Progressive Democratic voters have always asked-----why do southern states mostly Republican using the most Federal program funding-----like Title 1 for special needs and disabled always have the working class voters voting with Republicans and against these progressive programs?
THE ANSWER IS -----SOUTHERN STATES LIKE MARYLAND AND NEO-CONSERVATIVE CITIES LIKE BALTIMORE NEVER ALLOWED THESE FUNDS TO MAKE IT TO SCHOOLS TO BUILD THESE PROGRESSIVE CLASSROOMS FOR THE POOR AND SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS.
Baltimore City residents took to court to try to regain almost a billion dollars in Title 1 funding redirected to corporate profit----they won and still the Maryland Assembly is in contempt of court not repaying Baltimore City schools for that missing money. Yet you do see a proliferation of ARC and corporations disguised as non-profits using those funds to keep the poor at the lowest level of living as possible----working only for food and shelter with taxpayer money earmarked to allow those citizens opportunity and access. Mind you---this misappropriation of Federal funds is illegal and political malfeasance but when Rule of Law is suspended and Equal Protection ignored----
WE HAVE NO RIGHTS AS CITIZENS. WHEN A GOVERNMENT SUSPENDS RULE OF LAW IT SUSPENDS STATUTE OF LIMITATION.
So, as Social Security Disability Insurance Trusts were subprimed for corporate profit----how do states keep their citizens at near-slave like work conditions? Trans Pacific Trade Pact is sitting there waiting for the same Congressional
Clinton neo-liberals that dismantled all oversight and acccountability so these abuses could occur----are ready to pass TPP which WILL BRING SLAVERY AND INDENTURED SERVITUDE BACK TO THE US.
The Americans With Disabilities Act and Title 1 when applied as intended in states across the nation allowed the disabled access to the same broad education in K-12 that gave them the ability to excel on college boards and sent a record number of disabled into mainstream corporate jobs and were tax-paying self-sustaining adults.....not trapped in poverty as in those states misappropriating these funds.
WE NEED TO STOP THE SYSTEMIC FLOW OF OUR FEDERAL TAXPAYER MONEY LOST TO FRAUD AND CORRUPTION TO SIMPLY CONTINUE THESE SUCCESSFUL SAFETY NET PROGRAMS AT A TIME WE NEED THEM MOST.
This is what Baltimore politicians are guilty of and it is Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins controlling the implementation of this misappropriation to profit. See why Baltimore's justice organizations are silent on issues of justice? They are led by people profiting from these frauds!
18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
Below you see a good overview of what has been a requirement for decades since these ADA laws came into effect. These funds were used to subsidize corporations and in this case universities so that they could meet the ADA requirements and this allowed the disabled to expand into these university and corporate workplaces just as everyone else. Why is it worthwhile to use Federal funds to do this? Because it keeps people connected to jobs and a lifestyle that allows them the ability to remain free of social service support as adults and be taxpayers themselves. So, the investment in the K-12 and college years made lifelong independent workers of these people with disabilities. This same idea is tied with Title 1 funding for underserved schools where this education funding moved the poor into higher paying jobs and away from the school to prison pipeline. In states like Maryland and especially in cities like Baltimore where all that money was misappropriated ------
WE HAVE THIRD WORLD POVERTY AND PUBLIC SUBSIDY USED TO KEEP PEOPLE POOR AND DEPENDENT. IT IS BALTIMORE'S POLITICIANS THAT WORK FOR HOPKINS TO KEEP PEOPLE POOR.
You see below that all the expense of getting the disabled set up in a workplace or university came from this Federal fund and could be used for future students and employees once installed----but much of that money never made it because students with disabilities never received the Title 1 funding in K-12 that gave them the level of education to advance to college and on to the workplace.
Workplace Accommodation Fund
It is the policy of The Ohio State University that discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities is prohibited. Pursuant to Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the University provides equal employment opportunities and reasonable accommodation for qualified individuals with disabilities.
In the context of employment, reasonable accommodations are the provision of auxiliary aids or modifications to job duties, the work environment, policies or procedures that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential job functions. The determination of what accommodation is reasonable is contextual and involves a process in which the department and the employee identify the impacts of the disability on job performance and workflow; explore potential accommodations to mitigate those limitations and maintain essential job functions and standards. Human Resources and the ADA Coordinator’s Office are available to assist in determining disability, evaluating its impacts, identifying reasonable accommodations, and resolving disputes related to the accommodation process.
The accommodation process is expected to be interactive with participation from the employee, the supervisor, and the unit’s Human Resources contact. Accommodating employees is considered a shared responsibility between hiring units and central administration.
When there is an accommodation request, The ADA Coordinator’s Office is available to assist in evaluating the presence and impact of a disability, determining appropriate accommodations, and providing funding accommodations.
