Hi everyone, I have been catching up on this sub this evening, having fallen way behind because over the last few weeks I have been working on the We’re with U fundraiser event for blind people still in Ukraine, and those who have become refugees. For those who have been following that, it is amazing to see we have now raised over $103,000.
Anyway, as part of my catch-up, I came across the thread referencing my article in a New Zealand newspaper about ableist language. Comments are now closed so I would usually leave it at that, but there is a factual error I would like to put right. Before I do that, notwithstanding the denigration and personal attacks from a few, there was some interesting debate in the thread which I think reflects the variety of views in our community on the topic of ableist language.
I would like to set the record straight about Workbridge, the organization of which I am CEO. A suggestion was made that Workbridge, and therefore I, am a party to sub-minimum wage jobs. That is simply untrue.
First, Workbridge is fully disability led. Our Council President, Board Chair, and I as CEO, are all disabled. Our Constitution ensures that we are disability driven. We have employment consultants across New Zealand and our mission is to assist disabled people to find work. We do this from both sides of the job market. On the jobseeker side, we work on job readiness, positive disclosure, CV preparation etc. But even if you have the best product in the world, it doesn’t matter if no one’s buying. So we work proactively with businesses on their disability confidence. We work through the fears and misconceptions some employers have that disabled people are less productive and a health and safety risk. I think many of us would agree that the single biggest barrier we face is other people’s negative attitudes. Acknowledging the fears and talking through them is critical. That is one reason, by the way, why ableist language matters so much and is so destructive.
As many of us know, unemployment is a serious issue in our community, but we feel we are making positive progress, and to be even a small part of helping people obtain the economic independence and dignity of employment is a privilege.
While it is correct that unfortunately, New Zealand, like too many countries, does make provision for subminimum wages, this has nothing to do with Workbridge, which finds jobs in the mainstream labour market and has actively campaigned against subminimum wages for many years.
As a poster in the thread pointed out, wage subsidies are a different tool, and I think in some cases they may be a useful tool. For example, if the Government will fund half of a disabled person’s wage, paid at the same rate as anyone else would receive, it may create an incentive to give a disabled person a chance. If an employer pays, say, $60,000 for a nondisabled worker, but can get an equally capable disabled worker for $30,000 because the Government is paying half the salary for a year, it gives the disabled person a foot in the door and helps sweeten the deal for the employer. That is very different from subminimum wages, which we deplore.
Another programme we have here is that if an accommodation is a significant cost, such as expensive assistive technology, the Government will fund that equipment.
I certainly understand that people will disagree with a point of view I might express and that is fine, but I did want to correct this error of fact because subminimum wages are repugnant in my view.
It is great to have this forum where we can discuss such a wide range of issues.
Take care.