Less is more: Argumentation for preserving disabled workers’ subminimum pay

Less is more: Argumentation for preserving disabled workers’ subminimum pay

Kellan McNally

This study considered the argument for protecting the use of disabled workers’ subminimum pay. Through qualitative analysis of legislative hearings, patterns in the content and delivery of opposition testimonies were identified. Data included 30 recorded testimonies collected from 8 public hearings in 7 states between 2016 and 2023. By joining narrative frameworks from policy process and anthropological research, the common argument and approach to argumentation of policy opponents was identified. In their testimonies, these speakers warned that ending subminimum wages would financially ruin those businesses, known as 14(c) programs, where disabled workers were employed. In addition to challenging depictions of these operations as exploitative, opponents defended subminimum wages as a critical mechanism for retaining disabled workers with the highest service needs. Speakers defended the right of workers to choose jobs in congregant settings where wage adjustments allowed them to stay employed. Opponents made these points by calling attention to the non-monetary value of work and by distinguishing 14(c) employees as a special class of disabled workers with such extreme needs that their integration in competitive worksites was impossible. Through displays of disabled disfluency, opponents presented 14(c) workers as unable to self-advocate, authorizing themselves, as family members and employers with first-hand knowledge, to represent the actual abilities of these disabled workers. These findings increase understandings of policy discourse at a time when federal legislators are expected to outlaw the use of subminimum wages and expand services that will further integrate disabled workers into jobs offering competitive pay.

Keywords: disability employment, subminimum wages, work value, narrative policy analysis, legislative testimony, self-advocacy