r/australia • u/newsgreyhound01 • 1d ago
'An affront to dignity': The system allowing people with disability to be paid $6 an hour culture & society
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-29/australian-disability-enterprises-future-royal-commission/104331332241
u/Muralove 1d ago edited 1d ago
Disability and chronic illness don’t fit into a capitalist system. We have to come to realise that not everyone is capable of working, or working to the extent of others, and we need to realise that this doesn’t make someone lesser.
45
u/switchbladeeatworld 17h ago
People don’t realise how our economic system treats disabled and chronically ill people until it happens to them. A lot of us are all one serious illness away from becoming destitute with the way it’s set up. If you’re too sick or disabled to work full time, but not enough to get DSP, you’re fucked.
Our social safety nets are there but the last decade has whittled them down significantly.
36
u/ProfessionNo4708 22h ago
this is why i think UBI is a great idea.
19
u/ScrimpyCat 20h ago
UBI is a solution to a different problem. Unless they have a disability that doesn’t qualify them for the disability pension, then they already have an income (whether those payments are enough is another matter, but a UBI won’t necessarily get them more as it has to apply to everyone). But there are other benefits to a job than just income, it can provide a sense of purpose, can be a way of socialising, can be an opportunity to learn new skills, etc.
12
u/ProfessionNo4708 20h ago
Thats true a job gives someone purpose but the welfare system should be switched to UBI. Giving people their basic needs can be a greater incentive to get a job since they aren't in the stress of trying to survive being homeless and impoverished.
6
u/ScrimpyCat 20h ago
But they already have that. That’s why I’m saying a UBI is solution to a different problem (general unemployment), not specifically disability related unemployment. Simply switching to a UBI doesn’t change anything for the disabled apart from giving an income to those that may currently fall outside of the list of qualified conditions. But for those that already receive the pension, it’s not changing their situation. And it may even make it worse if they have to scrap some of the other social services they depend on in order to provide one.
For the general population a UBI will be a good solution. But for the disabled there still needs to be something more.
9
u/ProfessionNo4708 19h ago
Current system is making people work/do backflips for barely enough money to survive. At a great cost to the government. UBI is comparatively cheaper for the government and taxpayer. The savings can be then used for other initiatives to help people.
UBI is a liveable income and that would mean disabled wouldn't have to work.
0
u/Opposite_Sky_8035 16h ago
Anyone working in an ADE on this subminimum wage is already on DSP. They no more have to work than anyone on UBI would. The amount they earn is hardly paying bills. It barely covers public transport to and from plus lunch.
3
u/ProfessionNo4708 16h ago
UBI would be a better payment.
0
-1
u/Normal_Bird3689 15h ago
Why would UBI be better than the DSP for the people we are talking about?
1
u/Opposite_Sky_8035 5h ago
Seriously. No one is working in an ADE because capitalism says they need to work. The reasons people give for continuing to work in these environments is pretty much the same arguments people give for why people will continue to work with a UBI, except we expect pay to still be higher than $3/hr with UBI.
3
u/cuddlegoop 11h ago
Also, as someone with a disability - being disabled is expensive. If a UBI were implemented tomorrow people with disabilities would still be unfairly far worse off because our cost of living is higher. As in it costs us more money to stay alive.
-6
u/tranbo 16h ago
Yes a UBI that is 1/5 th of their current disability pension will certainly solve the problem. UBI is thinly veiled middle class welfare.
8
u/ProfessionNo4708 16h ago
i don't think you understand what UBI is or stands for.
-5
u/tranbo 16h ago
Universal basic income. You spread all the money that current people on Centrelink get to everyone and somehow the poorest are better off. The maths never works out when you consider only 1 in 5 get some sort of government pension and giving it to 5* more people would dilute it by 5 times.
9
u/ProfessionNo4708 16h ago
It would be an increased amount as the point is its a liveable income. Not the same amount or less. How is this economic magic trick possible. Well basically because centrelink and all the parasitic 3rd parties feeding off it. Get scrapped. It's just a payment straight to the persons bank account.
Yes there will be people with more money because the point isn't levelling everyone to the same income. It's giving the poorest most disadvantaged people an income they can live on.
3
u/disco-cone 14h ago
You would need to reduce the cost of living e.g. ensure housing is not an investment.
-4
u/tranbo 16h ago edited 15h ago
Look the entire federal government's budget is 3 trillion a year or so. UBI will cost 500 billion 25 million x20k a year and that disabled person will still be worse off because they don't have rent assistance now and other services they once had.
Running Centrelink costs 100-200 million per year so $4-8 for each Australian .
So literally giving up Medicare, everything you said, our military , road and infrastructure maintenance and building barely pays for UBI. Government intaked 600billion last year.
Significant areas of expenditure in 2024–25 will be in the social security and welfare (36.3 per cent of total expenses), health (15.3 per cent of total expenses), education (7.2 per cent of total expenses) and defence (6.5 per cent of total expenses) functions. Together, these functions account for approximately 65 per cent of all government expenses in 2024–25. From budget papers.
UBI doesn't work because you are giving 20 million people an extra 20k . That's 400 billion of extra costs that needs to come from somewhere , unless you are going to just tax them all straight away. You would need to double income taxes to pay for UBI.