The ADA Coordinator’s Office can be contacted at (V) (614) 292-6207; (TTY) (614) 688-8605; (Fax) (614) 688-3665; ADA-OSU@osu.edu; http://ada.osu.edu
Employing department’s responsibilities:
If you have difficulty accessing any portions of this website due to incompatibility with adaptive technology, or you have suggestions on how we can make this site more accessible, or you need the information in an alternative format, please contact us at:
Contact Information:
L. Scott Lissner, ADA Coordinator
Address: ADA Coordinator's Office, The Ohio State University,
Ground Level; Hale Hall (formerly Enarson Hall)
154 W. 12th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
_____________________________________________
My best friend at university was a social worker placing the most difficult of disabled in mainstream jobs. Her duties were also making sure the less-severely disabled had that pathway to mainstream employment. So, she kept an eye on the enforcement of regulations around disability and visited workplaces and universities to make sure money was spent as it should. She was a public employee working with the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation in a state that actually enforced Title 1 and ADA.
Her success was amazing.
Meanwhile in states like Maryland the Maryland DLLR is captured by these crony and fraudulent pols that appoint people to ignore all of what DLLR is supposed to do-----like Maryland's former DLLR chief-----PEREZ made Obama's Labor Secretary for just that reason---to make sure all Federal laws that cost corporations money are not enforced. Know who approved of Perez as Labor Secretary? Trumka and national labor union leaders and fake immigrant groups like Casa Maryland pretending his appointment was good because he is Hispanic.
Who are hurt most when ADA and Title 1 are not enforced? Working class labor and immigrant families needing those funds.
Once again----Clinton neo-liberals have captured all leadership in agencies that advocate for labor and justice just so they become the cheerleaders for the dismantling of these vital programs. Remember, the working and middle-class will not see their taxes drop---they will simply move these public subsidies to corporate subsidies as happens in Maryland thanks to Clinton neo-liberals like Baltimore Mayor then Governor O'Malley.
Sheltered workshops is just where Maryland and Baltimore goes!
Disabled workers deserve real choices, real jobs
By Steven J. Taylor
Labor Day, 2002 -- Labor Day is traditionally an occasion for celebrating the American worker and, by implication, the value of work. Unfortunately, people with disabilities of working age don't have much to celebrate.
Not so long ago, work wasn't even a possibility. People with developmental disabilities and their families had two options: stay home or go into an institution. For adults with disabilities living alone or with their families, sheltered workshops emerged in the '50s and '60s as an opportunity to get out of the house and to have something to do during the day.
Much has changed. With the passage of P.L. 94-142 -- now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act -- children with disabilities were guaranteed the right to a free, appropriate public education. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and then the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, outlawed discrimination against people with disabilities. Federal and state vocational rehabilitation programs have been established to help people with disabilities enter the work force. Work incentives have been created for beneficiaries of federal disability benefits, and tax credits and deductions have been developed to encourage employers to hire people with disabilities.
Most significantly, attitudes toward people with disabilities have begun to change. To be sure, prejudice and discrimination are still directed toward disabled people. Yet, as a community and society, we are learning that people with disabilities do not need to be put away or segregated and "sheltered" from society. We are also learning that our communities, neighborhoods, schools, and work places are enriched by the presence and participation of people with disabilities.
It's time to consign sheltered workshops to history. The case against them is strong, not merely on philosophical grounds, but pragmatic ones as well.
Low pay. A 1998 national report indicated that sheltered workshop clients earned an average of $65 per week, while rehabilitation clients working in the competitive labor market earned an average $272. Even for people with severe mental retardation, earnings are significantly higher in competitive employment. Workshop clients earned a weekly average of $37, and workers in competitive employment made $110.
Dead-end placement. Supporters often defend sheltered workshops as a "transitional step" to prepare people to enter the competitive work force. Studies have consistently shown that segregated environments do not prepare people to live, work, or participate in integrated environments. A mere 3.5% of people in sheltered workshops move into competitive employment in a given year. This is one reason why the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration ruled in January 2001 that sheltered workshop placement would no longer qualify as an accepted employment outcome.
Incentive to keep the most productive clients. Sheltered workshops receive funding from a combination of public vocational and rehabilitation programs and contracts from businesses. Like any enterprise, workshops need to provide products of high quality to survive and continue to receive contracts. Workshops have a built-in incentive to retain the most productive and dependable clients. These are precisely the persons most likely to succeed in the competitive labor market, with the fewest supports.
Study after study has shown that people with severe disabilities can thrive in regular employment, given the proper supports. The problem is that the bulk of public funds continue to be channeled into sheltered workshops and other segregated facilities. In 1996, the Arc of the United States recommended, "Federal and state policy shall establish as a workforce development priority, employment of people with mental retardation in competitive settings with supports as necessary."
Ironically, sheltered workshops seldom have served people with the most severe disabilities. These people are deemed unproductive and unlikely to help them fulfill their contract work.
There is no question that people with disabilities can be productive and dependable workers. I am sure that many clients at sheltered workshops are proud of their work. But wouldn't those clients be prouder if they knew that they could perform their skills in real places of employment and be included and accepted into the regular work force -- just like anyone else? And wouldn't those businesses and places of employment be enriched by having workers with disabilities on-site, rather than out of sight?
