Ontario’s Pre-Budget Consultations: Make sure your voice is heard!

Ontario’s Minister of Finance is currently hosting pre-budget consultations with individuals, organizations, associations, and stakeholders across the province.

There are a number of different ways to ensure your voice is heard, and for the first time ever you can provide feedback digitally. 

Below are all the different ways you can share your feedback:

•  Use the Budget Talks website to rate issues that matter the most to you (including disability & employment):

•  Through Twitter by following or Tweeting the Ontario Government at @ONgov. Remember to use #BudgetTalks as your hashtag to ensure you're part of the conversation! 

• Through email submissions to submissions@ontario.ca. Email submissions are a great way to share longer needs, concerns and thoughts.  

• Through in-person and telephone Town Halls. To see dates and time and learn more check this website. 

• Contact the Government of Ontario by email, mail, fax or TTY to share your thoughts. 

There are a number of ways to ensure the needs of the disability community are heard before the budget – lets all make sure the Minister of Finance knows how important a real investment in comprehensive disability supports (i.e. housing, employment, transportation etc.) is to this community. 

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. 

Disability Rights on "Largest Minority"

Tonight at 9PM on WBAI (New York) "Largest Minority" will be talking disability rights. 

I'm lucky to be joining the chat to talk about my research with some amazing academics/advocates. 

Check out the live-stream!

If you miss it you can also check out the archived interview, as well as other archived pieces with disability related discussions on their website. 

Neoliberal Assault on Disability Rights

If you are in New York on Thursday October 4th, consider checking out this talk I will be a part of at NYU.  

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.  

Embracing Disability as a Valued Part of the Human Condition

The recent ruling by British Columbia's Supreme Court to allow Gloria Taylor, a woman with a disability, to end her life has profound impacts for the disability community. While much of the public discourse around this issue is framed in terms of individual choice, the issue of suicide (assisted or otherwise) and disability extends beyond individual cases, as this debate reinforces the notion that disability is automatically linked to a reduced quality of life. 

Rhonda Wiebe, who co-chairs the Council of Canadians with Disabilities' (CCD) ending of life ethics committee wrote a brilliant and eloquent piece in the Winnipeg Free Press that captures the impact these kinds of cases have on Canadians with disabilities. I would encourage anyone wanting to learn more about the disability communities views on this issue to read this piece. 

To add to this issue, I want to share my own discomfort with this debate. Having a sibling with Down syndrome at a time when technology to screen and abort children with Down syndrome is met with overwhelming approval (over 90% of those who learn their child has Down syndrome through these tests will abort), has made the 'quality of life' debate that much more important to me. 

The assumption is almost always that having Down syndrome means a life not worth living. I can assure you that this is not the case. Our peers with Down syndrome are valued and contributing members of society. Down syndrome does not condemn individuals to a life of pain and suffering, nor does its presence disrupt families, or drain communities of resources. Yet, when the issue of prenatal screening is debated, these are the misconceptions that those unfamiliar with Down syndrome tend to embrace as the truth. These notions in turn inform public perception and policy and negatively impact the lives of those with Down syndrome. 

The foundation of current discourse around disability and quality of life issues is based on misinformed, negative, and stereotypical notions of disability. More problematically, we have excluded people with disabilities, who are the true experts in lived experience, almost entirely from this debate. Including these voice and their lived experiences would surly allow us to have a more informed debate.  

A Legacy of Exploitation: Intellectual disability, unpaid labor, & disability services

The New Politics Summer 2012 issue has a symposium on Disability Rights. 


My piece, "A Legacy of Exploitation: Intellectual disability, unpaid labor, & disability services", takes a historical look at the legacy of unpaid work for persons with intellectual disabilities. 


While I'll be adding more as my own research progresses, this piece provides an overview of the issue of unpaid labour and intellectual disability.