs:

"segregate people with disabilities from the rest of society, perpetuating isolation and low community awareness; do not help people with disabilities integrate into mainstream society; tend to “track” people with disabilities into stereotyped training activities and employment; and often do not provide necessary vocational skill certification or employability skills for participation in the labour market."



These programs tend to train employees in an environment unnatural to that of mainstream employment, thus, Powers argues, limiting the employment potential of those trained under such programs. The literature review also points out the cost inefficiency of many of these programs:

"For the average cost of employing one disabled person in a Remploy factory for one year, Remploy can currently successfully help four people gain jobs with mainstream employers." (Reploy, 2007a)

To meet the requirements for the financial incentive for states under this bill, a state would have to decrease the population of workers in such settings by 10 percent each year from the prior year's population of such workers; an additional bonus may be granted for every additional 10 percent reduction of workers in these settings.



Increasing the population of workers with disabilities in integrated work programs.



The aforementioned literature review also analyzes the effectiveness of inclusive work programs in which workers with disabilities are trained and work alongside non-disabled workers. The outcome for workers in integrated work programs are usually much better than the outcome for workers in segregated programs:

"The American Association of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities found that 'individuals with disabilities participating in supported employment increased their annual earnings 490 per cent' and 'on average, hourly earnings increased from US$0.84 to 4.13.'"

Additionally,

“Supported Employment had significantly better competitive employment outcomes than controls” with the mean across the studies being 60 percent for supported employment compared with 22 percent for controls." (Becker 2006)

Simply put, integration pays more and lands workers more and better jobs.

It may be useful to note the use of the term "supported employment," or employment in a mainstream/integrated setting in which those with disabilities are given the appropriate level of accommodations, training, and support required for an individual to succeed at a specific job. Thus, "integrated" doesn't necessarily mean sticking those with disabilities in a regular work environment with no supports or modifications (although some with disabilities are perfectly capable of doing such); in many cases, integrated simply means self-directed (that the individuals with disabilities make their own goals) and alongside those without disabilities. Both the literature review and the text of the bill advocate for supported employment where it is needed.



In this is where the name of the bill, "Transition to Independence," comes into play. People with disabilities typically want to be as independent as possible in all aspects of life, including employment, but many people with disabilities require additional supports to help them reach that goal.

The requirements for the financial incentives for states are similar to that above: a minimum of a 10 percent increase per year in the population of workers with disabilities in integrated work programs with an additional bonus for every additional 10 percent increase.

Paying workers with disabilities a fair wage.

Though doing so may cost employers more in the short-term, a fair wage for all has its long-term benefits. For one, those with disabilities would have a great incentive to join the workforce. At present, the sub-minimum wage makes working while maintaining one's needs cost-inefficient for some people with disabilities. This allows individuals with disabilities to meet their financial and medical needs and encourages greater participation of individuals with disabilities in the workforce (at current, only about 18.4 percent of people with disabilities are employed, compared to about 68 percent for the general population). It also is a step closer to treating individuals with disabilities as being of equal worth as those without, something which is direly needed but still lacking in our society.

Also, people with disabilities are three times more likely to live below the poverty line than those without disabilities; paying people with disabilities a fair wage can help lessen this disparity.

Thus, this bill calls for employees with disabilities to be "compensated at or above the minimum wage, but not less than the customary wage and level of benefits paid by the employer for the same or similar work performed by an individual without a disability."

The bill also calls for such measures as increasing "inter-agency collaboration" between employment agencies, educational entities (such as school systems), vocational rehabilitation (job agencies) and Medicaid, as well as initiatives to hire more individuals with disabilities in state government jobs.

As of July 15, 2015, the bill is currently being discussed in congressional committee; should the bill be passed by both houses and signed into law, ten eligible states will be selected "no later than June 30, 2016" for the "demonstration program." The above incentives will be "demonstrated" for five years, though, "no later than December 31, 2019," the Secretary of Health and Human Services will submit a report to Congress that gives recommendations on whether to continue, expand, modify, or terminate the program.







The bill is widely supported by disability advocates, such as the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, and the National Down Syndrome Congress. If you would like to see this bill pass, reach out to your senators, whether that be through phone, email, and/or social networking. It may not be until 2021 until we have any real data on the effectiveness of this program, but for the sake of millions of people with disabilities across the United States, it is long past time that we try something.