posted on January 9, 2001 01:27:06 PM new
I have previously vented about the amount of downright thievery that goes on among the workers at the various thrift stores around here, so I won't go into that, except to say that I will NEVER donate ANYTHING to our local thrifts. That said, GW & SA and others have to be well aware that many needy people *do* shop there. I was in my local GW right before school started, and saw many women, with children in tow, filling up their shopping carts with clothes. And they definitely did NOT pull up in Jaguars! That said, why can't GW and SA realize the valuable service they offer needy people who need clothing and household items, and price their wares accordingly? Are they supposed to help people who need job skills, but turn a blind eye to the single mother with 5 growing kids? I have no doubt that many of the "boutiques" will have to lower their prices during the next economic downturn.
posted on January 9, 2001 01:48:30 PM new
sonsie: And this has to do with paying them a reasonable wage... ? I'm sorry, I believe I missed it. You say you do not know what they are paid. Would you care to find out? I would be interested in knowing exactly, what type of work they are doing..... and how much they are being paid. I would also be interested in knowing how much you paid the company for their services -v- how much the workers got paid.
=====
ROSIEBUD: What this has to do with, is that these folks could NOT EARN minimum wage out in the real world! I don't care if they are paid $3 and hour instead of $5, and they certainly don't care, either. Apparently, neither do their parents or the social service agencies responsible for their care and protection.
IN THIS CASE (and I can speak for no other), these people could not hold a job out in the world in any way, shape, or form. They are also doing work that most "normal" people would rather go on welfare than do, and they do it happily and enjoy every minute of it as far as I can tell. Furthermore, many jobs they take on are jobs that are usually automated so that there are virtually no human costs involved at all. The reason people like me do hire them for these operations is because we only have a tiny number of widgets to sort, or envelopes to stuff, or whatever, and we can't afford to hire a "regular" firm to do this sort of thing with machines. (Plus, I suspect many of us feel we are doing a good deed.)
What do they do? They actually stuff envelopes, for one thing. I have paid them somewhat less than I would pay the local mail house, and I have the good feeling of knowing I'm giving work to people who are thrilled to have it. They also do extremely simple assembly jobs, under close supervision, and the people who operate the place are open to virtually any possibility in terms of type of work they will take on, so long as it is within the capabilities of these workers.
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe these people are working in a sweatshop in the traditional sense. They are, by both your definitions, in a sheltered workshop environment...which is where most of them belong. Some do go on to regular jobs (at minimum wage and above), but most are not capable of doing so. Does it really matter that they get paid less than minimum wage, when the alternative is doing nothing at all except vegetating?
As for getting an education as a handicapped person, well, when I was going to college myself over 20 years ago, our campus was quite well populated with wheelchair-bound kids and others with fairly obvious handicaps. Several required full-time attendants to even get around campus...but they were doing it, and learning, and some graduated in my class.
Our local junior college has the finest program in the state for kids with learning disabilities. It's also very open and accessible (physically and otherwise) to persons with all sorts of other handicaps. I completely agree that it is harder for handicapped persons to get an education than it is for you or me. But it is not impossible, and in today's environment it is not even an overwhelming challenge.
I see deaf pressmen at my local print shop. I see mentally handicapped baggers at the supermarket. Employees in wheelchairs and walkers are a common sight at the city and county buildings I frequent. I even know a blind receptionist at a local doctor's office. Yes, it IS harder for the handicapped to find employment. But those with skills can make it. And those who can't, have other options.
posted on January 9, 2001 01:51:45 PM newAre they supposed to help people who need job skills, but turn a blind eye to the single mother with 5 growing kids?
I would suppose it depends on the goals of each particular organization.
Higher prices = More funds to help those needing job skills, fewer items available to low income shoppers.
Lower prices = More items available to low income shoppers, less funds to help those needing job skills.
The reason people like me do hire them for these operations is because we only have a tiny number of widgets to sort, or evelopes to stuff, or whatever, and we can't afford to hire a "regular" firm to do this sort of thing with machines.
