|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are workplaces designed by default to penalize mothers?
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So a man who founds and builds a prosperous company, even a multi-billion-dollar, Forbes 400 company, isn't a success if there is another company in the same field with greater market share? Marvin, your definition of success is inane.
Not as much of a success, no.
The silver medal is still an incredible success, it's just that gold is even better.
You're still assuming that the goal is to come 'first' and that there's a single criterion for assessment.
I can understand that as far as individual jobs were concerned, this thread did seem to focus on a single criterion - the amount of money the job pays.
But the more we've moved into other areas, the more I think it's questionable. It's funny that this thread has been running at the same time as the 'do what you love' thread.
[ 20. January 2014, 20:41: 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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If it takes 20 years to regrow a forest, then the company needs to have the logging rights to 20 forests. It can then clear one forest per year, and make a lot of money every year. That's why high market share is so important.
Clear cutting and re-growing forests tends to produce inferior lumber compared to what comes out of an old-growth forest that's been harvested sustainably. That's one of the reasons why in these parts timber companies are usually seeking to cut down the remaining old growth forests. Also, despite the claims of the tree farmers, unless there's a source of new minerals being added. if you harvest and ship out the lumber, you're shipping out the minerals in the ecosystem. That will end in tears, or possibly Australia ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
People in wheelchairs, on the other hand, would not be able to reach the shelves whether a step was provided or not. They would, therefore, be prevented from doing the job - but for a perfectly reasonable reason.
I really don't think the height of the shelves is a 'perfectly reasonable reason'.
I'm assuming the high shelves are above other, lower shelves that also have stuff on them. Like the warehouse bit at Ikea. Should Ikea have to buy several other large warehouses in order to never have to store anything on high shelves?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
People in wheelchairs, on the other hand, would not be able to reach the shelves whether a step was provided or not. They would, therefore, be prevented from doing the job - but for a perfectly reasonable reason.
I really don't think the height of the shelves is a 'perfectly reasonable reason'.
I'm assuming the high shelves are above other, lower shelves that also have stuff on them. Like the warehouse bit at Ikea. Should Ikea have to buy several other large warehouses in order to never have to store anything on high shelves?
A reasonable assumption-- but an unexamined one. There are alternatives. One might be to look at how the stock are used, it may be that there is stock that needs to be accessed far less often than that on the upper shelves, rearranging stock may make that possible. There's also all sorts of ways to store things other than the standard warehouse configuration-- look at some of the innovative ways large libraries are housing books, for example, with compressed bookcases, etc.
It may well be that none of these options will work. My point was simply that the question wasn't even asked. And that's true with pretty much all jobs. If very similar kinds of people, with very similar abilities and accessibility, continue to inhabit the job, there almost surely are invisible barriers that we aren't even aware of because we never think to ask the question-- and then, when we do, we just assume "they can't do this job" because it never occurs to us to question the parameters of the job itself.
This is true with disabilities, it's true for mothers with small children, it's true with breastfeeding mothers and with minorities, and a thousand other variables that seemed "insurmountable" until we were forced to reconsider those barriers and figured out they weren't all that insurmountable after all.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
/language tangent
Some people use wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility aids. These individuals are not contained or trapped in them as the phrases "in a wheelchair" and "wheelchair bound" might suggest. Thank you.
/end tangent
Yes-- important correction. Thanks!
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not sure about that Dafyd - the people I know (IT, medical professions, teaching) consider the fact that losing the hands on element to a greater or lesser extent, which comes with promotion, is a downside; the job definitely doesn't become more interesting.
When I said, "As long as the nature of the job doesn't significantly differ (as from IT to management)," that is the sort of thing I meant.
I'm not sure the situation you describe is "most", that's all. I think it's quite common that folk find that the higher echelons are more dull.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
People in wheelchairs, on the other hand, would not be able to reach the shelves whether a step was provided or not. They would, therefore, be prevented from doing the job - but for a perfectly reasonable reason.
I really don't think the height of the shelves is a 'perfectly reasonable reason'.
I'm assuming the high shelves are above other, lower shelves that also have stuff on them. Like the warehouse bit at Ikea. Should Ikea have to buy several other large warehouses in order to never have to store anything on high shelves?
Two things.