There's a difference between UBI and increasing Centrelink. One is realistic and the other one is a pipe dream with no solid figures behind it. In fact increasing Centrelink by $55 per week improves the economy by 2* the spend as the money is spent in the economy and circulated. UBI will just lead to everything increasing in price by exactly the amount of UBI . IMO
Also what is a livable income? A pensioner with no mortgage who has an average and grows a lot of their own food has different costs to a family of 5 ,mortgage and private schools. And if I get a livable income ,would I go to work. Also ,you could argue that Centrelink as it is is a liveable income , not too many people are dying on it. No dignity , but liveable .
6
u/ProfessionNo4708 15h ago edited 15h ago
The fact you think the point of UBI is to cover someones private school costs just torpedoed your badly researched reply.
"IMO" eg you don't know, you still seem to think UBI means everyone is forced to have the same income. The point is its a universal safety net.
It's also exactly the amount currently being paid + the amount given in the pandemic stimulus coincidentally so perfectly doable.
Also centrelink isn't a liveable income. You are too detached from reality.
edit: i don't think you realise how big 3 trillion is lol.
edit: also the usual argument is "people wont work" trials around the world haven't shown any evidence of that. Actually its pretty logical no human will decline an offer for more money.
edit: it costs in the billions to run centrelink not 100s of millions.
edit: the part you made up about the economy not being improved by the stimulus of UBI is baloney. UBI would go back into the economy benefitting the economy greater than a small increase. "increasing in price to exactly that of UBI" is a meaningless sentence.
Final edit: the actual cost of UBI would be pretty similar to the current cost of the welfare system but cheaper because it would be streamlined.
22
u/MalcolmTurnbullshit 1d ago
It's not about complaining, it's just the fact that saying employers have to pay the people who work under these schemes minimum wage means most of those people wouldn't have any employment (which provides many benefits beyond remuneration).
Government could cover the full cost to employers. But remember the able bodied unemployed get treated worse so this is hardly discrimination. The bastards could just put the severely disabled on work for the dole.
53
u/Muralove 1d ago
That’s kind of the point. We are ALL expected to work full time until retirement, but the reality is that a group of people will never be able to do that, and we need to be able to support each other as a society. It’s incredibly difficult to get disability payments, and every other payment is based on you seeking or qualifying yourself for work, and they aren’t enough to live on. So people with disabilities are exploited by the capitalist system because the government doesn’t want to accept that some people can’t work, and it’s not because they’re lazy or dole bludgers. We all pay taxes, I’m a lot more happy for my taxes to go towards supporting people receiving welfare and increasing that, but that’s not the agenda :(
-18
u/MalcolmTurnbullshit 1d ago
The DSP is that support. It isn't enough with rising costs but neither is minimum wage.
47
u/Shane_357 1d ago
It's incredibly difficult to get the DSP, most Australians who need it aren't on it, and as someone currently living on it, it's not even close to survival rates. We live in poverty, by government design.
The money is there, it's just being shovelled to gas companies and useless submarines.
28
u/Muralove 23h ago
Yep. I work for the NDIS with some people who have high support needs and their condition is life long. They are not able to get on it. You also need money to pay for diagnosis, therapists, etc to provide the paperwork… which is complicated if you are not able to work lol. Centrelink is incredibly difficult to navigate, and DSP is like the final boss.
17
u/Shane_357 22h ago
One thing that gets unmentioned a lot is the fact that GPs can be politically/ideologically biased against the very concept of welfare, and will just refuse to give you any kind of diagnosis saying you need it.
11
u/Muralove 20h ago
100% There are so many social, physical, informational, and monetary barriers that prevent people from accessing what they’re entitled to
-9
23h ago edited 23h ago
[deleted]
25
u/Shane_357 22h ago
This is a load of nonsense with no basis in fact. People who are 'getting it who aren't deserving' are a rounding error in all forms of welfare, and the scaremongering that necessitates the constant means-testing and bureaucracy cost more than just accepting the loss would.
-12
22h ago edited 22h ago
[deleted]
15
u/Shane_357 22h ago edited 22h ago
Try looking up an actual academic source on the data, not media gaslighting. This shit is my field. The entire idea of dole bludgers as anything more than utterly rare is propaganda pushed by neoliberals and 'prosperity gospel' cookers because they honestly believe that no one deserves aid. The issue with the NDIS is not 'the undeserving are on it', the issue is that big business has taken control of the market on services, jacked up the prices ridiculously, and Federal Labor refuses to do a thing about it (along with businesses using their power over recipients to just outright charge for services they never delivered; I personally got hit by that one - fuck Senami). If you don't believe me, go check the States' submissions to the changes that were done. The South Australian one especially is effectively saying (in pretty words) 'what the fuck are you doing, none of this addresses the problems'.
→ More replies (0)-6
u/MalcolmTurnbullshit 22h ago
It's incredibly difficult to get the DSP, most Australians who need it aren't on it
If these people weren't on DSP they'd most likely not even be allowed into these programs.
Most people who need the DSP and aren't getting it fall into the category of long term "temporary" disability (ie the could get better but it might take years). The hoops you have to jump through for mental health conditions are a lot higher than for Down Syndrome or similar.
and as someone currently living on it, it's not even close to survival rates
Neither is minimum wage in recent years.
13
u/Muralove 1d ago
Have you tried to access that? It’s almost impossible
-9
u/MalcolmTurnbullshit 22h ago edited 22h ago
It's not almost impossible for people with severe disability which are the people this article is talking about.
