Would You Hire an Employee with a Disability

[DefinitelyNotGuns]

I would. But that comes with a very specific reason. I have worked with children and teens with mild-severe Autism and a plethora of other developmental and physical disabilities for the past three years. It is my job to help set these kids up to have a future, and to have a manager like you (hypothetically) hire them. Many children who attended Autism schools (like the one I taught at previously) instead of learning math like all of the other kids, work 7 hours a day to obtain skills they would need to hold a steady part time job, even if it means a minuscule assembly task that is probably taken by a machine at this point.

In my state, we are very much about mom and pop businesses with keeping business in state and having people do the work, not machines. At a school like where I worked at, these kids have the opportunity to have vocational rehab. They go to different jobs and again, focus more on what it means to be employed somewhere, what it means to be able to keep a steady job, be supervised in what they might be doing (stocking shelves, greeting customers, etc.) and what they need to do if they need help. When a child ages out of Children's Services (usually between the ages of 19-21) they are eligible to receive a waiver for work support services. This is someone that is paid by the state, not the employer to assist the client to make sure that they are completing their job correctly and to the standards of the employer. I would rather take someone under my wing who has been working so hard to have the opportunities that everyone else has and is often looked down upon than someone who could probably get a job elsewhere, regardless of constraints. In fact, I would be honored to have them as a part of my team. Then again, I'm someone who not out of personal experience for myself, but out of watching nearly a hundred kids cycle through my life that are going through the same repeated struggles I can say it with extreme confidence that I would consider moreso hiring a disabled worker.

Again, my two cents, but whatever.

 

[Vars]

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.

But that's the problem, isn't it? The requirements. What are they exactly?

Generally, all jobs require the ability to read/hear, interpret, and follow instructions. So let's say I yell out orders to people. The requirement is "follow orders." It's simple to me, right. But not exactly so simple.
Can they understand my language? Why would you hire someone who can't understand you, right? But people who speak another language aren't disabled, so we don't have to feel guilty not hiring them.
So what about a deaf/HoH person. They can't hear my orders. Shoot. Guess they're out.
Ah, but reasonable accommodation is an interpreter! If I wanted to hire said deaf person, I'd actually have to hire two people... (or give orders in two different languages, myself)
Blind people? Can't see. Can they follow my orders?
Autistic people can be a bit slower, depending. It's an airship-- orders need to be followed all the time, immediately. What of an emergency situation? Will they even be able to function in a stressful situation? Some will just freak out (so would a lot of neuro-typical people). Since more autistic people than NT people can't function under these conditions, it's just a cost-saving measure not hire autistic people completely. If I can't trust them to follow orders 100% of the time, what is the point? That one emergency situation is the situation that really matters.

And on and on and on.

Disabled people get shafted, time and time again. There really isn't a solution. The very fact that they're disabled usually means they are at a disadvantage. If you wouldn't hire an able-bodied person who can't perform the job at 100% capacity, why would you hire someone who's 100% capacity is 80% (or less) when compared to the able-bodied workforce?

 

[Chatoyante]

If I wanted to hire said deaf person, I'd actually have to hire two people... (or give orders in two different languages, myself)

Unless there is reason the orders must be verbal, why not writing? Or if the orders must be given verbally, a voice recognition instrument that'll allow the deaf person to read said orders? (Saw your reference to emergency responders, which would mean yeah, those kinds of solutions wouldn't work. But still, gonna advocate that there isn't one answer. ;P)

That one emergency situation is the situation that really matters.

Only if responding to the emergency situation is part of the job description or a relevant/expected risk to the job, surely?

 

[Ravenfrost]

I'm not a hard-nosed business person. Part of the "qualifications" would be my personal rapport with the applicant. Skills being equal, I prefer to work with someone sympatico.

I've worked fairly recently for big firms that wanted to have bragging rights that they hire (among others) the disabled. I also know of people that lost their job while other employees in special categories were kept on, no matter how rude they were, how often they didn't show up for work, how often they screwed up their job assignments or used the workplace as an impromptu daycare center.

I'm not judging them, I'm just saying I've seen the other side of the coin as well.

Personally, I would not judge someone for their disabilities. If I liked them the best, personally, and they could help with the work I would be glad to even juggle things around, so we could work together.

