3 ms·
My counterargument would be: If it is bellow ""living wage"" it should not be allowed. (that was easy) You can find other workarounds to incentive the hiring
by Iulioh 2y ago
My counterargument would be:
If it is bellow ""living wage"" it should not be allowed.
(that was easy)
You can find other workarounds to incentive the hiring of disabled people and we (in italy) have a few:
-Requirement of medium and big firms to hire them (reduced ability, they can still perform)
For example where i work there is a janitor that has dawn syndrome and an IT guy with dwarfism
-tax breaks (so the worker still get paid minimum wage but to the company he costs less)
- marky1991 2y agoHow is that an argument? That's just a position with no defense.
- themaninthedark 2y agoIt ironically fits in with the article :)
- Iulioh 2y agoIt's an argument in the same way "human rights" are an argument. Can we justify giving disable people less rights? Sure. Let me tell you _a modest proposal_ .
- armchairhacker 2y agoThe point is that the in theory, workers receive above living wage, even though the company pays below, because they also get paid by the government. (I'm arguing for the theory; in the US it's not true, but also in the US even minimum wage is below living). However, tax breaks sound better. I worry that requiring companies to hire disabled workers, instead of just making it profitable to do so, would cause more workers to be abused. Every method has some abuse from bad actors, but a requirement specifically influences companies who wouldn't hire disabled workers even if they could assign zero tasks to them and financially benefit.