|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Disability discrimination
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
In the Styx, Fineline said:
quote:
There are rules on the ship about not being sexist, not being homophobic, not being racist, etc., and these get a lot of attention, but I've not seen so much about disability. Your posts here seem really dismissive of disability - such comments seriously wouldn't be acceptable in a workplace.
Is it really true that workplaces aren't discriminating? I've heard one or two instances where new legislation, such as workplace agreements and probationary periods, has been used to get around the anti-discrimination intent of the law.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
Sure, in reality they are. It's illegal, but they are. Same as they can be discriminating against gender and sexuality. It shouldn't happen, but it does.
I was simply trying to make the point that disableism/ableism is as unacceptable as sexism, racism and homophobia. Sadly, it doesn't always seem to be taken so seriously.
In the same way that there are guys who think that women are 'asking for it' if they wear certain clothes, there are plenty of people who think people with social disabilities are asking to be bullied. That it's their fault somehow. I see this quite a bit, but it doesn't tend to get met with the same indignation as do, say, certain male attitudes to women. Disability awareness tends to be lagging behind a bit.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
People don't wear signs announcing their disabilities, and often would prefer to avoid drawing attention to them. But in some circumstances the disability may come to the fore, and seem like an after the fact explanation to others.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I'd also suggest that many firms that are entirely compliant about diversity and inclusivity vis race, sex, age, sexual preference and the rest but .... if you don't conform to company culture, values and behaviours then irrespective of performance, you are going to be out of the door when the next retrenchment comes along.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
In UK law, discrimination occurs when someone creates a barrier that only prevents a person from accessing something just because of a characteristic they have, or if it is left in place.
When comments are made that single out a person purely because of a characteristic, what you have is legally defined in the UK as hate crime.
And the law on hate crime makes no distinction regarding whether it is about race, sexuality, ability or gender.
Any negative comments about disability are just as unacceptable as negative comments about race or gender.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd also suggest that many firms that are entirely compliant about diversity and inclusivity vis race, sex, age, sexual preference and the rest but .... if you don't conform to company culture, values and behaviours then irrespective of performance, you are going to be out of the door when the next retrenchment comes along.
I can't see anything wrong with that. They pay you to participate in the culture, adopt the behaviours, and present the values to the rest of the world.
If they don't make all that clear to you in the documentation when they advertise the job and in the induction programme when you start, then you may have a case for misrepresentation and breach of contract - but it's perfectly reasonable for an employer to not want an employee to stand against the tide or bring them into disrepute.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
People don't wear signs announcing their disabilities, and often would prefer to avoid drawing attention to them. But in some circumstances the disability may come to the fore, and seem like an after the fact explanation to others.
To further this, because we have no way of knowing what disability a poster has, we cannot know if a post, or posting style, is influenced by this. And someone, having announced a disability, may not realise not everyone read or remembers.
And not everyone understands what any given disability entails. For instance, the autism spectrum. We've nearly all heard the term. Many of us are aware there are people here so diagnosed, but I doubt it goes much beyond that.
My point? Bullying is wrong whatever the reason, but there may well be instances where the perceived perpetrator is completely unaware of this dynamic.
So, as to bullying, sometimes there isn't any, it is mere lack of awareness.
ETA:This should not be read as putting the onus on the person with the disability, just that it is not always as simple as perceived.
[ 26. May 2014, 15:47: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
We have a principle, enshrined in law, called "duty to accommodate" which is aimed mostly at a employers to my understanding, and means that if someone has a medical condition, whether permanent or temporary, the employer must accommodate if there is no undue hardship. Does this exist elsewhere?
In practice this means that employers have to find ways to have the person in the workplace, they have to change job duties, they have to allow for lighter or reduced duties and they must not discriminate at all. hardship usually means that very small operations are held to a different standard, e.g., if there is only the owner and 2 employees, accommodation might not be required.