Being a frequent flyer at Ikea, I've noticed that many of the packages I'm picking up weigh a metric fuck-tonne. And there aren't that many people smaller than me who can handle a two-metre long 40+kg load on their own. I'm reasonably certain Ikea don't suggest their staff toss those around like confetti, and don't employ Charles Atlas and his brother to do so. No, they employ 'people' and use 'fork-lift trucks'.
Also, while I appreciate 'flexible working practices', not employing a wheelchair user because they can't reach a particular high shelf somewhere in the store isn't a goer, is it?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm reasonably certain Ikea don't suggest their staff toss those around like confetti, and don't employ Charles Atlas and his brother to do so. No, they employ 'people' and use 'fork-lift trucks'.
Are people who cannot use their legs able to operate forklift trucks? Maybe Ikea should fund the development of trucks that can be operated purely by hand, just in case such a person ever decides to apply for a job in one of their warehouses?
And what if a blind person wants to work there? How many changes and new technologies would be required to make that possible?
At what point does the cost of the changes required outweigh the benefit of being able to employ literally anyone who happens to choose to apply for a job (and who gets to make that decision?)? Is it perhaps more prudent to just accept that not everybody can do every job, and encourage each individual to focus their job search on the ones they can do?
(Of course, the higher you get up the job ladder the more physically accessible each job becomes. Virtually everybody can sit at a desk.)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Marvin: quote:
At what point does the cost of the changes required outweigh the benefit of being able to employ literally anyone who happens to choose to apply for a job (and who gets to make that decision?)?
Some changes may benefit others besides wheelchair users. For example, the accessibility legislation made my life a lot easier when my daughter was a baby, thanks to roll-on-roll-off buses, ramps and lifts that allowed access to shops for pushchairs, etc. etc.
So-called 'talking books' were originally developed for blind people, but are now widely used by others for entertainment during the daily commute.
And unless you are planning to commit suicide at the first signs of advancing decrepitude, someday you will be disabled yourself. At that point you may find yourself becoming reconciled to the idea of having your job redesigned to allow you to continue working.
[ 22. January 2014, 09:25: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And unless you are planning to commit suicide at the first signs of advancing decrepitude, someday you will be disabled yourself. At that point you may find yourself becoming reconciled to the idea of having your job redesigned to allow you to continue working.
If I ever become too decrepit to sit at a desk then still being able to do my job will be the least of my worries.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) It isn't that unlikely. There was someone at my last place of work who ended up resigning because she couldn't do her desk job.
Most desk jobs nowadays involve staring at a computer screen for long periods of time; they don't pay you just to sit staring into space. Staring at computer screens can lead to all sorts of health problems.
But you seem to be setting up a straw man, anyway. The legislation doesn't say employers have to take absolutely anyone; it says they should consider making 'reasonable' adjustments to the requirements of the job.
quote:
Is it perhaps more prudent to just accept that not everybody can do every job, and encourage each individual to focus their job search on the ones they can do?
Is it perhaps a consequence of the new 'Tough on Welfare Scroungers' attitude of the government that firms are having to sift through a lot of applications from people who would otherwise not bother applying for the job advertised? People of working age have to show that they are actively looking for work to qualify for benefits nowadays. This may involve applying for jobs they are unqualified for, just to fulfil the weekly or monthly quota.
Otherwise I don't think many people would waste their time (and money) applying for jobs they know they can't do.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
But you seem to be setting up a straw man, anyway. The legislation doesn't say employers have to take absolutely anyone; it says they should consider making 'reasonable' adjustments to the requirements of the job.
I know - I'm asking what constitutes a 'reasonable' adjustment.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Are people who cannot use their legs able to operate forklift trucks? Maybe Ikea should fund the development of trucks that can be operated purely by hand, just in case such a person ever decides to apply for a job in one of their warehouses?
I have absolutely no idea. But since we've already cracked the 'Are people who cannot use their legs able to operate cars/vans/trucks?' bit - something I presume you're not outraged about - I don't see any particular difficulty.
quote:
And what if a blind person wants to work there? How many changes and new technologies would be required to make that possible?
You see, this is kind of the problem. We've had a US president in a wheelchair, and a blind Home Secretary, and people with no legs walking to the South Pole. I can't see why wider society shouldn't make changes, even those above and beyond what you'd consider reasonable, simply because it's compassionate to do so.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
And what if a blind person wants to work there? How many changes and new technologies would be required to make that possible?
