Yes, you are not incorrect. However, what this discussion points out is a problem with a lot of aid programs. Because there is not an effective transitioning formula, or tiered aid, the people on the bubble are incentivized to “game” the system. And the people tasked with governance become cops, instead of aid providers. Needs fixing, it does.
One of the most frustrating things about my job. Nearly all of the claimants are sympathetic. And nearly all face huge hurdles in a competitive workplace (poor education, not young, SOME phys/ment/emot impairment). But nowhere NEAR all are unable to work. ALL are IMPAIRED - relatively few are DISABLED (as SS defines that term).
I TRULY wish my government provided more in terms of health care, education, vocational training, parental childcare assistance. But they don’t. So instead, SSDI is used as a general welfare system. Personally, I dislike the message of helplessness it supports for all too many people at the bottom of most socioeconomic measures: “It’s not MY fault. Nor is it anything I ought to try to overcome. It’s my DISABILITY! Subsidize and accommodate me until I die.”
Yes, that is how it was with my cousin–if reasonable production was 500 parts per day, and he made 5 parts per day and spent the rest of the time talking or looking around, he would be paid only 25 cents (or whatever) for the day, but would be in no risk of getting “fired” either.
My brother used to work at a non-profit organization that created jobs for the mentally disabled. The mentally handicapped workers received a piece rate to do finishing work on consumer products, like scraping flashing from molded plastic parts, screwing lids onto sippy cups, or packaging goods. The workers weren’t guaranteed minimum wage but all of these disabled people got paid based on what they could do, they earned meaningful amounts of money, they had a place to socialize, and they felt like contributing members of society. They also got some job training and work that challenged them. The organization granted them much more flexibility than most workplaces in America and its leadership was skilled with working with the disabled. It wasn’t exploiting anyone. Its executive director oversaw a workforce of hundreds of challenging employees and his pay never seemed like anything special (my family knew him and his family very well). Plus, he had to spend a lot of time fundraising and writing grant proposals. Requiring that organization to pay its disabled workers minimum wage would have just reduced the number of jobs the organization could offer and might have forced them to close entirely.
The kind of significantly handicapped people we are talking about aren’t going to transition to anything. At some level, they are probably producing, or not producing, as much as they can reasonably be expected to do.
My nephew isn’t all that handicapped. He has Down syndrome and some other health issues, and he works at a grocery store bagging groceries and other simple tasks. He also lives in a group home, and with a lot of support from the supervisors in the home and my brother- and sister-in-law, he can live semi-independently. But he isn’t going to be working his way up the corporate ladder in any sense, and he will probably never be capable of living by himself. I don’t think he is being exploited - he is being taken care of in the ways he can’t do for himself.
Some people’s labor really isn’t worth $7.25 an hour. Maybe that’s harsh, but it’s true.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know how well this is acknowledged, in some cases the issue isn’t much to do with the ability to work, it is the job search process that makes intervention and safety nets necessary. Some people can’t make it through the conventional interview process or otherwise network sufficiently to get their foot in the door. And it can be compounded by employers routinely discriminating against prospects for traits largely outside their control which sometimes have little to do with their abilities and actual risk of not panning out. By and large, employers have long squandered underappreciated talents by taking the paths more familiarly traveled.
20 CFR sect 404.1566(c): We will determine that you are not disabled if your residual functional capacity and vocational abilities make it possible for you to do work which exists in the national economy, but you remain unemployed because of-
(1) your inability to get work;
(2) Lack of work in your local area;
(3) the hiring practices of employers;
…
(6) No job openings for you;
(7) You would not actually be hired to do work you could otherwise do;
(8) You do not wish to do a particular type of work.
As I tried to state as clearly as possible, I am ALL IN FAVOR of extensive governmental intervention and supports. Just not within the SS disability system. The fact that our country is unwilling to support/pay for such efforts is unfortunate. Of course, then you bump up against the time honored question of “ought our economy provide employment for every adult?” Another question beyond the scope of SS disability.
Most people in this situation have family members or other caretakers who continuously look out for them, so taking advantage of them is unlikely. Such work opportunities are welcomed and valuable.
Oh indeed, we got kinda sidetracked onto SS disability qualifications, which is a different discussion.
The problem isn’t my coworker, it’s the system.
From a physical standpoint he’s a healthy, adult man. He is physically capable of manual labor. The problem is that mentally is not competent to handle the affairs of an adult human being. His ability to read or perform basic arithmetic is limited. He is easily confused and people do try to take advantage of/exploit him. He really does need some assistance with existing in the adult world.