The success of supported work and school-to-work transition programs demonstrate that people with disabilities do not need to be placed in sheltered facilities. Sheltered workshops need to be phased out of existence.
Steven J. Taylor, Ph.D. is Director of the Center on Human Policy at Syracuse University. His e-mail address is staylo01@mailbox.syr.edu
______________________________________________
For those not recognizing the transition of ADA and Title 1 since Clinton neo-liberals captured the Democratic Party-----these programs went from funding good programs for the disabled to being a corporate source for maximizing profit. As this article states about Walmart and McDonald's sucking our social services dry by pushing workers to poverty wages that leave them unable to support themselves----so to does pushing low-wage workers into these disability programs while keeping the really disabled from being able to reach the mainstream education and jobs the funding was meant to do. IT WAS DELIBERATE; IT WAS MALFEASANCE AND FRAUD; AND WE CAN GET THAT MONEY BACK FOR OUR SSDI TRUST.
All of this does not happen in a vacuum. The labor and justice organizations that should be shouting against this have to be silenced by directors not allowing a word of this go public. The media knowing all of this is happening have to have station managers that make sure none of this information gets out. Universities have to make sure to teach and graduate people who fits into the fraudulent guidelines and make sure no talk of what the ADA is supposed to look like happens----this is done by who is appointed to head universities-----like O'Malley did.
ALL OF THIS LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING ULTIMATELY MOVES BILLIONS TO THE TOP AND A FEW HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO THE PEOPLE ADMINISTERING THE FRAUD.
The article below suggests that getting workers higher wages will end this but it doesn't tell the real story----these practices are preparing for the next step after Trans Pacific Trade Pact is installed----that these public programs will end and Americans will be forced to work in slave conditions just for food and shelter. Imploding these good social programs with systemic fraud as an excuse to end them is exactly what Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons have as a goal.
12/24/2013 @ 9:27AM
Walmart And McDonald's 'Welfare Queens'?
Adam Ozimek , Contributor
I’ve written before about an unfortunate trend where people are trying to raise the status of the minimum wage by slinging mud at welfare programs. But I want to write about this again, because I’m having a difficult time figuring out exactly what the claims of the Walmart and McDonald's MCD +0.15% critics are here, and maybe some other readers are as well. A recent series of articles from Barry Ritholtz are good examples of what is confusing me.
It seems clear to me that Barry thinks welfare policies are a subsidy to corporations that employ low-income workers, but my question is what this subsidy actually means. I’ve seen “subsidy” used repeatedly to describe the relationship between these employers and the policies without describing what the impacts of the subsidy are on the firm. Here is an example from Barry that creates the impression that Walmart and McDonald’s economically benefit from these policies:
My politics are pretty middle-of-the-road, and I find myself offended by subsidizing profitable companies this way. As a taxpayer, there are much better things I would like to see my monies go towards. Some rule changes are needed to end this wasteful spending.
We should get corporate welfare queens off of the public teat. Regardless of your politics, it is an issue that politicians on both the Left and the Right can agree upon.
So “profitable companies” are being “subsidized,” and the public spending goes towards this “wasteful spending” that has these “corporate welfare queens” on the “public teat.” All of these descriptors, however colorful, are still pretty devoid of actual economic claims. The implication of economic claims is certainly there, and readers certainly couldn’t be blamed for assuming that “wasteful spending,” “corporate subsidies” and “receiving so much taxpayer largess” meant that these companies had higher profits due to welfare programs. How else should one interpret a statement like “both giants are the beneficiaries of a surprising amount of federal aid”? But I’d like to see this argument made in actual economic terms instead of colorful vague language so we can actually talk about the plausibility of these impacts.
If these corporations are profiting from the subsidy, it seems the hypothesized impact is through lower labor costs. After all, if it was that food stamps increased household spending which benefitted the stores they shopped at, why on earth would writers be targeting the employers of low-wage workers? If this were the case there would be little reason to hold up Costco on the basis of their higher wages, as we often see, since it is the customers and not employees that determine “subsidy” amounts in this scenario. And with Ritholz at least this is clear, as he refers “these corporations having their full-time employees’ paychecks effectively subsidized by taxpayers.”
So if lower wages is the way that welfare leads to profits, then let’s talk about labor supply and labor demand. To have welfare lead to lower wages would mean that it increases labor supply, so that the welfare leads more people want to work for a given wage. Does this sound plausible to you? Remove yourself from the context of trying to prove or disprove something about corporations and try to think of whether you’d take such a claim very seriously. Outside of the EITC, which most are not talking about here, I don’t see any argument here at all. What’s more puzzling here is that if we are talking about a subsidy that operates through expansion of labor supply, then you might think this is a good thing given our long-term unemployment problem and declining labor force participation.
So how about labor demand? I can’t think of any reason to believe that welfare leads to lower labor demand that would be needed to drive down wages. Nor can I think of any reason why getting rid of welfare would increase labor demand. I keep reading people saying that welfare “allows” firms to pay less, but can you explain this in terms of the behavior of profit maximizing firms? Does anyone care to cite empirical evidence here?
