Abe Babe, somehow I’m just not seeing a strong comparison between being tempermentally fit for a particular job and saying someone shouldn’t work in any position that requires communication with customers because that person’s ability to communicate isn’t perfect. Shoot, the guy who refilled my iced tea at lunch today speaks only very basic English, but I don’t expect him to be relegated to the kitchen just because we can’t discuss Shakespeare. As you’ll recall, the OP’s unqualified statement was:
And if anyone else can come up with a better source on the employment numbers, I’m still interested. Like ElJeffe said, that doesn’t quite cut it.
First of all, I do not even think it is likely that Subway hired her because they were afraid of the ADA. They probably just hired her so she could do the job. And honestly, although it may be slightly less convenient for the customer, there is no reason why she can not do the job. Yes, you may have to point to what you want on your sandwich. As wring said, even a simple chart would solve the problem. There is no reason someone who is deaf cannot work in a position that requires her to communicate with customers.
ElJeffe:
Your link mostly talks about how the ADA has helped make more things available to the disabled. It doesn’t say anything bad about the ADA, except possibly that it is not well understood. I find it very hard to believe that the ADA has caused a decline in employment, and this link does nothing to convince me.
According to the US Census Bureau, in a report presented in July, 2000:
However, in the interest of clarity, here are the tables cited in the report. The results are not conclusive, but they certainly don’t indicate a reduction in employment of the disabled since 1992.
Yes, but his job was to fill your iced tea and he did it. This woman’s job is to make the sandwich that you order and she does not do it all of the time. My friend was in the store a couple of weeks ago when she was working. He ordered a 12 inch club, and got a 6 inch turkey. Another time I went in and ordered. I told her I wanted mayo, but I guess she didn’t know that I said it. When she asked “mayo?” I replied yes, but I guess she was saying mustard and I just couldn’t understand her, because I got mustard on my sandwich.
I don’t see what’s so wrong with recognizing the fact that people have disabilities.
Well, it does have to be a “reasonable” accomodation, wring. I’m not sure how much a touch screen would cost, or how willing customers would be to screw around with that sort of thing, so I’m reserving judgment on its reasonableness here. You’re by no means out of the reasonablenss ballpark on that accomodation, however.
horhay what’s wrong is that your assumption was incorrect. The woman could do the job, she needed specific accomodations in order to do it well, the employer hadn’t provided same to her.
but horhay to belabor the point, in your OP you blame Subway for hiring her for that position, not for failing to provide the reasonable accomodations, and then go on to suggest that she can’t do that job (even tho’ you actually came up w/a reasonable accomodation that would have worked)>
I don’t know how they do things in Santa Cruz, but at some schools campus DJs work on a strictly volunteer basis and are not “hired” at all – any student is allowed to work as a DJ if a time slot is available.
What’s wrong, horhay, is singling them out because of their disabilities. There is nothing more egregious about a deaf person messing up your order than a lazy jerk messing up your order. But how many great debates have you started about whether Burger King should have lazy jerks working the drive thru window?
BTW, what do you mean she “takes your order,” anyway? At every Subway I’ve ever been to, you tell the sandwich maker what you want, supervise them while they make it, then pay the cashier based on the sandwich that you’ve had made. It would be essentially impossible to order a 12-inch club and get a 6-inch turkey.
Hmm, I hadn’t thought of that. You’re right, that’s probably how it was there too. Still, I got a real “chip on the shoulder” vibe from that person. (“I’m going to take a speaking job even though I can barely speak and dare anyone to say anything about it.”) But that’s not really relevant to the discussion at hand, so I’ll shut up now.
There is nothing wrong with refusing to place someone obviously hampered in communication in a paid position that requires them to do so. It is only common sense.
Second, I don’t see why companies should be forced to make accommodations for people with disabilities. If part of the job requirements is the ability to walk up stairs, and someone needs a wheel chair, why shouldn’t they be refused? Why should the company have to shape its job requirements in order to accommodate people with disabilities? If an expensive voice command system could be provided to avoid the need for, say, arms, should a company be forced to provide it lest someone without arms wants a job as bus driver? What of stupidity? Is not stupidity a disability of sorts? Should companies be forced to accommodate stupidity? Maybe someone can explain this situation to me.
How’s this for a less inflammatory situation? Just this afternoon, I had to call Discrete to authorize a copy of 3DStudio Max 4. The authorization procedure itself is fairly simple- I tell the operator who I am, what company I work for, the serial number for the software, and the program-generated “request number”. The operator then runs all that through his/her computer, and reads back a twenty-some-odd digit number, which I put into my computer, allowing me to use the software.
Simple, right?
The only problem was that the operator had a very thick, almost impenetrable accent- I’m not sure what kind. It took us fifteen minutes for me to understand the numbers he was reading to me.
That’s screwed up. But does it mean the guy should be put in a back room somewhere so that there’s no danger he will ever have to communicate with a customer?
