I'm not sure what your point is? It's not a charity, pays taxes, doesn't receive government funds, and I presume its employees are paid more than the minimum wage/22¢hour.

Does the Huffost CEO pay take advantage of staff with disabilities by paying them less than minimum wage?

I'm not sure about the Goodwill program specifically, but some companies with disability work programs accept extremely disabled individuals who are literally more work to have there than they could possibly accomplish. It is meant as an outreach service, because having a "job" at all is therapeutic for them.

Further, there is a hard cap on income before one loses certain disability benefits, so some disabled people will also be financially better off from being paid less.

I don't see any info in this article about the extent of disability Goodwill was working with, but more often than not these programs are not meant to exploit and really don't provide any material benefit to the company. There is certainly debate about whether the law allowing this is a net positive, but it's usually much more nuanced than a company just trying to get cheap labor out of a disadvantaged person.

The entire point of the company is to do those things you describe as difficult. That doesn't seem to support any notion that the executives should be paid like high-flying CEOs of startup companies.

In fact, the old Grandpa that started it took a nominal salary. When he died, the grandkids all took post in the company and raised their salaries by 10X to 50X.

I can put my money lots of places. This isn't one.

Tu quoque is a fallacy of relevance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

I did not make an argument, hence it is not a fallacy of relevance.

I provided factual information. The reader can draw their own conclusions.

The parent poster provided factual information about a logical fallacy. They did not connect your post to the fallacy, they just gave readers information to draw their own conclusions.

Haha, touché! Well done.