Thank you for being honest in admitting that you hire them because it saves you money. Let me boil your statement down to the most simplist forms: It's ok to pay someone less money as long as it saves you money and they would not be able to hold a real job in the real world. Why? Because you're doing them the favor of employing them in the first place.
I don't care if they are paid $3 and hour instead of $5, and they certainly don't care, either.
Apparently you feel that you are dealing with people who have a diminished capacity and can not tell the difference between $3 and $5.
Apparently, neither do their parents or the social service agencies responsible for their care and protection.
Let me fill you in on parents and social service agencies. 1) Many parents don't question what social services recommends. ESPECIALLY parents who are taking care of 35, 40, 45, 50 year olds. 2) Social Service agencies are paid by state funding. State funding is determined by placement. The more numbers they place the more they are guaranteed to get their funding for the next fiscal year (ie: those social servants are guaranteed to get a paycheck next year). So, in regards to your concerns about 'social service agencies'..... no, they don't care how much their clients are making, because as long as their 'employeed' in some shape or form (and the easier the employement the better) ...... they've got their money.
Hmmm, that seems to be a common ground here doesn't it? You want to pay the least amount to get the job done.. so it's better for you to hire these sweat shops to do the work. And social service agencies want to make sure that their quotas are met.. so they place people into the sweatshops.
They are, by both your definitions, in a sheltered workshop environment...which is where most of them belong. Some do go on to regular jobs (at minimum wage and above), but most are not capable of doing so. Does it really matter that they get paid less than minimum wage, when the alternative is doing nothing at all except vegetating?
This is what is highly insulting. 1)vegetating 2) most are not capable of doing so (re: moving onto regular jobs)
Once again, it seems that you feel you are dealing with people who have diminished capacity.
Now, as to the education part of this..... and this is what makes the difference.
You talk of college... that's fine. But lets start a little further back. Let's try elementary school. Because as you said, with a good education......... and we all know that a good education starts early. Right?
I am going to take people that I know from my own life and their stories .. as told to me by their parents.
First case involves a 5 year old with a sever learning disability. Not only is this child extremely delayed in speech (ie: vocabulary of a 14 month old), but he is incapable of walking. He resorts to crawling. The child enters the school system and is tested extensively to determine the best course of learning. The child comes up with an IQ score of 35 and is labled severely mentally retarded. The teachers concentrate on teaching this child how to tie his shoes and other daily life skills. Child is tested every 3 years with the same results. At the age of 12 the family moves to a new city (same state) and as part of entering the new school district the child is retested. The new psychologist sees that the IQ test delivered to the child on all previous occassions has been a verbal test. (remember, this child has a sever speech problem). Psychologist retests using a non-verbal IQ test and child tests out to be at 100. This child has now spent 7 years of his life (education) being treated as a severely retarded individual by the people who are the professionals. He has lost out on 7 years of education.. you know, MATH, ENGLISH, READING. The child is now 14 and is trying desperately to catch up. He's in a special ed class .. placed in the 8th grade, but he is doing 3rd grade work. Let me tell you. This boy is not an idiot. But his previous teachers showed no faith and confidence in him. He may have been close to non-verbal, but he sure heard everything that was said about him.. and he understood it. If you ask him today, about his teachers back then, he'll get a very said look on his face and say "they no think me can".
Example number 2, this one is a bit more current. 5 year old twins boys.. blind. They enter the school district. They need to learn braille. The school says they do not have the funds to pay for a braille instructor, so the school comes up with using a computer instead for the twins. The school has a computer that the twins can share......... at school only. The school asks the parents to supply the speech software for the school computer (ie: these programs start at the low $700 mark). Parents can not afford it. The twins do not get the software for another year, when the school provides it. The school does not allow the computer to be taken off property. The twins do not have a computer at home.