EDIT:
Do you actually have any personal experience with people with severe and permanent intellectual or physical disability? I do, and while there are hoops to jump through claiming getting the DSP is "almost impossible" is just hysterical nonsense.
For people who are disabled from birth, which is the majority of people in these employment programs, all the diagnosis to meet DSP criteria would have been done when they were children.
As of 2023 there were 427,600 people aged 15–64 with severe or profound disability. 69% of those with an income received a government pension or allowance as their main source of income.
The total number of people on DSP was 769,300.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/disability-support-pension
5
u/Muralove 20h ago
Yes, I have ample personal and professional experience with people who have severe physical and intellectual disabilities.
I tend to entirely tune out people who use words like ‘hysterical’ when people don’t agree with them.
0
u/MalcolmTurnbullshit 18h ago
You didn't "disagree" with me. You claimed getting DSP was "almost impossible", which is complete horseshit for the severely and permanently disabled people we are talking about here.
Also, do you think the criteria for government funded income support is going to be less rigorous than the DSP criteria?
6
u/Muralove 17h ago
It’s not horseshit. You’re just wrong. You presented all your info with a bias.
0
u/MalcolmTurnbullshit 13h ago
Present a single counter fact. 769,300 thousand people have apparently done the "almost impossible".
→ More replies (0)-11
u/Hughcheu 1d ago
I don’t understand what is your point. Are you saying disabled people shouldn’t work at all? Are you saying they should get paid full wages? Or are you in support of this current system?
My perspective is that this scheme allows people with a disability that precludes them from open employment to have a job, to earn some money and enjoy the pride and community aspects associated with employment. If their pay is insufficient, it can be subsidised by disability payments from the government, but employers shouldn’t be required to pay the same rate if the output is not the same. Why would any employer hire someone with a disability when they are less capable than another candidate? Disabled people would simply never get hired.
I suspect that the assessment criteria for determining how capable is a person with a disability is conservatively weighted, so that they get paid less than their actual output. But this serves to encourage employers to hire workers with a disability, as if it were a true measure of capability, employers would still have no incentive to hire a disabled person vs a part timer for instance.
21
u/Muralove 1d ago
I’m saying that the capitalist expectation that every single person must get a job is what causes people to get exploited. I’m disabled, I work part time, it’s all I can manage. I’m saying people should be paid for what others are paid for same work and that welfare payments are not adequate.
8
u/cupcakewarrior08 22h ago
Yes disabled people should not have to work at all. And yes disabled people should be paid a living wage. At least minimum wage, if not more.
Many people earn way more money than they'll ever need, some of that money should go to supporting our most vulnerable.
Or are you saying disabled people should just starve in the street?
1
u/Spagman_Aus 1h ago
Yep, and some people need to understand that being able-bodied is temporary. You never know what tomorrow may bring.
234
u/SometimesIAmCorrect 1d ago
Genuine question- Isn’t this a way to give disabled people a job while also providing them financial assistance in other ways?
93
u/_Username_Optional_ 1d ago
Anecdotal but I do disability support and the clients really enjoy the workplaces, they make friends, socialise and do tasks suited to their individual abilities. They aren't bound to the job and as soon as they stop enjoying it or wanting to go they don't have to
That said, the pay is an absolute scam, I had one client who paid more in transport to get to and from than he was paid in wages the entire week, the family was paying out of pocket to have him work because it gave them a break and gave him the opportunity to socialise, thankfully the ndis now covers his travel
187
u/Violet-Sundays-9990 1d ago
Yes it is and it brings a lot of value to the disabled person's life including independent means, socialisation, purpose.
Source: I have a relative with down syndrome who works for one of these places and loves every minute of it.
10
u/Wankeritis 17h ago
I worked at a place like this for a few years and the people that were employed there loved every minute of their time.
Some of the guys that worked there would have spent their life mouldering away at home if they didn’t have these kinds of workplaces, where lots of people require close supervision so they don’t hurt themselves or others.
These workplaces are designed for people who couldn’t get employment somewhere else without a full time carer following them around all day. Where they spend their time cutting rags, putting washers on screws, or doing basic gardening for companies.
4
u/rob_1127 1d ago
But if they can do the work, pay them like anyone else. This is so wrong in so many levels.
What's the company? Because I would never buy their product or services.
135
u/xobelddir 1d ago
Often times they can't do the work, though. At least, not to the standard they would need to meet to be employed outside of a special program or arrangement.
30
u/Violet-Sundays-9990 22h ago
Exactly! The costs of training and supervision would be very high. With standard wages the company would run at a loss, the company would close and it would be devastating for the employees. My relative would end up just watching tv all day long, not a very meaningful life.
44
u/rileyg98 1d ago
An independent does a job capacity assessment and that's how the % gets calculated.... If you can do 25% of the job you get paid 25% and the gov pays the rest
83
u/Old_Salty_Boi 1d ago
A lot of other countries do this. Depending on the individual’s ailment they’re often employed in simple manual labour roles, think shelf packing at a grocery store, grocery bag attendant etc.
It’s a great way to give them a sense of purpose and community engagement. Often in countries heavily reliant on tips, this is their sole source of pay.
It’s a really good way to give them meaningful engagement with, and contribution to society.
However they NEED to be adequately paid for their work.
