Re:The Great Hobby Lobby Artifact Heist
by armchairhacker on Monday March 24, 2025 @12:20PM
(#43462742)
The 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.
How is that an argument? That's just a position with no defense.
Re:The Great Hobby Lobby Artifact Heist
by themaninthedark on Monday March 24, 2025 @01:12PM
(#43463231)
It ironically fits in with the article :)
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)