The issue arise for employers when the person is not performing their job duties and then when there is a move to dismiss or discipline, sometimes employees come forth with a medical letter saying the disability is the reason. Then we're into a bit of trouble with assessments by independent medical people and possibly labour tribunals. The other issue is that employers are absolutely not allowed medical information other than what the work restrictions are. Makes it a very fine balancing act.
I expect some of the disabilities are absolutely real and others might be defensive responses to avoid dismissal. Though I would tend to think more of them are about real medical conditions, and that it would be the hidden ones, like pain and psychological conditions that might be not disclosed up front.
I don't think it is appropriate for people to be required to wear disabilities like an identifying badge, but also am puzzled about how to identify what's up.
I have seen, for example, even on the Ship that disabilities are alleged at times for misconduct reasons/commandment violations - I note this only as a means to illustrate the issues as a parallel, not to discuss Ship's business nor decision making by hosts/admins.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Speaking from the US--It's hard because while you may have a real disability, AND be entitled to accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act--still, everybody knows that disclosing certain disabilities to an employer means you're suddenly not on the fast career track anymore. (this happened to me with asthma once)
And because employment in most places is "at will" (meaning "we can get rid of you for no reason at all without telling you why on a moment's notice), well, it's pretty freaking easy to get rid of a disabled person BECAUSE OF the disability, as long as you have the good legal sense to keep your rude mouth shut. Refuse to give a reason, or insist that the reason is some patently stupid and wrong reason, and the firee is shit out of luck. How do you prove discrimination when they insist that the real reason was unreliability or insubordination or failure to fit with the company ethos or any of a zillion other unprovabilities? You can't prove a negative. And they don't have to prove the positive in order to get rid of you.
In short--If I am a dam fool employer who wants to get rid of a blind/deaf/whatever employee, all I need to say to HR is that the person has been insubordinate (in private, naturally) many times, that they disrespect their teammates (again, I am the only witness), and that they are causing unsolvable problems in the department, despite my many falsely-documented meetings with said person to fix the (non) problem. HR will get rid of the person to placate me, the manager. I might run into problems if there is a union, but most white collar jobs are not unionized, so I can be my little bullying asshole self and get away with it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And because employment in most places is "at will" (meaning "we can get rid of you for no reason at all without telling you why on a moment's notice), well, it's pretty freaking easy to get rid of a disabled person BECAUSE OF the disability, as long as you have the good legal sense to keep your rude mouth shut. Refuse to give a reason, or insist that the reason is some patently stupid and wrong reason, and the firee is shit out of luck.
Here in England you can take civil action against an employer, and it is judged on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. When it comes to disability discrimination that's actually a fair test: if retrenchment results in a higher proportion of disabled people being dismissed, then 'on the balance of probabilities' discrimination took place.
A lot of employers regard this as unfair, but the law is intentionally biased: employers, educational establishments and service providers are required to make a disproportionate effort to ensure that disabled people experience equal opportunities.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd also suggest that many firms that are entirely compliant about diversity and inclusivity vis race, sex, age, sexual preference and the rest but .... if you don't conform to company culture, values and behaviours then irrespective of performance, you are going to be out of the door when the next retrenchment comes along.
I can't see anything wrong with that. They pay you to participate in the culture, adopt the behaviours, and present the values to the rest of the world.
If they don't make all that clear to you in the documentation when they advertise the job and in the induction programme when you start, then you may have a case for misrepresentation and breach of contract - but it's perfectly reasonable for an employer to not want an employee to stand against the tide or bring them into disrepute.
Sure, but the "company culture" institutionalises the management view of how things should be done, and all too often prizes image over performance. That tends to ensure that a company employs too many people who are alike so while the may well be of all sexes, ages and races they all think the same way. Where does diversity and inclusivity fit into that?
One day the company will need to change, in response to its customers but if everyone is signed up to the same values, it won't have the flexibility.
Any team, let alone a company needs a variety of working styles and personalities. The whole concept of uniform values and behaviours that so many companies insist on can kill a company in anything other than the shortest term.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Any team, let alone a company needs a variety of working styles and personalities. The whole concept of uniform values and behaviours that so many companies insist on can kill a company in anything other than the shortest term.