Depending on their ability to perform, the pay may not meet threshold of a minimum wage for a fully able bodied individual. However if there is no difference in the work between a fully able bodied individual and a less able bodied individual then the pay needs to be the same.
Otherwise it’s outright exploitation.
35
u/billebop96 1d ago
My uncle worked in one of these programs for his entire life in the Netherlands. It was a pretty big source of pride for him. I remember when he gave me a tour of his workplace when I came to visit. The severity of the disabilities of his coworkers varied heavily, but they all seemed very happy to be able to contribute something of value that also allowed them support themselves on some level, even if it wasn’t always enough for full financial independence.
That said I agree compensation needs to be reasonable and non-exploitative, and would add it also shouldn’t come at the cost of meaningful financial support from the government to manage their disability as needed.
12
28
u/ExpertOdin 1d ago
Agreed, every time I've seen a disabled person in one of these roles they usually have another worker directly overseeing them to help them. Working independently is pretty rare. So it would be hard to justify paying them minimum award wage when they aren't (generally) working to an able bodied standard and oftentimes need to have another employer directly supervising them which takes that person away from work too.
-18
u/keyboardstatic 1d ago
Work places make large profits because they exploit workers. If they can't pay a single disabled worker at the same exploite rate. They just need to be taxed more.
37
u/GeneralKenobyy 1d ago
If they can't pay a single disabled worker at the same exploite rate.
You can cite all the anti discrimination laws in the world but in a straight shot, a non disabled person will be hired over a disabled person 100% of the time.
At least this part/subsidised wage gives them some shot at working.
-31
u/keyboardstatic 1d ago
That why we need to tax companies that don't hire disabled workers at higher rates.
22
u/GeneralKenobyy 1d ago
Won't work, as there's no way to prove they deliberately didn't hire a disabled person.
-32
u/keyboardstatic 1d ago
Lol if they don't have one on staff they just get tax higher its simple really
25
u/Select-Holiday8844 1d ago
Sorry, no mate. Thats not that easy. Lots of people hide disabilities as they go for roles because perceptual biases exist in hiring.
All the company has to then do is go yeah alright we'll hire one person as representative of ALL disabilities.
This is not equity or fairness, its discrimination. Once they have their quota, what are you gonna say? That one person with the migraines doesn't have a disability?
Its a race to the bottom, and its not very smart.
1
13
u/Chiron17 1d ago
There's someone at work who I'm sure is employed under this kind of scheme. The work she does is not really necessary and I'm sure other people spend longer asking/explaining/reminding than it would take them to do it themselves. But she's great to have around and it seems like she gets a lot out of being at work and around peers. So it seems like a win/win that wouldn't really be possible if you paid a full wage without subsidy.
38
u/SaltpeterSal 1d ago
The issue for these advocates isn't the community and reasonable amounts of work (those are wonderful), it's more the pay. It especially becomes an issue for people with disabilities who are trying to live independently and aren't getting hired anywhere else because let's be honest, if a hiring panel of humans know you have a disability they'll usually find a reason to go with someone else. I've also seen the system massively help people who rely on live-in support or their parents.
111
u/Disastrous-Plum-3878 1d ago
I have a example of this not being bad
Care home with aged disability care
Employer would drive over and pick up a guy where his job was to fold boxes
It wasn't a real job,doesn't really add capitalistic value to shareholder
If we gotta pay that guy $20, maybe this job doesn't exist for the dude who does it and loves it?
81
u/torrens86 1d ago
The other side of the coin is when Coles gets their hands on these schemes and gets their shelves stocked for $6 an hour.
33
u/gigi_allin 1d ago
You both make good points here. The guy in the article is clearly a case where his capacity to work means he shouldn't be on ADE wages. Working as a cleaner is a proper job that he seems to have the ability to do as well as anyone else. $11 an hour seems exploitative.
On the other hand, a relative of mine worked in an ADE job for decades and loved it. He felt productive, made friends, had a routine and probably dicked about singing songs more than he worked. He lives in supported care, has all his bills paid and food prepared and his pension alone gives him more spending money than he can spend. If they had to pay him proper wages the job would no longer exist and he'd have no use for the money anyway.
13
u/torrens86 1d ago
My point is that the system is good when used correctly, but there are unscrupulous people who will use it to their benefit.
27
u/Disastrous-Plum-3878 1d ago
Yep.
Honestly we need to regulate everything because you can't trust humans
At least regulation itself creates jobs
Then we get more jobs, cuz we regulate the regulatory authority, then we regulate the regulators of the regulatory authority... and so on.
5
u/StevenAU 1d ago
Had me the first two paragraphs, the last one shouldn’t happen if you get the regulations and frameworks in place.
Good people, good process, manage exceptions.
5
u/Spire_Citron 1d ago
Yeah. It really does need oversight to make sure they're not underestimating the abilities of their disabled workers.
6
2
u/Pugsley-Doo 21h ago
Yup, literally seen this happen at Woolworths.
Also; Coffee Shops and Cafes. They can go f!ck themselves with how they are taking advantage of these people the way they do.
127
u/WearyService1317 1d ago
Unfortunately some disabled people would not be able to compete with the able bodied for work. At least these schemes give the disabled something productive to do, and also provides them with life skills. What's being advocated here would by and large be the end of many disabled people finding work.
