Would You Hire an Employee with a Disability

[Kagayours]

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.

Yes, but my point was that disabled people will very often have some limitation that occurs because of their disability. Time availability isn't some independent factor, here -- there wouldn't be a difference in availability if the person wasn't disabled.

This is why I think that the logic of "leveling the playing field" that affirmative action runs on makes significantly more sense in regards to disabilities in particular than other identity categories.

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.

Yes, but I still believe that the able-bodied people will be more likely to find a job elsewhere than the disabled person who will be less desirable in the eyes of pretty much every employer.

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.

Well then, I must say that's a very complicated issue, and not one that I am equipped to address.

I was simply asked whether or not I would hire someone with a disability, and I gave my answer to that question. Based on this hypothetical scenario, I am just one employer -- I don't have the ability to fix the entire job market. I kind of have to work with the system as it currently exists.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Yes, but my point was that disabled people will very often have some limitation that occurs because of their disability. Time availability isn't some independent factor, here -- there wouldn't be a difference in availability if the person wasn't disabled.

Then it's basically what I told Clyde earlier.

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.

 

[Chatoyante]

How isn't it discrimination?

I'm from the US, and most of my experience is in handling applicants who are US citizens. I have some basic knowledge of ADA. If we are only talking about applicants or the legalities of the hiring process outside of the US, my opinions and explanations might be irrelevant. That disclaimer said...

If the job requires the employee to adhere to a specific schedule, and an applicant says they cannot adhere to that schedule, they are not being discriminated against if they are passed over in favor of another applicant with the same qualifications/skills.

To get rid of the disabled vs not distraction (because there are totally disabled applicants with different capabilities, needs, or thresholds): assume there are two disabled applicants, both with the same (unapparent) disability. You're a hiring manager that needs coverage from 6am to noon. There is no flexibility for employees to trade shifts, there is no one on your current team that is available from 6am to noon, and the job is not something that could be done at the employee's discretion so long as work was completed before close of business. You need to hire someone that is qualified and that can be present at the needed time.

One applicant states they cannot work 6am to noon, the other applicant states they cannot work 1pm to 8pm. As is their right at this time in the hiring process, neither applicant disclosed their disability or requested reasonable accommodations, so assume you as the hiring manager are none-the-wiser. Which applicant do you choose? How is it discrimination if the position's requirements cannot be met by an applicant? If you choose the disabled applicant who best fits your needs/requirements regarding scheduling, do you still consider it discrimination against the other disabled applicant?

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?

No one should suggest that it is their fault. Choosing an applicant that meets a position's requirements is not assigning fault to the rejected applicants. I've screened tons of people out of a hiring manager's pool because they didn't meet one of the requirements for a position. I've seen tons of equally competent and qualified people be rejected. Every time it happened wasn't some insidious plot to discriminate against them. Most if not all of the time it just came down to the fact that there was only one position open, and the hiring manager wanted to choose the applicant they had reason to believe would be the best fit.

If the job requires the employee to adhere to a specific schedule, and the applicant cannot adhere to that schedule, it is fair for the employer to reject the applicant. If an applicant knows they absolutely cannot work at a certain time and the job posting did not clarify the shift they were hiring for, the applicant should find out by asking the employer. This could be as a phone call to the hiring manager, or when an interviewer asks if the applicant has any questions at the end of the interview. Under the ADA, an applicant is not required to disclose their disability at any point to their employer.

Some employers are flexible with hours or allow their employees to trade shifts as they see necessary. Some employers are looking for afternoon shifts, evening shifts, overnight shifts, etc. Some jobs allow an employee the freedom to complete work at their discretion, so long as a deadline is met. Those positions are all better fits for someone who has schedule conflicts. If these are the positions being applied for, then I'd suggest maybe altering the way they bring up their needs to see if reactions change. Again, an applicant is not required to disclose their disability at any point to their employer. If an applicant chooses to disclose this confidential medical information, they are not required to disclose the severity or the nature of their disability. If their disability prevents them from meeting job performance post-hire, they can disclose to their employer at that time that they have a disability and ask for reasonable accommodations.

For an employee whose performance suffers during the morning due to their disability, if the schedule or the employee's schedule flexibility is not considered a requirement of the job, they can ask for an accommodation.

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?

Are they pre-offer in this scenario? Post-offer? Post-hire? Those different states of being in the screening and onboarding processes would alter my suggestions on how to best handle it.

