Should employers pay disabled employees more?

[autism-and-autotune]

Yes, I can predict possible issues with this. But, if you're someone like me who isn't 'disabled enough' to obtain benefits, but too disabled to work full-time, then what can you do?

And of course, isn't there a threshold for severity of disability to be determined to warrant such pay? The big fear is 'just anyone' claiming to have a disability--especially invisible!--and wanting such money. Maybe this is a silly question, or maybe it's something which could actually take place. There's obviously lots of factors at work here. I just wish that everyone could have a chance.

I'm curious to hear the thoughts of others below.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

The general guideline that most businesses follow regarding pay: How much value do you bring to the company?
Being disabled or not, really isn't part of the equation. If you're wheelchair-bound, but your work, more specifically, your decision-making, can make the company 10's-100's of thousands, millions of dollars, then you are going to receive higher compensation than someone else who might actually cost the company money. Yes, there are entry-level workers that are needed to operate the business, but actually cost the company money. They are a liability. If you happen to be seen as a liability, then good luck trying to get a raise. As a general rule, the "decision-makers" are the people making the higher wages and have some leverage for pay raises.

The only thing you can do in this situation is obtain more training to become more valuable to the company in a "decision-making position", or find another position in another company that will see you as an asset rather than a liability.

I totally understand this viewpoint that there can be staggering huge disparities between the compensation that a CEO and the average worker at many companies make. How can this be fair? It almost seems criminal. However, CEOs are the ones making the decisions that guide companies through all the ups and downs, they are the ones approving the decisions of people below them, they are the ones with the most value to the company and shareholders. The rest of us poor grunts below them are just disposable cogs in the machine. We don't add value. Sure, the company "propaganda" machine keeps telling us we are "valued team members", we are "family", as a means of making us feel loyal, but when it comes to leveraging for wages, then it becomes more clear that we can be replaced with a newer person at a lower wage.

Sorry, I've been working at a huge corporate health system for nearly 40 years and have seen a lot that has made me a bit "jaded", angry, and wise.

 

[Hypnalis]

It's not an unreasonable idea (though it's much more complicated that a simple formulation can capture).

But IMO such questions are "unanswerable" because it's so difficult to implement an "equality of outcome" scheme of this general type in practice. The "Law of Unintended Consequences" is certain to assert itself.

Also it can't be forced on the employer. It generates an immediate problem: the employers get less "work per dollar", so they won't hire anyone who's eligible.
There's no easy/practical way to resolve that.

 

[Rodafina]

Should employers pay disabled employees more?​

No way.

I hear you that it can be difficult to be in between, but perhaps it is time to get creative with accommodations and supplements to your paycheck. A disability-based discrepancy in wages does not seem like the answer.

 

[VictorR]

The general guideline that most businesses follow regarding pay: How much value do you bring to the company?
Being disabled or not, really isn't part of the equation. If you're wheelchair-bound, but your work, more specifically, your decision-making, can make the company 10's-100's of thousands, millions of dollars, then you are going to receive higher compensation than someone else who might actually cost the company money. Yes, there are entry-level workers that are needed to operate the business, but actually cost the company money. They are a liability. If you happen to be seen as a liability, then good luck trying to get a raise. As a general rule, the "decision-makers" are the people making the higher wages and have some leverage for pay raises.

The only thing you can do in this situation is obtain more training to become more valuable to the company in a "decision-making position", or find another position in another company that will see you as an asset rather than a liability.

I totally understand this viewpoint that there can be staggering huge disparities between the compensation that a CEO and the average worker at many companies make. How can this be fair? It almost seems criminal. However, CEOs are the ones making the decisions that guide companies through all the ups and downs, they are the ones approving the decisions of people below them, they are the ones with the most value to the company and shareholders. The rest of us poor grunts below them are just disposable cogs in the machine. We don't add value. Sure, the company "propaganda" machine keeps telling us we are "valued team members", we are "family", as a means of making us feel loyal, but when it comes to leveraging for wages, then it becomes more clear that we can be replaced with a newer person at a lower wage.

Sorry, I've been working at a huge corporate health system for nearly 40 years and have seen a lot that has made me a bit "jaded", angry, and wise.

Another guideline I've observed is perceived value / proximity to power.

Those working at corporate HQ likely make more than those doing the same/similar work at a regional HQ, who in turn likely make more than those doing the same/similar work at the branch/store level.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

I once worked for a company that had four plants, each with an identical lab tech I was the lowest paid one even through my position was the only one unionized my plant had a staff union. strangely the company realized my skill in colour control so I did the overall colour coordination for all the plants. the other lab techs knew I was the best among them. So do not think real situations are not as simple as some would like. I joined the union negotiating.
committee for new contracts to rectify the situation, the union was a bigger obstacle then the company. Four appliances four plants. Technically knowing what I know now was I disabled.

 

[Judge]

"Catch-22". I just don't see putting the burden of compensation upon an employer, as opposed to existing Social Security Disability benefits designed to allegedly compensate such citizens accordingly. Asides from the obvious, that ideologically speaking it would never fly in the US in the first place.

Not to mention how such thinking would roil most every corporate officer and their shareholders who would lobby against it, flush with cash. That we remain a society that advocates avarice above compassion on multiple levels. With nearly half the country condoning it on general principle.

Then consider that eligibility for Social Security Disability is based on a system that legally and bureaucratically examines one's disability based on the simple premise that you either have it, or you don't. A process not designed or intended to aid those who don't quite fit an absolute definition of disability.

 

[paloftoon]

Best thing you can do to leverage yourself is build skills at current company and then move to another company willing to pay you more. This probably also means not mentioning a disability.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Best thing you can do to leverage yourself is build skills at current company and then move to another company willing to pay you more. This probably also means not mentioning a disability.