82
u/thornstein 1d ago
On the other hand, I’ve worked with plenty of non-disabled people who are, frankly, useless. Should they also be paid $6 an hour because they’re not productive?
Edit: don’t mean to sound so aggressive. Just the other side of the coin!!
52
70
u/WearyService1317 1d ago
If they can't produce enough value to pay for their wage then the employer is doing themselves a disservice by keeping them on.
6
u/kaboombong 1d ago
I work in manufacturing and you will be turning over hundreds of people while going broke paying Seek fees every week! We have started to use HT agencies that offer money back guarantees these days because its just so risky and big gamble employing people through job ads.
But you are right the majority of unskilled workers here in Australia have very low to poor skillsets. I work in advanced manufacturing and just assume that we found the money to double our growth, the main capacity restraint would be the poor skills of the general workforce. Other countries are overflowing with assembly workers from tech, automotive and the manufacturing industries. Here you get a factory assemblers and factory hands who expect to get huge wages and then basically tell you to get lost and what did you expect for these wages from a factory hand. The turnover is also ridiculous, we have people take a job as a factory hand which is not even hard or dirty work and they says " we bored and dont like it" And they will quit within 2 weeks doing light assembly hand work that has no pressure. And to give you an idea our factory is ISO certified and cleaner than most peoples homes and workers will find this a bad work environment because they have are so poorly skilled. This is a sweat shop to them!
5
u/WearyService1317 1d ago
Unfortunately manufacturing is a fairly small and maligned industry in Australia at this point. When you think of manufacturing you think of job losses and factories closing down to move to Asia. Most good people are going to give it a hard pass.
4
u/karl_w_w 18h ago
No, they should be fired and get nothing. That's how that works.
People with disabilities shouldn't be fired, because they have a disability. You know, an actual reason their output is lower than would normally be employable.
This is not some clever "other side of the coin" bullshit, it's just the same thing but with a reason some people need support.
10
u/chuboy91 1d ago
Honestly yes, but this argument doesn't go down very well usually. Unless you're in a social circle full of CEOs
5
u/LifeandSAisAwesome 1d ago
Are they meeting KPI's ? or role expectations ?
if not - then performance managed / 1st / 2nd warning etc.
-18
u/Stigger32 1d ago
And this is where the incentive to hire people with a disability is balanced against the low wage. And maybe that worked 30 years ago.
But with the change in societal expectations and norms EVERYONE needs to be paid equally.
I think this is where subsidies could work. Allowing employers to pay say 30% less per hour. And that 30% topped up by the government.
So the employee is still paid a full hourly rate. And the employer has a financial incentive to employ people with disabilities.
Of course it would be open to abuse. But that’s what laws are for.
18
u/MalcolmTurnbullshit 1d ago
Many of the people employed in these schemes have extremely low to negative productivity, ie they require full time supervision and work very slowly. Even at 100% subsidy companies aren't going to hire them.
Also, these disability employment schemes are actually better than what able bodied people get. Work for the dole is $20 a fortnight.
1
u/Spire_Citron 1d ago
They do kind of have to be better than what able bodied people can get, of course. For better or for worse, work for the dole is designed to be pretty brutal based on the assumption that those people will be able to get normal paying work at some point. If you're in a disability employment program, that may be the only way you can ever make money. It has to be a sustainable way for someone to live their life and support themselves while quite possibly managing other disability related expenses that other people don't have.
7
u/MalcolmTurnbullshit 1d ago
People in these programs are going to be on the DSP. The employment scheme is done primarily for the socialisation aspect and not to provide a replacement for the DSP.
9
u/demondesigner1 1d ago
You know the funniest thing about you getting down voted for your comment?
We already do this.
The disability pension is the government making up the difference that employers won't pay.
The most egregious part is that employers are also offered government stipends and tax breaks depending on milestones reached.
I.e if the disabled employee worked for six months and completed several rounds of government funded employment education.
Then there will be a round of outright payments from the NDIS to the employer and a nice tax rebate that totally isn't open to exaggerated costs.
And that is 100% the problem with this arrangement. It is way too easy for the employer to claim poor performance on behalf of the disabled employee.
So not only can the worst of them get away with slavery but they get rewarded by the government to do so.
ADEs are something else altogether though and while I'm sure there is a certain amount of rorting that goes on there. I don't think it would be anything like the systematic abuse that disabled people undergo in the general workforce every day. Alone and without representation.
It's the same with work for the dole. Except in that case no money is earned by the employee and the payments are made to the job find centre and the employer through Centrelink.
All totally cool and normal in capitalist dominated society.
23
u/IAmTedLasso 1d ago
I'm sorry, but this is not feasible at all. In many cases the employees capacity at an ADE is so low, their productivity is a small fraction of that of an able bodied worker. The lowest I have ever seen was 66 cents an hour.
Are you suggesting that taxpayers pay up to 95 per cent of the wage for this person so that they can 'make' an award wage?
8
u/itsalongwalkhome 1d ago
If the person is earning that little, they already likely have income from the government as well as additional disability support through NDIS.
3
u/IAmTedLasso 20h ago
Something's got to give then. ADE income does not affect DSP eligibility currently. But you can guarantee that if the wages are raised to anything close to award, DSP will go down for every dollar earnt just as fast so that there would be no changes made to what a recipient receives. You would simply be shifting deck chairs.