You see, this is kind of the problem. We've had a US president in a wheelchair, and a blind Home Secretary, and people with no legs walking to the South Pole. I can't see why wider society shouldn't make changes, even those above and beyond what you'd consider reasonable, simply because it's compassionate to do so.
Agreed. And it begins in school. The school makes reasonable adjustments, the children thrive. As do the rest of the class, who learn that we are all different and have different needs.
The more adjustments technology/science can help us to make make the better. Stop paying for useless Trident and start funding these kind of developments imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
But you seem to be setting up a straw man, anyway. The legislation doesn't say employers have to take absolutely anyone; it says they should consider making 'reasonable' adjustments to the requirements of the job.
I know - I'm asking what constitutes a 'reasonable' adjustment.
In my view 'reasonable' means 'possible' never mind the cost - the disabled person has the biggest challenges to face, adapting a building etc is a small cost.
[ 22. January 2014, 11:40: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
In my view 'reasonable' means 'possible' never mind the cost - the disabled person has the biggest challenges to face, adapting a building etc is a small cost.
And back to the question at hand in this thread - what is the small cost of making it easier for working parents (generally mothers who carry most of the burden), compared to the cost to society of having potentially productive people giving up careers because of family obligations?
The Netherlands is one of the wealthiest countries in the world but part time work and job sharing are very common.
Here is a quote from an article in the New York Times:
quote:
UTRECHT, NETHERLANDS — Remco Vermaire is ambitious and, at 37, the youngest partner in his law firm. His banker clients expect him on call constantly — except on Fridays, when he looks after his two children. Fourteen of the 33 lawyers in Mr. Vermaire’s firm work part time, as do many of their high-powered spouses. Some clients work part time, too.
“Working four days a week is now the rule rather than the exception among my friends,” said Mr. Vermaire, the first man at Wijn & Stael Advocaten to take a “daddy day” in 2006. Within a year, all the other male lawyers with small children in his firm had followed suit.
NY Times - Working (Part Time)
When you make things better "for women" you often make things better for EVERYONE who has family responsibilities. Hence the common feminist phrase "Patriarchy hurts men to."
As with disability, parenthood can easily be accommodated IF a society is willing to do so. All the nonsense about men being inherently better at work or women losing motivation because they just love babies, is nonsense.
If it's not being accommodated it's because of bias or discrimination as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane
People of working age have to show that they are actively looking for work to qualify for benefits nowadays.
That was the law here last time I was on the dole over 30 years ago.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
It was when I was on the dole 30 years ago too, but I don't remember being asked to show documentary proof that I was applying for jobs. The people at the Jobcentre didn't really know what to do with someone who was applying for professional-level jobs, anyway (judging by my experience of applying for JSA ten years ago, that hasn't changed but their attitude has deteriorated).
Mind you, 30 years ago you could apply for travelling expenses to get to interviews. Those were the days...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You see, this is kind of the problem. We've had a US president in a wheelchair, and a blind Home Secretary, and people with no legs walking to the South Pole. I can't see why wider society shouldn't make changes, even those above and beyond what you'd consider reasonable, simply because it's compassionate to do so.
I look forward to the day when the nation has its first blind lorry driver.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
In my view 'reasonable' means 'possible' never mind the cost
And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their straff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You see, this is kind of the problem. We've had a US president in a wheelchair, and a blind Home Secretary, and people with no legs walking to the South Pole. I can't see why wider society shouldn't make changes, even those above and beyond what you'd consider reasonable, simply because it's compassionate to do so.
I look forward to the day when the nation has its first blind lorry driver.
And they'll be driving a google-enabled truck.
Seriously. What's your problem?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their straff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
I'm sure some cotton plantations had to shut down after the forced restructuring of the economy of the US South after the civil war as well.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I got a couple of home visits from DHSS to check up on me. Last one I could tell them that I had been offered a job as an EO in the Civil Service - that is a higher grade than the person interviewing me - but the job wasn't due to start for months.
In the early 80s the whole thing was messed up by strikes and riots, which were a lot more common then than now. The government was keen to keep a lid on the violence so in practice the benefits system was less harsh than the rules required - at one point we didn't have to sign on for weeks and were getting giros for the DVLC in Swansea. It was a hot, violent, summer and the last thing they needed was a few hundred thousand penniless unemployed taking to the streets.
