I never said you did. I said I blamed the person who picked them for the assignment, which you made clear wasn’t you.
Otherwise why would I have said I felt bad for you? 
This part of the OP is problematic to me, while I’m trying to put myself in others’ shoes. These sound both like generalizations and specific cases that you know about, which makes it harder to parse what you’re getting at, and how you think about disabled people in general. I don’t have a disability myself (that I know of), but if I did, especially one that was not visible and did not have consistent symptoms, I think I could see how such a person could feel like they were being attacked by accounts like these.
Also your motive for sharing the specific story, and including these other more general ones, seems thin. Not for laughs, maybe. For some kind of emotional validation, anyway. There are plenty of opportunities for stories about jerks at work, without bringing disabilities into it. You may feel real empathy for students and co-workers who have disabilities, but it’s not coming across in the OP.
Sorry, I misinterpreted. I still feel bad about it and still get defensive. That was the only person I ever actually had to fire. It was probably as tramatic for me as it was for them.
One of the worst things about the people the OP mentions is that the make things that much worse for the disabled. THEY’RE the reason so many people get shit on, and why people think you’re faking it – because of these assholes.
So fuck 'em. I believe the phrase is “reasonable accommodations”. Saying, “I can do whatever the fuck I want and not get in trouble” isn’t exactly what I’d call “reasonable”.
I believe it. I was laid off from my first real office job (where I’d worked for 3 1/2 years) because the company was “trimming the fat” ahead of being sold to a larger company. The HR manager was the person who was laying me off, and she was in tears. I spent the whole time consoling her rather than the other way around.
(I wasn’t too upset because I saw it coming and had already been job-hunting for more than a month ahead of time.)
I went through pretty much the exact same thing. (See my post above.)
The issue is that the person with the disability knows their behavior is not linked to their disability. Yes, a lot of the backstory is hidden from the co-workers but being the omniscient narrator I am, the person with anxiety issues that has to be at work at 7 sets their alarm at 8 so they can sleep in. The guy with ADD doesn’t want to shower and commute to work on meeting days. The guy with PTSD is just a know-it-all asshole that enjoys telling bosses they don’t know how to do their job and was like that before he got PTSD.
And remember, the OP was not written as I Cad Know All about my coworkers’ situations, but that doesn’t mean the co-workers themselves are not fully self-aware of what they are doing, know their action is not because of their disability, but still maintain they cannot get fired for any reason because they have a disability. Steal from the register? Poop on your boss’ desk? Grab the receptionist’s butt? You can’t fire me, I have a disability.
I think this is the part that doesn’t sit well with me. There’s no way that you know this with certainty. You simply can’t. In your OP you may be the omniscient narrator but in real life you’re just a regular schlub like the rest of us. IMO, it borders on people claiming that drivers who park in handicapped spots but show no visible disability are cheating. They simply have no idea what the driver goes through, and neither do you with the folks claiming disability accommodations.
I’m sure that some people are gaming the system, but until you are omniscient you don’t know. Threads like this contribute to the perceptions that the disability system is a scam, when the reality is that people can be scammers regardless of the system in place. This thread comes off as if you’re blaming the system rather than the people even if that wasn’t your intent.
Actually I can. I’ve know people that are so proud they’re gaming the system that they will tell someone like a friend or even a co-worker exactly what they’re doing.
“Yeah, I wanted to beat traffic home so I just left at 2.”
“What if they caught you?”
“They can’t even write me up. I have a disability.”
Now if I were to work in HR, I probably would have to do a manifestation determination and then it’s a philosophical question as to what level of proof do you need to “know” something. Same thing with behaviors that seem so far removed from the disability that no reasonable link could be made. That person with low-vision stealing candy from the secretary’s desk. The person with their support dog … I don’t need to know why they need a support dog to know that it’s probably not the reason they play their music so that everyone can hear it in violation of company rules. The guy with diabetes takes lunch whenever he wants is NOT what I’m talking about (food & blood sugar and all that) but his diabetes is not the reason he takes multiple paid and unapproved breaks throughout the day to have a smoke with his buddies on the dock.
Regarding the person hired to enter commands into the video playout system, when you were working with the agency, didn’t you provide them with a written description of the job requirements?
There’s gotta be a balance, right? And you have to be able to do the job.
What counts as “doing the job” is up to the employer to determine, but they should be fair. They should really be able to look at the key functions of the job as opposed to having to do what everyone else has to do for arbitrary reasons.
I’m extremely effective at my job, but I’m effective because of the schedule flexibility and the nature of the work. I work in an environment that any normal person would find emotionally distressing (sexual assault/DV), and I have PTSD, so sometimes, say during Sexual Assault Awareness Month, it’s just better for me to stay home. But that would not be appropriate for a counselor or an advocate, where coping with primary trauma in order to counsel survivors would be a necessary component of their job. All jobs are not created equal, see? I’m the Grants Manager. I don’t need to be there to do my job. I also work in a noisy cube and have ADHD, so when I’ve got a major project, I can focus better at home. My employer is not insane so I don’t have to trot out mental health problems every time, all I have to say is, “I’ll work more effectively if I stay home today.” I’ve only officially played the PTSD card once, when I needed three weeks’ leave during pregnancy because I couldn’t keep my psychiatric medications down and was headed toward a mental health crisis. I handed in an official letter for that one. In college, when I was severely mentally ill, I did register as a student with a disability because I couldn’t handle a full courseload. I was able to get full-time financial aid for part-time work. I don’t know if I would have made it through college without that. But I worked hard to be worthy of it. I went on to finish with Honors and eventually got a Masters degree (with no accommodations.)