The twins are now 8, still doing the same work they were doing when they first entered school........ because the school screwed around so much in getting them the appropriate devices. Will these boys catch up? Yea, they're smart kids.. they'll catch up eventually. But you know what? When they do, it'll start all over if they ever change schools...... enter into Junior High, High school......... and then once in you're in college.. it gets even worse.
But it is not impossible, and in today's environment it is not even an overwhelming challenge.
This is almost a bigger joke than that of the "if they get paid min. wage they'll lose their benefits".
Are you speaking because of technology? Do you have any idea how much it costs for someone with a "simple" handicap to get a higher education? I'm not even talking the cost of tutition. I'm talking money, time, effort (ie: fighting the red tape).
(this is for the blind since I'm most familiar with that)
1) textbook problems: they need to be in an accessible format. Not so easy really. They either need to be in braille, on tape, or in a *.txt format to be read on your computer. Some books can be obtained from the Library of Congress as well as other sources .. in the format that you need.......... as long as you give them 6 months notice. Guess what, professors generally decide on their textbooks about 4-6 weeks in advance. You're kinda SOL then. To have the books scanned costs $3-5/page. That means your average textbook of 700 pages is going to cost you $2100.. times the number of courses you are taking. If you want them in braille, it's going to cost you 5-10/page. On tape? That's going to cost you 5-6/hour. The cheapest way to go is scanning (assuming you ahve a computer) so four classes is going to end up costing you $8400
OUCH! That seems easy.. right? I mean, everyone can afford $8500 per semester in books.. right?
2)Getting the schools to provide adequate equipment. That's a toughy even though the ADA says they have to. They honestly, do not want to spend the $700 (and up) for speech software.. per license.. just so you can "read" on their computers. They'll do it, but it'll take them a semester or two to get around to it. The same problem goes for making sure you can find the 1 CCTV that the school has hidden some place. Sometimes it's in the library, other times its in the resource room. Generally, if you're really lucky, the school leaves it in the same place and they'll have more than 1.
3) attitudes: Maybe this is actually the hardest part. You have some teachers that will not go out of their way to help you. Simple help.. like "I'm sorry, but I will not let you record my classes due to copyright laws. You'll have to find some other way to take notes". Teachers who do not give you extra time in test taking. It doesn't matter that it takes you much longer to read the test and find the correct 'circle' to fill in. That is inconsequential.
There is good news though! There is a government agency that will help....... IF they decide that you're eligible to go to school (ie: desire and your previous grades in school, ACT scores, etc don't matter.. it's if you pass the government's battery of tests ~ psychological, IQ, placement, etc). But the only problem is then you have to go through red tape up the ying yang. What that boils down to is you don't have to pay anything (ie: for books, tutition, etc), but your education will take 6 years to complete rather than 4 years ~ if you're fortunately enough to be on the fast track. What's two more years if it takes you 8 years?
Those are just small examples of one of the simplier 'handicaps'. So please don't speak of 'not an overwhelming challenge'.
The point is, it's very hard for the handicapped to obtain an education.... even one starting from kindergarden. Many people give up.. because it is so hard to do. Therefore your unemployement rate, or even the rate of disabled who have low paying jobs (vs careers) is incredibly high.
No matter, it's obvious that some people have had dealings with sheltered workshops...... either they've personally known people who work for them............... or they've used them to their benefit, and this is a no win arguement.
Someone called me rabid, earlier in this thread. If that means, standing up for what I believe is right..... than yes, I am rabid. I do not believe in taking advantage of people in order to save myself money...... or make money. And that is exactly what sheltered workshops do. They make the owners money.. and they save the people who contract with them, money. Unfortunately, many that believe in the sheletered workshop theory, have fallen pray to the rhetoric that has existed for decades and they are either incapable of looking at the entire picture (ie: the workers in workshops all over the US) , or refuse to.
With that, I bid you all a good day.
edited to correct spelling errors but decided against it cause I'm just too tired after typing that much.. *L*
[ edited by rosiebud on Jan 9, 2001 04:51 PM ]
posted on January 9, 2001 03:43:24 PM new
The minimum wage has gone up. My almost 16 year old son was just hired at the local Burger King for $6.00. They are so desperate for help that they overlooked the fact that he's a couple of months shy of 16, which means he can work fewer hours.