These days the benefits system is dominated by a government propaganda agenda that wants to portray unemployment as an individual fault or inadequacy, so they have less incentive to interpret the rules generously. In fact they have an interest in being harsh because visible destitution and shame suits their party line - up to the point where riots start.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Actually, Marvin, a blind lorry-driver in charge of a truck on automatic pilot would be far less of a danger to me than a lorry-driver with perfect 20:20 vision who is looking in the wrong direction. Or tailgating me at 70 miles an hour. Or changing lanes without bothering to check his blind spot. At least the blind driver KNOWS s/he can't see whether the lorry's about to hit something.
Ken: quote:
In fact they have an interest in being harsh because visible destitution and shame suits their party line - up to the point where riots start.
And of course, after the riots start they can just throw all the rioters in jail. Or out on the street, if said rioters are on housing benefit or in a council house.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I look forward to the day when the nation has its first blind lorry driver.
And they'll be driving a google-enabled truck.
Seriously. What's your problem?
My problem is with this daft idea that every single person who exists should be able to do every single job that exists.
I'd come up with more examples, but frankly I can't think of one more outlandish than the idea of one of these being driven at motorway speeds by someone who can't even see where they're going.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their straff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
I'm sure some cotton plantations had to shut down after the forced restructuring of the economy of the US South after the civil war as well.
Comparisons to slavery? Really?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Actually, Marvin, a blind lorry-driver in charge of a truck on automatic pilot would be far less of a danger to me than a lorry-driver with perfect 20:20 vision who is looking in the wrong direction.
If they can make a truck that's safe for a blind person to drive then they can make one that doesn't need a driver at all. Which I guess would resolve the whole "equality" thing, but in the other direction.
But I can't quite believe that people are talking, with all apparent seriousness, about what needs to be done to allow a blind person to drive a fucking lorry. I just don't understand that level of refusal to accept that there are some jobs that some people just are not capable of doing.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My problem is with this daft idea that every single person who exists should be able to do every single job that exists.
And my problem is that you don't think there should be any accommodation at all, which has been historically all-too-easily translated in racist, sexist, ageist, anti-disabled ways.
It's only been in the last ten years or so that public transport - you know, transport. For the public - has been largely pram and wheelchair compatible. Yes, there has been a cost. But we've done it because it's the right thing to do. Ramps as well as steps to access public buildings. It's not even as if 'ramps' is some new-fangled technology. But the lack of them has simply meant that libraries, museums, offices, shops, and pretty much everywhere else was a no-go area for someone reliant on some sort of wheeled device to get around.
I appreciate that you don't get it, but there are lots of people out there who do. Why not listen to them and the stories they tell?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
In my view 'reasonable' means 'possible' never mind the cost
And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their staff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
They say they can't afford it, but this is rarely the case. Lack of motivation is the problem, not lack of cash.
Remove waste (see my Trident example) and excess profits. They would have all the cash they needed to enable people to work with equality and dignity.
I know many schools which said 'it can't be done' on inclusion. They were forced and - lo and behold - it could be done! All they needed was the motivation.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... I'd come up with more examples, but frankly I can't think of one more outlandish than the idea of one of these being driven at motorway speeds by someone who can't even see where they're going.
You know, the sailors in a submarine can never see where they're going either, except when on the surface (i.e. when they're not being submarines.) Those sailors drive a ship containing a nuclear reactor and nuclear weapons completely blind, and yet, somehow, with the assistance of various technological devices, they sail on blindly.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Mind you, 30 years ago you could apply for travelling expenses to get to interviews. Those were the days...
You can now.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My problem is with this daft idea that every single person who exists should be able to do every single job that exists.
I'd come up with more examples, but frankly I can't think of one more outlandish than the idea of one of these being driven at motorway speeds by someone who can't even see where they're going.
Since the daft idea is your strawman, why don't you let it go? No one but you is saying that every forklift has to have hand enabled controls, or that every parking space has to be large enough to handle a wheelchair van.
If you hire someone who needs a hand controlled forklift, you get the adaptation done. You make some parking spaces workable for those using wheel chairs and reserve them, not all spaces. If the adaptation is unreasonable, the employer doesn't have to do it. But the presumption is that most employers have jobs that can be made workable for many people with minor accommodation.
Also, many of the accommodations turn out to work well for those who don't need accommodation. The City Buses here installed a few cushioned drivers seats that cost $75,000 dollars for drivers with back problems. After a several year study, they decided to install them in all buses. It was cheaper to put in the seats then to pay medical bills for drivers who got back problems. (National Health and decent city roads were not practical at the time).
