At a Subway in my city, they have a deaf woman who takes your order. I do not think this woman should be working in that position. She can’t hear! How can she take your order? She tries to read your lips, but she messes up sandwiches all the time. To make matters worse, you can’t really understand her when she asks you a question. I am happy that Subway hired her, but I think she should be working in a position that does not require her to communicate with customers. Maybe she could do prep work in the back or something. Or maybe subway could install a touch screen ordering system. I mean being able to hear is a pretty important part of taking an order. You wouldn’t hire a guy with no arms to be a bus driver…or has it gone that far?
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires companies to make “reasonable accomodations” to enable a disabled employee to perform their job. Examples include ramps to allow paraplegic employees to get into the workplace, screen magnifiers for near-blind employees, etc. It does not require employers to give a job to employee where the employee’s disability prevents them from performing the job duties and where no reasonable accomodation exists to allow the employee to do so.
It’s possible that your Subway mistakenly thinks that the ADA requires them to employ this deaf woman. More likely, however, Subway simply wanted to employ the woman, and gave her the job.
Sua
A little extreme there, don’t you think?
Must be a troll. MUST be a troll. It must be a troll. It must be a troll.
minty green, how do you figure that horhay’s position is extreme. Subway’s judgement in this action has made his efforts to get lunch more difficult and frustrating than they should be. I know it’s a “free country” and Subway can do what they want, and horhay can eat somewhere else, but that doesn’t alter the fact that they’ve introduced and irritant into the environment.
It doesn’t seem like an extreme position to me, and certainly not trollish.
A similar anecdote:
When I lived in Santa Cruz (the PC capital of the world), the local college radio station had a DJ with a severe speech impediment. I think she had some neurological disease or something, but she was very hard to understand, and had a bad stutter. I don’t think there was anything wrong with her cognitive abilities, but IMO it was absolutely ridiculous to hire her for a job where excellent verbal communication skills are required.
So yes, I guess the “equal opportunity” thing can be taken too far, but it’s still a good thing overall.
It doesn’t seem like an extreme position to me, and certainly not trollish.
A similar anecdote:
When I lived in Santa Cruz (the PC capital of the world), the local college radio station had a DJ with a severe speech impediment. I think she had some neurological disease or something, but she was very hard to understand, and had a bad stutter. I don’t think there was anything wrong with her cognitive abilities, but IMO it was absolutely ridiculous to hire her for a job where excellent verbal communication skills are required.
So yes, I guess the “equal opportunity” thing can be taken too far, but it’s still a good thing overall.
Yeah! God forbid we tell anyone in this country that they lack the ability to do a particular job. Next thing you know, some facist will prevent this deaf women from taking a job as a Time-Life operator.
I can’t wait until “stupid” or “lazy” is declared a disability so all those high school dropouts can finally become doctors and lawyers.
Dammit, I swear I checked to make sure it hadn’t gone through the first time!
I would say they probably hired her because they thought she could perform the job. It’s also possible that they received pressure from special interest groups for not hiring enough disable people, similar to the shakedowns Jesse Jackson uses whenever he thinks company X doesn’t have the proper racial makeup, though less likely. Regardless, Subway is now in a difficult position, because while it’s easy to simply not hire someone with a disability, firing them is an invitation for lawsuits from the ACLU.
If you’re referring to the ADA when you say “it’s still a good thing overall”, I have to disagree. Unemployment among the disabled has increased since the ADA was passed. Why? Because employers now see the disabled as sources of potetnial litigation. Pretend you have two candidates to choose from, and they are equal in all aspects. However, one has a disability. You look at the current legal landscape, and see all manner of lawsuits being filed against employers for “discrimination”, some one which are warranted, some not. By hiring the non-disabled guy, you’re eliminating a potential source of lawsuits. Which one would you hire? YMMV, but that’s the way a lot of people see it, and no amount of legislation will change that. What about the small business owner, who knows that if he hires a guy in a wheelchair, he’s going to have to spend $50k retrofitting every door in his store, or possibly face litigation? I think the ADA is one of those nice-ideas-gone-awry.
Jeff
“An irritant to the environment?” She’s a human being, Bindlestiff, not a toxic waste site. Sheesh.