 

[Kagayours]

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?

Yes. Yes I would hire the disabled worker.

Because the issue of discrimination against disabled workers (especially those with "invisible" illnesses), is very important to me, and I would want to see that disabled worker get the job, especially if they're already plenty qualified for the job. I'm willing to work with their limits because I understand what it's like to have those limits, and I wouldn't want this worker to be punished for things they can't control.

 

[Kagayours]

I would rather take someone under my wing who has been working so hard to have the opportunities that everyone else has and is often looked down upon than someone who could probably get a job elsewhere, regardless of constraints.

Thank you for this. Couldn't have said it better myself.

If you wouldn't hire an able-bodied person who can't perform the job at 100% capacity, why would you hire someone who's 100% capacity is 80% (or less) when compared to the able-bodied workforce?

Because I'm not satisfied settling for "the disabled are always going to get the shit end of the stick and there's nothing we can do about it".

 

[Vars]

Only if responding to the emergency situation is part of the job description or a relevant/expected risk to the job, surely?

They said they were working on an airship. I'd argue that "emergency situation" would definitely be a part of that job.

EDIT:

My point wasn't that I'd never hire a disabled worker. It was that "If they qualify, they're in" isn't so cut and dry when it comes to disabled people.

 

[Poe Dameron]

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?

It depends on the situation. In general the abled person would be hired over the disabled, but I can realistically imagine many scenarios where the disabled one would be of greater benefit to the team:

- architectural barrier removal consultant
- elderly/disabled care
- veteran's affairs, especially disabled veterans
- sleep disorder clinic
- disability claims office
- wanting to develop diverse team

Additionally, employment with the United States government gives hiring preference to those with documented disabilities.

To answer the second question, yes. As long as they can do the job they are applying for. I currently have several staff members working for me who are in fact living with disabilities, and we, as a team, accomplish everything we are tasked with.

 

[Kestrel]

Assuming equal skill, my choice would go to the able-bodied person because their flexibility in availability is an asset on it's own.

That said, I'm also someone who lets personality play a big part. I'll throw you a stupid question or a softball (catch!) just to see how you respond. It's easier to score badass and character points with a disability because your presentation will always include how you handle your disability. If you are honest and don't throw yourself a pity party, you are already a leg ahead versus someone with no inherent obstacles.

At the end of the day, you need to compete. If you can't compete at X, try Y. Like, I often had to apply for jobs where others had more experience. I weaponised my personality and sense of humour. Right now I'm not physically capable of 40h weeks myself. So there's that. The world doesn't give a fuck, which is why you give people reasons to give them instead.

 

[Jorick]

As this scenario is described, I would not hire the person with a disability over the other person. If I'm running a business then I'm looking to make money. Someone who is has a fully open schedule to do whatever is needed in the position being hired for will be a more profitable asset than a person who has restrictive scheduling requirements. There's a vague line between reasonable accommodations and pain in the ass accommodations that will negatively affect the business, and someone who has frequent need for special days off and always comes in late reaches pain in the ass levels. It's shitty and unfortunate for the hypothetical disabled person, but if it's my business then I'm going for efficiency, not kindness.

 

[Shiri]

But that's the problem, isn't it? The requirements. What are they exactly?

Generally, all jobs require the ability to read/hear, interpret, and follow instructions. So let's say I yell out orders to people. The requirement is "follow orders." It's simple to me, right. But not exactly so simple.
Can they understand my language? Why would you hire someone who can't understand you, right? But people who speak another language aren't disabled, so we don't have to feel guilty not hiring them.
So what about a deaf/HoH person. They can't hear my orders. Shoot. Guess they're out.
Ah, but reasonable accommodation is an interpreter! If I wanted to hire said deaf person, I'd actually have to hire two people... (or give orders in two different languages, myself)
Blind people? Can't see. Can they follow my orders?
Autistic people can be a bit slower, depending. It's an airship-- orders need to be followed all the time, immediately. What of an emergency situation? Will they even be able to function in a stressful situation? Some will just freak out (so would a lot of neuro-typical people). Since more autistic people than NT people can't function under these conditions, it's just a cost-saving measure not hire autistic people completely. If I can't trust them to follow orders 100% of the time, what is the point? That one emergency situation is the situation that really matters.