Here’s another sort of grey area. Everybody would benefit from exercise, but some people need it to stay mentally stable. If someone is a little late because they are coming from the gym really shirking their responsibilities, when remaining stable is key to their productivity as an employee? A little accommodation can go a long way in creating a productive employee. I would expand that beyond the scope of disability. People need more autonomy and flexibility in their schedules to do their best work. Some people, it can’t be helped. But many people it can.
People do take advantage. I don’t think it’s out of maliciousness but learned helplessness. So many people don’t have a firm grasp of what their actual limitations are. It’s human nature to take the path of least resistance. “This feels hard, ergo I can’t do it.” We as a society and as a culture are uncomfortable with struggle and discomfort. We take it as a sign that something’s wrong or outside of our abilities. But what discomfort often is, is a sign of growth.
In general I think we need to end the either/or mentality and really look more critically at each individual and what their limitations and strengths are, and find them work that fits their abilities. I would prefer that everyone, regardless of disability, be given some accommodations to better do their job. But as far as judging another coworker or a student or something, it’s none of my business.
This is the part that puzzles me most, because to me it implies that you think no-one should be asked for any proof that they require an accommodation due to a disability. Now, this may work in a perfect world, in which everyone always acted honestly and with the best of intentions, but this is not that world. In this world, shitty people will falsely claim things to try and get an undeserved advantage.
To stick to the exam example - as I understand it, the purpose of an accommodation for a disability is to try and ensure the disabled person has a chance to perform (more or less) equally as well as someone without a disability. If a professor grants an accommodation to someone who has nothing to back it up, there is a reasonable chance they do not in fact have a disability and are trying to game the system. Hence it seems to me perfectly reasonable for a professor in that situation to ask for details of the accommodation, and some proof that it is required (after resolving the immediate situation, e.g. a panic attack). As others have said, this could be in the form of a note issued by the school with confirmation of the accommodations needed - it wouldn’t have to contain any medical details.
Am I wrong about any of this?
It’s like how those with service animals may find it beneficial to carry proof that the animal is indeed medically necessary for them - so that people with badly trained pets abusing the accommodations granted to service animals can be weeded out. It sucks that the service animal users have to do that, but there it is.
Seems reasonable to me too. What’s not reasonable is to assume, as a coworker or fellow student, that someone is gaming the system just because you perceive them as having an unfair advantage. There’s no telling what’s going on there.
If you have a disability that requires a reasonable accommodation, then you are required to notify the institution, not the individual.
So …
- The employer, not the employee
- The school, not the teacher
How does that work in practice? Seems at some point the employee would have to say to their boss, “I need XYZ accommodations due to a disability.” How else would they get the accommodations? And shouldn’t the person’s supervisor be able to verify with HR?
This is a little misleading. The professor can ask if the school has approved the accommodation if you are requesting it. Otherwise you are creating this scenario:
Professor Cad, I need extended time for this test.
Do you have your paperwork from the Student Affairs Office for that accommodation?
I don’t need to show that to you. Now give me my extended time.
Note: the professor doesn’t have to know about your disability, that’s true; but they can ask you to verify the accommodation.
If a worker with a disability, in an environment covered by ADA, has trouble getting that accommodation, then they probably need to talk to HR or whoever the designated person is who deals with workers with disabilities.
But once the person is established as ‘having a disability,’ and has discussed accommodations with the employer/institution, the hope is that – until and unless new situations arise that need to be discussed separately – arrangements will be made, in place, and move along without too much fanfare.
Are you saying that an employee doesn’t have to notify their boss that they have a disability? That is true. ADA compliance goes through HR.
Are you saying that you boss can’t verify your accommodation if you don’t want them to, either through your paperwork or by contacting HR but yet still must provide you with the accommodation? That is not true.
Here’s how (UC) Berkeley addresses that one. I don’t know if it’s law or ‘only’ their policy, but I think it’s smart:
Why doesn’t my student’s accommodation letter state what their disability is? How can I verify that their accommodation request in my class is related to their disability? Can I request medical documentation from a student with DSP accommodations?
Students with disabilities have a right to privacy regarding their medical diagnoses and medical documentation. For this reason, we ask faculty not to request medical documentation from students with disabilities. If you feel that it is necessary to verify that a student’s request is disability related, you can contact the student’s assigned Disability Specialist. The Disability Specialist can review the student’s documentation on file and confirm whether there is a disability-related need for an absence, assignment extension, or other accommodation.
I’m saying that qualifying under ADA (as a person with a disability who may qualify for reasonable accommodations) has not-too-many requirements and not-too-many with a bona fide ‘need to know.’ It also strives to keep that circle tight, with as few people ‘in the loop’ as possible.
It tends to point to certain job functions within an organization as the point people, both for the ‘individual’ and for the organization.
It also tends to limit the specifics required, available, or that must be widely disclosed.