These employees are sometimes paid a wage that is less than minimum wage.
Opponents of this practice say that these workers are being exploited. Others defend the practice saying that the real value afforded the worker is having the chance to work, something to give their life meaning and routine. To make them feel of value.
Is it ethical to pay disabled workers less because of their handicap?
Defend your answer.
To pay someone a lesser wage for the same work because of a physical or mental impairment is unjust. It devalues the worth of the individual, because they are viewed as different or undesirable. This opens opportunity to discriminate based on a subjective perspective of 'how disabled' a disabled person is. Should one get paid more if theirs is a physical impairment as opposed to a mental impairment? Does the severity of the disability drive the wage down while keeping the workload the same?
ReplyDeleteI think to act in such a discriminatory way violates Childress and Beauchamp's Justice aspect of Principlism (Ethics). Justice is a standard or due measure, best defined as fair, equitable and appropriate treatment in light of what is due or owed persons. In my opinion, withholding pay on sole grounds of disability while still attaining work services is a teleological approach to exploitation.
For me, it comes down purely to expectations and performance. If we need labor to perform a particular task, and the applying individual is able to perform that task - he or she should be granted the wages commensurate with that labor. This maxim is a categorical imperative in its essence. By claiming that a disabled laborer should acknowledge the value of contribution as a substitute is asking them to appreciate what has been granted to them on the basis of a business elite's deontological perspective. Effectively, by not abiding by the law instituted by the representative body of our democratic republic, we would rely on the judgement of groups with less perspective and more bias. Now, this raises a question of "do the representative policy makers have an appropriate and relative understanding of the environment and generation of which they are representing and for which they are making decisions?"
ReplyDeleteI digress.
Title I of the American Disabilities Act of 1980 prohibits pay discrimination on the basis of handicap; however, the Federal Labor Standards Act offers an exemption to minimum wage requirements for those individual with disabilities whose physical or mental impairments impact their capacity to produce.
Therefore the principle is not a categorical imperative by nature, but does not conflict with the thought that a worker should be provided wages commensurate with his or her performance. What these laws create is a market place that strengthens the open market. Should Americans with disabilities be discriminated in the workplace? No, but workers should be given wages for the services they provide, regardless of classification.
From economics, by maintaining a standard expectation of output and labor, the Marginal Product of Labor Formula can remain consistent. The MPL is found by dividing the change of output by the change in labor. So, as labor increases by one unit, the theory is that the output would increase proportionally. This equation is not have a direct relationship. Rather, it is exhibited through a curve that shows that after equilibrium, as one unit of labor is added, quantity actually declines. This makes sense. As the capacity of capital to accommodate one more labor unit is not present, a crowding effect occurs. I could surmise that possibly, the equilibrium could occur earlier with the addition of a disabled employee. For this example, let's classify the disabled employee as unable to complete the task to the same standard as peer employees. This would mean the employee in question is "crowding" the production line and negatively impacting the Marginal Product of Labor. Unfortunately, I imagine that is the stereotype that many hiring authorities take but are thankfully restricted from preventing hiring on this basis. Instead, accommodation is required and it benefits the organization to invest more capital to bring that employee to the acceptable standard.
Wow. Great tie in of MPL to the issue, Garrett! The ethics approach, and legal vs. ethical issues you used in the beginning were strong, but MPL totally justifies from an economics perspective that which I said at my Org Ethics orals. I agree that all workers should be compensated for their labor - and that if the level or quality of work was equal to other able-bodied/non-disabled workers -- then they should be paid for it regardless of their disability. I like that you actually justified that type of argument with economic theory. Nice integration! Mind if I borrow that when the time comes? :-)
ReplyDeleteWow Garrett! Thanks for adding concepts I know I need to go back and refresh on. Nice integration of multiple disciplines. Add a multi-variable equation to this, and we could have talked it in institutional econ!
ReplyDeleteIt depends...since most disabled workers already receive state and federal assistance (Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance, etc.), wouldn't it be considered "double dipping" if they were to get equal pay AND still receive disability compensation?
ReplyDeleteMany argue that Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was necessary because people with disabilities could not be competitive employees. This law was passed in 1938 to allow employers holding special wage certificates to pay their workers with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage. Arguments against Section 14(c) of the FLSA claim that if disabled workers were equipped with the proper training, support services, and opportunities, they could be employed in competitive, integrated work environments. If the said disabled workers receive competitive wages, it would afford them the opportunities to leave the rolls of the aforementioned social programs.
To answer the question, if disabled workers have equal jobs as their non-disabled counterparts, they should receive equal pay. Section 14(c) discriminates against people with disabilities. Even though the exemption was passed with the original intent of ensuring that open-market employers hire people with disabilities, it has simply provided a subsidy for sheltered workshops. Furthermore, the correlation of wages paid and the disabled workers' productivity is neither reliable, nor valid.