The local Carl's Jr. regularly hires the disabled as do many other businesses. They pay at least minimum wage.
I don't see how Goodwill can get away paying subminimum wage to its employees. That's exploitation, and if it is true, I will never donate or shop at a GW again.
posted on January 9, 2001 03:55:07 PM new
cassiescloset~ They can get away with it, because federal law says that can pay sub-min. wage to disabled workers. If you want to find out exactly how that works, you can 1) call your congressman 2) call your senator. GW has been lobbying for years to ensure that this law is not changed so they can continue their exploitation of the disabled for their own financial gain.
If you want to check on GW's policies, you can either call your local GW and find out where their nearest sheltered workshop is and contact them to find out what they pay their disabled workers w/in the shop. Or you can contact the president and CEO (at least back in 1998).... Fred Grady (you remember, the guy, Gopher from Love Boat and who was Iowa's representative in Congress for several years). His information can be found on GW's 990 to the IRS:
*while you're at it, you may want to take a look at the salaries of the CEO, and other higher ups and how much they spend on lobbying every year. It's all in there*
posted on January 9, 2001 05:16:57 PM newrosiebud - I speak as a mother of a learning-handicapped child. I feel that you have some good points but I also feel that you are blaming the schools too much. I also think that many of the worst problems arise from situations where the parent(s) either don't know the options available or simply don't care.
More specifically, I have big problems with one of your statistics. [i](this is for the blind since I'm most familiar with that)
1) textbook problems: they need to be in an accessible format. Not so easy really. They either need to be in braille, on tape, or in a *.txt format to be read on your computer. Some books can be obtained from the Library of Congress as well as other sources .. in the format that you need.......... as long as you give them 6 months notice. Guess what, professors generally decide on their textbooks about 4-6 weeks in advance. You're kinda SOL then. To have the books scanned costs $3-5/page. That means your average textbook of 700 pages is going to cost you $2100.. times the number of courses you are taking. If you want them in braille, it's going to cost you 5-10/page. On tape? That's going to cost you 5-6/hour. The cheapest way to go is scanning (assuming you ahve a computer) so four classes is going to end up costing you $8400 [/i]
Scanning a book does not cost anywhere near $3-$5/page. The local library lets you scan books at 10 cents/page. Heck, a scanner and the software would cost no more than $100.00. I can't speak about the braille or tape, but your scanning numbers are way off base.
Not that this has anything to do with Goodwill going boutique <grin>
posted on January 9, 2001 05:27:31 PM new
barbarake ~ unfortunately, most people (parents) do not know all the ins and outs of IEPs and exactly what their rights are. Yes, parents are given the pamphlets at every IEP, but its still the schools that have the upper hands.. because all they have to do is say "we don't have the money, therefore we can't do it" and there's nothing that can be done. No amount of appeals and reviews can change that. True?
[i]Scanning a book does not cost anywhere near $3-$5/page. The local library lets you scan books at 10 cents/page. Heck, a scanner and the software would cost no more than $100.00. I can't speak about the braille or
tape, but your scanning numbers are way off base.[/i]
My mistake. I should have specified. You are correct in the fact that if you have a scanner and decent OCR software you can scan it yourself.. or even do it at the library for a very little amount of money. However, that is time consuming. Please consider that scanning also includes proofing. This means any OCR mistakes have to be caught. If you're scanning a complex textbook such as Algorithms, Assembler, etc.. a blind student, scanning his own, simply is not going to make it. (muchless it's time consuming for a full course load student). To scan and proof a 900 page book takes approximately 80 hours (2 40 hour weeks). There are professional sources that will scan and proof textbooks and this is what they do as a business. There are many located around the country and these businesses are those who the state and schools contract with when a textbook needs to be scanned to text. The prices that I quoted are on scale for what is done professionally and through contract with the states and the schools.