Our “system” says he will ONLY get that help, which he legitimately needs, if he only works limited hours. So yes, he is physically capable of working full time but if he does so he gets the rug yanked out from under him - no more help of any kind. No one to check in on him to make sure the bills are paid, that no one has coerced him into signing a contract or other obligation he shouldn’t, no help managing finances or doing his taxes, no help reading anything above a 4th grade level, no access to transportation to get to and from work or anything else (he is not able to drive a car), nothing.
WHEN the system is set up so someone such as my coworker can work fulltime AND continue to receive the help and protection from exploitation they genuinely THEN I will call what he is doing “gaming the system”. Until then, he’s doing what he has to do in order to survive.
I suspect the “system” was originally designed for severely physically handicapped people. I suspect it was also designed with the notion that the handicapped had relatives available to fill the gaps in the so-called safety net.
Really, my coworker reminds me of “Crazy Mary” back in Rogers Park (I’ll call her that, because that’s how she used to introduce herself - “Hi, I’m Crazy Mary”). I was told she was a schizophrenic, but for sure she used to have some vivid hallucinations. Anyhow - they’d get her treatment, she’d get better, they’d turn her loose… then a couple months later she’d wind up in the ER talking to chartreuse beavers and pink daisies or whatever, all her money and possessions gone. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat - well, nothing physically wrong with her, why can’t she get a job, right? Oh, and the local toughs would mug and rape her on a regular basis - she’s crazy, right? Couldn’t identify people in a line-up when things were bad, and a good attorney could probably get anything she said thrown out of court regardless. It wasn’t until someone finally worked out a way for her to get sheltered living with someone checking in once a week to make sure she was OK, and when she wasn’t getting her stolen meds replaced and whatever other help she needed, that she got off the catastrophe carousel. But hey - it’s only her brain that doesn’t work right, guess she was gaming the system, too?
That’s what a mental disability is - it’s a brain that isn’t working right, regardless of whether it’s mental illness or “developmental delays” or brain injury or whatever. Such people often ARE physically capable of working full time, but can’t get by without extra help… which they are denied if they do work full-time.
So, sorry if I am not sympathetic to your viewpoint which seems biased against folks with malfunctioning brains. Frankly, we’d ALL be better off if my coworker was allowed to work fulltime without losing the assistance he needs, but that’s not how things work.
Yes, let’s just throw the mentally ill, the brain injured, and the mentally-not-quite-high-functioning-as-the-rest-of-us out into the cold. Who cares that they will become targeted for exploitation, or fail to meet adult responsibilities because their brains don’t work well enough for them to be able to do that in the modern world? They’re cheaters and slackers all - you do realize that’s how you come across, yes?
You seem to forget the AND MENTAL - and it’s no good if they are physically capable of being a full-time bagger/cart pusher/toilet scrubber/whatever if they aren’t mentally capable of fulfilling the other obligations of being an adult in society.
My coworker is not the one refusing an additional shift for him - his legal guardian is the one doing so. Because, despite being over 50, he has never been a legally competent adult and has always had a legal guardian. He’s just damn lucky his parents set up his current arrangement before they passed away because there’s no way he’d be able to navigate the legal hurdles on his own.
My coworker started as a cart pusher. He’s actually been promoted a step higher than that because, as I said, he’s got a fantastic work ethic and does the best he can every day, he really does push himself to do better.
But hey - he’s a scammer because he’s not working full time and getting dumped off all assistance. Guess there’s no middle ground between “drooling in a corner” and “fully functional adult”. :rolleyes:
Walmart is getting rid of their greeters, or more specifically, changing the job so that people with mental and/or physical disabilities are no longer capable of doing them, and not finding ways to put them in other jobs.
Broomstick, my views in this thread relate solely to the Social Security disability law as it is written. You impress me as pretty ignorant of that. At no point have you explained how your co-worker is incapable of performing the mental requirements of full-time work, or what special assistance he receives in order to do his work. Work performed in sheltered workshops, or requiring special supervision is not considered substantial gainful activity for SSDI purposes. His difficulties with other aspects of independent living are certainly relevant, but not determinative in themselves.
You don’t seem to realize that you are actually illustrating something I described: our system is great at assisting people who are able to fit themselves into a favorable pigeonhole - either through their own efforts or with the assistance of a legal guardian, social worker, etc. You do not appear to appreciate my perspective that that is something different (possibly close, but not the same) than actually identifying those most needing assistance and who would most benefit from assistance.
I suspect we would find we agreed greatly on what we wished our society to provide for its least able members (though, I’m sure we would find considerable differences there, as well.)