Well said!
Schools in the UK are much more inclusive than they were 20/30 years ago - and much, much richer for it imo. But, at the time (20/30 years ago) it was hard to persuade people that their little darlings wouldn't be disadvantaged by this.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Employment is only " at will " to use that phrasing within the 1st 3 months, after that the law here is that cause must be shown. If not, severance is required, by law minimum 1 month's pay for each year of service, with the practice being double that. If there is a "constructive dismissal" meaning that the circumstances of work were made as untenable for the employee then more would come. I'm less experienced with this end of the issues.
I like working in the disability accommodation end of things, and is where I have more experience. It is where agencies work with receptive employers to accommodate new employees with agency support re the disabilities. This then becomes something positive for the worker and employer, both know what they are getting into, and it provides for much positive for both.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Other point that may be relevant in the UK is that the equality Act 2010 defines disability discrimination more broadly than other types of unlawful discrimination. As a rule, discrimination emans treating someone less favourably than others because of a 'protected characteristic' (sex, ethincity, sexuality, religion, age, etc). But disability discrimination means treating soemone unfavourably because they have a disability: there is no need for a comparator and it is no defence to say that you would have treated someone without a disability the same way, unless you can show that you reasonably did not know of the disability or that the discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Sure, but the "company culture" institutionalises the management view of how things should be done, and all too often prizes image over performance.
Assuming that we agree with the basic principles of capitalism, any business that prizes image over performance will be less competitive than a competitor with the contrary view and will, therefore, not survive. Or deserve to survive.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Fellow aspie checking in here with a few things to say.
As much as I'd like to view disability in the same category as gender or ethnicity, it isn't. The whole point about making those kinds of discrimination illegal is that being female or being Mexican (or whatever) doesn't affect your ability to do things. With disability, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. There are a million different variables that can interact in different ways and make the situation more complicated. There's no reason why a black lesbian can't be a pilot. There are some fairly obvious reasons why a blind person can't be a pilot. Someone on the autism spectrum? Maybe. I can't, because my ASD affects my reaction time, my spatial awareness, my startle reflex and my ability to multitask - all things that mean I can't drive (or fly a plane). There are lots of jobs that I couldn't do because I would get stressed out by unpredictability, or noise, or wearing out my mental energies trying to deal with too many people. So it's not as straightforward to say that discrimination is out of bounds as it would be for other groups. It'd be great if we could move to a point where people's default attitude towards disabled people in the workplace was more positive, where we weren't written off automatically and people thought more about what we can do and where we might even have particular strengths. But it needs to be more nuanced than an all-or-nothing approach.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Sure, but the "company culture" institutionalises the management view of how things should be done, and all too often prizes image over performance.
Assuming that we agree with the basic principles of capitalism, any business that prizes image over performance will be less competitive than a competitor with the contrary view and will, therefore, not survive. Or deserve to survive.
This "bad companies won't survive" defence of laissez-faire attitudes doesn't wash with me. The thing is there's a constant crop of crap companies being formed, making it or failing for a time, then going under. The long-established ones may be the good ones, but this doesn't meant that at any given time there aren't loads of bloody awful ones; they may be sowing the seeds of their own destruction, but they're not gone yet, and when they are, equally bad ones will have sprung up. cf. builders, motor repairs...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This "bad companies won't survive" defence of laissez-faire attitudes doesn't wash with me.
A corporate compliance culture is anything but laissez-faire - not unless the corporation in question is institutionally defying the agreed rules of commerce.
I am not implying or suggesting that relegating performance to a lower priority than compliance with management views means adopting the economic philosophy of laissez-faire; what I am saying is that when you change the primary focus of an institution's activities, you trigger a paradigm shift throughout the organisation and this has an effect on the bottom line.
Establishing and ordering priorities is a strategic decision.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
Assuming that we agree with the basic principles of capitalism...
And your grounds for such an assumption are...?
[ 27. May 2014, 12:17: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Fellow aspie checking in here with a few things to say.
