ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Ending exploitation

| Saturday, Jan. 21, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

I want to express my disappointment at Debra Erdley's news story regarding the phaseout of sheltered workshops in Pennsylvania ( “Sheltered workshops for disabled face uncertainty from proposed Pennsylvania rules” ).

People with disabilities have worked for many years to end the practice of exploiting the labor of disabled workers to complete less desirable work for subminimum wages. Exempt from minimum-wage laws, many such employees are paid only pennies an hour. The disability community has worked for many years to end this practice and the practice of segregating people in congregate settings outside of our communities.

Because we disproportionately live in poverty and there are years-long waiting lists for community inclusion supports, for many of us, these sheltered workshops have been the only community and work settings we have ever known or been able to access.

Our community has been fighting to end our segregation and exploitation since the beginning of the deinstitutionalization and right-to-education movements in the 1960s and '70s and continuing today as we work to make sure our people have access to the things that nondisabled people take for granted.

The phaseout of sheltered workshops is a success of decades of tireless advocacy by disabled activists. I am disappointed that the Tribune-Review has neglected this part of our story.

Cori Frazer


The writer is executive director of the Pittsburgh Center for Autistic Advocacy (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me