Overall, I’d really like to see someone explicitly defend the implied claim that if food stamps or medicaid were repealed that wages at Walmart and McDonald’s would actually go up. The way that these pieces are written might allow the authors to weasel out of this claim, but there’s no denying the pieces are written with the intention of conveying that welfare contributes to McDonald’s and Walmart’s profits. I’ve seen some claim that these higher profits from welfare are only relative to the minimum wage. But in the same way you could call any policy a “subsidy” or “corporate welfare” simply by judging it relative to a profit tax. This argument simply presumes a priori that the minimum wage is the “right” way to do it, then judges welfare relative to the minimum wage. If that’s your goal then fine, but it’s misleading to call this a “corporate welfare” and a “subsidy”. At the very least stop proclaiming yourself so puzzled that libertarians aren’t on board with your presumption that the minimum wage is the right baseline.
I don’t think there is any real economic argument here, and what we are seeing is entirely an attempt to raise the status of the minimum wage relative to welfare with branding. What gets some people understandably mad about pieces like this is that the authors are also in effect lowering the status of welfare. The basic argument is: welfare has these bad qualities that you aren’t considering enough, and the minimum wage doesn’t. If alleging downsides of welfare succeeds at raising the status of the minimum wage, it has to have done so by making welfare look worse. I don’t think these writers get that.
______________________________________________
The other side of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Disability protection policy is our American veterans. No one received better treatment through the Veterans Administration that veterans for decades. The VA offered life-long care for those making the ultimate sacrifice. The ADA was critical for these vets coming home and needing work.
Flash forward to today and the Veteran's Administration has been largely outsourced and privatized and corporate private non-profits are now receiving the Federal funding that VA Administrations did and you now see the emphasis on getting veterans to volunteer just as student grads from college denied the ability to have a real job and made to do VISTA work----these vets who were sorely used by Bush with never-ending tours are coming home to corporate veterans non-profits telling them to volunteer for their services.
We have Wounded Warrior as a charity group hawking for funds no longer sent to the VA so wounded veterans are now seen as charity cases ----not as people with lifelong benefits and a strong VA supplying them. All of this is an attack on the public system of disability funding and these vets are now going to be treated as those low-wage workers trapped in the corporate ARC-----working for food and shelter.
THINK US MILITARY VETERANS NEED MORE TIME VOLUNTEERING FOR THEIR COUNTRY/!!!!!
Engaging Veterans with Disabilities and Wounded Warriors in National and Community Service
A participant in the Wounded Warrior Project's Soldier Ride heads to the South Lawn of the White House through the Diplomatic Reception Room before the start of their ride, May 4, 2011. The President welcomed the group to the White House in advance of their fifth annual ride on Friday and Saturday. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Background As part of its mission to engage all Americans in service and as directed by the 2009 Edward M. Kennedy Service America Act, the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) places a high priority on engaging veterans in community service, including those with disabilities.
In 2010, the CNCS launched the Engaging Veterans with Disabilities Initiative to enhance the capacity of national service programs to recruit, engage and support veterans with disabilities as active service members in structured volunteer experiences. The Corporation is conducting the Engaging Veterans with Disabilities in National and Community Service Initiative through its National Service Inclusion Project, housed at the Institute for Community Inclusion at the University of Massachusetts Boston, in partnership with CTAT (Center for Technical Assistance and Training) and Operation TBI Freedom at Denver Options.
Objectives The purpose of the initiative is to identify promising practices, products and delivery strategies that can be used to guide the practice, policies and procedures of service programs as they recruit and support veterans with disabilities.
Methods
Common Themes from 2010 Interviews
'A rule preventing reallocation of Social Security funds to men, women, and children who receive disability insurance was one of the first orders of business for the House Republicans, who are holding these people ransom unless these reallocations are offset by either benefit cuts or tax increases. Now, that latter is never going to happen, since you know as well as I do that they’d shoot down a tax increase even if that tax increase directly lead to a larger part of American children having a better future. So what this means is that the GOP is setting up benefit cuts to 11 million people over the next two years'.
THE ANSWER IS -----SOUTHERN STATES LIKE MARYLAND AND NEO-CONSERVATIVE CITIES LIKE BALTIMORE NEVER ALLOWED THESE FUNDS TO MAKE IT TO SCHOOLS TO BUILD THESE PROGRESSIVE CLASSROOMS FOR THE POOR AND SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS.
Baltimore City residents took to court to try to regain almost a billion dollars in Title 1 funding redirected to corporate profit----they won and still the Maryland Assembly is in contempt of court not repaying Baltimore City schools for that missing money. Yet you do see a proliferation of ARC and corporations disguised as non-profits using those funds to keep the poor at the lowest level of living as possible----working only for food and shelter with taxpayer money earmarked to allow those citizens opportunity and access. Mind you---this misappropriation of Federal funds is illegal and political malfeasance but when Rule of Law is suspended and Equal Protection ignored----
WE HAVE NO RIGHTS AS CITIZENS. WHEN A GOVERNMENT SUSPENDS RULE OF LAW IT SUSPENDS STATUTE OF LIMITATION.