And on and on and on.

Disabled people get shafted, time and time again. There really isn't a solution. The very fact that they're disabled usually means they are at a disadvantage. If you wouldn't hire an able-bodied person who can't perform the job at 100% capacity, why would you hire someone who's 100% capacity is 80% (or less) when compared to the able-bodied workforce?

See? I'm a terrible superviser. I'm putting all these people into danger. This is why I need a first mate assistant to keep my crazy ideas in check. Any takers?

Though I salute every blind person that wants to go skyshipping. That is just ballsy. Deaf would be doable, but I would have to go into more training than the alphabet to save time. Wheelchair bound might be a no-go for skyship. Too much risk of rolling off or into something and we don't want that. Hypomanic people would also be doable if sometimes a bit too productive. Autism I'd have to look into more as I'm not as familiar with all cases. Epilepsy depending on the severity can also be doable. Grand Mal seizures are of course a concern there. Service animals make me stroke my chin. I highly respect their line of work and I believe that they can keep a level head with most things, but can they deal with the turbulence? I just don't know.

Maybe I've been thinking about it all wrong. I was assuming it'd be a cargo service, but what if it was a passenger service? Like a plane, but 100% cooler with bigger walkways and nicer bathrooms. I need pilots, fuelers, janitors, secretaries for HQ, ticket takers, and attendants, in that order. I need a blind person - sorry, I would like a blind person to be the ticket taker with someone over seeing, so the two of them can give the person who's trying to stowaway the hardest time of their life. "Stiffing the blind of a ticket. Really?" The secretaries I could be very lax with so long as they can work their way around an OS. Heeeeey, deaf people. We will keep contact via my clumsy hand alphabet and text chats and throw parties at HQ. Some wheelchair bound could do some computer work so long as its waist down paralysis and they have someone to help them with toileting. Should I have an onboard casino? Does that come off as too desperate for money? What are the ethics of hiring someone with OCD? Like if they have the contamination fear should I put a ton of effort into not giving them a cleaning job? I mean I'm assuming everyone is properly medicated and functioning as well as they can, but should I tempt the ghost? What if they sign up for it specifically?

Everyone gets the seal. What's it called? PARO. Everyone gets a PARO for break times because I need it. I'm definitely gonna need the casino to pay for those suckers.

In-flight does put a strain on flexible hours...whoever needs off NOW will pretty much be stuck in the air for who knows how long. Well damn. I know I'd be one of the people. I have a fear of heights. It will be the best, worst maiden voyage ever. Go team!

Whelp good new is, I have some ideas for a short story. Bad news is, logistics keep banging me in the head.

Time to shake my fist at the American government for not providing enough care for those in need... some more. Why is there no shake fist emote?

 

[Artorias]

I was about to say the same thing as @Jorick, so, I'm just going to tag him in this because I thought the same thing.

I'm running a business and if both are able to do the required services of the job with or without disability. Then the next logical choice is to base them on their schedule and how open it is. The first person is automatically going to win because they are so available, and it is going to help me make more money. I won't need to flex the schedule, or hire another person to cover the shift/time that the disabled could not.

I would hire a disabled person, not against them or anything, but this example gives an obvious choice of who should logically be hired, and it isn't discrimination :/

 

[Sir Salty]

I would hire a disabled person, not against them or anything, but this example gives an obvious choice of who should logically be hired, and it isn't discrimination :/

Again because I love to debate views here

How isn't it discrimination?

It's not entirely a disabled persons fault when it comes to specific days. For example, one of my friends can't do morning shifts because of the way his pills make him groggy in the morning and have a hard time for him to focus. Once the pills metabolize he can function. How is that fair to him to not hire him because he has to take medication that has side effects?

Or for someone on the autism spectrum. They get overwhelmed. And overwhelmed leads to poor work output. Instead of giving them the time and days they need, in order to come back and be as productive as they were on the first day. How is that any fair of them to judge their schedule?

Like not all of these factors are things they can control.

They can cope. Sure. But coping only goes so far until it turns into a much bigger problem.

 

[Kagayours]

Again because I love to debate views here

How isn't it discrimination?

^ I have to agree with this.

