Re: Nice Planet 13: This Planet Sucks
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.
Originally posted by Kepler
View Post
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.
Comment