So, as Social Security Disability Insurance Trusts were subprimed for corporate profit----how do states keep their citizens at near-slave like work conditions? Trans Pacific Trade Pact is sitting there waiting for the same Congressional
Clinton neo-liberals that dismantled all oversight and acccountability so these abuses could occur----are ready to pass TPP which WILL BRING SLAVERY AND INDENTURED SERVITUDE BACK TO THE US.
The Americans With Disabilities Act and Title 1 when applied as intended in states across the nation allowed the disabled access to the same broad education in K-12 that gave them the ability to excel on college boards and sent a record number of disabled into mainstream corporate jobs and were tax-paying self-sustaining adults.....not trapped in poverty as in those states misappropriating these funds.
WE NEED TO STOP THE SYSTEMIC FLOW OF OUR FEDERAL TAXPAYER MONEY LOST TO FRAUD AND CORRUPTION TO SIMPLY CONTINUE THESE SUCCESSFUL SAFETY NET PROGRAMS AT A TIME WE NEED THEM MOST.
This is what Baltimore politicians are guilty of and it is Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins controlling the implementation of this misappropriation to profit. See why Baltimore's justice organizations are silent on issues of justice? They are led by people profiting from these frauds!
18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
Below you see a good overview of what has been a requirement for decades since these ADA laws came into effect. These funds were used to subsidize corporations and in this case universities so that they could meet the ADA requirements and this allowed the disabled to expand into these university and corporate workplaces just as everyone else. Why is it worthwhile to use Federal funds to do this? Because it keeps people connected to jobs and a lifestyle that allows them the ability to remain free of social service support as adults and be taxpayers themselves. So, the investment in the K-12 and college years made lifelong independent workers of these people with disabilities. This same idea is tied with Title 1 funding for underserved schools where this education funding moved the poor into higher paying jobs and away from the school to prison pipeline. In states like Maryland and especially in cities like Baltimore where all that money was misappropriated ------
WE HAVE THIRD WORLD POVERTY AND PUBLIC SUBSIDY USED TO KEEP PEOPLE POOR AND DEPENDENT. IT IS BALTIMORE'S POLITICIANS THAT WORK FOR HOPKINS TO KEEP PEOPLE POOR.
You see below that all the expense of getting the disabled set up in a workplace or university came from this Federal fund and could be used for future students and employees once installed----but much of that money never made it because students with disabilities never received the Title 1 funding in K-12 that gave them the level of education to advance to college and on to the workplace.
Workplace Accommodation Fund
It is the policy of The Ohio State University that discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities is prohibited. Pursuant to Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the University provides equal employment opportunities and reasonable accommodation for qualified individuals with disabilities.
In the context of employment, reasonable accommodations are the provision of auxiliary aids or modifications to job duties, the work environment, policies or procedures that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential job functions. The determination of what accommodation is reasonable is contextual and involves a process in which the department and the employee identify the impacts of the disability on job performance and workflow; explore potential accommodations to mitigate those limitations and maintain essential job functions and standards. Human Resources and the ADA Coordinator’s Office are available to assist in determining disability, evaluating its impacts, identifying reasonable accommodations, and resolving disputes related to the accommodation process.
The accommodation process is expected to be interactive with participation from the employee, the supervisor, and the unit’s Human Resources contact. Accommodating employees is considered a shared responsibility between hiring units and central administration.
When there is an accommodation request, The ADA Coordinator’s Office is available to assist in evaluating the presence and impact of a disability, determining appropriate accommodations, and providing funding accommodations.
The ADA Coordinator’s Office can be contacted at (V) (614) 292-6207; (TTY) (614) 688-8605; (Fax) (614) 688-3665; ADA-OSU@osu.edu; http://ada.osu.edu
Employing department’s responsibilities:
- Employing units are expected to fund expenses normally provided for all employees, independent of disability status (such as furniture, phones, computers, technology upgrades, professional development opportunities, and other tools of the position.)
- Employing departments are expected to cover the first $500.00 in annual accommodation expenses.
- Employing departments can request assistance from the Workplace Accommodation Fund for qualifying accommodation expenses above $500.00.
- Employing departments are expected to participate in the process of ordering and installing needed equipment or services once they are identified as reasonable accommodations.
- Employing departments are expected to work collaboratively with the ADA Coordinator’s Office to build continuing and anticipated accommodations into their planning process.
- When submitting a request for assistance from the Accommodation Fund, the employing unit’s Human Resources’ contact (or departmental designee) will provide the following information to the ADA Coordinator’s Office:
- Name of employee, the accommodation requested and any documentation already collected in support of the request.
- A copy of the employee’s current job description.
- Available information on any previous accommodations provided.