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their straff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
I'm sure some cotton plantations had to shut down after the forced restructuring of the economy of the US South after the civil war as well.
Comparisons to slavery? Really?
Yeah, that struck me as an overreach as well. I've worked in human rights, and I don't remember any of the disability advocacy organisations going anywhere near there.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
In my view 'reasonable' means 'possible' never mind the cost
And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their straff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
Other than Boogie, I don't think anyone is arguing that there may be financial limits. But that is missing the point. The point is that all too often there are very reasonable and even low or no cost solutions (e.g. rearranging stock so that the most used-items are on lower shelves; having a small private area for pumping breastmilk, etc) that CAN be made but aren't simply because we jump to the conclusion that "X" group can't do this job. Sometimes the assumption is correct-- I doubt we'll get blind lorry/truck drivers any time soon, google's attempts notwithstanding. But all too often the assumptions are incorrect. And we never find out which is the case until we get past the knee-jerk objections to ask the real questions.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if the company can't afford the cost? Should they be driven out of business - making all their straff unemployed - because making every possible accessibility change is more important?
I'm sure some cotton plantations had to shut down after the forced restructuring of the economy of the US South after the civil war as well.
Comparisons to slavery? Really?
Yes, really. The comparison, while extreme, is valid-- there are similar variables and disincentives at play.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No, there really aren't.
Slavery is about forcibly coercing someone to work for you. Comparing that to a situation of failing to facilitate someone working for you is just over the top.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, there really aren't.
Slavery is about forcibly coercing someone to work for you. Comparing that to a situation of failing to facilitate someone working for you is just over the top.
Read the context: the analogy was a limited one in response to a complaint re: the cost of making accommodations. The analogy was hyperbolic, but the point is valid: making a paradigm shift to accommodate a new population in the workplace will be costly. While the deprivation women, parents, and persons of disabilities experience in the workplace is nothing like the horror of slavery, at the same time, the economic cost to employers of accommodating them will be nothing compared to the economic devastation caused to Southern whites by the dismantling of slavery.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, there really aren't.
Slavery is about forcibly coercing someone to work for you. Comparing that to a situation of failing to facilitate someone working for you is just over the top.
Read the context: the analogy was a limited one in response to a complaint re: the cost of making accommodations. The analogy was hyperbolic, but the point is valid: making a paradigm shift to accommodate a new population in the workplace will be costly. While the deprivation women, parents, and persons of disabilities experience in the workplace is nothing like the horror of slavery, at the same time, the economic cost to employers of accommodating them will be nothing compared to the economic devastation caused to Southern whites by the dismantling of slavery.
But there's no 'thing' to dismantle. Wrong analogy. Employers are not a monolithic block or institution like 'slavery'. The nearest equivalent to 'employers' would be 'slave owners'. Whereas 'slavery' is equivalent to 'employment'.
(And slavery was not a BARRIER to employment, either. It was employment whether you wanted it or not.)
And the difference is that a person with disability does have choice. If an employer gains a reputation as being smart enough to understand the benefits of accommodating people with disability, then it will attract people with disability and enhance its workforce, at the expense of those employers who fail to accommodate people with disability.
The equivalent drivers simply don't work in the slavery context, because no slave had the power to tell their owner to treat them better or else they would go and work for a better slave owner.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And of course, after the riots start they can just throw all the rioters in jail. Or out on the street, if said rioters are on housing benefit or in a council house.
Now that bit was hilarious - a lot of posturing until someone said "You can't do that" it'll cost more .....
Job Seekers and all that - interesting time for us. None of us has any experience of this as (fortunately) we've all been in work when we've wanted to be.
Middle daughter has her interview tomorrow. She has a masters degree in Nursing and has been a sister on the busiest Medical Assessment Unit in the UK (running a dept of more than 70 acute beds). She's moved with her husband's work and the DHSS are already treating her like a pile of pooh on their feet. She's tried herself to find work and is happy not to be back at her (once high level) job as a sister at a massive regional hospital . She has an impeccable work record, very very low sickness level (about 6 days total in 13 years) and yet the DHSS are making her feel like a leper even though she will do anything within reason. It's not her fault that her husband's job demanded a 200 mile move and she can't commute!