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 don't think it's an employment discrimination issue at that point. If an applicant cannot meet a position's requirements and reasonable accommodations cannot help, it isn't discrimination to reject an applicant.

What it really comes down to is an issue about making sure those who are unable to effectively hold or qualify for most jobs due to their disability are able to provide for themselves. There are tons of theories regarding how this can be done, like a universal basic income, incentives for companies that hire those with disabilities, or programs that help with vocational competence for people with disabilities. This would be getting out of my scope (I just know the ADA and hiring practices stuff due to my job), but maybe a conversation about basic income would answer these questions about "what do we do about it" more thoroughly?

 

[Jorick]

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.

Yeah, you've outlined the whole problem pretty well here. It definitely is not fair. From the perspective of a business owner it's in one's own best interests to use a very strictly output-based measure of fairness (what I've been arguing in this thread thus far), which is really the closest you actually can come to treating people fairly in reality. Trying to weigh all sorts of other factors introduces the absolute certainty of bias into the issue, so that's not a good thing for a business owner to try to do.

Stepping back from the business owner scenario, yeah, I absolutely agree that it's a really shitty situation that needs to be fixed somehow. The problem is that there is not any good solution that can be widely agreed upon. Affirmative action or hiring quota type plans are basically the government mandating that businesses must harm their own profits and efficiency by hiring people of specific groups instead of the most qualified people who apply (and they also can't advertise that they are specifically looking to hire someone of a specific group because that would be discrimination so they instead have to keep that hidden and interview a bunch of people they have no intention of hiring for the sake of keeping up appearances). I've seen some people propose tax incentives for businesses who do affirmative action hires to make up for their potential losses for hiring identities rather than abilities, but that is also a problem because it would create incentives for businesses to hire certain groups, thus ending up as the government paying for discrimination against other groups. Any sort of plan to split the difference, like the thing someone about the government paying for work support services to make sure that a disabled person is getting their job done to an employer's standards, would be looked at as an expansion to entitlements, which a lot of people hate because it means more taxes to pay for it.

So yeah, it's a really crappy problem, and something should be done to improve the situation, but the lack of a perfect solution means you're going to have to put a burden on another group to help disabled folks and that is unfortunately a damned hard idea to get people to agree to.

 

[Sir Salty]

So yeah, it's a really crappy problem, and something should be done to improve the situation, but the lack of a perfect solution means you're going to have to put a burden on another group to help disabled folks and that is unfortunately a damned hard idea to get people to agree to.

By the way I agree with you. I am just proposing questions, just to propose them.

But with this final statement, I'm about to bring about a very controversial topic. But as vaguely as I can. Why is that a concern? When we seem to be heading that way already. With people claiming X problems are problems within a minority group. And they need to be help damned the rest of the people.

My cynical side says, if someone made enough strawman dogmatic ideology of why disabled people need more assistance than others and damned the others. I'm sure people would follow suit as they have with some other very toxic point of views in our current society and media.

^again not disagreeing with you, I just see so many other groups being burden already because of a vocal few

 

[Chatoyante]

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.

Then it is on the business to prove that it would cause an undue hardship. Most companies want documentation of what is being asked of their employees. I don't see how this function cannot both a) assist the HoH/deaf employees and b) assist the company in maintaining their documentation for quality assurance and legal purposes. If getting something in writing is proven to cause an undue hardship, then it's the business's right to refuse to accommodate the disabled person. The amount of undue hardship a company can handle is going to also depend on the size of the company, obviously.

Generally, I disagree with your blanket statement that it would always be massively inefficient. It'd need to be determined on a case-by-case basis, just as I implied to Vardoger when I admitted his point stood for positions like emergency responders, where hearing and being able to respond at a second's notice would very likely be required of the job.

 

[Kestrel]

Because pity motivates people. Pity and guilt. Look at any charity. These are emotions we exploit. It is what their business thrives on. It is what funds research and development of ways to make life easier for the disadvantaged.

I know my medication and treatment would be a lot shittier if there weren't tearjerker fundraisers. And while I hate those with passion, I do benefit from them.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Then it is on the business to prove that it would cause an undue hardship. Most companies want documentation of what is being asked of their employees. I don't see how this function cannot both a) assist the HoH/deaf employees and b) assist the company in maintaining their documentation for quality assurance and legal purposes. If getting something in writing is proven to cause an undue hardship, then it's the business's right to refuse to accommodate the disabled person. The amount of undue hardship a company can handle is going to also depend on the size of the company, obviously.