That's what I have done my whole life I told nobody about my bout with transverse myelitis disability masking. thank God I had a stroke 10 days prior to my retirement. life is weird. Company gets exceptional employee game changer.
find out later, that they had now worried about are competitors getting hold of them,I even got threatened with being sued a couple of years ago apparently my knowledge base, they consider proprietary my education was mine paid for by me my break throughs were made at prior employers. All I did was make a package. Which 30 plus years of experience and education converged while employed by them I signed nothing prior to employment. sometimes I wonder how the patent office handled it, after they realized Albert worked for them.

 

[Magna]

Pay them more? I don't see why. However, employers should CERTAINLY not pay disabled employees LESS.

 

[Outdated]

Should employers pay disabled employees more?

This sort of idealism is counterproductive and possibly even harmful. Try putting yourself in the shoes of an employer for a few minutes.

I worked in a physical trade where this is more visibly obvious but it's true for all sectors of employment. The bottom line is Production. People that produce more get paid more because they are worth the extra money.

How hard someone tries is completely irrelevant to the real world, how much they produce is what matters. In fact it's usually the only thing that matters, and unless you're in a toxic workplace social issues are quite irrelevant, the bottom line is production. People notice I'm a bit weird within minutes of meeting me but I was paid near double that of most others and well looked after too.

Would you buy a car that's broken down and always having problems because you feel sorry for it? Would you buy fruit and vegetables that have started going mouldy on the shelves because it's not their fault? Employers don't make money by throwing it at things they can't use and don't want, and that's exactly as it should be.

If an employer is not making any money then they can not pay you. That's the bottom line.

 

[Aspychata]

Why are we asking an employer to pay for this? At most, employers will just stop hiring disadvantaged employees, fearing financial losses, unexplainable to stock holders. Not saying that they don't do this already to some extent, though very discretely. It's called rapid turnover, by getting rid of a cycle of employees, you keep all chances of being sued for just about anything to a bare minimum.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

Thank you all for talking some sense into me. I will respond to all your comments later, when I can.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

Why are we asking an employer to pay for this? At most, employers will just stop hiring disadvantaged employees, fearing financial losses, unexplainable to stock holders. Not saying that they don't do this already to some extent, though very discretely. It's called rapid turnover, by getting rid of a cycle of employees, you keep all chances of being sued for just about anything to a bare minimum.

You're right; that makes complete sense.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

This sort of idealism is counterproductive and possibly even harmful. Try putting yourself in the shoes of an employer for a few minutes.

I worked in a physical trade where this is more visibly obvious but it's true for all sectors of employment. The bottom line is Production. People that produce more get paid more because they are worth the extra money.

How hard someone tries is completely irrelevant to the real world, how much they produce is what matters. In fact it's usually the only thing that matters, and unless you're in a toxic workplace social issues are quite irrelevant, the bottom line is production. People notice I'm a bit weird within minutes of meeting me but I was paid near double that of most others and well looked after too.

Would you buy a car that's broken down and always having problems because you feel sorry for it? Would you buy fruit and vegetables that have started going mouldy on the shelves because it's not their fault? Employers don't make money by throwing it at things they can't use and don't want, and that's exactly as it should be.

If an employer is not making any money then they can not pay you. That's the bottom line.

Thank you for framing it like that; I can definitely see from the employer's perspective how it woldn't be such a good thing. I think your fruit analogy helped me get it too.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

Pay them more? I don't see why. However, employers should CERTAINLY not pay disabled employees LESS.

True! Also, wouldn't it maybe be seen as some form of discrimination against non-disabled folks? I think that's an unfair point that I hadn't considered before...

 

[autism-and-autotune]

That's what I have done my whole life I told nobody about my bout with transverse myelitis disability masking. thank God I had a stroke 10 days prior to my retirement. life is weird. Company gets exceptional employee game changer.
find out later, that they had now worried about are competitors getting hold of them,I even got threatened with being sued a couple of years ago apparently my knowledge base, they consider proprietary my education was mine paid for by me my break throughs were made at prior employers. All I did was make a package. Which 30 plus years of experience and education converged while employed by them I signed nothing prior to employment. sometimes I wonder how the patent office handled it, after they realized Albert worked for them.

That's quite something! Did everything turn out all right in the end, in a way?

 

[autism-and-autotune]

Best thing you can do to leverage yourself is build skills at current company and then move to another company willing to pay you more. This probably also means not mentioning a disability.

True, true; this makes sense.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

"Catch-22". I just don't see putting the burden of compensation upon an employer, as opposed to existing Social Security Disability benefits designed to allegedly compensate such citizens accordingly. Asides from the obvious, that ideologically speaking it would never fly in the US in the first place.

Not to mention how such thinking would roil most every corporate officer and their shareholders who would lobby against it, flush with cash. That we remain a society that advocates avarice above compassion on multiple levels. With nearly half the country condoning it on general principle.

Then consider that eligibility for Social Security Disability is based on a system that legally and bureaucratically examines one's disability based on the simple premise that you either have it, or you don't. A process not designed or intended to aid those who don't quite fit an absolute definition of disability.

When you frame it like that, I understand better.

True; I hadn't considered what the corporate offices would do.

I think everything with Social Security is what spurred my original question. It's just so troublesome.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

I once worked for a company that had four plants, each with an identical lab tech I was the lowest paid one even through my position was the only one unionized my plant had a staff union. strangely the company realized my skill in colour control so I did the overall colour coordination for all the plants. the other lab techs knew I was the best among them. So do not think real situations are not as simple as some would like. I joined the union negotiating.
committee for new contracts to rectify the situation, the union was a bigger obstacle then the company. Four appliances four plants. Technically knowing what I know now was I disabled.

Wow, that's very impressive to read!