Recently, Upworthy condemned Goodwill for paying its employees, many of whom are disabled, below minimum wage. In response, I've encountered people deciding to boycott Goodwill and not donate to them anymore. I've also encountered arguments that we ought not exempt the disabled from minimum wage anymore. All this has both an economics response and ethics response.
Economics: What if, by mandating higher pay, less people get hired? For those who do not get hired, their situation is therefore worse off. People might not get fired, but when people leave, they will not be replaced. Alternatively, Goodwill may hire more people without disabilities, and leave those with disabilities without a job. Is mandating higher pay worth doing then? If you create a situation where an employer can either hire someone for a loss, or not hire someone at all, the employer will opt for the latter. We can with all we want that everyone be paid a "living" wage, but if they are not producing such value for the company, they do not get the job at all.
On that note, boycotting them is the dumbest thing to do if your goal is to raise their living standards. By boycotting them, you are reducing employees' productivity, and inevitably their pay.
Ethics: Goodwill isn't obligated to help them out at all. But suddenly, by helping them out in hiring them, Goodwill is now obligated to help them out even more? To whom does that make any sense.
On a final note, even if you reject the above arguments, the video makes no mention of the fact that these disabled workers receive disability benefits from the government, and if they were paid more, they would lose their benefits. Given that, why are you blaming Goodwill? If you think this is a bad policy, then please, advocate for changing it, and leave Goodwill alone.