Hmmm, in a round about way.. sure it's got everything to do with Goodwill
[ edited by rosiebud on Jan 9, 2001 05:28 PM ]
posted on January 9, 2001 06:07:24 PM new
Rosiebud...having a child who was in the "special ed" program from 1st grade through 12th grade, I know what you are saying about the school system. I have no love for special ed programs or many of those involved, but...
If a parent does not make himself aware of his and his child's rights, it is not the fault of the school. True, if the parent doesn't make himslf aware of what the law says his child is entitled to the schools will run roughshod over those rights...but a knowledgeable parent can stop the schools dead in their tracks. The parent has an obligation to educate himself.
I also have a nephew who is severly retarded. He is 30 now, the same age as my eldest daughter, but has the mental ability of a 5 year old. He could never support himself and will always be supported by the taxpayers. He will live in a group home until he dies. He would benifit from a sheltered workshop...not because of any income he might get from it, but from the sense of self worth he would get from doing something "important"...just as any 5 year old does when he "helps" mommy.
Any money he would "earn" would be irrelevent to him since he has no real concept of money. But his self esteem would be improved no matter what he would be paid.
Your seeing the disabled from the side of the fence you are on...the side where the individual has a normal mental capacity but physical limitations. For this portion of the disabled population, self sufficiency is a very important need and desire...and one they should not be hindered in obtaining.
But there is the other side of the fence...the one where the individual does not have the mental capacity to be autonomous...where he can't care for himself or support himself. This individual will never be able to live on his own. For these, asheltered workshop is not about money but about self esteem...about feeling like your not so different.
A five year old does not understand wages, but does feel important when mommy "pays" him a nickle to do a task...my nephew has that same kind of need to feel good about himself. If a sheltered workshop can do that for him, can give him that self esteem, even if they pay him less than minimum wage, then they accomplished the task they set out to do. If they paid him minimum wage then fewer of his group home "family" would be able to have that same experience.
I had a coworker who's son died at age 29...he was still in diapers when he died, could not hold a spoon to feed himself, had no verbal skills and never, in 29 years, recognized his mother or father, grandmother or aunt. He was on the other end of the spectrum of "disabled".
No one size fits all when it comes to disabled...each individual has specific needs that are his alone. You can't try to fit all the disabled into one shape hole...heck, you can't fit ANY of us in one shape hole.
Continue to fight for the rights of the disabled, but don't have such a narrow focus that you forget your solution may not be best for everyone.
posted on January 9, 2001 06:40:06 PM new
I've heard stories of homes for retarded "employing" their charges by make work such as sorting buckets of bolts (remixed each night so they have something to do the next day) to give such sense of usefulness. Truth or fairy tale? I don't know but sounds likely. Real semi-employment sounds better, especially for cases intelligent enough to recognize that game though not enough to realistically earn a minimum wage. Seems it can be terribly difficult to draw the line between such and the potential abuses.
If a parent does not make himself aware of his and his child's rights, it is not the fault of the school.
This is true, BUT, not everyone is aware of their childs rights. Not everyone is aware that they can have an advocate go to the IEP's with them. Some parents are naive in how this works, and unfortunately, they do not figure it out until it's too late. It IS the fautl of the schools when their representatives fail to do their jobs either due to lack of funding or just plain laziness and half assed work. (and believe me, I have seen this last excuse in my years of advocacy ~ why else would a speech therapist give the a therapy session in the hallway of a school, before school started, and count that as the "time" that was required for the week?) I am not saying that all schools are this way.... they vary from district, city, and state. Some districts are better than others.. just as some schools are better at educating our students.
My "problem" with the sheltered workshops, is not that they exist, but that they pay a subminimum wage to the workers. I do not care of the worker is a person with an IQ of 35, or he only has 1 arm, is in a wheelchair, and is deaf in both ears and blind in one eye.