Okay, great, she messes up sandwich orders pretty often. So should Subway have hired her for this position? Obviously not. But why on earth would anyone feel compelled to single out a single incompetent minimum wage employee? Incompetents are all over the fast food industry, and most of them don’t even have the excuse of a disability–they’re just stupid, lazy, or even jerks. And that doesn’t even count the many hard-working people who barely even speak English. So here at this Subway, we have a person who apparently doesn’t fit any of those categories, but still can’t do the job–and you’re more offended by her deafness than if the poor service was caused by some other reason?
Why would they hire a deaf person to fill a job she can’t adequately perform? The same reason they hire tons of non-disabled people for jobs they can’t (or won’t) adequately perform. Singling out this woman for criticism makes no sense to me.
Furthermore, the suggestion “she should be working in a position that does not require her to communicate with customers” strikes me as borderline bigotry. There are all kinds of positions that a hearing-impaired person can perform perfectly well even though they require communication with customers. Why do you expect her to go incommunicado just so you can be sure of perfect, instantaneous communication? Do the same rules apply to immigrants whose English isn’t up to par?
Like I said, if she can’t do the job, she shouldn’t have the job. It’s singling her out for criticism on the basis of her disability that got my attention–that’s just wrong.
Can you provide a cite for this? Nothing personal, but I don’t believe you.
Cite, please?
(Obviously, I don’t believe it either, xeno.)
Huh. My orders often are wrong when I go to fast food cheap places. Must be they all hire persons/w/hearing loss.
I’ll third the ‘cite’?
And second Sua’s observation that many employers don’t understand the ADA at all.
A simple modification would be in order - a large chart w/available toppings and words like ‘light/extra’ would allow even some one w/a profound hearing loss to correctly understand the customers’ wishes (and would even work w/people w/language barriers).
But, no, obviously, the better option is to decide that the person cannot do the job and the ADA has gone too far.
minty, I think that what he is complaining about is the fact that they hired her with full knowledge that she might have troubles performing the job. It is possible that they might hire someone who is lazy, for example. However, in the interview, they don’t know that person is lazy (the 10 jobs in 2 years may be a clue). Here, they knew that one of her responsibilities would be to communicate with people, and they knew that she might not be able to perform it when they hired her.
I didn’t see him making fun of her or denigrating her for her lack of hearing. He was simply saying that she is probably not the best person for that job. I am a lawyer, and consider myself reasonably intelligent. When I first got out of school, I applied to a few county prosecutor and other litigation positions. It turns out that it is good I didn’t get them, because I am no litigator. I would have been miserable at them, and probably not very good at them. I hate the contentiousness, and feel too much empathy for the other side. Saying I am/would be a crappy litigator is not an insult, its a fact. Saying this deaf person is not well suited to a possition requiring communications skills is not an insult either.
minty green,
I wasn’t calling the deaf woman an irritation. The irritation is the fact that the service a customer expects isn’t there as expected. It’s NOT HER FAULT. It’s the fault of whoever placed her in the position of having to provide a service she isn’t qualified to provide. It’s different from the case of a lazy or indifferent employee because it was identifiable in advance.
Are you sure this didn’t happen in England. I thought we must be the only place crazy enough.
The Daily Mail reported, coincidentally, today:
“A DEAF MAN has won £7,000 in compensation after a hospital rejected his application for the job of phone operator (bolding mine).
MK, 40, took the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust to a tribunal after being turned down for the part-time job at Grantham Hospital dealing with calls from the public and filing records.
The Nottingham tribunal ruled the trust had not done enough to ‘remove the phone element of the post’.
RL of the Institute of Directors said the ‘bizarre’ decision made a mockery of disability rights legislation”
It may be a cliche, but political correctness really has gone absolutely raving bonkers. What next? Blind lorry drivers?
I couldn’t find precise statistics regarding the pre- and post-ADA unemployment rates, but I found several links to studies commenting on the decline in the employment rate among those with disabilities. A sample:
http://citadel.edu/faculty/moore/2001articles/july_30_2001.html
Jeff
If you look at the OP I did suggest a touch screen ordering system.