Generally, I disagree with your blanket statement that it would always be massively inefficient. It'd need to be determined on a case-by-case basis, just as I implied to Vardoger when I admitted his point stood for positions like emergency responders, where hearing and being able to respond at a second's notice would very likely be required of the job.

With most jobs like say customer service it's a lot faster for a customer to verbally ask you a question and get a verbal response opposed to having to take the time to pull out something to write on, write it down, hand it over, get it read, write a response, hand it back, get that read, repeat.

Heavy labour your hands are constantly full, so you can't write.

Or just the general getting someone's attention from a distance, you can speak a bit louder and get their attention. You can't however write louder. You can write bigger, but to a certain extent you'd now be requiring people to carry Bristol board and markers around, or use phones on the job which is usually not allowed for a number of reasons. And at that point it'd just be faster to run up to them (assuming you could and weren't forced to stay where you were) and then you're still slowed down cause writing is inherently slower.

I mean yes, obviously on a case-by-case basis you may find some jobs that don't have these issues. But the issues with not being able to use verbal communication is so widespread it is practically every job. And this isn't even saying you can't hire a person who has these needs mind you. Just that this technically counts as an obstacle, one that if being compared to other applicants they would then require more Qualifications than the others to then make up for.

 

[Chatoyante]

With most jobs like say customer service it's a lot faster for a customer to verbally ask you a question and get a verbal response

I agree, which is why I wouldn't suggest jobs that require a person to hear and speak with a customer to someone that is deaf.

Heavy labour your hands are constantly full, so you can't write.

I agree that writing isn't the best solution in that scenario. Writing is not the only option for communication. Other options to explore:

Spoiler

a) is it possible to give direction prior to setting your employee to complete a task?
b) can certain tasks be fairly split up amongst coworkers, like one team on email and one on the phones?
c) are services like IP-relay, email, IM, etc. totally out of the question?
d) what kind of body language, visual, or tactile cues/alerts can be implemented?

getting someone's attention from a distance, you can speak a bit louder and get their attention. You can't however write louder.

Unless wide distances between workers is necessary to complete the job, I don't understand. The solution is to walk up to the person to interact. If you need to have an in-depth conversation, it is unlikely that you're conducting it while standing thirty feet apart. If you or other employees find moving inconvenient, I guess you could ask the disabled person to do it...assuming that isn't their disability.

Otherwise, you use body language and facial expression to communicate simple ideas/needs. If someone can't effectively use/interpret body language and facial expressions due to their disability, then shoot Gwazi, I don't know, it's 5AM, why are you making me do this, I don't even own this company, you figure out how to make your deaf and autistic employees co-exist in hypothetical peace while adhering to the ADA.

Back on topic...I bet most deaf/HoH people are used to relying on being visually aware of their surroundings, so getting their attention isn't a monumental task that'll cost tangible time or money loss. Unless they've told you to throw quarters at them to gain their attention, then you might experience money loss.

you may find some jobs that don't have these issues.

Ideas of jobs where verbal communication is not necessary or can be overcome by adopting minor changes in processes:

Spoiler

- Companies that offer customer service help through webforums (think Google) or chat services (think Verizon)
- Optical lab techs/optical lens manufacturers
- Recruitment coordinators
- Janitorial services
- Line cooks or dishwashers or busboys
- Maid services
- Secretarial work where drafting and responding to emails, postal mail, etc. is the focus
- Bookkeeping
- Copy editing
- Pharmacy techs
- Transcription (if the person is HoH)
- Plumbing
- Postal work or package delivery (US postal, Fedex, Amazon delivery, etc)
- Application programming
- Network admins
- Computer repair
- Car maintenance/wash
- Car mechanics
- Technical writing (manuals, etc)
- Animal hospital/vet assistant
- Library page
- Merchandisers
- Retail stocking
- Warehouse work

There are definitely more, but I wanted to keep it focused on more popular entry(ish) level positions.

Just that this technically counts as an obstacle

I'm glad we're on the same page. An employee asking for reasonable accommodations can be an obstacle, yes. This is why there are limitations to what can be requested. We can't run under the assumption that disabled always means inefficient and non-disabled means efficient, however. We also cannot (should not) reject an applicant based on their disability, but around their inability to complete the required tasks of the job. This means the employer needs to have and maintain standards in their hiring processes, so they can justify their rejection if called into question legally.

