Would You Hire an Employee with a Disability

[Sir Salty]

Congratulations, welcome to a brain thought discussion with me. Now I am not going to make this a discussion about whether or not its right or wrong to hire an employee with a disability. Instead we're going to go to hypothetical land and I want you to answer this question honest;

Congratulations. You are the manager of your own business. And have taken on the task to hire two different people.

The first people is an abled person, who has all the skills the work force needs, and can be available at any time you so call them to be at.

The second person is a disabled person, who also has the skills the work force needs, but needs a tighter schedule, can't be in on certain days due to other appointments and such, and needs to come to work later due to the way medication affects them and their sleep habits.

Which worker would you hirer?

and the broader question is

Would you hirer an employee knowing they had a disability and required certain accommodations to be successful in the workforce?

 

[Teiso]

Me, personally, I would.

Why? Because nearly every 'equal opportunity' employer wouldn't, I've witnessed it first hand. It doesn't matter if the disabled person has more skills, or is even more qualified, they will prefer the abled person, simply because they wouldn't need to make accommodations for them.

The world needs more truly equal opportunity employers, and if I ran a business, I would make the accommodations for a disabled person if they were qualified for the position. =^.^=

 

[Chatoyante]

Depends. Does my business need an employee with a flexible work schedule? For example, if I am hiring a store manager, I'd probably prefer someone who could be flexible based on store and employee needs. Since they're a leader of a team of employees, I'd probably prefer that flexibility being a potential option if things are going sour. Do I actually have the ability to compromise on when hours are worked? For example, are business hours only allowed to be between 9am and 5pm (ex: when you rent a space in a mall, your business is expected to keep certain hours or you're breaking your rental agreement), thus having an employee that cannot be at the office on time would affect the business negatively? How many other employees do I have that already give that flexibility? For example, do I have a team leader kind of employee that I know could make the importance of a flexible manager less of a priority? Knowing the personalities and need of the employees I already have, would these time restraints negatively impact how they work?

This is a really difficult question to answer truthfully, because there isn't enough information. However, I wouldn't discriminate against someone with a disability.

 

[Flannel]

Like above poster said, it's really a matter of what the situation is.

I wouldn't not hire said person just because of their disability, but if it did not benefit the company, no I would not.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

No, my business is only allowed to have one token disabled person! And that slot has already been taken by me! >:[

In all seriousness though, I would be looking at other factors as well like how well they get along with the crew, if their disability may give special insight (ex: helping those with said disability). But for the sake of this discussion (and to not do a cop out) I'm going to assume that all factors are equal other than the scheduling. In which case I would probably go with the Able Person. Not due to them lacking a disability, but because in this situation they are simply offering more to the table.

Otherwise you start doing Affirmative Action, which has time and time again proven to be something used both as a tool of discrimination and harms whatever workplace ends up adopting it.

EDIT: Also, there's the element that if we're to hire someone with a disability simply because of their disability that'd honestly just be insulting. You're basically telling them "You didn't come on your own merits! But because I took mercy on you and/or am trying to be progressive!". And speaking as someone who has Autism? If I learned that was the case for a job I got I would be furious.

 

[Sir Salty]

Otherwise you start doing Affirmative Action, which has time and time again proven to be something used both as a tool of discrimination and harms whatever workplace ends up adopting it.

It's kind of the reason why in my thought experiment they had all the same skills. You're suppose to assume that they have all the same skills.

The point I am trying to make was that something like 80% of the Autistic community is Underemployed and Unemployed. I am very upfront in an interview about my needs. But since I come off very intelligent, and smart and don't look nearly disabled as what a disabled person suppose to look like, I rarely get hired.

They always say "we found someone else better suited for the job"

I was simulating the process after the interview. The point is we rarely get hired. And I never advocate for affirmative action.

This thought experiment wasn't saying hire them because they were disabled, I made it clear they had the same qualifications and working skills. Only thing is they would need a lot more help in the working environment then the abled body person.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

It's kind of the reason why in my thought experiment they had all the same skills. You're suppose to assume that they have all the same skills.

The point I am trying to make was that something like 80% of the Autistic community is Underemployed and Unemployed. I am very upfront in an interview about my needs. But since I come off very intelligent, and smart and don't look nearly disabled as what a disabled person suppose to look like, I rarely get hired.

They always say "we found someone else better suited for the job"

I was simulating the process after the interview. The point is we rarely get hired. And I never advocate for affirmative action.

This thought experiment wasn't saying hire them because they were disabled, I made it clear they had the same qualifications and working skills. Only thing is they would need a lot more help in the working environment then the abled body person.

That's just the thing though. The able person having a more open schedule is a qualification in itself due them being more adaptable as well as being more reliable in emergency situations. So when all other qualifications are seen as equal it really comes down to who has the better schedule if you're doing it on a pure merits/qualifications stand-point. To go outside that would be hiring people for political reasons, which is why I brought up Affirmative Action.

