" Are you sure you believe this? Because I get the impression you are highly offended by the notion that someone who is deaf may not be able to perform their job as well as someone who is not deaf."
pld can answer for himself, of course, but, FWIW, I can definitely imagine a situation in which an experienced deaf person, able to lipread sandwich orders, is as good as or is superior to a non-deaf person.
So long as the lipreading of the relevant sandwich vocabulary has been nailed, a given deaf person might, in theory, be more courteous, more honest more conscientious about getting to work on time, faster at making sandwiches, etc. than a person who happens to hear. And while it’s possible that the initital training phase of the deaf person might take longer (due to the need to lipread unfamiliar words or accents), it’s also possible that this person’s hard work will more than make up for that in other ways.
For example, I can imagine that there’s a lot of turnover at Subway. Has anyone considered that a deaf person who has familiarized herself with all of the communication needs at Subway mightl think of the job in a longer-term way than, say, a high school kid or a college kid on vacation. That can be a real advantage to an employer, and a good thing for customers too.
How about waitress/bartender? One of the local Portland Dopers is a deaf person who performed very well in this job (I won’t mention her name so as to not draw her into this if she doesn’t want to come.) In fact, two local Dopers are deaf, and both communicate extremely well. So well that you might not even know they were deaf, in fact. As someone else said, deaf people vary quite a bit in their ability to communicate with hearing folks.
And minty…look, we can all read the passage in the OP that you keep quoting. I suggest that possibly you’re reading more into it than was actually meant (and I admit it was unfortunately worded). I don’t think it was the OP’s suggestion that the person in question be locked away in a closet to ensure that they never ever come in contact with a customer. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that a person be able to communicate effectively if the primary function of their job is communication.
Well, great. So far we have a sample size of one, who claims it took him 15 minutes to understand a string of digits. Either the person on the other end of the phone was a cleft-palated Welsh speaker with a mouthful of cotton, or maybe some of the problem was on the listener’s end.
Have you ever heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle?
Because it was a stupid analogy, which I stated.
Oh, please, do elaborate. I’m more curious than you can possibly imagine. Really. What’s “someone like me?”
Who said I do this? Can you name an instant in which I have coddled someone with a disability?
And deafness, in and of itself, does not in any way impede the ability of any specific deaf person to do this. It may be impeding the ability of this one deaf person to do the job, but it does not in the general case. I’m still curious how someone orders a 6" club and gets a 12" turkey. You can see them making the thing – get their attention and tell them to stop, for pete’s sake.
I thought that that was about all the response they deserved. I know from previous threads that you think making – and spending – more money actually makes you a superior human being. Suffice to say, I disagree. If minimum-wage workers are so below you, why would you let them touch your food at all?
Pretty sure, yeah.
Well, I wouldn’t want them as my sound engineer if I was in the recording studio – although Brian Wilson was deaf in one ear and produced his own music from 1965 onward – but I’d trust them to make me a freakin’ sandwich. Meanwhile, I get the impression from you that you think, all other things being equal, the disabled are ipso facto not as good at any given job.
I don’t even have to make one up. When I was in law school, one of the cash register operators at the supermarket where I shopped was deaf. She did an excellent job, too. Not once did she put my groceries in plastic when I wanted paper, she handled the payment details like a charm, and if there was ever anything more complicated than lip reading or gestures would allow, she had a pen and a pad available. None of that is much more complicated than taking a sandwich order, though the particular girl in the OP is apparently not as skilled at it as my checker was.
Ferrous, I gave the OP multiple opportunities to clarify or retract. He has done neither, and it seems that other people agree that deaf people should not be allowed to hold jobs taht require them to communicate with the public. No individual examination of the particular deaf person’s skills or the requirements of the particular job, just shuffle all the deaf folks into the back room so we don’t ever have to see them. It’s sickening, really.
Well, that’s because you scared him off, you big meanie!
And certainly, if he thinks what you think he thinks (heh!), he deserves to be called on it. I’m just not certain he does. But he can defend himself from now on. I’m done playing devil’s (or horhay’s) advocate now.
actually, in a sense he did retract - on page one, he agreed w/my statement that the problem was that Subway hadn’t supplied the appropriate accomodation.