Assuming the other applicants are all perfectly qualified for the position they've applied, having more qualifications than those other applicants does not increase the likelihood that you will be chosen in spite of your disability. It may increase the likelihood that you are rejected based on being overqualified. An employer looking for extra qualifications from disabled applicants in order to "make up for" their disability and rejecting applicants based on the lack of those extra qualifications is looking at legal troubles (in the US, anyway).

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I'm glad we're on the same page. An employee asking for reasonable accommodations can be an obstacle, yes. This is why there are limitations to what can be requested. We can't run under the assumption that disabled always means inefficient and non-disabled means efficient, however. We also cannot (should not) reject an applicant based on their disability, but around their inability to complete the required tasks of the job. This means the employer needs to have and maintain standards in their hiring processes, so they can justify their rejection if called into question legally.

Moving these to the top cause I feel it's important to make this clarification before moving on to the rest of my response.

I'm not suggesting a disability is always an inherent disadvantage, some of the time it's not even going to impact the job, other times it might actually help. My point is that just because a difficulty with doing the job is due to a disability doesn't mean it's suddenly something that should be overlooked. It is still something that can negatively impact the job.

Like in Clydes example above, we weren't being asked to pick between an abled person and a disabled person whose disability had no impact on the job. We were asked to pick between an abled person and a disabled person whose disability did impact the job due to scheduling. It sucks the issue comes from something they didn't choose to have, yes, but it's still going to be a factor when deciding who the most fit employee is going to be.

Assuming the other applicants are all perfectly qualified for the position they've applied, having more qualifications than those other applicants does not increase the likelihood that you will be chosen in spite of your disability. It may increase the likelihood that you are rejected based on being overqualified.

Being rejected due to being overqualified is a potential risk, yes. But from what I've usually seen those tend to happen because the overqualified person is expecting something like higher pay as a result, where most employers would probably jump at the chance to get an overqualified employee assuming they didn't to pay any additional wages. That or they already worked for the company for a while, and got several raises overtime and then when downsizing they let them go cause of that, cause they can't just reduce someone's pay out of the blue.

An employer looking for extra qualifications from disabled applicants in order to "make up for" their disability and rejecting applicants based on the lack of those extra qualifications is looking at legal troubles (in the US, anyway).

Legally? Yes.
If we're just discussing what is and isn't already legally enforced though this conversation wouldn't get that far, cause that's a rather cut and dry, in print case.

From a perspective of practicality though, if they were choosing not to hire a disabled just because they don't like disabled people, that'd be one thing. But if we're talking about candidates who are all just as qualified as one another, and one has a disability that can influence their ability to work well? That does in itself make them less qualified, which is why I'm saying something extra should be there, to then re-level the playing field.

Like say this were a blind pick, you knew nothing about any candidates lives, personalities, if they have a mental disability or not etc. And on their resumes each of them were just as qualified for the other, but one of them put in the extra clause of "No verbal communication". You're not going to have any reason to pick them if someone with the same qualifications is able to do verbal communication.

I agree that writing isn't the best solution in that scenario. Writing is not the only option for communication. Other options to explore:

Spoiler

a) is it possible to give direction prior to setting your employee to complete a task?
b) can certain tasks be fairly split up amongst coworkers, like one team on email and one on the phones?
c) are services like IP-relay, email, IM, etc. totally out of the question?
d) what kind of body language, visual, or tactile cues/alerts can be implemented?

These are all good points in certain kinds of jobs, but B and C aren't really feasible with heavy labour seeing as the main focus of those jobs is using physical labour and not being behind a screen or piece of technology (that isn't something like a forklift).

A and D I can see being implemented though... Until an emergency pops up.

Unless wide distances between workers is necessary to complete the job, I don't understand. The solution is to walk up to the person to interact. If you need to have an in-depth conversation, it is unlikely that you're conducting it while standing thirty feet apart. If you or other employees find moving inconvenient, I guess you could ask the disabled person to do it...assuming that isn't their disability.

Not necessary, that combined with all the writing and reading can take a little bit of time. Multiplied over many interactions during the day and it can add up to quite a bit.

Otherwise, you use body language and facial expression to communicate simple ideas/needs. If someone can't effectively use/interpret body language and facial expressions due to their disability, then shoot Gwazi, I don't know, it's 5AM, why are you making me do this, I don't even own this company, you figure out how to make your deaf and autistic employees co-exist in hypothetical peace while adhering to the ADA.