When so many people here have said, "all other factors being equal, I would hire the able-bodied person over the disabled one", it's hard to not see that as discrimination. You're blatantly stating that a person's disability is what's holding you back from hiring them.

 

[DefinitelyNotGuns]

For those who are looking for more information on this or what there are for disability rights, I would highly recommend looking at The Americans With Disabilities Act page (this specifically relates to obtaining jobs, transportation, etc.) and for people in school or wanting to learn more about it here is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act government site.

 

[Jorick]

Again because I love to debate views here

How isn't it discrimination?

It's not entirely a disabled persons fault when it comes to specific days. For example, one of my friends can't do morning shifts because of the way his pills make him groggy in the morning and have a hard time for him to focus. Once the pills metabolize he can function. How is that fair to him to not hire him because he has to take medication that has side effects?

Or for someone on the autism spectrum. They get overwhelmed. And overwhelmed leads to poor work output. Instead of giving them the time and days they need, in order to come back and be as productive as they were on the first day. How is that any fair of them to judge their schedule?

Like not all of these factors are things they can control.

They can cope. Sure. But coping only goes so far until it turns into a much bigger problem.

^ I have to agree with this.

When so many people here have said, "all other factors being equal, I would hire the able-bodied person over the disabled one", it's hard to not see that as discrimination. You're blatantly stating that a person's disability is what's holding you back from hiring them.

Because it's not the disability that is making them the less attractive hire, it's the scheduling issues. If the question were asking about hiring an able-bodied person with a flexible schedule over an able-bodied person who will request many days off and will want to be allowed to come in late every day, then I would hire the person with the flexible schedule. If the question were asking about hiring an able-bodied or disabled person with ALL parameters being equal, then you could have a crack at calling it discrimination if people were saying they would not hire the disabled person. The reason for the scheduling issues is irrelevant here, so it's not really discrimination against people with disabilities.

To flip the question around, why should people with disabilities be given special treatment? How is it fair to give someone special treatment because of a factor of their life that they cannot control? To hire someone with schedule problems over someone else who is equally qualified but lacking that issue simply because they have a disability is not being fair to anyone else who applied. It's giving disabled people an advantage because you feel sorry for them, and that's kind of patronizing. When it comes to hiring someone for a job, people should be judged based solely on what skills and assets they bring to the business, not based on any factor of their identity. To do otherwise would be discriminating against or in favor of specific type of people, and that's not how equality should work.

 

[Kagayours]

When it comes to hiring someone for a job, people should be judged based solely on what skills and assets they bring to the business, not based on any factor of their identity. To do otherwise would be discriminating against or in favor of specific type of people, and that's not how equality should work.

In an ideal world, I would agree. But when everyone needs a job to survive, and disabled people can't get jobs unless they manage to push themselves way harder than an able-bodied person would need to do, so that they can still remain competitive in spite of the limitations that come with their disability -- and doing all of that can be rather difficult because of their disability -- I don't think it's right to just say "oh well, disabled people are always going to be less likely to get jobs, sucks for them but there's nothing we can do about it".

Like, if we were just talking about race or gender then I would be more inclined to agree with you, because in those cases this kind of issue is a bit more nuanced. But like... disabled people are inherently disadvantaged in this kind of situation. So, I don't think that better accommodating for a disabled person is really discriminatory against able-bodied people as much as it's just... leveling the playing field a bit more.

And, yeah, I know that kind of argument is often used to defend affirmative action in general, but like... I certainly feel that there's a much stronger case to be made in regards to disabled people than other types of identity categories. Because, in regards to race and gender, affirmative action is based on the idea that some groups need extra help because they are inherently less privileged than other groups due to systemic oppression -- but that's very nuanced and complicated and maybe true some of the time but not always. But with disabled people, it's like... this person literally cannot do something that most of the population can. This person has a clear, diagnosed reason why they are having difficulty doing something that most of the population has no problem with. And if these people aren't given that extra help, then, yes, employers will nearly always choose an otherwise-equally-qualified able-bodied person -- because being disabled often means requiring accommodations, or not being able to do the job as well, which is more costly for employers.

And I don't think it's fair to just say that disabled people have to deal with it or that there's no way to solve the problem.