She can argue her corner but what happens to the people who can't? If it happens to ELB who's feisty and takes no prisoners what about someone who's disabled etc?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
cliffdweller - thanks for your explanation of my point.
orfeo - I purposely chose an extreme situation to highlight the problem of looking at a labor or employment issue solely from the perspective of the cost of the employer making accommodations, and not from the wider societal cost of a discriminatory or unequal or unjust labor market.
I could have said that factories may have faced reduced profits when child labor laws came into effect, or when health and safety rules limiting factory working from doing 18 hour days on heavy and dangerous equipment began being enforced. But I chose slavery because I was trying to make a clear point.
Someone mentioned above that laws requiring handicapped ramps have helped other people, like parents with strollers. Often the so-called "costly" accommodation ends up being nothing of the sort, but really corporate scaremongering in order to protect every last penny of potential profit. And for individuals to fall for that nonsense, and to start saying that society might be better off if companies simply employed who THEY determine are the very best - without accepting that company bosses are human beings too, who may be prejudiced against ethnic minorities or women or the disabled even in a way that is economically unbeneficial to their firm - that I struggle to understand.
If you want an example of how an organization acts against its own best interest (including in profit) because of prejudice - look at the segregation in American sports leagues. I don't think any NFL or MLB boss would ever consider not taking the best player today regardless of race; in 1950 this was not the case. Were black players less capable of playing those sports in 1950? No. Are either of those leagues less successful or profitable after being forced to integrate? No.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My problem is with this daft idea that every single person who exists should be able to do every single job that exists.
And my problem is that you don't think there should be any accommodation at all, which has been historically all-too-easily translated in racist, sexist, ageist, anti-disabled ways.
Somewhere between "absolutely no accommodation whatsoever" and "every possible accommodation up to and including levelling the building and starting again" lie both of our attitudes to this. I'm just closer to the former than you.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Just to be clear, I completely agree with the proposition that employers ought to be required to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disability (which is basically what the law in Australia says anyway). I also agree that a lot of employers fail to provide assistance that would actually be of little or no cost to them, or have to be pushed into doing so. They're not proactive. The onus is put on the employee to ask and press until things are done.
What I don't agree with are extreme comparisons and saying "oh well, if the cost shuts down a business, tough luck". I've already said it in different ways, but a comparison with slavery strikes me as stupid because it was NEVER the goal of dismantling slavery to provide slaves with jobs. They already had jobs. Horrible, demeaning jobs. The goal was to provide them with freedom to walk away from those jobs. In which case, shutting down their 'employers' was entirely a good thing.
How is it remotely of any benefit to a person with disability if their employer shuts down? That's a lose-lose situation if ever I saw one. Conveying some kind of satisfaction with that outcome is thoughtless.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Somewhere between "absolutely no accommodation whatsoever" and "every possible accommodation up to and including levelling the building and starting again" lie both of our attitudes to this. I'm just closer to the former than you.
Some buildings are simply no longer fit for purpose. The school I worked in until just recently has three floors, no lifts, and pupils who, through injury, are unable to climb the stairs unaided are formally excluded until they can.
And inevitably, despite being one of the bigger Primaries in the area, there are zero physically disabled pupils. Or teachers. Or other staff.
[ 23. January 2014, 11:57: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
ExclamationMark: quote:
She has an impeccable work record, very very low sickness level (about 6 days total in 13 years) and yet the DHSS are making her feel like a leper even though she will do anything within reason. It's not her fault that her husband's job demanded a 200 mile move and she can't commute!
Well, <sarcasm on> obviously it is if she refuses to sacrifice her marriage on the altar of Economic Necessity. <\sarcasm off>
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) for Middle Daughter. Hope she gets something suitable soon.
I once got a bollocking from a Jobcentre adviser for turning up ten minutes late to my appointment. I'd actually arrived in the building in (what I thought was) plenty of time, but it took me that long to find out how to get to her desk because I had my daughter (in a pushchair) with me and in order to get to the first floor I had to wait in line at the reception desk to find out where to go (because there weren't any notices up, that would have been Too Easy) and then go out into the street and beg the people in the next building to let me use their lift. It's surprising it only took me an extra ten minutes, actually...
Nowadays I'd probably have had my benefit stopped for being late to my appointment. And this happened *after* the accessibility legislation came in. Presumably anyone who couldn't use the stairs unaided had to provide their own team of Sherpas before then.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Somewhere between "absolutely no accommodation whatsoever" and "every possible accommodation up to and including levelling the building and starting again" lie both of our attitudes to this. I'm just closer to the former than you.