I'm not saying that body language can't be used, just that it usually takes longer and is more inefficient, there's a reason we invented spoken language for verbal communication as we understand it today. And as far as those with Autism are concerned? Using body language is actually one of the worst things you can do (generally speaking) because one of the things that comes with Autism is difficulty being able to pick up on feelings, expressions, physical gestures, body language etc.

Back on topic...I bet most deaf/HoH people are used to relying on being visually aware of their surroundings, so getting their attention isn't a monumental task that'll cost tangible time or money loss.

That's true. But my concern isn't how long it takes to get their attention, but how long it then takes to convey the piece of information across.

Unless they've told you to throw quarters at them to gain their attention, then you might experience money loss.

*Chuckles*

Ideas of jobs where verbal communication is not necessary or can be overcome by adopting minor changes in processes:

Spoiler

- Companies that offer customer service help through webforums (think Google) or chat services (think Verizon)
- Optical lab techs/optical lens manufacturers
- Recruitment coordinators
- Janitorial services
- Line cooks or dishwashers or busboys
- Maid services
- Secretarial work where drafting and responding to emails, postal mail, etc. is the focus
- Bookkeeping
- Copy editing
- Pharmacy techs
- Transcription (if the person is HoH)
- Plumbing
- Postal work or package delivery (US postal, Fedex, Amazon delivery, etc)
- Application programming
- Network admins
- Computer repair
- Car maintenance/wash
- Car mechanics
- Technical writing (manuals, etc)
- Animal hospital/vet assistant
- Library page
- Merchandisers
- Retail stocking
- Warehouse work

There are definitely more, but I wanted to keep it focused on more popular entry(ish) level positions.

Ok, there's more jobs on that list than I originally gave credit for, nice work. :P

Library page doesn't work though, cause you lack the most important qualification. Knowing when you need to tell people to shush. :3

 

[Kagayours]

Then it's basically what I told Clyde earlier.

But then that means that disabled people have to work so much harder than an able-bodied person in order to make up for their disability and remain competitive, which I also really don't like the sound of.

 

[Artorias]

Alright, lets go with the hypothetical scenario that was in the Opening Post. Both are qualified, but one's schedule is strict and can't meet with what I need in an employee, but I hire them anyways because they are disabled.

Now, I'm assuming that I can only hire one person, yeah? So I hire the disabled person to work a shift that obviously needed someone in it to be filled, and I was probably having some employee's temporarily covering the shift. Instead now the Disabled person can't work the full shift, so now instead of a temporary solution I now have to make all my Employees change their schedules so they can cover one another and not leave an open shift. 9/10 times, the Employee that was covering temporarily, isn't going to be happy to hear they now have to change their entire Schedule (that they may have had for months/years) because of one person.

Oh, the shift before the disabled person called in sick. Sure wish I could call the person I just hired to come in early and cover the shift.

X amount of time later, one employee is sick of the crappy hours that were forced on him/her and put in their two weeks, OR BETTER, just up and quit. Now I'm scrambling to find someone to fill that spot, but the last qualified person who was willing to come in at any time, be called in at any time, or work any time got another job offer from someone else. Now I have to find more applicants.

So on and so forth. I have had this little scenario happen before in the past when I was a Manager at Wal-Mart (Granted the person wasn't disabled, just a lazy fuck that cared more about their social life.)

Instead of gaining money and keeping my employees happy. I'm losing money and losing employees because they are unhappy with the way things have turned.

Scenario over, maybe it is discrimination? I'm solely basing that scenario off of their schedule, nothing to do with whatever disability they have. Instead of finding an employee that I could just plug in and have as a security blanket for coming in early or staying in late, I instead got someone who I had to build around.

I'm not hiring them because they are disabled. I'm not hiring them because I have to build around them instead of what I already have built.

If I could hire someone as just an extra pair of hands and what their schedule needs to be doesn't really matter, then yes the disabled person would get the job, but the OP asked which one would be hired and scheduling was involved, ergo it appeared that was an important factor on why you are looking at only these two.

*Shrug*

 

[Vars]

 

[Sir Salty]

Thank you, was about to put that up myself, at some point in time. But yeah.

 

[The Dovah]

Not really read everyone's replies but have read the first page and won't try to join in due to me not knowing the full topic.

