Testimony in Opposition to HB 225 — Harris T. Capps, House Commerce and Labor Committee

Summary

Shortened written testimony in opposition to HB 225, submitted by Harris T. Capps to the House Commerce and Labor Committee, Representative Johnson, Chair. The testimony states that the writer viewed the 9 testimonies provided on May 14th and offers a rebuttal of some of the statements made by proponents. It asserts that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 14c program has been largely modernized and mostly serves persons with severe-to-profound Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. It states that a GAO study cited what happened in Maine and that Day Program populations rose by 500%. It states that pay under the 14c program starts with a time and motion study.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

The following shortened testimony is respectfully
submitted, in OPPOSITION of HB 225:

This weekend, I took time to view the 9 testimonies provided on May 14th
to the House Commerce and Labor Committee, Representative
Johnson, Chair. Following that viewing, I analyzed what was said and wrote a
point-by-point rebuttal of most of the assertions made against this very
important program. Of that complete rebuttal, of proponents only who
were allowed to testify on the 14th, I will provide a short rebuttal of some of
those statements until I have time to prepare for the Senate "hearings" on the
bill. That said, I believe the following is very significant to you:

Rebuttal of 14 May testimonies to HB 225:

A. No one is kept captive to any "Sheltered Workshop"... 14c
encourages persons who are ready for competitive employment to leave with
supports following with them. Many opponents of removing the 14c Program
cite The Supreme Court's Olmstead decision BUT often leave out one key
requirement: The individual must be allowed freedom of choice (of
employment, residence type, etc.).

B. Over the years, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Sec. 14c,
"subminimum wage" program kas been largely modernized and
has realigned its population to mostly serve persons with severe-to-
profound Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD) versus
people who are intellectually high functioning. Many Workshop employees
have Court-appointed guardians because they lack the capacity to make
decisions in their best interests. And all of the witnesses in the 14 May 2025 of
the House Commerce and Labor Committee Hearing of HB 225 would likely
not even be considered for Sheltered Workshop programs. This should put to
rest the ill-informed and misguided statements, such as "the 14c is an
antiquated program".

C. Of the proponent testimonies, 5 of 9 persons were blind, but high
functioning - not severely intellectually disabled. One witness said HB 225 has
protections in place to make sure no disabled Workshop employee would be
left behind. Similarly, one witness said It is unlawful for an employer to refuse
to hire or fire someone with a disability. This is misleading. It implies that
disabled workers cannot be fired or hired. NOT TRUE! Federal Law indicates
that any employer who documents that a disabled person would present an
“undue hardship” on the company is not entitled to a job and can be fired
for demonstrating that undue hardship.

D. Of the proponents, one witness said there was a misperception that they
would be losing jobs... (note the next related point/paragraph!), However one
witness said DATA supports change. No!...When a GAO study cited what
happened in Maine when they thought all Workshop employees would get
better jobs... most persons with developmental disabilities moved to non-
paying “Day Programs”. Day Program populations rose by 500%!

E. One witness proclaimed, “Workshops have an artificially low wage ceiling”
... “Equal Work for Equal Pay”. This is an inaccurate assertion describing
the FLSA sec 14c Sheltered Workshop program which has a strict policy on
how pay is determined. This starts with a time and motion study to determine
a productivity level that is then applied to the community's prevailing wage. It
is readily apparent that most, if not all of the witnesses do not have a basic
understanding of the fair wage process. Without this process, not only would
severe-to-profoundly disabled persons not achieve "competitive" employment,
but those types of job contracts would go overseas to a country that pays
pennies on the dollar for the work.

Please understand, that on short notice, this type of abbreviated rebuttal is
necessary to meet the deadline.

Thank You,

Harris

Harris T. Capps, Parent and Guardian of a son with SEVERE intellectual
and developmental disabilities (IDD)
Major, USAF, Retired
Current Member of "The Coalition to Preserve Employment Choice"
Recent Past President of a National Disability Organization for loved
ones with severe IDD.
Author of a, IDD resource guide for parents and guardians


File and source

File

2025-05-21_commerce-labor_testimony_testimony-7970.pdf

Size

97,298 bytes

SHA-256

4abd38e98f21ed614937cf8717f69db164a74febe85f3104294846a53dea86b6

Our copy

2025-05-21_commerce-labor_testimony_testimony-7970.pdf

Original

No public link identified.