Regular readers of this page know that, as a rule, we tend to favor government policies and programs that promote responsibility and productivity from citizens.
Our view is that, if government agencies are going to provide assistance to the indigent, for instance, the healthiest way to do that is to require recipients to provide some service for the welfare or other aid they receive. It’s common knowledge that people who are confident and feel good about themselves are more productive, but it works the other way too.
It’s hard to find people who are more proud of their accomplishments than the Civilian Conservation Corps alums who gather each summer at Longbow Group Campground, east of Cascadia, to reminisce on their days in what essentially was a welfare program that required them to work hard. They’re proud of everything they accomplished.
If we get so carried away about that, why are we concerned about the mandate set down by the federal government, reported on page 1, which goes into full effect next week, July 1, in Oregon, essentially putting the kibosh on many of the activities of our local sheltered workshop, Sunshine Industries?
The stated goal of the mandate is to “mainstream” more developmentally disabled workers. What’s wrong with that?
The New Era staffers are well-connected with the disabled community. A Sunshine crew regularly cleans our office. Some of us have friends and relatives who, if they lived in Sweet Home, could be well-served by Sunshine. We’re familiar with their needs and we know their capabilities.
We have serious misgivings about this mandate to “mainstream” the disabled in the job market.
Yes, it would be excellent to see people labeled as “special needs” get “real” jobs. We cannot more strongly voice our support for that concept in the case of those capable of doing so. We want to see people achieve everything they can, that’s possible for them.
But how many people currently in sheltered workshops such as Sunshine are truly capable of working, say, at McDonald’s or the local hardware store, or at Safeway? Can they keep up with the pace of activity, of decision making, of knowledge, that’s required in even a minimum-wage job? Some might be able to, particularly with adequate training. Others can’t.
Do the originators of this idea really think that the majority of employers are going to voluntarily bring in employees who need substantially more training and development than the rest of their workforce? It would be pleasant if that were true, but it’s a pipe dream.
Meanwhile, until the federal and state agencies that have bought into this plan wake up to reality – which will likely take way too long and involve much misery, those incapable of moving into the mainstream – and their caretakers – are going to have to live with this.
Meanwhile, what are Sunshine and other sheltered workshops supposed to do? The mandate forbids traditional activities such as building pallets, shredding paper, cutting kindling wood, doing piecework of various kinds, that have been a staple of organizations such as Sunshine, to keep their clients productively occupied. Which would give the average client more satisfaction and self-worth: sitting idly by or putting staples in a pile of documents that someone needs done?
This mandate is the product of purported experts in disability services, but we wonder what they were ingesting before they created such a blanket approach to this.
That’s the real problem here: Each of these people is an individual. They all have specific needs and one of those is self-worth. Someone with limited abilities has as much a need to feel useful as any of us.
We question the motives behind this mandate, beyond the one stated.
Is it simply to save money? Certainly, paying less to organizations such as Sunshine will save Medicaid money. We’re generally quite enthusiastic when government truly saves our tax dollars – unless, as appears to be the case here, there’s a higher cost elsewhere in human lives or needs. Of all the aid programs out government spends money on, this is the one that should be cut as a last resort.
Could this be to boost the number of taxpayers? Some who work with the disabled have suggested this, but how much actual revenue would be realized from people who likely will never make little more than minimum wage?
Given the climate of individual rights in today’s world, the possibility that this is a deliberate attempt to set the developmentally disabled back to the days when they were ostracized from much of society is unthinkable, though the reality, to us, smacks of this.
Whatever their intentions, this mandate is bad from the get-go for the majority of the people we know who are developmentally disabled.
It’s not going to work well at all, and the fall-out is going to be suffered by people who already have far too many challenges.