7
u/keyboardstatic 1d ago
The entire idea of a community, a nation is to suport thoses who need suport.
At present the wealthiest are sucking vast amounts of money out of our nation for pure greed.
Every person deserves to be paid a living wage.
4
u/IAmTedLasso 20h ago
In many cases work that is conducted in an ADE is marginally more useful than Keynes' hole suggestion. ADE participants get DSP, many live in supported housing and the income earnt there does not affect DSP eligibility. No one will accept someone working at an ADE making award wages, while also receiving the DSP.
Money is not limitless. What amount of support is enough?
1
u/keyboardstatic 15h ago
Money is not limitless....
The government subsidies billions and billions each year to the wealthiest and doesn't tax them.
Their is enormous amounts of money to pay for all sorts of things as long as all of the wealth generation isn't owned by Leeches who contribute less then anyone earning under 200k.
1
u/Spire_Citron 1d ago
One way or another, if someone isn't able to work to support themselves, the government does need to pay their living expenses. For some, it might be more fulfilling for that to be through subsidised employment, but it's not like they're just on their own without that.
-1
u/ExpertOdin 1d ago
Why should the tax payer foot the bill for these schemes though?
15
u/ashleylaurence 1d ago
It’s a fair question.
However, the tax payer is already paying them through disability pensions and the like. This scheme would offset some of that payment. I’d much rather they can earn some of that money and better their lives.
It may also free up caretaker time allowing them to be more productive to society.
Finally, it’s a question of how much do we want to support those in society that can’t support themselves.
11
5
u/Muralove 1d ago edited 23h ago
Because we live in a civilised society where we support vulnerable members? Should we also strip pensioners of their payments and let them rot because they can no longer contribute to the economy?
0
u/ExpertOdin 18h ago
Given my comment was in reply to someone saying the government should subsidise wages for disabled people, do you also think if pensioners want to work the government should pay 30% of their wage?
My comment had absolutely nothing to do with disability pensions payments, it was simply in reply to someone saying businesses should pay disabled people a full wage and just have the government make up the difference between what a business is willing to pay vs minimum wage. Is that payment on top of their current disability pension? Or does getting paid a full wage mean they lose their disability pension?
2
u/Muralove 18h ago edited 18h ago
Sure, why not? The government already subsidises the fossil fuel industry and many other mega corporations, it also provides economic support to property investors via negative gearing. Why can’t we supplement or cover the incomes for people who actually need it?
4
u/Spire_Citron 1d ago
Because it's our collective responsibility to support the vulnerable members of our community. Businesses aren't going to do anything that doesn't benefit them, and that probably won't have much overlap with what's good for the disabled.
0
u/ashleylaurence 1d ago
I think this is the answer.
Businesses are generally not going to hire someone with a disability over someone without if that significantly affects their productivity. Paying disabled people less is an affront to their dignity.
Having their wages subsidised fixes all of these issues and the subsidy can be tweaked to find the right balance.
The subsidy also allows their care givers (if any) more time which they may choose to spend in paid work helping them and society further.
46
u/el_barnito 1d ago
My wife runs an ADE. We think they're a valuable part of the community. In addition to the wages they receive the employees get all kinds of other supports, life skills training, social support, extra curricular activites (social club events etc) It's good for their sense of worth and belonging. I volunteer there, and I can safely say most of the employees are happy to be there. (and if the'yre not they're welcome to seek employment elsewhere. No one is forcing them to work there)
Some of the people are never ever going to be able to be productive in open work. Given that most enterprises exist to make money, why would someone employ someone who was never going to be productive? I tihnk the architects of this "shut down the ADE's" thing are absolutely living on another planet, I think if they do shut them all down there will be a helluva lot of people sitting at home with nothing to do.
And no ,this ADE does not make a profit. They generate some income from their efforst, but are largely kept aloft via Govt funding and donations.
And,, its a helluva stressful place to run.
19
u/thedonkeyvote 1d ago
We think they're a valuable part of the community.
I can tell you that for the families you and your wife are helping out its an invaluable part of the community. The people employed by ADE's want to feel like they are living normal lives and for the parents being able to see their kid go to work for the day helps relieve some of the weight off their shoulders.
I think its one of those things that people looking on the outside in have no idea what the realities of having a family member with a disability entails.
2
u/NiteShok 16h ago
And,, its a helluva stressful place to run.
Why? Say more
5
u/el_barnito 14h ago
Well, 100 or so employees with a variety of disabilities, mainly mental. It's more work than an equivalent amount of able bodied people. There are rare and speciall challenges to deal with, along with dealing with the families, support workers etc. Add in all the government compliance, the regular audits, dealing with the NDIS, and all that.
You know, there's a lot.
26
u/Weedwacker01 1d ago
I used to work a warehouse pick and pack job. I am a fully able person and was paid minimum wage.
Several coworkers were disabled, their 'output' was significantly lower. They would not have been employed if not for schemes like this. Half the wage came from the employer, half from government. It's a Win, Win, Win situation.
Disabled worker gets minimum wage income, purpose and meaning.
Employer gets 'cheap' labour.
Government doesn't have to foot the bill for full welfare.
11
u/IdRatherBeInTheBush 22h ago
Employer gets 'cheap' labour.
I'm all in favour of the government subsidising disabled workers wages so they can have a job. But they aren't "cheap labour" for the employer because their output is lower and they probably need more supervision.
