What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks

But doesnt the GOP tell us that the reason the federal government shouldnt be involved in helping out the needy is because businesses and individuals can do it themselves? I thought businesses were pure...
 
Re: Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks

Handyman said:
But doesnt the GOP tell us that the reason the federal government shouldnt be involved in helping out the needy is because businesses and individuals can do it themselves? I thought businesses were pure...
Click to expand...

It is very interesting how unfettered capitalism has created the wide income gap that we see today, yet, that is still their only idea. It mirrors health care where they've had 7+ years to come up with something and have offered zero. Turtle Boy will unveil a new Health Care bill today from what we've been told and it should be again devoid of any new ideas other than giving the money to rich people in hopes that their charity and the wages they pay are enough to keep us from serfdom.
 
Re: Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks

Kepler said:
That is a fantastic article. The reporter should win something.

But please don't tar and heather all non-profits just because this one appears to have been run by crooks for awhile. Most of them are run by really good people who are essentially donating their time.
Click to expand...
Obviously the heads of that particular non-profit are using their position to loot it for their own benefit, but I agree with your comments.

I have a close friend who actually heads up a non-profit that seems to be very similar to the one described in the article, although I have no reason to believe that he is getting paid anything close to what those people took for themselves.

The author of the article talked about the debate around the country about the wages paid to these workers, something that my friend has often described as "piece rate." He and I have gone round and round about the appropriateness of having these employees work for very little money.

His non-profit focuses on two areas. They clean facilities, such as churches or office buildings or the like. They also do small packaging work. Basically where the workers are asked to assemble a kit of three or four items into a box and seal it up.

There are two primary issues that I argue about with my friend. The first is the idea of paying someone what might amount to a buck an hour for working. He makes the counter argument that due to the severe disability of some of the employees, you literally could not employ them if you had to pay them even minimum wage. You might have an employee who over the course of one eight hour shift is able to assemble three kits, something it would take you or me less than a minute to do. But the thought is that the participation in the employment setting is beneficial to the disabled persons.

The second point of contention I raise is the one of fair competition. One of the members of my golf league owns a professional cleaning company, and is basically in competition with my other friend for cleaning business in commercial buildings. He says that he simply can't compete with the prices charged by the non-profit, primarily because of the difference in wages, his primary expense.

Honestly, I haven't decided whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.
 
Re: Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks

SJHovey said:
The first is the idea of paying someone what might amount to a buck an hour for working. He makes the counter argument that due to the severe disability of some of the employees, you literally could not employ them if you had to pay them even minimum wage. You might have an employee who over the course of one eight hour shift is able to assemble three kits, something it would take you or me less than a minute to do.
Click to expand...

I have sympathy with this but I would also point out that general principle is violated all the time in business. I'll take myself as an example just because I'm familiar. In my job I do lots of different tasks and one of them is to compose long, detailed synopses of plans and policies for lay audiences. Because of who is attracted to my particular business line, this is something that takes most of my position peers hours and hours to do. Because of my particular skill imbalances (which include, for example, having a lot of trouble understanding mechanical devices more complicated than a fork), I can do it in minutes. Very few minutes. The difference in productivity on that task relative to ordinary co-workers is on the order of the difference you cited between you and a severely disabled person. To some extent this affects our relative pay, but nothing near the order of magnitude of productivity we're talking about. So that tells me the general principle being appealed to by your friend is not bulletproof.

I would think the solution for the non-profit case is pretty obvious, actually: given that employing disabled people is an unalloyed good for reasons ranging from the sociological to psychological to moral to just plain not being a dick, the government should fund a non-trivial portion of the difference in productivity by allowing the non-profit to quantify hours and productivity lost and refunding them the difference. That would make everybody happy except a few minarchist jerks whose cranky unhappiness itself would make people even more happy!
 
Re: Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks

SJHovey said:
Obviously the heads of that particular non-profit are using their position to loot it for their own benefit, but I agree with your comments.

I have a close friend who actually heads up a non-profit that seems to be very similar to the one described in the article, although I have no reason to believe that he is getting paid anything close to what those people took for themselves.