But to answer the question. Yes if they matched the requirements. Over here in England,we have laws to prevent discrimination and disability falls under it. To refuse to hire someone because they are disabled(Though i think a few select things are exempt due to the nature of the job, e.g. paramedic, firefighter) is illegal and a quick way to get your company in the media. However, hiring someone because of their disability and not because of their skills, qualifications is something that shouldn't happen. I am always a fan of the hire based on skills,experience policy. That said, there are a lot of regulations and most places tend to have to be compliant with disability.

 

[Protagonist]

Speaking as a person with a disability: the more qualified person should be given the job.

 

[tigertruth]

If both people are equally qualified, honestly I would choose the disabled person. If the conditions of my business are workable for them then I see no reason to pass them by. Knowing that the able-bodied person has a higher chance of getting hired somewhere else means I wouldn't feel as bad for not hiring them.

To be honest it's hard to get into the economic pros and cons bc the situation isn't very detailed but socially I believe disabled people should have an equal chance at the job.

I am biased though. As both a physically and mentally disabled person.. well lets just say my forays into the world of employment have left me with little faith in the hiring system.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

But then that means that disabled people have to work so much harder than an able-bodied person in order to make up for their disability and remain competitive, which I also really don't like the sound of.

Speaking as someone who would count as disabled? That's life.
Trying to help one another is good and should be encouraged, but at a certain point you've got to roll with the punches and earn things for yourself.

 

[Sir Salty]

Speaking as someone who would count as disabled? That's life.
Trying to help one another is good and should be encouraged, but at a certain point you've got to roll with the punches and earn things for yourself.

Wait, I have a major problem with the last statement. That implies we haven't or don't work to earn things for ourselves. Mate, I been trying to get the things I need for 3 years.

I tried for a whole year to get a job, that was back in 2015. In 2016, I started going through all the government loopholes to get SSI, foodstamps, and into assistant programs.

Those programs alone took half a year to get, and here in 2017, I am still going through the process with these assisting programs.

I have had 9 jobs in the last 4 years, which I try to keep up, but the longest I can keep up is 6 months. Because its a lot of pressure. And they put too much work on me. And I cannot keep up with the pace after a while.

Being Autistic, I best can explain my brain on AOL dialup. The first two, maybe three days at work I go above and beyond. But my brain after a while has a hard time recovering from the day before and the day and the day before. So all the burnout gets backlogged, until it hits me like a god damn truck. And I am drained. I am so in the negative of everything, mood, emotional health, mental health.

All because I need a few days of rest and recovery. And I need jobs to stop hounding and rushing me.

I don't just have Autism. I have Anxiety, Depression, Autism, and Schizophrenia with Paranoia. All my diagnosis, and I have always been willing to copy my paperwork on the internet if someone doesn't want to give me the benefit of the doubt.

Point being is you feed this monster where;

-I get stressed with workload
-So I have a meltdown, that's the Autism, being overloaded and overwhelmed
-Because I had a meltdown I get anxiety about my meltdown, that's the general anxiety disorder
-Which then feeds the depression because the meltdown are so draining and they are every emotion all at once every overwhelming stressful thing all at once
-So now I am anxious about my depression
-Which feeds into more meltdowns because now I am anxious and depressed

And the more of those episodes I have the more I have schizophrenic episodes alongside with it. Which can and has in the past lead to psychotic burnout breakdowns.

I can't go through that any more. I don't want that to be my life.

I have asked this question before else where, and I was trying to remain neutral but that kind of attitude.

How much responsibility do we put on the disabled person to control something they obviously cannot control? And how much should people who are able minded or bodied, be responsible in respecting the limitations of those disabled?

^As said with someone with a disability I would not hire me. But unfortunately, I am fighting the catch 22.

Jobs don't hire me because I am not an efficient worker on a day to day basis

Welfare doesn't want me to get welfare because I am not retarded looking enough <---not meant to be insulting, meant to make a point

Why does all the responsibility fall on someone with a disability, which actually triggers their mental health more? The pressure to perform at a normal, abled minded mind is exhausting, and actually makes things worse. Like I said before.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

*Snip*

I was debating making a longer post addressing this, and if you ask me to I will (but be warned, you probably won't like it and this thread would probably get locked). So for now I figured it'd be better to leave it at this.

I think you and I just have different philosophies on disabilities and just how much people suffering with them are capable of doing. But if there's just one thing I want you to understand from what I've been trying to say in this thread it would be that "If one is to expect others to exert great effort and hardships to help them, one must also be willing to put in that same effort themselves".