Why is it, that you do not think, that your nephew's work is worth at least min wage? Why is it "OK" for a company to make millions off of your nephew, yet your nephew only makes a pitance from this company? Why is it "OK" for the CEO of the company to make 250K per year (not including benefits).. but it's "OK" for your nephew (and other workers like him) to make less than 5K per year?
If they paid him minimum wage then fewer of his group home "family" would be able to have that same experience.
Really? Do you really think so? Do you know where the workshops get the jobs that need to be performed? They get them from businesses and the government (and as an added bonus, they get special government consideration because they DO hire the disabled). What do you think would happen if the workshops had to pay the workers min. wage? Why, they'd have to raise their bids on these projects.. this means they would not be able to undercut other businesses by lowballing a bid. Hmm, let's see what else.. Maybe the CEO's and managers would have to take a pay cut of sorts. Maybe they wouldn't spend so much money on lobbying. Maybe they wouldn't spend so much money on media consulting. Those are a few ideas.
Amy, I respect many of your posts, but I do believe you are wrong in this aspect and belief. They'd still be able to hire/train just as many as they always have because they would still get special government contracts, considerations and grants to do so. It just means that the administrators will get less money.
Continue to fight for the rights of the disabled, but don't have such a narrow focus that you forget your solution may not be best for everyone.
yea, my solution that is not best for everyone is simple....... pay the workers at least min. wage. How is that not best for them? It's not best for the businesses that use the workshops because they maybe forced to pay more for the services. It maynot be best for the managers and administrators of the workshops because in paying the workers more, they may need to take a paycut. You're absolutely right, Amy, it's not best for everyone, especially those who are profiting from them.
posted on January 9, 2001 11:48:23 PM new
ROSIEBUD: I am not going to answer you point-by-point, as it is probably a useless exercise. As somebody else said, your focus is on physically handicapped persons with a normal mental capacity. I am talking about the 40-year-olds at the sheltered workshop with such severe retardation that they could never hold a job out in the world. These people doesn't care about how much money they earn; heck, they probably don't even know how to count it!
They are delighted to have a place to go to every day, where they get to do something productive and be around other people and have some semblance of a social life. I keep trying to tell you that no, they are NOT capable of working out in the world in any sense, and that this IS the "real world" for them.
I could hire a 10-year-old to do what they have done for me, and pay the kid $1 an hour and he'd be delighted. In fact, when my son was younger, I did exactly that. Was I stealing from him or taking advantage of him? No way. Neither am I stealing or taking advantage of these people. I'm getting a good deal on work I need done, they are getting paid, and they are getting some semblance of a life.
I'll say it again...this option is NOT for every handicapped person, and I don't think it's ideal, but it's better than the alternatives. Nobody is going to pay these people minimum wage to do anything; they are incapable of functioning in the real world. At least this way they get something: tangible monetary rewards, and the intangible rewards of feeling useful and needed and having a social and emotional life.
As far as educating handicapped people goes, you have no idea of the experience I've had with that, and I'm not going to spend another screen or two going into it with you just to prove that I have some familiarity with the topic. I'll just say that my son was in special ed for most of his school career, and that not only did I deal with the usual parental stuff but I coached other parents on IEPs and such and mediated IEP meetings for them. From the day I started first grade, I went to school with handicapped kids (yes, they had mainstreaming, only it wasn't called that back in the dinosaur era), none of whom was from a wealthy family. And back then, they didn't have all these government programs to assist with costs, either. I know it was difficult for some of these kids, and they got a lot of help from the teachers and administrators, along with their parents and their friends. But it was not impossible!
You've made many good points, and others that I cannot agree with. The problem is, you don't seem able to see that there might be another legitimate viewpoint, or that not all handicapped persons are alike in their abilities and their needs. I see the spectrum, and IMO there is a place for sheltered workshops along with all the other options.
I've said my piece, and since I don't think we are going to get anywhere shouting at each other, I'm probably just going to let this drop.
posted on January 10, 2001 12:46:37 AM new
Rosiebud...I think Sonsie's last post is a very accurate synopsis of my opinion.