Some buildings are simply no longer fit for purpose. The school I worked in until just recently has three floors, no lifts, and pupils who, through injury, are unable to climb the stairs unaided are formally excluded until they can.
And inevitably, despite being one of the bigger Primaries in the area, there are zero physically disabled pupils. Or teachers. Or other staff.
Hoo boy. I remember being ever so slightly involved in the disability standards for buildings here in Australia.
It took years and years for them to be signed off. And I think most of the haggling was over old buildings.
Personally I don't think it's necessarily a building-levelling problem if a school in the area isn't up to scratch. I do think it's a building-levelling problem if every school in the area isn't up to scratch.
EDIT: If anyone wants to see the actual approach to this issue, in one country anyway, the standards I'm talking about can be access from this page along with an FAQ on them. Note that the link initially goes to the Standards as first passed, not the slightly amended version now in force.
[ 23. January 2014, 12:34: 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
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Old buildings are a problem. Over here, we have strict rules on what alterations are allowed in historic buildings. We're trying to improve disabled access to our church at the moment, which involves knocking a hole in the churchyard wall and laying a new path through the graveyard at the back. Adding accessible toilet facilities is a distant (and expensive) dream, involving complicated negotiations with English Heritage and major surgery to the area behind the bell-tower...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
At what point does the cost of the changes required outweigh the benefit of being able to employ literally anyone who happens to choose to apply for a job (and who gets to make that decision?)? Is it perhaps more prudent to just accept that not everybody can do every job, and encourage each individual to focus their job search on the ones they can do?
I'd argue that the benefit of attracting the widest possible pool of talent to work for you will always out-weigh the cost of adjustments to the work-place.
If you've already narrowed down the talent pool you're choosing from, you could have already excluded, say, the future head of R&D who would have come up with the next revolutionary super-profitable product.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
At what point does the cost of the changes required outweigh the benefit of being able to employ literally anyone who happens to choose to apply for a job (and who gets to make that decision?)? Is it perhaps more prudent to just accept that not everybody can do every job, and encourage each individual to focus their job search on the ones they can do?
I'd argue that the benefit of attracting the widest possible pool of talent to work for you will always out-weigh the cost of adjustments to the work-place.
If you've already narrowed down the talent pool you're choosing from, you could have already excluded, say, the future head of R&D who would have come up with the next revolutionary super-profitable product.
That doesn't sound like a cost-benefit analysis.
EDIT: Forget people with a disability for a moment. Using the same logic, you would have to argue that your company should advertise its latest position in every newspaper in the world (or hey, in this modern age, we can probably save a bit just by advertising on every job-search website in the world) because the absolute perfect candidate might just be lurking somewhere in the south-western corner of the Central African Republic.
[ 23. January 2014, 13:32: 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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Somewhere between "absolutely no accommodation whatsoever" and "every possible accommodation up to and including levelling the building and starting again" lie both of our attitudes to this.
I think the reality of this position also depends on the size and location of the organisation in question. For example,
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And they'll be driving a google-enabled truck.
might be fine for a large US corporation. But for a small family-run business in India (for example), it's not quite as realistic.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What I don't agree with are extreme comparisons and saying "oh well, if the cost shuts down a business, tough luck". I've already said it in different ways, but a comparison with slavery strikes me as stupid because it was NEVER the goal of dismantling slavery to provide slaves with jobs. They already had jobs. Horrible, demeaning jobs. The goal was to provide them with freedom to walk away from those jobs. In which case, shutting down their 'employers' was entirely a good thing.
How is it remotely of any benefit to a person with disability if their employer shuts down? That's a lose-lose situation if ever I saw one. Conveying some kind of satisfaction with that outcome is thoughtless.
When using analogy, it is not a requirement that each and every aspect of the analogy line up perfectly. That will never happen. All metaphors break down eventually. Even the analogies in Jesus' parables will break down eventually (the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, except...). This is particularly true when one is also employing hyperbole.
In this case, the analogy has to do with the objection that providing greater access will be "too costly". A similar objection was made re: slavery-- correctly so, because dismantling slavery was enormously costly. It is not necessary for every element of the analogy to line up for it to be a valid comparison, but rather only those elements germane to the comparison-- in this case, that we are talking about the balance of changing a system to achieve greater equality vs. the cost to the employer/business owner. The analogy works, albeit hyperbolically.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
