Thanks! I hate it!

I agree. Some positions simply cannot be filled by people who are incapable of doing the work. It's the same way you wouldn't hire a blind person to drive a truck.

There's nothing wrong with giving the legally blind some kind of employment that they are capable of completing, it just limits their options. I would equiviquate it to hiring joe the garbage-man to do vector calculations for spacetravel. You would want someone who is educated and trained in that specific field to do the work; and companies would pay for that privlidge. Fact is, not everyone can do every job.

Giving someone who is differently abled, a job, is good for everyone. It cuts down on the requirement for the government to foot the bill of their care, as otherwise those that need the assistance would be on disability payments. By holding a job, they can contribute to society, and earn more than they would on assistance, while the government is likely paying aproximately the same amount they would for disability payments, just to the employer, who suppliements that with additional contribution. It shifts the social responsibility of the thing slightly, and allows those who are unable to do more, to do what they can and enhance the society in which we live - which is a sense of accomplishment that we all crave.

Either way, everyone working a job should be paid for what they do, and that wage should be enough to have their basic needs met..... a liveable wage. Regardless of all other factors.

Which isn't to desparage those who cannot work, they should be able to live as well, irrespective of why they cannot work. Welfare and/or disability support should provide for those who are incapable. Which is why I support UBI. everyone should have their needs met. Period. Food, Shelter, clothes on their back. The trick with UBI is how to make it so that people still want to work "minimum wage" type jobs. If UBI is covering their needs then those without any motivation or desire to better themselves will, in theory, just loaf around all day. "minimum wage" type jobs should be UBI (all basic needs met), alongside a relatively small payment to bump them above the basics to be able to afford luxuries like a premium mobile phone or premium mobile phone plan with data and unlimited texting or something. Internet at home that's faster than the most basic connection they can otherwise get, nicer stuff... you know.... like a car.

The main issue with UBI, IMO, is that many feel weird about giving one organization (namely the government) that much control over their flow of money; and giving it on such a scale that everyone is reliant, in some way, shape, or form, on government payments to live. Honestly, I understand that, but I disagree that it should be a problem. If the system is designed correctly, then that won't be a problem. The main argument I have, for UBI, is that it would dramatically simplify unemployment/welfare. Everything goes through and is automatically approved as long as you're a citizen. Whether you're getting some form of unemployment insurance or welfare or something else (like disability), you're getting the same, or similar amounts regardless as UBI. Hell, most of the current infrastructure wouldn't even need to change that much, businesses would just show that John is employed here and we're covering more than their UBI, and the company would handle it from there, as soon as John gets released from their employment, the company already has to register with the government that John no longer works here, that would trigger an action where John would need to update his UBI records, and as soon as John does, voila, UBI money going directly into John's account. Reason for unemployment? doesn't matter. John gets UBI. As soon as John finds a new job, the job registers that John works here as of X date, and the company is now covering John's UBI payments through his wages.

Argh, sorry for the rant, but it's something that I'm pretty passionate about.

Oh, I don't think they should take the volunteer positions, but if companies want unpaid labor, that's their option.... Not "hey Joe, you know how Pat is kinda, special? Do you think we could just.... You know, cut their pay? Do you think that they would notice?"

Because that's what I get from vibe of the article.

Volunteer should be a choice that someone can make. To choose to be there without pay to do something because you want to help out. Generally for things like a outreach programme or something.... I volunteered a few hours of my time and a few gallons of gas to drive out there, to help clean up a neighborhood that was overgrown and had drug paraphernalia (like needles) and other debris around. I've also volunteered to do communications for charity events, and I've done a huge amount of volunteering as a first-aider, back in the day. It's good to volunteer your time every once and a while.

But if someone is showing up for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and they're considered a "volunteer", shit is fucked up.

I used to work rather extensively with a local Goodwill (like) company, at my previous job. They had a deli/kitchen kind of storefront on one of their sites and they employed several people with various challenges over the years, and I'm certain each and every one was a paid employee. I ate there often to show my support.

And that's what it should be. There was always someone around (full time permanent employee) who was able to supervise and handle anything that might unexpectedly happen.

So? Companies would rather not pay anyone anything. They can stuff it and pay everyone fairly.

Volunteering is generally very limited when it comes to for-profit organizations. aside from "work experience" and some "intern" type jobs, taking work for no pay is rare outside of not-for-profit orgs.

Often, Volunteers are on a very temporary basis, usually a day or two, very infrequently. Even interns or work experience programs are time-limited, and an employer either needs to hire that person properly, or let them go when the time runs out.

AFAIK, you can't be a permanent full-time volunteer. I mean, you can just show up and help out if you want, but it would only be of your own volition to do so; and I don't think anyone in their right mind would stick around generating profit for someone else for a protracted period of time, just because they can.

Normalizing that, by not paying disabled workers is not the right move. I think we agree on that. At the same time, we can't really eliminate volunteer jobs. I do a non-trivial amount of volunteering, and there's a good number of things, like fundraisers, that would likely collapse or be very ineffectual if we did away with volunteering entirely.... Fact is, nobody should be given volunteering as their only option for work; especially long-term.