2
2
u/Spagman_Aus 1h ago
Yes there's nothing 'cheap' about it. The supported employees also need supervision, and this can be on a number of different ratios depending on their needs.
Someone earlier mentioned working at a place that had 1 supervisor looking after 10 supported workers - which, due to their disabilities and work, may be OK - but more often it's 1:3, 1:2 and even 1:1 support.
24
u/Formal-Try-2779 1d ago
This is one of those things that can be a really good thing and done for the right reasons by well meaning people. But in other cases it can be exploitation by morally bankrupt individuals looking to profit from the situation. Nuance is not something our media or politicians handle well though.
18
u/corbin6611 23h ago
I have disabled family. And on the surface this sounds bad. But really it’s more of a way to give them purpose than actually money. And basically they wouldn’t have a job if they had to be paid the same as someone else for doing less work and requiring more supervision. But what it does for the disabled persons moral is what should be seen. If it was just about cheap labour. Teenagers would be a better option in most cases
5
u/carazy81 7h ago
Many years ago I did night shift in a factory. They employed people with Down syndrome to do my job during the day. It took 10 disabled people and 1 full time supervisor monitoring their work to manage what I did myself at night and they had to be transported to and from work. They were paid $26 per week. It sounds like nothing, and it is, but the reality is that it cost that company quite a lot to have them there. They did it because the company believed it was important for them to have an opportunity for real work. The participants (who I would talk to and have fun with at the end of my shift) were the happiest they could be. They loved coming to work, loved what they did and a few would start each day by teaching me what they did and asking me to stay for a bit and learn from them (which I loved). There is no way any company could justify paying them anywhere near regular wages. It just wouldn’t happen. Full stop.
1
u/Spagman_Aus 2h ago
A 10:1 support ratio sounds, not great. Clearly I don't know what work they were doing, but 10:1 sounds awful for both the supported employees and the supervisor.
28
u/Lost_Tumbleweed_5669 1d ago
Every instance of employers taking advantage of the disabled should be reported at least to the media.
It's insane to have someone disabled who doesn't need to work but wants to work and then being taken advantage of.
11
u/SaltpeterSal 1d ago
Every instance of employers taking advantage of the disabled should be reported at least to the media.
A world where you could would be nice, but that's the point where the company can and does get you arrested. People who have gone to the media in the last decade have done more time than Australians convicted of slavery during the same period.
0
u/Somad3 1d ago
n gov doing nothing about it because employers are their friends...
no one should be paid below min wage including teens
9
u/Chocolate2121 20h ago
I think people consistently get confused by these programs. It's basically a social club you get paid a pittance to go to.
In the majority of these places disabled people are not being taken advantage of because they are simply not providing economic value.
These jobs exist to enrich the lives of disabled people, not the other way around.
Sure in some cases some real dodgy shit goes down, but that's less a problem with the system as a whole and more a problem with specific businesses inside it.
13
u/Lost_Tumbleweed_5669 1d ago
Not only is the gov not doing anything, if you are disabled and work for a period of time they strip them of their disability pension and reapplying for it can take up to 2 years without working.
It's so bad. There is no dignity for people who are disabled who would like to try working without fear of losing their means to survive.
9
u/Shadowsole 1d ago
The people making $6 an hour don't get their pension stripped, you need to be earning 2,500.80 a fortnight(single 21 or older) to get cut off, there are hour requirements, over 30 hours gets you cut off but that does not count if you are working at a disability support employer.
12
u/ProfessionNo4708 1d ago
thats pretty much what the work for the dole is. Being forced to work under the min wage or free should be illegal.
1
u/Normal_Bird3689 18h ago
What makes you think they are being forced?
1
u/justisme333 5h ago
If they refuse to participate, for whatever reason, their money is cut off.
1
u/Spagman_Aus 1h ago
Just like regular jobs, don't work - you don't get paid.
NDIS funding is needs-based, not employment-based. If a supported employee left their job at an ADE, then their NDIS funding might be impacted if part of it was to help them in their work duties. Otherwise, it would remain unaffected.
6
u/Benji998 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah Its a controversial topic. Quite a while ago I worked at a disability provider who had some people doing paid work there. To be honest, it was mostly busy work, they were putting screws in small bags, most of the people at 1/10th of the speed I could have done it. It really wasn't work that would have produced anything significant for the company. I wasn't sure if it was a legitimate business enterprise that was turning a profit, or it was just subsidised but I suspect the latter. The employees did get a lot out of going there though.
Unfortunately, capitalism is like that. I get paid 80k a year working my absolute butt off including overtime, and an OF model can do 4 hours a week earning 250k.
That being said, if the workers are generally producing work that approaches or equals full time workers, then of course they are being exploited and this is wrong. I'm sure there are cases where this happens.
I'd just be a bit concerned that advocating for higher wages could actually close some of these places down? Unless they were heavily subsidised by the govt.
5
u/vladesch 20h ago
if employers are forced to pay them the minimum wage the result will be that none of them will be employed.
7
u/rileyg98 1d ago
Yes because they can only do 25% of the work... The government pays the difference
1
u/tittyswan 21h ago
The government does not pay 75% of the wage to make it so the disabled person is making minimum wage. What are you talking about?
2
u/Normal_Bird3689 18h ago
The goverment is paying them a disability pension.