His math skills are sharply limited. He is incapable of reliably making change for a purchase in an accurate manner. Although he can slowly puzzle out very simple writing he has almost no ability to write for himself other than signing his name or writing out a few individual words or the simplest sentences. All instructions must be given to him orally. If he needs to read something he needs someone next to him to help him navigate the writing. He has a “job coach” to help in training him for any new duties (although once he gets a new task or sequences of them he remembers them well) and for dealing with any HR matter. He is not capable of learning to drive a car, therefore getting to and from most jobs would be problematic without subsidized transportation. He is not allowed to operate mechanical machinery.
The above limitations puts most employment out of his reach. I’m not sure what else you’re looking for here - yes, physically he’s strong and healthy but mentally he is not and never will be at the level of a normal adult.
If current rules say he is somehow not disabled then the current rules are full of crap.
He’s not in a “sheltered workshop”, but he is under more supervision than most employees.
I fail to grasp how this man is NOT disabled. He DOES have SSDI so someone somewhere in the system you work in apparently decided he was disabled enough to qualify for it. I’m not sure that anyone - him, society, whomever - would benefit from parking him in some sort of adult day care to either watch TV all day (which is he probably wouldn’t - he doesn’t understand most TV shows and finds news shows upsetting, which is why he avoids the main break room because it’s usually one or the other in there) or make arts’n’crafts projects. This way he does a job that actually needs to be done, he’s able to do it at a reasonable level (sometimes exceeding the performance of “normal” people).
What alternative do you propose? Cut off his SSDI and other support and leave him to sink or swim on his own? (Pretty sure he’d sink sooner or later) How is that helpful? He’s working within the rules. When rich businessmen do that we call them geniuses. When poor or disabled folks do it they’re “gaming the system”. It’s an ugly double-standard.
I am getting a little confused. Are we talking about Social Security Disability ( which is sometimes called SSDI) which only covers people with enough work credits or SSI , which stands for Supplemental Security Income and doesn’t require any work history at all ? Both programs are administered by the Social Security administration but they are very different - and one of the major differences is that SSI is means tested.
A practical difference is that the populations are going to be different - those who worked most of their lives until an injury or illness disabled them are more likely to collect Social Security Disability benefits and those whose disabilities began in childhood are more likely to receive SSI.
Then it’s probably SSI - frankly, I am not conversant with the nuances and details of this man’s benefits because I am not a relative or other relevant party.
He (and our mutual employer) are aware that he has work limitation and exceeding a certain level of hours/income will screw him over.
Regardless - you have not made it clear how playing within the rules makes a person such as this dishonest, or how anyone would benefit from cutting him off from all support.
What you seem to overlook in your zeal, is that no one has accused your cow-orker of dishonesty. Perhaps it is the lawyer in me, but “gaming the system” - knowing the rules and using them to your best advantage, is not dishonesty.
Nor have I - or anyone else - suggested that he ought to be cut off from all support. If you missed my criticism of the existing system, you might benefit from more careful reading. Could I be any clearer than THIS from my initial post in this thread? One of my biggest difficulties w/ my job is that SSDI sets up a complicated regulatory framework which is great for fitting people into various pigeonholes, but does a damned poor job of achieving any laudable societal goal I can understand - after 30+ years of doing this work.
And I apologize to everyone for my careless repeated use of the acronym SSDI. That is not an acronym I regularly use or encounter in my job. (SSDI is more often referred to as DIB.) I see SSDI used most frequently in public forums such as this, where it is (mis)used to denote all Social Security disability programs.
You said:
“Gaming the system” is usually a negative in everyday speech.
“Gaming the system” means that the outcome is detrimental to the system or to someone else. So while doing this is may not technically be against the rules, it is certainly unethical.
Hmm - detrimental to the system? Not sure I agree. If the “system” sets the rules, and someone is creative enough to discover gaps, exceptions, or interpretations that will work to their advantage, is that really unethical? Sure, we might think we all KNOW and AGREE what is intended, but if it is not expressly forbidden…
Take basic tax practices. Someone with clever enough accountants is able to structure their income in a manner that they pay far less taxes than a less wealthy person who cannot afford accountants. Is the wealthy person gaming the system, or just working with the existing rules? Does their activity make them dishonest or unethical? Do you think favorably of such a person? Or is the “system” intentionally set up to advantage such people?
I would agree than many (not all) folk would consider such behavior less than laudable, but not sure I’d call it dishonest or unethical.
I think this is the lawyer in you coming out. As a general rule, people use the term “gaming the system” to refer to manipulating the rules to the detriment of either the system or another person and it generally indicates that the person using the phrase believes that the person 'gaming the system" is doing so in an unethical way - even though it may be 100% legal. Because the fact that something is legal doesn’t make it right.