Exactly. The girl in your example is capable of performing that task because she is as effective at communicating with customers as non-deaf people, for all intents and purposes. She therefore does not fit the description of the Subway girl, who, for the sake of this argument, we are assuming has lesser-than-average communication skills. The supermarket girl you describe would probably excel at the Subway job.
The argument, as I understood, wasn’t whether or not any deaf people were qualified for customer service jobs, but whether or not a deaf person who, like the Subway girl, is incapable of performing her job because of her deafness, would be capable of performing another, different, customer service related job. That’s what you implied when you said “Just because he is incapable of performing one job requiring communication with customers does not mean that he is incapable of performing any job requiring communication with customers.”
Now the Subway girl could probably get better at interpersonal skills than she is now. That’s not the matter of the debate as I understand it. The debate is, given her current level of expertise, are there other customer service jobs that she could perform as well as someone who wasn’t deaf?
Jeff all we have from the OP was that this particular deaf person had a difficult time with this one customer, and the OP himself indicated later that appropriate accomodations, had they been used, would have alleiviated the situation.
There’s a deaf worker in my school’s cafeteria who makes sandwiches and salads. I point to what I want as I am telling him my order. He has yet to make a mistake. But perhaps pointing is too much work for some people and they would prefer that deaf food servers lose their jobs instead.
Dammit, Jeff, I am not, n-o-t, NOT arguing that the Subway girl should keep her job. She shouldn’t (assuming she can’t hack it even with reasonable accomodations, whatever those may be). For the umpteenth time, I’m arguing against the broad, unqualified position of the OP and others that deaf people shouldn’t hold jobs where they have to communicate with customers. If you want to argue about the Subway employee, direct those arguments to somebody else–that ain’t my beef.
As my friend Denis says, “Condescension noted, you arrogant prick.”
We can play “maybe” 'til the cows come home, but the end result is the same- it took fifteen minutes of back-and-forth communication for me to understand the multi-digit string I needed to get the software running. I may have bad hearing in one ear, but not in the ear I held up to the phone. In my time, I’ve done LOTS of phone interaction- heck, I used to do tech support for Windows95, fercryinoutloud. I promise you- the only reason I had trouble understanding this guy was because his accent was so thick- NOT because I’m thick.
Then again, maybe the problem WAS on my end. Maybe I should’ve learned his mother tongue- then I would’ve likely had no problems, right? What right have I to expect to understand him, when I haven’t made that first effort?
Listen (and I’ll try to make this clear for you, okay?)- there are certain jobs that can only be done by people with certain skills and/or abilities. I’m NOT saying that he shouldn’t have a job- I’m saying that he shouldn’t be in a position that requires him to be clearly understood by the public. That’s not being heartless or bigoted- it’s being realistic. I, for example, shouldn’t feel as if I’ve been discriminated against if I’m not offered a position that requires stereoscopic vision. Why? Because I don’t have stereoscopic vision- amblyopia sucks. I deal with it, though, and I don’t get pissed off if there are things I can’t do, because of it.
Saying that I’m merely a “sample of one” doesn’t cut it, either. It happens- I can’t imagine I’m the only one this situation has happened to.
and Lightin’ (citing denis leary? we hope you weren’t attempting to call pld a prick)
pld has correctly pointed out that in the OP, we have a data base of one customer who had difficulty with that worker. And, that one customer (the OP) later on admitted that w/appropriate accomodations, there wouldn’t have been a problem.
so, once again, it wasn’t necessarily the disability, but perhaps a combination of the disability, possibly the customer wasn’t being clear and most definately the lack of an appropriate accomodation.
wring (why do I always feel that I need to capitalize the first letter of uncapitalized usernames?)- nope, not Denis Leary. Just a friend of mine, who has an unfortunate predilection for online arguments. Anyway, unless I’m seriously misreading pldennison (damn, another non-capitalizer!), he’s either stating that I’m lying, or that I’m partially responsible for not being able to understand the tech dude despite what I posted (which would also seem to make me a liar)- in which case I’d say that yes, that was my intent. If PLD didn’t intend either of those, I retract the statement, and apologize.
re: capitalization - for me personally, it doesn’t matter - I just happened to have typed it w/o a capital when I signed up. But, I know for some folks, it really is important to them.