If you have difficulty accessing any portions of this website due to incompatibility with adaptive technology, or you have suggestions on how we can make this site more accessible, or you need the information in an alternative format, please contact us at:
Contact Information:
L. Scott Lissner, ADA Coordinator
Address: ADA Coordinator's Office, The Ohio State University,
Ground Level; Hale Hall (formerly Enarson Hall)
154 W. 12th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
_____________________________________________
My best friend at university was a social worker placing the most difficult of disabled in mainstream jobs. Her duties were also making sure the less-severely disabled had that pathway to mainstream employment. So, she kept an eye on the enforcement of regulations around disability and visited workplaces and universities to make sure money was spent as it should. She was a public employee working with the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation in a state that actually enforced Title 1 and ADA.
Her success was amazing.
Meanwhile in states like Maryland the Maryland DLLR is captured by these crony and fraudulent pols that appoint people to ignore all of what DLLR is supposed to do-----like Maryland's former DLLR chief-----PEREZ made Obama's Labor Secretary for just that reason---to make sure all Federal laws that cost corporations money are not enforced. Know who approved of Perez as Labor Secretary? Trumka and national labor union leaders and fake immigrant groups like Casa Maryland pretending his appointment was good because he is Hispanic.
Who are hurt most when ADA and Title 1 are not enforced? Working class labor and immigrant families needing those funds.
Once again----Clinton neo-liberals have captured all leadership in agencies that advocate for labor and justice just so they become the cheerleaders for the dismantling of these vital programs. Remember, the working and middle-class will not see their taxes drop---they will simply move these public subsidies to corporate subsidies as happens in Maryland thanks to Clinton neo-liberals like Baltimore Mayor then Governor O'Malley.
Sheltered workshops is just where Maryland and Baltimore goes!
Disabled workers deserve real choices, real jobs
By Steven J. Taylor
Labor Day, 2002 -- Labor Day is traditionally an occasion for celebrating the American worker and, by implication, the value of work. Unfortunately, people with disabilities of working age don't have much to celebrate.
Not so long ago, work wasn't even a possibility. People with developmental disabilities and their families had two options: stay home or go into an institution. For adults with disabilities living alone or with their families, sheltered workshops emerged in the '50s and '60s as an opportunity to get out of the house and to have something to do during the day.
Much has changed. With the passage of P.L. 94-142 -- now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act -- children with disabilities were guaranteed the right to a free, appropriate public education. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and then the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, outlawed discrimination against people with disabilities. Federal and state vocational rehabilitation programs have been established to help people with disabilities enter the work force. Work incentives have been created for beneficiaries of federal disability benefits, and tax credits and deductions have been developed to encourage employers to hire people with disabilities.
Most significantly, attitudes toward people with disabilities have begun to change. To be sure, prejudice and discrimination are still directed toward disabled people. Yet, as a community and society, we are learning that people with disabilities do not need to be put away or segregated and "sheltered" from society. We are also learning that our communities, neighborhoods, schools, and work places are enriched by the presence and participation of people with disabilities.
It's time to consign sheltered workshops to history. The case against them is strong, not merely on philosophical grounds, but pragmatic ones as well.
Low pay. A 1998 national report indicated that sheltered workshop clients earned an average of $65 per week, while rehabilitation clients working in the competitive labor market earned an average $272. Even for people with severe mental retardation, earnings are significantly higher in competitive employment. Workshop clients earned a weekly average of $37, and workers in competitive employment made $110.
Dead-end placement. Supporters often defend sheltered workshops as a "transitional step" to prepare people to enter the competitive work force. Studies have consistently shown that segregated environments do not prepare people to live, work, or participate in integrated environments. A mere 3.5% of people in sheltered workshops move into competitive employment in a given year. This is one reason why the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration ruled in January 2001 that sheltered workshop placement would no longer qualify as an accepted employment outcome.
Incentive to keep the most productive clients. Sheltered workshops receive funding from a combination of public vocational and rehabilitation programs and contracts from businesses. Like any enterprise, workshops need to provide products of high quality to survive and continue to receive contracts. Workshops have a built-in incentive to retain the most productive and dependable clients. These are precisely the persons most likely to succeed in the competitive labor market, with the fewest supports.
Study after study has shown that people with severe disabilities can thrive in regular employment, given the proper supports. The problem is that the bulk of public funds continue to be channeled into sheltered workshops and other segregated facilities. In 1996, the Arc of the United States recommended, "Federal and state policy shall establish as a workforce development priority, employment of people with mental retardation in competitive settings with supports as necessary."
Ironically, sheltered workshops seldom have served people with the most severe disabilities. These people are deemed unproductive and unlikely to help them fulfill their contract work.
There is no question that people with disabilities can be productive and dependable workers. I am sure that many clients at sheltered workshops are proud of their work. But wouldn't those clients be prouder if they knew that they could perform their skills in real places of employment and be included and accepted into the regular work force -- just like anyone else? And wouldn't those businesses and places of employment be enriched by having workers with disabilities on-site, rather than out of sight?
The success of supported work and school-to-work transition programs demonstrate that people with disabilities do not need to be placed in sheltered facilities. Sheltered workshops need to be phased out of existence.