It's not about money when it comes to the severly retarded. The workshop is giving them something much more valuable than money...self esteem, a purpose, a social life. People like my nephew don't need money...they need to feel like they have value. Earning $5000 a year instead of $3000 means nothing to them...my nephew wouldn't know there WAS a difference.
People like him are not being exploited.
As for the CEO...he needs to support himself and his family....my nephew does not have that need as his shelter, food, clothing, health care etc are provided to him free.
posted on January 10, 2001 05:10:31 AM new
Sonsie:
not all handicapped persons are alike in their abilities and their needs.
This is true.. just as all sheltered workshops are not alike. As an example GW has VERY few slots for the severely mentally retarded and those who are on the lowest end of the physical spectrum. GW is one of the leading employers of the disabled; therefore most of your arguments are not taking into consideration the MAJORITY of disabled workers who work in sheltered workshops. I can say this because there are other workshops who use the same 'hiring' standards that GW uses. This means, that those people who are doing a majority of the work are NOT the 'vegitables' that you would have people believe.
To simplify that: A majority of people who are 'employeed' within the sheltered workshop system, in the US, are NOT severely mentally retarded. They are NOT severely physically disabled. They ARE physically disabled. Their mental disabilities range from range from medium to non-existant. A majority of people who work in sheltered workshops, within the US, are capable of functioning in the real world.
Amy:
As for the CEO...he needs to support himself and his family....
That's a crock. Do you know why? I know other full time presidents of NATIONAL charities (not all of them want to use the title CEO, in addition to 'president') who (the charities) make more money on the national level than GW, and they (the presidents) accept NO payment/salary/money. The jobs would be the same...... guess one family needs more support than the other eh? OR, one person looks at their charity as a $ making venture.
I've noticed something in both the previous posts: "these people" "people like him". You're appling the same arguments that racists supported slavery, Apartheid, and separate but equal, policies. Except in this case, you want it to be sperate and unequal. Discrimiation is discrimination whether is based on race, religion, gender or disability. I hope you apply the same standards when some woman is talking about the glass ceiling, or a racial minority spouts off about affirmative action. (Remember: Not too long ago, it was thought that minorities were less intelligent.. or women could not do the same job as a man and therefore should not be paid as much) We're talking civil rights. Not the right of charities to earn obscene profits on the backs of the disabled.
[ edited by rosiebud on Jan 10, 2001 05:40 AM ]
posted on January 10, 2001 06:44:59 AM new
I would like to address two areas here, first I have a son who is mentally ill and although strong, smart and talented, not able to hold a job in the real world. He has been in and out of the hospital for 20 years and at different times (when able) has worked in sheltered workshops.......they have been very positive for him because of the fact that his illness is extremely isolating. The workshops offered him a social life, contact with other people. I feel strongly that anyone able to work in the real world should be given a chance but some.....just can't.
Second....the GW that I shop in has been many things, a place to get good clothing for my son as his clothes regularly disappear when he is in the hosp. and I do want him to feel good and look good (I could not replace them at retail), a place where I have gotten clothing for myself that I can't seem to find anywhere else (i love second hand clothing!), a place where I have found things to sell on ebay, a place for me to take my "excess" items to where they are appreciated and last a place where I can go with my son, feel relaxed and know that they (the people who work there)will treat him like anyone else.
I also know that many poor people do come there and get fantastic buys, and I have never found anything that had a "retail" price on it.
posted on January 10, 2001 07:17:33 AM new
Barry:
To be honest?
A--If I didn't buy most of my family's clothing from thrift stores or yard sales, we'd be running around naked.
B--I've helped run our church thrift store and have given away a lot of clothing to those who need it.
And yes--C--If I saw a good deal that I couldn't personally use, I would resell it on e-bay, thereby providing for A.
[ edited by joycel on Jan 10, 2001 07:21 AM ]
posted on January 10, 2001 11:56:12 AM new why else would a speech therapist give the a therapy session in the hallway of a school, before school started, and count that as the "time" that was required for the week.