The author of the article talked about the debate around the country about the wages paid to these workers, something that my friend has often described as "piece rate." He and I have gone round and round about the appropriateness of having these employees work for very little money.

His non-profit focuses on two areas. They clean facilities, such as churches or office buildings or the like. They also do small packaging work. Basically where the workers are asked to assemble a kit of three or four items into a box and seal it up.

There are two primary issues that I argue about with my friend. The first is the idea of paying someone what might amount to a buck an hour for working. He makes the counter argument that due to the severe disability of some of the employees, you literally could not employ them if you had to pay them even minimum wage. You might have an employee who over the course of one eight hour shift is able to assemble three kits, something it would take you or me less than a minute to do. But the thought is that the participation in the employment setting is beneficial to the disabled persons.

The second point of contention I raise is the one of fair competition. One of the members of my golf league owns a professional cleaning company, and is basically in competition with my other friend for cleaning business in commercial buildings. He says that he simply can't compete with the prices charged by the non-profit, primarily because of the difference in wages, his primary expense.

Honestly, I haven't decided whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I used to work for Safeway (I know, not a non-profit), and they would allow each store to hire 1-2 disabled people and simply not count them against the stores target labor. They were regular unionized employees in every sense, the stores just got a little relief for hiring them. I think your friends practice is wrong, either pay people fairly or don't hire them. Even though he may not be raking it in, he is likely making money that should be going to the workers.
 
Re: Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks

jerphisch said:
I used to work for Safeway (I know, not a non-profit), and they would allow each store to hire 1-2 disabled people and simply not count them against the stores target labor. They were regular unionized employees in every sense, the stores just got a little relief for hiring them. I think your friends practice is wrong, either pay people fairly or don't hire them. Even though he may not be raking it in, he is likely making money that should be going to the workers.
Click to expand...

Our local supermarkets do this now. The people who actually bag at checkout are typically mid-range mentally handicapped. I have noticed that patrons treat them extremely well, and everybody leaves the store with a smile on their face. I shudder what it would be like in Philly, NYC, Boston, or one of the other "I'm-a-dick-to-prove-myself-hurr-hurr" hellholes farther north on the Acela corridor.
 
Re: Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks

FlagDUDE08 said:
Welcome to people gaming the system. Just like how the Clintons have a "charity" that is really a bribery slush fund. ALL non-profits should be audited.
Click to expand...

Sources?

Last fall, Charity Navigator, recognized for its work evaluating charitable organizations, gave the Clinton Foundation a four star rating, with an overall score of 94.74 out of a hundred. Charitywatch gave the Clinton Foundation an A rating while giving the Red Cross a rating of A-.
 
Re: Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks

burd said:
Sources?

Last fall, Charity Navigator, recognized for its work evaluating charitable organizations, gave the Clinton Foundation a four star rating, with an overall score of 94.74 out of a hundred. Charitywatch gave the Clinton Foundation an A rating while giving the Red Cross a rating of A-.
Click to expand...

The whole 'CINTN FOUNDATION IS TEH DEVBIL!!11! an article of faith on the right. It was one of the things the Russians were loading Twitter and Facebook with before the election. A lot of the rubes bought it.
 
Re: Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks

burd said:
Sources?

Last fall, Charity Navigator, recognized for its work evaluating charitable organizations, gave the Clinton Foundation a four star rating, with an overall score of 94.74 out of a hundred. Charitywatch gave the Clinton Foundation an A rating while giving the Red Cross a rating of A-.
Click to expand...

Look I realize you live in WI so you are bored off your butt but dont engage and certainly dont quote...
 
Re: Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks

Kepler said:
That is a fantastic article. The reporter should win something.

But please don't tar and heather all non-profits just because this one appears to have been run by crooks for awhile. Most of them are run by really good people who are essentially donating their time.
Click to expand...
You are probably right, especially the rank and file but I have a hard time with ********s who steal money from the folks that they are supposedly helping.
 
Re: Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks

walrus said:
You are probably right, especially the rank and file but I have a hard time with ********s who steal money from the folks that they are supposedly helping.
Click to expand...

Well of course. So do I.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top