As much as I'd like to view disability in the same category as gender or ethnicity, it isn't. The whole point about making those kinds of discrimination illegal is that being female or being Mexican (or whatever) doesn't affect your ability to do things. With disability, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. There are a million different variables that can interact in different ways and make the situation more complicated. There's no reason why a black lesbian can't be a pilot. There are some fairly obvious reasons why a blind person can't be a pilot. Someone on the autism spectrum? Maybe. I can't, because my ASD affects my reaction time, my spatial awareness, my startle reflex and my ability to multitask - all things that mean I can't drive (or fly a plane). There are lots of jobs that I couldn't do because I would get stressed out by unpredictability, or noise, or wearing out my mental energies trying to deal with too many people. So it's not as straightforward to say that discrimination is out of bounds as it would be for other groups. It'd be great if we could move to a point where people's default attitude towards disabled people in the workplace was more positive, where we weren't written off automatically and people thought more about what we can do and where we might even have particular strengths. But it needs to be more nuanced than an all-or-nothing approach.
A very good point (you're making good points all over the Ship lately, in my opinion anyway).
Here in Australia the Disability Discrimination Act is written in a principles-based way precisely because of what you've said. Every situation is going to be different because it depends not only on the person with disability but the specific thing they are trying to do. Is the disability relevant to that situation or not? Could the disability be worked around with some assistance? How much assistance - what's a reasonable amount of effort?
It means the law is quite vague, which makes some people very nervous and uncomfortable. They feel that they can't know whether they're complying with the law or not. But I don't see an obvious way around that problem.
There is an option under the law, though, to create a standard for a certain topic, which is something more specific and concrete. Compliance with the standard means you're taken to have complied with the main law. There are standards for public transport and access to premises. There's also one for education, but it still has some vagueness to it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
In disability accommodation, we have a concept of "repackaging job duties" which means that an employer is required to work cooperatively, to discuss and negotiate with employees (and union if there is one) and to operate in good faith in creating an accommodated position. Labour Standards will help with it. Not perfect, and we are always working on best practices. But it is clear that post illness or acquisition of disability that early RTW (return to work), graduated RTW, permanent and temporary accommodation, and temporary performance of alternate duties, when made procedural and easy to understand, particularly with someone to quickly answer questions without bias, really helps.
Integrating people who need new jobs who have disabilities and medical issues, has taken development of agencies to assess abilities, codify jobs re duties, and then to provide assists to worker and employer both financial and practical re the jobs. I am not informed about all conditions, but do know that in severe situations ongoing agency support is sometimes required.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd also suggest that many firms that are entirely compliant about diversity and inclusivity vis race, sex, age, sexual preference and the rest but .... if you don't conform to company culture, values and behaviours then irrespective of performance, you are going to be out of the door when the next retrenchment comes along.
And in some cases, company culture can be inherently discriminatory against the disabled, particularly when we're talking about ASD, depression, anxiety and other mental illnesses, and chronic illness.
I have once or twice pointed out to my employer that internal communications/training materials etc focussing on "resilience", "positivity", "energy" etc need a rethink. The core point they're trying to make may be applicable to all employees, to whatever degree, but I think we could be more sensitive with language and also that we clearly need to have thought about *how* that kind of material will be received and applied by, say, someone with MS or IIH or OCD.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
...company culture can be inherently discriminatory against the disabled, particularly when we're talking about ASD, depression, anxiety and other mental illnesses, and chronic illness.
I have once or twice pointed out to my employer that internal communications/training materials etc focussing on "resilience", "positivity", "energy" etc need a rethink... have thought about *how* that kind of material will be received and applied by, say, someone with MS or IIH or OCD.
Did you give the manager some ideas for rewording?
Depression may be a disability but that is no justification for spewing depression all over the workplace, as I have seen some do. It's fine and important to be sensitive (you did offer some alternative wordings, yes? Didn't just complain and walk away?) But sensitivity goes both ways. Learn to put on an act. We all do that, pretending to delight in meeting a customer we dislike, for example.
