Workshops for people with disabilities (WfbM) are currently financed by the state, since a WfbM cannot assert itself against the competition of other companies in the market. In a WfbM, people work directly in production as well as people who accompany and support the producers. For many people with disabilities, the workshop is a day structuring moment that many would not want to miss. In addition, the place functions as a social space that exists beyond a pure world of work. This saves many people from being lonely and / or offers them a change from everyday home life. But – and this is the crucial point with regard to a demand for the minimum wage – it is ultimately about wage labor, which must be remunerated accordingly. A cost-covering production in the WfbM, which pays both accompaniment and producers according to the minimum wage, is not possible. As a result, the state has to take over the financing of what is already there. At the moment, in most cases, the producers initially receive basic security and, after a few years, a disability pension. The absolutely justified demand for a minimum wage at this point would turn this on its head.

“No longer giving an account of the authorities, but wages on the account!”

In short, the demand for a minimum wage would mean a reallocation of funds, which saves the bureaucratic route through the offices and instead guarantees direct payment to the WfbM, which in turn could then pay minimum wages.
The resulting cost increase in the financing of the minimum wage is a well-known negative argument on the part of employers or the state, as can be heard reflexively in related topics around the complex of securing workers’ rights.

The second main counter-argument – or rather the concern – of the critics: Inside is cynically that with the minimum wage, the industrial safety laws would also apply to the producers. That would put them in a completely different position and give them the opportunity, for example, to organize themselves in a union and / or set up works councils. Incidentally, this would also meet the requirements of integration and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (1). As usual, the collective organization for workers’ rights does not seem to be in the interests of the state administration, which tries to curtail those rights wherever possible.

We hereby expressly support the demand for a minimum wage and the associated right to unionize.

“Get out of isolation and come with the possibility of emancipatory organization!”

(1) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention

Lukas Krämer’s YouTube channel:

“Workshops are the opposite of inclusion”

Source: Awsm.nz