Steven J. Taylor, Ph.D. is Director of the Center on Human Policy at Syracuse University. His e-mail address is staylo01@mailbox.syr.edu
______________________________________________
For those not recognizing the transition of ADA and Title 1 since Clinton neo-liberals captured the Democratic Party-----these programs went from funding good programs for the disabled to being a corporate source for maximizing profit. As this article states about Walmart and McDonald's sucking our social services dry by pushing workers to poverty wages that leave them unable to support themselves----so to does pushing low-wage workers into these disability programs while keeping the really disabled from being able to reach the mainstream education and jobs the funding was meant to do. IT WAS DELIBERATE; IT WAS MALFEASANCE AND FRAUD; AND WE CAN GET THAT MONEY BACK FOR OUR SSDI TRUST.
All of this does not happen in a vacuum. The labor and justice organizations that should be shouting against this have to be silenced by directors not allowing a word of this go public. The media knowing all of this is happening have to have station managers that make sure none of this information gets out. Universities have to make sure to teach and graduate people who fits into the fraudulent guidelines and make sure no talk of what the ADA is supposed to look like happens----this is done by who is appointed to head universities-----like O'Malley did.
ALL OF THIS LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING ULTIMATELY MOVES BILLIONS TO THE TOP AND A FEW HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO THE PEOPLE ADMINISTERING THE FRAUD.
The article below suggests that getting workers higher wages will end this but it doesn't tell the real story----these practices are preparing for the next step after Trans Pacific Trade Pact is installed----that these public programs will end and Americans will be forced to work in slave conditions just for food and shelter. Imploding these good social programs with systemic fraud as an excuse to end them is exactly what Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons have as a goal.
12/24/2013 @ 9:27AM
Walmart And McDonald's 'Welfare Queens'?
Adam Ozimek , Contributor
I’ve written before about an unfortunate trend where people are trying to raise the status of the minimum wage by slinging mud at welfare programs. But I want to write about this again, because I’m having a difficult time figuring out exactly what the claims of the Walmart and McDonald's MCD +0.15% critics are here, and maybe some other readers are as well. A recent series of articles from Barry Ritholtz are good examples of what is confusing me.
It seems clear to me that Barry thinks welfare policies are a subsidy to corporations that employ low-income workers, but my question is what this subsidy actually means. I’ve seen “subsidy” used repeatedly to describe the relationship between these employers and the policies without describing what the impacts of the subsidy are on the firm. Here is an example from Barry that creates the impression that Walmart and McDonald’s economically benefit from these policies:
My politics are pretty middle-of-the-road, and I find myself offended by subsidizing profitable companies this way. As a taxpayer, there are much better things I would like to see my monies go towards. Some rule changes are needed to end this wasteful spending.
We should get corporate welfare queens off of the public teat. Regardless of your politics, it is an issue that politicians on both the Left and the Right can agree upon.
So “profitable companies” are being “subsidized,” and the public spending goes towards this “wasteful spending” that has these “corporate welfare queens” on the “public teat.” All of these descriptors, however colorful, are still pretty devoid of actual economic claims. The implication of economic claims is certainly there, and readers certainly couldn’t be blamed for assuming that “wasteful spending,” “corporate subsidies” and “receiving so much taxpayer largess” meant that these companies had higher profits due to welfare programs. How else should one interpret a statement like “both giants are the beneficiaries of a surprising amount of federal aid”? But I’d like to see this argument made in actual economic terms instead of colorful vague language so we can actually talk about the plausibility of these impacts.
If these corporations are profiting from the subsidy, it seems the hypothesized impact is through lower labor costs. After all, if it was that food stamps increased household spending which benefitted the stores they shopped at, why on earth would writers be targeting the employers of low-wage workers? If this were the case there would be little reason to hold up Costco on the basis of their higher wages, as we often see, since it is the customers and not employees that determine “subsidy” amounts in this scenario. And with Ritholz at least this is clear, as he refers “these corporations having their full-time employees’ paychecks effectively subsidized by taxpayers.”
So if lower wages is the way that welfare leads to profits, then let’s talk about labor supply and labor demand. To have welfare lead to lower wages would mean that it increases labor supply, so that the welfare leads more people want to work for a given wage. Does this sound plausible to you? Remove yourself from the context of trying to prove or disprove something about corporations and try to think of whether you’d take such a claim very seriously. Outside of the EITC, which most are not talking about here, I don’t see any argument here at all. What’s more puzzling here is that if we are talking about a subsidy that operates through expansion of labor supply, then you might think this is a good thing given our long-term unemployment problem and declining labor force participation.
So how about labor demand? I can’t think of any reason to believe that welfare leads to lower labor demand that would be needed to drive down wages. Nor can I think of any reason why getting rid of welfare would increase labor demand. I keep reading people saying that welfare “allows” firms to pay less, but can you explain this in terms of the behavior of profit maximizing firms? Does anyone care to cite empirical evidence here?