I've seen departments pulled down by a negative person, and I've left a company to get away from that environment. Depression is a disability and any disability simply doesn't belong in some jobs. (As the "blind person in the cockpit" example upthread so well illustrated.)
(I have OCD and don't see any problem with the wordings you offered. Are you being too sensitive?)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
Assuming that we agree with the basic principles of capitalism...
And your grounds for such an assumption are...?
Clumsily phrased - my apologies.
I should have written, "Assuming that we are in agreement about what the basic principles of capitalism are... " and not implied that we all agree with those principles.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Depression may be a disability but that is no justification for spewing depression all over the workplace, as I have seen some do. It's fine and important to be sensitive (you did offer some alternative wordings, yes? Didn't just complain and walk away?) But sensitivity goes both ways. Learn to put on an act. We all do that, pretending to delight in meeting a customer we dislike, for example.
I've seen departments pulled down by a negative person, and I've left a company to get away from that environment. Depression is a disability and any disability simply doesn't belong in some jobs. (As the "blind person in the cockpit" example upthread so well illustrated.)
OK... I'm not sure that you realise that there's a huge difference between clinical depression and a negative attitude problem. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on how it's the former, rather than the latter, that is a problem in the workplace.
I've suffered with occasionally severe depression and it has affected my work. Generally because I occasionally have days or weeks when I'm unable to get out of bed or stop crying, so my absence record is more extensive than I'd like (and in some jobs my absence record might be a problem. I'm fortunate enough to work with understanding people who value me in spite of it). Nobody is complaining that I'm a buzzkill in the office, though, or that they're catching depression cooties from me. I'm not a complainer. I don't have an attitude problem. I have an illness. Most people at work don't even know it's there.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
Assuming that we agree with the basic principles of capitalism, any business that prizes image over performance will be less competitive than a competitor with the contrary view and will, therefore, not survive.
In practice on the other hand any company that prizes performance over image will not attract investment or customers and will, therefore, not survive.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
In most jobs, absenteeism is going to be a problem. If your disability is going to mean that you can't predictably be there when they need you, then yeah, it's a problem and I don't think it's unfair for the employer to decide that you can't work there.
Yes, life is tough.
I guess the moral of the story is if you're going to be depressed, then you'd better be educated enough to have the sort of job where you can't easily be replaced with another random pair of hands off the street.
Even in my industry I don't doubt for a moment that if I developed some sort of illness where I took a lot of time off, I would be booted out quick smart.
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
Assuming that we agree with the basic principles of capitalism...
And your grounds for such an assumption are...?
Clumsily phrased - my apologies.
I should have written, "Assuming that we are in agreement about what the basic principles of capitalism are... " and not implied that we all agree with those principles.
Ah, point taken! Thanks
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
...company culture can be inherently discriminatory against the disabled, particularly when we're talking about ASD, depression, anxiety and other mental illnesses, and chronic illness.
I have once or twice pointed out to my employer that internal communications/training materials etc focussing on "resilience", "positivity", "energy" etc need a rethink... have thought about *how* that kind of material will be received and applied by, say, someone with MS or IIH or OCD.
Did you give the manager some ideas for rewording?
Depression may be a disability but that is no justification for spewing depression all over the workplace, as I have seen some do. It's fine and important to be sensitive (you did offer some alternative wordings, yes? Didn't just complain and walk away?) But sensitivity goes both ways. Learn to put on an act. We all do that, pretending to delight in meeting a customer we dislike, for example.
I've seen departments pulled down by a negative person, and I've left a company to get away from that environment. Depression is a disability and any disability simply doesn't belong in some jobs. (As the "blind person in the cockpit" example upthread so well illustrated.)
(I have OCD and don't see any problem with the wordings you offered. Are you being too sensitive?)
Yes, of course I gave them suggestions for refocusing, and my contribution was welcomed. I'm very fortunate in my employer.
With regard to putting on an act, yes, there's an element of acting in the most basic parts of human life, but we should aim to reduce it as much as possible in the professions. We produce our best quality work and we make our best risk-management decisions when we are able to be authentic.
