2004
WTAF
More you might like
It gets worse. When I worked for a nonprofit ARC (Association for Retarded Citizens - yes they use that word in the name) I was tasked with conducting “time studies” of disabled workers to determine their hourly wage.
Basically the way a time study worked is an “able-bodied” worker was timed doing a task. This became the standard. Then disable workers would be timed doing the same task. If they performed 60% as fast as the set standard, they’d only be paid 60% of the hourly wage set for the task.
Which sucks.
But, it gets even worse.
I was tasked with conducting the time studies so I head out and start doing them. The majority of the disabled workers were performing to 85% or better of the “able-bodied” times.
I turned the reports in and was told, “that’s not possible. Do them again.”
So I did them again. We’re talking a few hundred time studies.
The results were the same. In fact at least a dozen of the workers actually improved their previous times.
I turned them in and was told, “This can’t be right. They can’t be doing that well.”
I told them results spoke for themselves. They (the head of the client services department [at this ARC disabled workers were called clients]) said it wasn’t possible for the workers to be performing above 65% at the highest. So I must be doing something wrong or falsely reporting to try and get the clients more money.
I vehemently denied this.
So they sent me to do the studies a third time. This time with a supervisor to ensure no funny business on my part.
Once again, the disabled workers performed to an average of 85% of the standard.
With the supervisor’s approval I turned in the third set of reports.
I was told that the standard time must be out of date. Go and time one of the abled workers and use the new time as the standard and conduct all of the hundreds of studies a fourth time.
So, I went and timed an abled worker. Their time was slower than the existing standard. Not wanting to get yelled at, I decided to time 10 Abled workers and average their times to get the new standard.
The new standard was only 6 seconds faster, but it was faster.
So, using the new time standard, I did all of the time studies again.
And again, the disabled workers times averaged out to about 85% of standard. With a good number of them performing at 100%.
I girded my loins and turned the studies in.
I feel like I should mention that these studies are reviewed by ADA and the State Labor Board for compliance with the “sub minimum wage” rules. So they’re a big deal. Because if an ARC or similar organization is found in violation of the rules it could be the end of that organization.
I was already pretty nervous about the fact that we’d conducted so many studies and how that would look. But I was just a 22 yr old worker bee also earning just minimum wage ($8.25/hr) and didn’t want to lose my job.
So yeah, turned in the studies. And was told by the DIRECTOR OF CLIENT SERVICES - the person who was supposed to be the TOP advocate for the disabled workers at this ARC - that if we paid the disabled workers at their reported rates that it would impact her annual bonus.
She then told me to go back and falsify the reports to average 65% performance.
I refused.
So she fired me for “violating dress code”.
I couldn’t afford a lawyer, so I couldn’t file a lawsuit for illegal dismissal.
This was 20 years ago.
That ARC is still in operation.
[Image ID: Tweet from Fuck You I Quit (@/ fuckYouIQuit) reading: Employers in the US are still legally allowed to pay disabled workers less than the minimum wage. This practice is known as the "subminimum wage" and is a shocking violation of workers' rights. People with disabilities have the same right to fair and equal pay as everyone else! /End ID]
What kinda pisses me off about that architecture in Africa Twitter thread is that it primarily focuses on European definitions of what “good” architecture is—permanent, typically stone based designed structures that fit a specific sort of aesthetic that can be deemed such. The Somalia section of it in specific is just Italian colonial architecture that has nothing to do with ethnic Somalis but instead an architecture style that was introduced by an imperial force that hardly considered them humans. As to how Somali tent making, which is traditionally very complicated, is not seen as a form of architecture worth talking about is beyond me. I mean even the Smithsonian has a replica of a Somali tent home:
How is this not architecture! It’s a dwelling! It has a planned structure and yes it’s mobile, and yes it can be taken apart when need be but it’s still architecture even if not in the traditional sense. It’s still a complex and designed structure, this isn’t just some random thing people do. And this tent could’ve been used for the majority of someone’s lifetime and yet have been all around the easternmost part of the Horn of Africa along with them. This specific type of dwelling in itself isn’t just Somali but it’s shared by pastoralists going into even Southeast Africa (primarily those speaking Khoe languages) so when we do this whole national architecture thing in Africa we’re both ignoring the various facets and diversity of architecture multiple different ethnic groups have but also the shared history of some constructions that span far beyond drawn up borders.
It’s like people only talk about Africa having anything noteworthy if it’s being used to counter Westerners with parameters of success and worth that they themselves imposed—and it’s done in the dumbest fashion possible.
precious-silly-thing