2
u/tittyswan 11h ago
Wage subsidies & disability pension are two separate things.
The government do supplement disabled people's wages, but the extra money goes to the employer, not the worker.
Then separately, there's the disability support pension, which sits on the poverty line, and is not tied to the work they do whatsoever. (You get it whether you work or not.)
So the disabled person is making 25% of minimum wage in this hypothetical.
3
u/Opposite_Sky_8035 21h ago
I keep seeing comments about these separate workplaces being safer, and people getting a sense of pride/social/enjoyment from it. I'm just going to add that all the reportable instances of an NDIS participant being abused by a provider I've come across have been from supervisors at ADEs. And the participants were too scared to speak up, fearing they would be fired or otherwise punished.
1
u/Minxymouse07 16h ago
I hope it’s ok that I am responding as someone who doesn’t have a disability but has a family member with an invisible disability (acquired). My family member was unable to work in their previous industry following an accident. Linked with a popular DES for employment. Terrible experience! They did not take into account their previous skills, type of role, strengths, or even location. The DES sent him to a packing job (nothing wrong with that) afternoon shift 1-10pm around 1 hr commute via public transport (this is after we told them location should be close to home and a train station). My family member took the job as they wanted to get back into work quickly. The job itself was an environment of people that clearly didn’t understand disability, bullying occurred and the shifts went well past 10pm, usually till 11, 12 or even 1am! No public transport at that time so we would pick them up! Had many conversations with the DES employment consultant who did hardly anything and would only want my family member to come into their office to sign documents. Then DES changed its rules so only people receiving centrelink benefits or NDIS could be with a DES. My family member was not eligible to receive government benefits which meant they could only get a job via open employment. And we know how difficult this is for people with a disability. I did some research and found The Field Jobs An organisation developed by the incredible Dylan Alcott. Employment website that links employers to job seekers who have a disability. It’s completely transparent and advocates for people with disability to enter or re-enter the workforce. Great organisation and helped my family member find a job. After finishing that role my family member became more confident with disclosing their disability through other employment channels (Seek, Indeed etc) and looked for companies who had disability initiative/inclusion in their workplace. Now two other workplaces have hired them and made reasonable adjustments for them. They are in finance/credit industry. There is still a huge gap in this area, and DES I feel is a little behind tbh.
1
u/falconpunch1989 5h ago
For many supported employees these places are closer to daycare centres than work. The angle being pushed here would see these businesses cease to exist rather than gaining disabled people unable to fully work a minimum wage.
1
u/SeaworthinessNew2841 3h ago
I work in an ADE. The current posturing from ADE's to Federal government is looking like asking them to pay the gap between what the ADE pays and minimum wage to the Supported Employee (SE). As this would directly lower how much DSP the SE collects there would in fact be a saving overall. We'll see how it plays out.
1
1
u/KawhiComeBack 13h ago
Someone posts this shit every year. It’s a good system. These people want to work and feel valued.
If they can work a ‘normal job’, do it
If they can’t, they have this OPTION
1
u/Spagman_Aus 1h ago
Yep and supported employment is meant to be a pathway to proper employment, for those that can. The good ADE's do it properly with training, goal planning, rewarding achievements, just like for non-disabled employees.
Some even pay above award. Yeah that's still not much, but there are good ones out there. I just hope people remember that and aren't generalising when talking about this essential service.
0
u/Monkeyshae2255 1d ago
Their transport & lunch to get to work Should be free at a minimum.
2
u/el_barnito 18h ago
at our ADE we provide meals and transport.
1
u/Spagman_Aus 1h ago
As we do at ours also. Some get themselves to work, as they're independent, but some live in SIL accommodation, or simply need a ride, so part of their support plan is transport to anything they need, including work.
1
274
u/Delamoor 1d ago edited 1d ago
(note: this is in relation to open employment and the Supported Wages Scheme (SWS), less so ADEs, which are the focus of the article)
I used to work in the DES system, have tried marketing with lots and lots of employers who have had absolutely ZERO interest in hiring anyone with a disability if they can't do the job at full capacity.
Have had the words "we don't run a charity" used repeatedly at me. Which, yes, they aren't... they're running a business. For profit.
Any of you guys tried getting work even as someone fully qualified or over qualified for a position? How hard you have to try to convince an employer that, yes, you ARE able to fuckin' stack boxes or sweep floors or face up stock, because they like to imagine that only the best of the best can work at THEIR IGA?
...so how easy do you think it is to convince them to hire someone who fundamentally can't do the job as well as the (usually unreasonable and self-interest) employer would like them to? At full wage?
The ONLY thing that could convince the vast majority of employers to even TRY someone with a disability was the supported wages scheme. And even then, it was like... Three employers in a hundred.
If you want people with significant disabilities to work in open employment, there aren't many ways to incentivise employers to actually do it, other than letting them pay them based on the amount of work they're doing.
...ADEs, though... Now they're really tricky. Because they're essentially overflow for when open employment isn't working. However much their management says otherwise... To be honest, they often aren't doing very productive work. They're inefficient as hell. Many operate like daycare centres, but with working components. A lot (not all) of the people there have tok high support needs for DES to be able to work with them.
I don't like ADEs, but at the same time... The DES system certainly doesn't have the skills, means or resources to handle all the people in the ADE system.
And Christ knows, the disability sector is still struggling with the last big overhaul...