Assuming that what is true for you must also be the case for everyone else is one of the ways in which discrimination can become a habit.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
Assuming that we agree with the basic principles of capitalism, any business that prizes image over performance will be less competitive than a competitor with the contrary view and will, therefore, not survive.
In practice on the other hand any company that prizes performance over image will not attract investment or customers and will, therefore, not survive.
No, it just won't attract careless or gullible customers.
Tesco's "No Frills" brand is highly successful; Travelodge is making profits, while exclusive luxury boutique hotels struggle; I had to wait two weeks to get my car into a local backstreet garage, while the main dealer could have serviced my car the same day (for three times the price.)
And if you really want to witness some flames, why not start a conversation about the relative merits of Apple computers?
There is a lot of sense in treating an image-conscious company with suspicion.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
I guess the moral of the story is if you're going to be depressed, then you'd better be educated enough to have the sort of job where you can't easily be replaced with another random pair of hands off the street.
Even in my industry I don't doubt for a moment that if I developed some sort of illness where I took a lot of time off, I would be booted out quick smart.
Talking about depression or illness in this way doesn't make a lot of sense. How do you know if you're GOING to be depressed? Where's the crystal ball for this one?
Workplaces have to deal with the fact that, at any given time, not all of their staff will be on board. Someone might be in a car accident and be off work for weeks or months. You can't realistically say 'well if you're going to be in a car accident...'
Of course, the protections available to employees when injured or ill vary considerably in different countries, but that set of rules is quite separate to the rules to do with permanent attributes of an employee.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
I was being sarcastic. Obviously one doesn't know if one will be in a car accident and be off work for weeks.
Does anyone disclose to an employer before being hired that they have clinical depression? Wouldn't that just shred your chances of being hired in the first place? It's not like saying "I need a desk on the ground floor/in a building with a lift" or "I need to sit down while on duty" or "I won't be able to work through meal breaks without eating". All those sorts of accommodations are pretty reasonable.
But most of the jobs of normal people require you to physically be present. I can't imagine a supermarket cashier, security guard, a call centre operator, a child minder being able to say "I have a disability that means I will have a high and unpredictable level of absenteeism, but please hire me anyway" and realistically expect to get the job.
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Does anyone disclose to an employer before being hired that they have clinical depression? Wouldn't that just shred your chances of being hired in the first place? It's not like saying "I need a desk on the ground floor/in a building with a lift" or "I need to sit down while on duty" or "I won't be able to work through meal breaks without eating". All those sorts of accommodations are pretty reasonable.
For my last nursing job I declared I had bipolar disorder (as a nurse I have an obligation to inform my employees of such) and was sent for an occupational review with my Doctor's notes and passed as fit for work. My bipolar is very well controlled though and hospitals are very disability/illness friendly, as you can imagine. Likewise my current employer, the Open University, is very accommodating and more concerned than I am that I do not have too much workload. But they are an organisation whose very existence is to enable others and we have lots of disabled and mentally ill students.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
I was being sarcastic. Obviously one doesn't know if one will be in a car accident and be off work for weeks.
Does anyone disclose to an employer before being hired that they have clinical depression? Wouldn't that just shred your chances of being hired in the first place? It's not like saying "I need a desk on the ground floor/in a building with a lift" or "I need to sit down while on duty" or "I won't be able to work through meal breaks without eating". All those sorts of accommodations are pretty reasonable.
But most of the jobs of normal people require you to physically be present. I can't imagine a supermarket cashier, security guard, a call centre operator, a child minder being able to say "I have a disability that means I will have a high and unpredictable level of absenteeism, but please hire me anyway" and realistically expect to get the job.
It's highly unlikely that anyone says in their job interview that they have clinical depression. Mostly because it's highly unlikely that anyone with clinical depression is going to job interviews.
You continue to talk about depression as if it's a perpetual, permanent condition. It's not. There might be some perpetual propensity to depression, yes, but that isn't the same thing. A propensity to depression doesn't lead to high levels of absenteeism. Actual episodes of depression do. Actual episodes of depression also happen to people with relatively low propensity for depression, in exactly the same way that both people who get lots of colds and people who say they never get sick can actually catch a cold.
