A Walk in a Workhouse, by Charles Dickens, and the difficulty of finding jobs while disabled

"In another room, a kind of purgatory or place of transition, six or eight noisy madwomen were gathered together, under the superintendence of one sane attendant. Among them was a girl of two or three and twenty, very prettily dressed, of most respectable appearance and good manners, who had been brought in from the house where she had lived as domestic servant (having, I suppose, no friends), on account of being subject to epileptic fits, and requiring to be removed under the influence of a very bad one. She was by no means of the same stuff, or the same breeding, or the same experience, or in the same state of mind, as those by whom she was surrounded; and she pathetically complained that the daily association and the nightly noise made her worse, and was driving her mad - which was perfectly evident. The case was noted for inquiry and redress, but she said she had already been there for some weeks.
"If this girl had stolen her mistress's watch, I do not hesitate to say she would have been infinitely better off. We have come to this absurd, this dangerous, this monstrous pass, that the dishonest felon is, in respect of cleanliness, order, diet, and accommodation, better provided for, and taken care of, than the honest pauper." -- Charles Dickens

 The work is now in public domain, in the United States at least,
http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2523/

Disability rights have definitely come a long way since Dickens time. In the United States, we have an ADA, which makes it requires employers to not discriminate against disabled applicants and employees who are able to perform the "primary functions" of the job "with or without reasonable accommodation", and to provide said "reasonable accommodation". Some other countries have similar laws. Of course, that doesn't actually prevent employers from not simply making up some excuse, or giving no reason. The epileptic girl would likely have been fired even today; it's just not likely she would have been given an honest answer why.

We also have, in the United States, SSI and SSDI for disabled people who can't work. Some other countries have similar programs. However, the laws specify that the disabled person must be incapable of substantial gainful employment (meaning employment earning more than about $1000 per month). (Well, actually, it's a whole lot more complicated than that, but anyway....)

Unfortunately, it's often not that the person is incapable of working, so much as the employers who are incapable of wanting to hire a disabled person when they could hire a non-disabled one and not have to deal with making reasonable accommodations. The problem gets even worse during a recession, when there are that many more non-disabled applicants to choose from.

At the same time, the government tightens spending and makes it even harder for disabled people to get approved for SSI or SSDI. The theory, I suppose, is a sterotype of disabled people being lazy, and especially during a recession, they need to be encouraged to go out and get jobs.

While there are undoubtedly people who take advantage of social services. there are a whole lot more who really want to get jobs, but either actually can't do any sort of remotely normal job, or else can't find an employer willing to hire them. Also, people don't get that much on SSI or SSDI. Disabled people often have disability related needs, such as wheelchairs and other medical equipment, accessible building modifications, medical expenses, and so on. Oh, and then there's things like audio and braille versions of books for blind people, which, although not usually necessities, illustrate how even leisure can be more expensive for a disabled person than a non-disabled person. So, cost of living for a disabled person is higher, sometimes a lot higher, than that of a non-disabled person. In other words, SSI and SSDI often don't cover the necessities, or, at the very least, require necessity to be tightly defined, such as having to ask oneself: which is more important -- food, rent, or medical equipment?

If the poor in the Victorian era were discriminated against, the poor and disabled were doubly so. We should learn from their mistakes. In a time of recession, it's even more important to ensure a social safety net for poor and/or disabled people, so that epileptics like the one in Charles Dickens' short story aren't punished for their medical condition.

Oliver Twist, the Victorian Era, and modern poverty

Oliver Twist is an excellent statement on attitudes toward the poor in Victorian England. Charles Dickens shows us how many people of that era were so classist that they treated the poor like criminals. Poor people could only get assistance from poor houses, which had much in common with modern sweatshops. Families were separated. The poor were grossly underfed, to the point of slow starvation, worked hard, and beaten. Even children did not escape this treatment, and were often given away to abusive masters who used them for sweeping chimneys and other menial labor. When Oliver Twist escapes from an abusive master who beats him, he falls in with thieves and prostitutes. Much of the remainder of the book shows his difficulty in escaping that situation.

Historians believe actual conditions during the Victorian era were even worse than Dickens described. Dickens grew up near a workhouse, and would have known this, so it is probable that he toned it down to make the book more socially acceptable.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369746/Dickens-darent-tell-truth-real-Oliver-Twist-workhouses.html

Although things have changed since then, and conditions for the poor have much improved in most first world nations, attitudes toward the poor are particularly relevant as the recession in the United States and elsewhere continues to deprive people of jobs.

In Oliver Twist, a common misconception people have is that poor people are poor because they are lazy. In one instance, when Oliver Twist is already tired, hungry, and has injured feet, people refuse to help him because he can't run up a hill fast enough. Although he is unable to do so in his condition, they nonetheless conclude that he is lazy.

Many people today believe the same about the poor; that we should cut social programs like food stamps, LIHEAP, and financial assistance to the disabled, because they discourage people from finding jobs. How a person is supposed to find a job on a chronically empty stomach, or with the sort of disability that makes employers scramble to find a fictitious excuse to avoid hiring you, I'm not sure. With people losing jobs left and right, it seems even more ridiculous. I once met a former movie professor who was homeless. The college he taught at nearly went out of business and greatly downsized, you see. He didn't look homeless. That's another misconception people have about the homeless today. In fact, many homeless people go to great lengths to avoid looking homeless. At drop-in centers, typically only open for a limited number of hours on weekdays, it may be possible to shower and wash clothing for free. Failing that, many homeless people who are employed, regularly or irregularly (but not earning enough to afford a home), or have some other small income (e.g. social security, unemployment insurance, busking) will pay to shower at the gym and wash clothing at a public laundromat. Failing other options, many homeless people will take towel baths, which, while less than ideal, can be enough to avoid looking like a stereotypical beggar.

Many poor people are just down on their luck, as illustrated wonderfully in Oliver Twist. Furthermore, stereotypes about poor people being criminals may be self-fulfilling prophecies of a sort. While Oliver Twist receives a little charity after running away, it is not enough to live on. Criminals are the first people to help him in any long-lasting way. Of course, he did not initially know they were criminals. Unfortunately, by the time he figures it out, they have a vested interest in keeping hold of him.

Not all the poor people in Oliver Twist who can't afford food turn to crime. Many of them simply starve to death.

If we cut foodstamps, and programs that provide more immediate assistance (e.g. food banks and soup kitchens), won't the people who are laid off and can't find a new job, or disabled and unable to find an accommodating employer, be forced to make the same decision: Crime or starvation? You might ask, what about begging? In Santa Fe, I once saw two cops pull a gun on a guy for doing just that. He wasn't even being aggressive about begging. He was just flying a sign.

Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist is an excellent reminder of why we shouldn't count people lazy criminals just because they are poor, and the benefits of a social safety net in reducing crime and preventing poverty from being a death sentence. Although times have changed, poor people today may still find comfort and understanding in the book.

Oliver Twist is in the public domain (at least in the United States; if you live elsewhere, please confirm before reading a free copy) and available free online:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/730