Previously, we explained what Section 14(c) is and how it allows certain employers to pay subminimum wages to workers with disabilities. In Part 2 of our series, we explore the debate: should 14(c) stick around or be eliminated? We present both sides of this complex issue in a person-centered, factual way.

Arguments in Favor of 14(c) Programs

Supporters of 14(c) emphasize practical benefits for individuals with significant disabilities and their families:

·      Opportunity and Inclusion: They argue that 14(c) creates job opportunities for people who might otherwise not be hired in the competitive job market. Even at a low wage, having a job can provide purpose, routine, and a sense of inclusion for individuals with severe disabilities who enjoy the work and camaraderie[8]. Some caregivers note improvements in skills or happiness when their loved ones engage in these work activities[9].

·      Customized Work Environment: Subminimum wage programs often operate in sheltered or supported workshop environments with staff supervision. These settings are tailored to individual needs, offering on-site support, coaching, and accommodations. Families often feel their loved ones are safe and understood in these programs.

·      Stepping Stone: Proponents contend that 14(c) can serve as a stepping stone to greater independence. It introduces work skills and habits that, in some cases, lead to higher-paying jobs. Without 14(c), some fear that individuals with profound disabilities would have no work options at all, leading to isolation or regression of skills.

·      Business Viability: For certain nonprofit agencies, the 14(c) program helps sustain businesses that provide services to people with disabilities. The ability to pay commensurate wages can make it financially feasible to offer employment and training to those with very low productivity. Advocates say removing it abruptly could threaten these programs and the social services attached to them.

Arguments Against 14(c) Programs

Critics of 14(c) believe it is an outdated and unjust approach that needs to be replaced with more inclusive alternatives:

·      Fair Wages and Equality: At its core, paying someone far below minimum wage because of a disability is seen as discriminatory. Opponents argue that all workers deserve at least the minimum wage for their labor. They point out that many individuals with disabilities can work in mainstream jobswhen given proper supports or adaptive technology, and that low expectations under 14(c) might hold people back.

·      Segregation vs. Integration: Most 14(c) jobs are in sheltered, segregated settings – often called “work centers” – where workers with disabilities have little interaction with non-disabled colleagues[4]. This runs counter to modern disability rights principles (embodied in laws like the ADA and movements like Employment First) that promote integrated employment. Critics contend that 14(c) perpetuates a separate and unequal system, keeping people with disabilities out of the economic and social mainstream.

·      Poverty and Dependency: Earning as little as pennies per hour keeps people with disabilities in poverty. Even if they enjoy the work, they remain financially dependent on government benefits or family support. Advocates for change argue that no one can achieve real economic self-sufficiency or dignity on subminimum wages. They also note that extremely low earnings provide little incentive for skill development – a trap often referred to as the “poverty trap” of sheltered workshops.

·      Outdated Model: The 14(c) provision dates back to 1938, a time when society’s approach to disability was very different. Critics say that what might have been progressive policy 85 years ago is now antiquated. Many disability organizations and self-advocates – including individuals who once worked in 14(c) settings – are calling for its end[10][11]. They believe resources should shift toward supports that help people work in competitive jobs at fair wages, rather than continuing subminimum pay.

Weighing the Impact – What Happens When 14(c) Ends?

Both sides of the debate raise valid concerns, and real-world outcomes are mixed. Research by SOAR Partners and the GAO sheds light on the consequences of ending 14(c). In states that have eliminated subminimum wages, some former 14(c) workers did secure new jobs paying at or above minimum wage – roughly 39–46% in two states studied[12]. Those individuals often reported increased earnings and more independence. However, over half of the workers (54–61%) did not find new employment and instead participated in day programs or skill-building classes funded by Medicaid[13]. While many enjoyed these activities, others still hoped for a paying job.

This data highlights a key point in the debate: simply ending 14(c) doesn’t guarantee that every affected person will immediately get a competitive-wage job. The transition needs careful planning, resources, and alternative opportunities (we’ll discuss these in Part 3). Supporters of 14(c) feel vindicated by the fact that a significant number of people ended up without jobs when sheltered workshops closed – reinforcing their fear that eliminating 14(c) could leave some individuals with nothing to do. On the other hand, opponents argue that this outcome reflects a lack of sufficient support and investment in alternatives, not a justification to retain subminimum wages. They note that nearly half did achieve better employment, and with more robust transition programs, that percentage could grow.

Perhaps most importantly, people with disabilities and their families have diverse perspectives. Some former 14(c) workers reminisce about the pride and friendships they found in their workshops, whereas others are thriving in new jobs and would never want to go back to being paid below minimum wage. A person-centered approach means respecting these individual experiences while working toward solutions that expand choice, dignity, and inclusion.

In conclusion, the debate over 14(c) balances on two priorities: protecting opportunities for a vulnerable group versus advancing equal rights and fair pay. Both sides agree on the goal of inclusion but differ on how to achieve it. As the national landscape shifts (with multiple states already banning subminimum wages and federal action on the horizon), it’s crucial to ensure no one is left behind in the change. SOAR Partnersremains committed to this dialogue – through research, advocacy, and collaboration with service providers and policymakers – to help design a future where people of all abilities can find meaningful, fairly paid work.

Up next is Part 3, where we focus on solutions: how can we replace 14(c) with practical, inclusive alternatives that benefit both workers and employers? If you’re following this series, we encourage you to read Part 3 to learn about strategies like ABLE accounts and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. And as always, feel free to reach out to SOAR Partners with your thoughts or to learn how we can support organizations in building inclusive employment programs.

‍