[ 28. May 2014, 09:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
But most of the jobs of normal people require you to physically be present. I can't imagine a supermarket cashier, security guard, a call centre operator, a child minder being able to say "I have a disability that means I will have a high and unpredictable level of absenteeism, but please hire me anyway" and realistically expect to get the job.
It's not ideal, obviously, to be off sick... ever. But people do get sick. I could tell people that I had flu when I was struggling for a few days with constant panic attacks and it's likely that nobody would judge me for that. Someone might wake up with back pain that means they can't move for a couple of days, or they might need to recover from surgery, or take some time out for chemo, or even just have a really difficult pregnancy with horrendous nausea. As for unpredictable sick leave, well... sick leave is usually pretty unpredictable. Illness doesn't strike when it's convenient.
My mental health is what it is - if I could stop my brain from doing this I would have done so a long time ago. It's well controlled with medication 95% of the time and apart from the occasional few days here and there I'm more than capable of doing a job to a high standard. As I said, I'm lucky in that I have a sympathetic workplace. Obviously there is a threshold of poor health above which continuing to work isn't an option. I'm not there and if I were I would quit.
(And then no doubt be screwed over by Atos, because there's a significant gap between "too disabled/ill for an employer to be prepared to pay you" and "disabled/ill enough for the government to be prepared to give you benefits.)
But this bit of discussion came about because depression was being equated with being depressing to have around, which is a stereotype that is not fair. I take time off work where necessary, with the correct medical documentation, and my absence rate is higher than I'd like (although not, I suspect, as high as you're imagining). That's unavoidable, and if you really do need a person with 100% attendance then a) I'm not the right employee for you and b) you need to reconsider your company culture because even the healthiest person can suddenly become sick and you need to have a contingency plan for that. But saying that people with depression shouldn't get jobs because they're depressing to be around is like saying that people with hay fever shouldn't get jobs because they gross people out with all their snot and tissues and red eyes.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
I was being sarcastic. Obviously one doesn't know if one will be in a car accident and be off work for weeks.
Does anyone disclose to an employer before being hired that they have clinical depression? Wouldn't that just shred your chances of being hired in the first place? It's not like saying "I need a desk on the ground floor/in a building with a lift" or "I need to sit down while on duty" or "I won't be able to work through meal breaks without eating". All those sorts of accommodations are pretty reasonable.
Sometimes I disclose my disability (which is invisible but not a mental illness), sometimes I do not. A notable observation has to be that if the job I am applying for is in the public sector I get the job while if it is in the private sector I don't. It's been like that for 35 years and counting!
quote:
But most of the jobs of normal people require you to physically be present. I can't imagine a supermarket cashier, security guard, a call centre operator, a child minder being able to say "I have a disability that means I will have a high and unpredictable level of absenteeism, but please hire me anyway" and realistically expect to get the job.
By normal people what do you mean? People doing poorly paid job with no scope for decision making, authorising expenditure or wielding power? Those who are higher "up the organisation" are often in a position to decide their own place of work, meal breaks, hours of work and even days when they work, all of which would suit many disabled workers.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Does anyone disclose to an employer before being hired that they have clinical depression?
You don't have to disclose a pre-existing condition, but if you don't and then ask for a reasonable adjustment you will have created a problem for yourself.
I know plenty of people take the attitude that the employer has to make reasonable adjustments anyway, but it isn't as straightforward as that.
First, you've withheld very relevant information from your employer - which is going to undermine their opinion of you.
Second, you've deprived them of the opportunity to engage with you about whether the adjustments you want are 'reasonable' and how they can make them.
And if the employer refuses to make adjustments on the grounds that you didn't declare the need when you applied for the job and they appointed you, you're going to have a much harder time taking legal action.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I never disclose that I have ADHD and dyslexia - in my job (teacher) there is still a lot of misunderstanding about these conditions.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