 

[Sir Salty]

That's just the thing though. The able person having a more open schedule is a qualification in itself due them being more adaptable as well as being more reliable in emergency situations. So when all other qualifications are seen as equal it really comes down to who has the better schedule if you're doing it on a pure merits/qualifications stand-point. To go outside that would be hiring people for political reasons, which is why I brought up Affirmative Action.

Which I'm against. But mate. I have no money. I'm homeless. I have no financial assistance. And no programs to assist us.

While I am against Affirmative Action. We need some kind of solution.

Unless you think that constantly fighting welfare that punishes people for being poor, like how dare you need food stamps and financial assistance get a job you lazy son of a bitch.

But then you try to get a job and it's like, eh I don't want to deal with this, why don't you go on welfare and get the assistance you need.

Because everything is fucking catch 22.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Which I'm against. But mate. I have no money. I'm homeless. I have no financial assistance. And no programs to assist us.

While I am against Affirmative Action. We need some kind of solution.

Unless you think that constantly fighting welfare that punishes people for being poor, like how dare you need food stamps and financial assistance get a job you lazy son of a bitch.

But then you try to get a job and it's like, eh I don't want to deal with this, why don't you go on welfare and get the assistance you need.

Because everything is fucking catch 22.

And I feel sorry for anyone that is going through stuff like food stamps or welfare, and facing public scrutiny for it. But that wasn't what the question was asking about. I never said I wouldn't ever hire someone with a disability. I simply said that I wouldn't hire the person with a disability in the context/situation provided.

 

[Sir Salty]

And I feel sorry for anyone that is going through stuff like food stamps or welfare, and facing public scrutiny for it. But that wasn't what the question was asking about. I never said I wouldn't ever hire someone with a disability. I simply said that I wouldn't hire the person with a disability in the context/situation provided.

No I understand.

The point was a thought experiment and I knew most people wouldn't hire the person with the disability. But honestly that was the point of the thought experiment.

 

[Dipper]

I would hire based on practicality. If this disabled person is the most qualified, then of course I'd hire them. If there are numerous reasons for me not to, such as there being a more qualified person available, then no. Work ethic would also factor in.

None of my requirements for hiring have anything to do with someone's disability. It's all about whether they're capable. It's about whether they're qualified. Any self respecting company is going to hire people based on their skills, not how "healthy" or able-bodied/minded they are.

Basically, hire based on their accomplishments, their skillset, and their qualifications. That's it. I've solved the problem. Everybody go home.

 

[Sir Salty]

I would hire based on practicality. If this disabled person is the most qualified, then of course I'd hire them. If there are numerous reasons for me not to, such as there being a more qualified person available, then no. Work ethic would also factor in.

None of my requirements for hiring have anything to do with someone's disability. It's all about whether they're capable. It's about whether they're qualified. Any self respecting company is going to hire people based on their skills, not how "healthy" or able-bodied/minded they are.

Basically, hire based on their accomplishments, their skillset, and their qualifications. That's it. I've solved the problem. Everybody go home.

I absolutely wholeheartedly agree.

Yet, that doesn't happen.

 

[Vivian]

As cruel as it may sound, I wouldn't hire the disabled person if a more able person were available. This is mostly due to their tighter schedule; I'll have to force another worker to pick up where they can't (which is unfair in its own way), or hire someone else, which is also a money loss which in my opinion is a no-no. Though this post is missing some information that would help make a clearer answer for me.
What kind of business am I hiring for, and what position in the business? More importantly what is the disability?

While I'm all for equality, it's still survival of the fittest in the working world. If you can't keep up or make the cut people (myself included) are going to opt for a better replacement. How else are business going to run smoothly? 8)

EDIT: I also strongly agree with what Gwazi said about pity hiring if I were to be given a little slack because I'm a part of a minority I would be furious. It completely overlooks the efforts I made to even be considered for the job let alone hired for it.

Also, there's the element that if we're to hire someone with a disability simply because of their disability that'd honestly just be insulting. You're basically telling them "You didn't come on your own merits! But because I took mercy on you and/or am trying to be progressive!". And speaking as someone who has Autism? If I learned that was the case for a job I got I would be furious.

 

[Sir Salty]

As cruel as it may sound, I wouldn't hire the disabled person if a more able person were available. This is mostly due to their tighter schedule; I'll have to force another worker to pick up where they can't (which is unfair in its own way), or hire someone else, which is also a money loss which in my opinion is a no-no. Though this post is missing some information that would help make a clearer answer for me.
What kind of business am I hiring for, and what position in the business? More importantly what is the disability?

While I'm all for equality, it's still survival of the fittest in the working world. If you can't keep up or make the cut people (myself included) are going to opt for a better replacement. How else are business going to run smoothly? 8)

EDIT: I also strongly agree with what Gwazi said about pity hiring if I were to be given a little slack because I'm a part of a minority I would be furious. It completely overlooks the efforts I made to even be considered for the job let alone hired for it.

I never said I disagreed with him. I entirely agree.

But it means then we need a solution.

And while I agree with Dipper. It doesn't always work that way.

 

[Vivian]

I never said I disagreed with him. I entirely agree.

But it means then we need a solution.