Just a guess, but: it could be that the therapist doesn't *have* a room (or even a closet...our speech therapist was thrilled to have a closet for an office) so an empty hall was a good place to work. Also, isn't it better to have the kid do his/her 'speech time' before school instead of missing Math time (or English, or whatever)?
posted on January 10, 2001 12:16:38 PM new
lotsafuzz ~ that would be a good answer if that were the case. This particular situation involved a speech therapist who pulled her client (note: singular, this was the only child she did this to) out of breakfast on the days that the child was to get therapy. Sat him down, 10 minutes before class started, outside of the classroom, in the hallway to give therapy. This happened 3 times per week to this child. This was the only child it happened to, and this particular therapist had 4 other clients at the school and her own 'room' for therapy. Her reasoning was that "it was more convenient" for her. Yet she failed to understand that she was not having success with this particular child because the child was distracted by 1) other students in the hall 2) slamming doors 3) hunger *this child was pulled out of his breakfast at school* 4) ringing bells.
And this benefits the child how? I really do believe, since the therapist could make appropriate time for the other 4 clients within that particular school and in an area that is appropriate for learning. The same could have been done with this one child. Apparently the school district thought the same thing when that particular therapist did not have a job the next year. And the child must have thought the same thing when he was put into an equal learning envirnment (as the other 4 clients) and his testing scores rose significantly.
See? There was a bright side to it, that's one less professional, who really doesn't care, to teach our children. Unfortunately, it took 6 months for the parents to find out about it (non-verbal child) ~ and the only reason they did is because a friend of the child mentioned it. No teacher, therapist, or administrator, at the school bothered to bring up the fact that this was the learning environment for this 1 child. That means, for 6 months, that child, essentially, went without services. That child is 6 months more behind.
When asked "why", her response was that it was more convenient for her. It had nothing to do with what was better for the child.
posted on January 10, 2001 01:30:46 PM new
Not everyone who needs to have inexpensive good clothing qualifies for "freebies". A few years ago I was just out of grad school, in deep deep student-related debt, but making "sufficient money" by most people's standards for a single woman(about $20,000 a year--grad school was a waste of time, but I've gotten over it . More than half my money went to paying those loans -- and we won't talk about the need for transportation in a lack of public transit city, rent, groceries, etc etc etc. I made enough money to pay my bills and slowly get out of debt. My job was in an office where business professional attire was expected. And grad school clothes didn't cut it. Short of going a good $1000 more into debt, I went to the local Goodwill, bought a number of nice business professional outfits. Made it through -- now I CAN buy clothes retail, and do. And the used stuff goes to goodwill when I get tired of it, or it doesn't fit.
There are the freebies for the people truly in need of all the help they can get -- and I have no problem supporting these places with my donations for that purpose. There are those with the money to buy retail (thankfully, I now fit into that category). And there are those in between the cracks -- who are in a tough spot temporarily, and need to find sources of inexpensive, yet good items. That third category gets left out when these places start to see themselves as "boutiques" -- and while the thrift stores need to support their most needy clientele (job holders and the truly in need), sticking it to those in between is not going to help. Why? I wouldn't donate to Goodwill if I hadn't once benefitted from their services and if I thought they were going to make $20 off the dress I spent $35 for that no longer fits. I would try to find someplace that ONLY donated their clothing, not sell it. Or I would just trash it. Which ain't a good thing ecologically, but which would probably be what they would do if they can't get exorbitant prices.
You want to make money with second-hand clothing -- be a boutique resale store (plenty around), pay for your inventory, and go for it. But I won't donate to a CHARITY that charges as though they were a business, yet gets most or all of its product for free.
And all of this seems to have echoed at least a few of the buyers commenting here -- so I guess I better check out that Goodwill store and see what prices they are charging these days -- may be time to donate elsewhere.
[ edited by stonecottage on Jan 10, 2001 01:44 PM ]