Overall, I’d really like to see someone explicitly defend the implied claim that if food stamps or medicaid were repealed that wages at Walmart and McDonald’s would actually go up. The way that these pieces are written might allow the authors to weasel out of this claim, but there’s no denying the pieces are written with the intention of conveying that welfare contributes to McDonald’s and Walmart’s profits. I’ve seen some claim that these higher profits from welfare are only relative to the minimum wage. But in the same way you could call any policy a “subsidy” or “corporate welfare” simply by judging it relative to a profit tax. This argument simply presumes a priori that the minimum wage is the “right” way to do it, then judges welfare relative to the minimum wage. If that’s your goal then fine, but it’s misleading to call this a “corporate welfare” and a “subsidy”. At the very least stop proclaiming yourself so puzzled that libertarians aren’t on board with your presumption that the minimum wage is the right baseline.
I don’t think there is any real economic argument here, and what we are seeing is entirely an attempt to raise the status of the minimum wage relative to welfare with branding. What gets some people understandably mad about pieces like this is that the authors are also in effect lowering the status of welfare. The basic argument is: welfare has these bad qualities that you aren’t considering enough, and the minimum wage doesn’t. If alleging downsides of welfare succeeds at raising the status of the minimum wage, it has to have done so by making welfare look worse. I don’t think these writers get that.
______________________________________________
The other side of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Disability protection policy is our American veterans. No one received better treatment through the Veterans Administration that veterans for decades. The VA offered life-long care for those making the ultimate sacrifice. The ADA was critical for these vets coming home and needing work.
Flash forward to today and the Veteran's Administration has been largely outsourced and privatized and corporate private non-profits are now receiving the Federal funding that VA Administrations did and you now see the emphasis on getting veterans to volunteer just as student grads from college denied the ability to have a real job and made to do VISTA work----these vets who were sorely used by Bush with never-ending tours are coming home to corporate veterans non-profits telling them to volunteer for their services.
We have Wounded Warrior as a charity group hawking for funds no longer sent to the VA so wounded veterans are now seen as charity cases ----not as people with lifelong benefits and a strong VA supplying them. All of this is an attack on the public system of disability funding and these vets are now going to be treated as those low-wage workers trapped in the corporate ARC-----working for food and shelter.
THINK US MILITARY VETERANS NEED MORE TIME VOLUNTEERING FOR THEIR COUNTRY/!!!!!
Engaging Veterans with Disabilities and Wounded Warriors in National and Community Service
A participant in the Wounded Warrior Project's Soldier Ride heads to the South Lawn of the White House through the Diplomatic Reception Room before the start of their ride, May 4, 2011. The President welcomed the group to the White House in advance of their fifth annual ride on Friday and Saturday. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Background As part of its mission to engage all Americans in service and as directed by the 2009 Edward M. Kennedy Service America Act, the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) places a high priority on engaging veterans in community service, including those with disabilities.
In 2010, the CNCS launched the Engaging Veterans with Disabilities Initiative to enhance the capacity of national service programs to recruit, engage and support veterans with disabilities as active service members in structured volunteer experiences. The Corporation is conducting the Engaging Veterans with Disabilities in National and Community Service Initiative through its National Service Inclusion Project, housed at the Institute for Community Inclusion at the University of Massachusetts Boston, in partnership with CTAT (Center for Technical Assistance and Training) and Operation TBI Freedom at Denver Options.
Objectives The purpose of the initiative is to identify promising practices, products and delivery strategies that can be used to guide the practice, policies and procedures of service programs as they recruit and support veterans with disabilities.
Methods
- Interviews with veterans who are current or former AmeriCorps or other national service volunteers.
- Discussion groups with active duty soldiers from the Wounded Transition Units and veterans to speak about what would engage them in national or community service.
Common Themes from 2010 Interviews
- Veterans feel a sense of belonging and regain their identity through service and volunteerism.
- AmeriCorps gives veterans and soldiers the opportunity to get back into the workforce and develop new skill sets.
- Service and volunteerism is a satisfying and structured opportunity to serve our country in another way.
- AmeriCorps gets soldiers and veterans out of their comfort zone and teaches them a great deal.
- Veterans find that helping others is a way to help themselves.
- Knowing what’s in it for them upfront, such as the stipend and benefits, including the educational benefits, and their value.
- Messages that are authentic.
- Creating materials that use patriotic colors.
- Stressing volunteer service is way for veterans to serve their country and a way to serve those in their communities who need help.
- Emphasizing that service gives soldiers a sense of belonging, purpose, inclusion, human connection and helps with self-esteem and identifies challenges.
- Wanting to have their interests matched with program goals and activities.
'A rule preventing reallocation of Social Security funds to men, women, and children who receive disability insurance was one of the first orders of business for the House Republicans, who are holding these people ransom unless these reallocations are offset by either benefit cuts or tax increases. Now, that latter is never going to happen, since you know as well as I do that they’d shoot down a tax increase even if that tax increase directly lead to a larger part of American children having a better future. So what this means is that the GOP is setting up benefit cuts to 11 million people over the next two years'.
RSS Feed
