Disability Politics in a Global Economy - Available for pre-order

Disability Politics in a Global Economy is now available for pre-order. 

I'm incredibly excited to be a part of this book, which examines the legacy of Marta Russell. 

This interdisciplinary collection, which helps situate the marginalization of disabled bodies, draws on the work of scholars and activists interested in law, political economy, education, and disability studies. 

Marta Russell scholarship and activism have left an important mark where disability rights are concerned, and as the chapters in this collection illustrate, her insights continue to shape the disability rights movement. 

Disability, Exploitation, and Work

While it's not a new issue, exploitive labour practices for disabled folks in Canada continues to get sporadic media coverage. Most recently, a piece appeared on rabble.ca about these practices. 

This piece, which I am quoted in, touches on my own research around sheltered workshops. It also includes insight from Dr. Ravi Malholtra - who has been instrumental in addressing permits that allow employers to pay disabled employees below the minimum wage. 

It is important to continue to address these forms of economic exploitation as these archaic practices persist (and even thrive) where disabled bodies are concerned. 

Exploitive Labour for Disabled is not Work

The federal government's announcement to shut down a wastepaper disposal plant sparked public outrage as it was reported 50 individuals with disabilities would lose their "jobs". While this sudden change would indeed impact the daily routine of 50 people with disabilities (and this is certainly something that must be addressed), the public outcry and government's quick extension of this program ignore the real problem at hand. 

This program isn't a form of employment for persons with disabilities. This program is part of a larger system that routinely promotes exploitive labour as a policy solution for persons with disabilities. This is not acceptable. 

The coverage of this specific case has ignored some very important points with respect to this labour. While some people did ask important questions about these "wages" ($1.15 an hour), much of the media coverage on this issue defers back to OCAPDD (the agency that runs this program) to clarify this issue. This is where a critical lens is lacking. 

There is a very good reason why OCAPDD classifies this pay as an "honorarium" rather than a "wage". This is a purposeful measure to get around existing employment standards. This is also why these types of programs do not classify recipients as "employees" but rather frame these experiences differently. In OCAPDD's case, these activities are framed as "enclave-type work experiences for adults with developmental disabilities." Yet, in terms of drumming up public support for this program, OCAPDD had no problem framing this issue as one in which 50 individuals with disabilities would callously lose their "jobs" because of a dispassionate government  decision. 

OCAPDD's executive director was quick to address the publics discomfort with these low wages, claiming in news reports their "ideal" aim was to get workers to a minimum wage and suggested the reason the agency is not there yet is because this program was establish "long before any concern about that kind of standard." This isn't true. In 1973 the Welch Green Paper noted concerns with scandalously low wages within community-based sheltered workshops and suggested the need for more "normalized" labour relations that took into consideration the needs of families, individuals, and industry. We have known for a long time that these kinds of programs are problematic - to frame this discomfort as a new issue or concern is disingenuous. 

In fact, there is ample research that illustrates the success of non-exploitive program alternatives. This includes research that compares these types of programs to supported employment models and finds persons with disabilities overwhelmingly prefer supported employment. Additionally, research on this issue also finds non-exploitive models are more successful in terms of transitioning into paid employment, facilitating stronger social networks, and indicate significantly higher levels of success in a number of indicators linked to inclusion. In short, research show us the many ways OCAPDD's model fails the employment and inclusion goals of persons with disabilities (if you want to learn more on this issue the National Disability Rights Network has a great piece). 

There are bigger questions we need to be asking including the role of various levels of government in supporting these programs, corporate incentives in contracting this labour out and parallel impacts this has on existing workforces, why people with disabilities are not being hired directly by these contractors, and greater transparency in terms of how agencies like OCAPDD operate both as a social services and a business. 

This is not to say that participants did not enjoy these activities, or that the federal government does not have a responsibility to these individuals. Rather, this case illustrates the need to critically evaluate supports and services that provide profit and cost-saving measures for organizations and contractors at the expense of persons with intellectual disabilities. There are solutions that support the training and social needs of participants without violating employment standards -  we need to demand these. 

Campaign for Peace and Democracy Coverage of Disability Rights

The Campaign for Peace and Democracy has posted speaking notes from our recent presentations around disability rights (including my piece on unpaid labour and intellectual disability). 

Check these out for some great insight into the history of disability rights and the continued fight for equity. 

While there be sure to check out some of the amazing work the Campaign for Peace and Justice is doing to promote progressive and non-militaristic foreign policy. 

When will workers with Intellectual Disabilities get a fair wage?

A report about unionized workers at a state owned building in Ohio being replaced by non-unionized workers with intellectual disabilities caught my eye this week. While the report details the problematic nature of replacing unionized employees with non-unionized employees, for me this particular case speaks directly to the kinds of issues my own research around disability and employment seeks to address. 

On the surface this case illustrates the way unionized work has been demonized in recent years and positioned as a luxury taxpayers can no longer afford. Yet, upon closer examination this is clearly not the case. Indeed as the report illustrates, unionized employees were struggling to support their families. 

While a spokesperson for the Department of Administrative Services defended this move by stating that this move was also in accordance with state policy around hiring persons with disabilities, this line of reason is problematic for several reasons. While gaining employment for persons with disabilities, specifically persons with intellectual disabilities (who face significant employment barriers), is important, this issue is far more complex. 

When we as a community advocate for paid employment, we are not just seeking a paycheck. Fair and equitable employment includes benefits, job protection, opportunities for advancement, and the same wages non-disabled workers receive. In this particular case, the state has eliminated unionized positions while at the same time bringing down the average hourly wage of $10 for non-disabled unionized workers, to $7.85 an hour for workers with intellectual disabilities. While persons with intellectual disabilities may have found employment, there should be no debate that there is a significant economic benefit for the state in reducing wages and benefits. 

There is also no question that with this move the state is benefiting from the exploitation of workers with disabilities. By contracting this labour through Lott Industries (a service organization for persons with intellectual disabilities), the state has reduced their overall costs by $75,000 (not at all surprising since the working conditions have been drastically altered under this new arrangement as Lott industries' 'participants' are non-unionized). The trend of contracting out to disability organizations whose mandate is to find "employment opportunities" for persons with intellectual disabilities highlights problematic aspects within the disability service sector that see these organizations operating like for-profit companies rather than as advocates for social and economic equity. Although veiled in the rhetoric of 'opportunities for employment', participants do not receive the same wages or benefits of their non-disabled peers, and are often reduced to menial and repetitive tasks with little or no opportunity for advancement. 

Fair and equitable wages and working conditions for persons with intellectual disabilities are   in the best interest of employees with disabilities. Therefore any 'disability organization' that gains a competitive advantage by 'selling' the labour of persons with disabilities at a reduced rate is directly profiting from the marginalized economic status of workers with disabilities. 

Despite being framed as an act of goodwill by the state towards the disability community, there are no 'winners' when wages are reduced and benefits are cut. As a community, we should be outraged when employment opportunities for persons with disabilities are advanced on the grounds that workers with disabilities are less deserving than their non-disabled peers.