And while I agree with Dipper. It doesn't always work that way.

Oh, no don't take it that way, I wasn't saying you were disagreeing. I was just saying that I follow his statement with confidence, and Dippers solution is workable, but the job the disabled person is applying for has to be put into consideration, where the job can be done (like if it's something you can do from home or a computer) and how often this job has to be done and for how long.

Like, if I were to be applying for staff on Iwaku I have to consider the expected work they want to be done every week through my doctor appointments and medications. Of course, as a boss, I'll give them required days off (I was given some time off from working to finish exams), but if Anon can't log on every day to get some daily tasks done (tagging posts, moving, creating some liveliness in the community ect) then I would much rather Anon 2 who is capable of doing that, but if both are qualified and are able to do that it would depend on charisma. BUT HEY SINCE IWAKU IS UNDERSTAFFED WE COULD JUST HIRE THEM BOTH since no one gets paid hahoheae

Despite agreeing with most of Dippers comment I have to disagree with Mental/physical health. 8D I feel those are important to consider.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I never said I disagreed with him. I entirely agree.

But it means then we need a solution.

The solution is rather simple in concept, get more qualifications.
May that be fighting your disability, training marketable skills, getting a higher education etc.
Getting a job at the end of the day is proving to have more qualifications than the other guy, so if you're finding your short, get more.

Now, the debate as to how to do this specifically is actually quite complicated though.
Do we want therapy programs? Do we want the Government to provide more jobs? Do we want free Education? And then consider all the complications those approaches give and how to manage them.

Then there's also just the matter of the job market and economy in general. Everyone struggles with finding a job, and that's only been getting harder as of late with so many of them being replaced by Machines. Which opens up an entirely different conversation about if our current model is even going to last much longer. And if we may be better off switching to something like a fixed general income, and allow people more freedom to pursue their own hobbies and passions?

All of these are probably topics best left for other threads. But the question your asking is a lot more complicated than this one thought experiment sets it up to be.

 

[Sir Salty]

The solution is rather simple in concept, get more qualifications.
May that be fighting your disability, training marketable skills, getting a higher education etc.
Getting a job at the end of the day is proving to have more qualifications than the other guy, so if you're finding your short, get more.

Now, the debate as to how to do this specifically is actually quite complicated though.
Do we want therapy programs? Do we want the Government to provide more jobs? Do we want free Education? And then consider all the complications those approaches give and how to manage them.

Then there's also just the matter of the job market and economy in general. Everyone struggles with finding a job, and that's only been getting harder as of late with so many of them being replaced by Machines. Which opens up an entirely different conversation about if our current model is even going to last much longer. And if we may be better off switching to something like a fixed general income, and allow people more freedom to pursue their own hobbies and passions?

All of these are probably topics best left for other threads. But the question your asking is a lot more complicated than this one thought experiment sets it up to be.

True, but I was going to make this kind of an expansive Discussion. had three threads in plan. Just wanted the question asked.

Then another thread moved over to the complicated stuff. mhm.

I was trying to get them in the mind frame.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I was trying to get them in the mind frame.

This is usually why I don't say anything when making a thread meant to get ideas rolling (or at the very least, hide my opinion behind a spoiler), only to later express my personal views at a later date.

Depending on how you word a question, or answer early responders you are already influencing the direction that opinions will go by planting certain suggestions in people's head and/or pressuring them to agree with the crowd. Which can ultimately hurt a discussion for a few reasons. Mainly being that by focusing it on one view set a discussion could be stifled before it even begins, and that those who may have had a different opinion then get defensive, and instead of now being able to engage them in debate or discussion they remove themselves from the conversation and continue to harbour those views.

 

[Sir Salty]

This is usually why I don't say anything when making a thread meant to get ideas rolling (or at the very least, hide my opinion behind a spoiler), only to later express my personal views at a later date.

Depending on how you word a question, or answer early responders you are already influencing the direction that opinions will go by planting certain suggestions in people's head and/or pressuring them to agree with the crowd. Which can ultimately hurt a discussion for a few reasons. Mainly being that by focusing it on one view set a discussion could be stifled before it even begins, and that those who may have had a different opinion then get defensive, and instead of now being able to engage them in debate or discussion they remove themselves from the conversation and continue to harbour those views.

Well, for me I understand why people wouldn't hire someone with a disability.

TBH, I wouldn't hire me either.

TBH, I wouldn't hirer someone with a disability either.

And I disagree with affirmative action as well.

So I am in a bind. How do the disabled survive?

 

[Shiri]

If you both qualify, you're both hired onto my dreamland skyship. I'm not picky. Well, besides two specific people who live in my community. They are not invited for being downright jerks to me. They can have their own skyship. xP

I took an introductory business course and they only stressed qualifications, resume, and good references being the application deciders, so I'd probably stick with those. Stick with what you know, right? Disabilities or not, if you meet what's required then welcome aboard.

I'd be a terrible superviser though. Like really bad. I'd probably scramble everyone's schedules accidentally, or rehire someone we fired for good reason, or miss a background check on a recently escaped mass murderer. o.o; Oops.