 

[Kestrel]

Well. The thing is you have to make a choice. If you are hiring someone because they are disabled that's also discrimination. The topic sets it up as such there's no reason besides discrimination to hire the disabled person over their competition. All the arguments in favour are basically because they are disabled. That is the very definition of discrimination. Treating someone differently because identitifying trait X.

Funny word.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I feel I should also address it's rather easy to just look at this issue through the perspective of "Disabilities" and do everything you can to fight for that cause, even at the expense of other people, productivity etc. But you've also got to remember that "Disabilities" is just one gear in a much bigger machine known as humanity. By all means, try to help those with disabilities, fine tune that gear, because then the machine as a whole performs better. But if you're going to focus exclusively on that one gear? And fix it in a way that other gears are being damaged and worn down? Ok, you might have won, temporarily. But then when the machine starts behaving poorly as and another engineer comes in and see's that it's all the changes made for the Disability gear causing it? What's the first thing they're likely going to do? Probably remove those things and make it so those with disabilities actually have it worse than they did beforehand. So you might have helped with those disabilities on the short term, but in the long term? You just hurt everybody.

When a child ages out of Children's Services (usually between the ages of 19-21) they are eligible to receive a waiver for work support services. This is someone that is paid by the state, not the employer to assist the client to make sure that they are completing their job correctly and to the standards of the employer.

This is an example of one of those look at other systems deals I was talking about earlier.

Something like a training program, made with the attention of teaching those with disabilities working skills while getting a training job (like an apprenticeship in a sense) could actually work really well.
As long as it's goal was focused on providing skills, and not simply being a permanent band-aid to simply get jobs more easily.

Unless there is reason the orders must be verbal, why not writing? Or if the orders must be given verbally, a voice recognition instrument that'll allow the deaf person to read said orders? (Saw your reference to emergency responders, which would mean yeah, those kinds of solutions wouldn't work. But still, gonna advocate that there isn't one answer. ;P)

That'd be massively inefficient, and just like employers don't like their employees slacking off on work hours they also probably wouldn't like everything being slowed down around a certain employee. Because at the end of day, time is money.

How isn't it discrimination?

^ I have to agree with this.

When so many people here have said, "all other factors being equal, I would hire the able-bodied person over the disabled one", it's hard to not see that as discrimination. You're blatantly stating that a person's disability is what's holding you back from hiring them.

Because despite the question trying to claim otherwise, there is a difference in qualifications. Time availability. If everything else is equal except for the fact that one guy is more available, you're going with whose more available. This isn't discrimination, this is simply hiring the person best qualified for the job.

It's not entirely a disabled persons fault when it comes to specific days. For example, one of my friends can't do morning shifts because of the way his pills make him groggy in the morning and have a hard time for him to focus. Once the pills metabolize he can function. How is that fair to him to not hire him because he has to take medication that has side effects?

It also wouldn't be my fault if I lost my arms in an accident and was unable to do heavy labour.
It also wouldn't be my fault if I became gravelly ill and had to leave work for several months for treatment.
It also wouldn't be my fault if I suffered a brain injury and forgot the knowledge or skills that made me qualified for the job.

But all these things would still make me unable to perform the job, and as much it would suck for me, it would be unreasonable for me to expect my boss to pay me to simply not do the job. Or to pay me the same amount as someone else, but then do an inferior job. And ideally, in situations like these we would have systems like welfare in place so these wouldn't make people fall into poverty, and training programs to help those in welfare to acquire a set of skills needed to get obtain a job later.

everyone needs a job to survive

Remember that everyone applies to everyone, not just disabled people. And as we've addressed earlier in the thread the Job Market is currently doing horribly, where a lot of people are unable to find a job.

You can do the "Level the playing field for disabled people" deal all you want, but if at the end of the day there's still more people looking for jobs than there are jobs, then you are still going to be left with people without jobs. And at least if the people without a job were disabled they'd be more liable for some sort of welfare or support, but those who are normal? They're kind of stuck, and likely starving. And not only are those without a job likely suffering even more, but those who decided to be "inclusive" are now suffering from lowered productivity, meaning less business, meaning some of them might actually shut down, meaning even more people are now without a job.

If you want to address this issue, you can't go about it by giving preference to people less qualified, you've got to address the job market directly.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Huh.. for some reason it thought Clydes quote was Vardogers... Weird. :/