One observation - being mistaken is not the same thing as lying. I have no doubt that you personally had difficulty with the phone tech person. However, pld had made the observation earlier that not all people have difficulty w/ stronger accents. I happen to agree.
I have an employee w/a pronounced Hispanic accent (English isn’t his native language). Since working w/him, I have an easier time understanding others w/the same accent. My grandma had a pronounced German accent. To this day, I can pretty well understand people w/that one (she never did pronounce my name right). I’m beginning to get an ‘ear’ for some others as well.
the point of the above, is that what for you may have been a pronounced accent, may be less so to some one else who may have a wider range of experiences w/accents.
Now, why would you have some one w/such an accent in phone tech position? well, in the first place, from my experience, phone centers get calls from all over the place. And, in the US at least, some of the regional accents can be pretty thick. Of course, too, even people with accents call phone tech centers. So, I would argue that a working knowledge of the English language would be specifically a requirement for such employment, the accent thing may not be in the same category.
No, Lightnin’, you’re right – the first time I brought it up, I did so in a general sense; the second time, I addressed your particular experience, and made you the unwitting victim of my snarkiness towards msmith. I apologize – I shouldn’t have done that.
Dammit, minty, don’t swear at me. I was simply using Subway Girl as an example of someone whose disability (as far as we can tell from the OP) is keeping her from doing her current customer service job. As I stated (I thought) rather clearly, I was taking issue with this one, particular statement:
I said “give me an example of someone who fits that description”. You gave me an example of someone who sounds like they’d be good at any customer service position (except phone service, obviously). I said:
Where, again, I was using Subway Girl as just an example. Now, if you’d like to try answering my question again, go ahead. If you want to ignore it, that’s fine too. Once again:
I know you are against the proposition that no deaf person should ever hold any customer service job. I am too.
I know that this argument isn’t about the specific case of Subway Girl.
I know that you aren’t arguing that Subway Girl should keep her job.
Sure they do, if they are selective in choosing which customers to aggravate.
I worked for a small chain of grocery stores that was opening a brand new, extremely high-tech and very large grocery store. The owner, my boss, made a decision to hire disabled people as baggers. He was the first to admit that not all of them could bag groceries in record time, so he decided to spend money to hire extra cashiers to keep customers from waiting (the goal was never more than two people in a line).
A few people complained, explaining that a non-disabled bagger would have saved them a minute or so in the checkout lane. After he explained to them that he had hired more cashiers to make up for the speed factor, they just bitched that with more cashiers and non-disabled baggers, they would get out of the store that much faster. He explained that the baggers were there to stay, and while he would appreciate their business, he also gave them the name and address of our nearest competitor.
The local paper picked up the story and the store has been full of people who happily wait in much shorter lines to have their groceries bagged at a slightly slower than normal pace.
" A few people complained, explaining that a non-disabled bagger would have saved them a minute or so in the checkout lane. After he explained to them that he had hired more cashiers to make up for the speed factor, they just bitched that with more cashiers and non-disabled baggers, they would get out of the store that much faster."
Man, you’ve gotta wonder about these people. Whatever happened to helping the bagger/cashier by doing a little bagging yourself if you’re in some kind of huge hurry?
I typed this very late last night, when we were still on page 1 of this debate…If it’s a bit incoherent, it’s probably due to both of those factors. That being said, here we go…
And FYI, I have spina bifida and, as a result, am a paraplegic who needs a wheelchair to get around.
As soon as I saw the title of this thread, I knew it was gonna go something like this. Call me psychic.
Originally posted by Mandos:
snip
We need to discuss exactly what you mean by “job requirement”, Mandos. Sometimes walking up flights of stairs is integral to the quality of the work, other times it’s a byproduct, an unhappy coincidence. I mean, anyone who’s a paraplegic & applies for a job…uh…modeling Stairmasters, let’s say, should be rejected because they can’t walk up stairs, which they must do in order to do their job correctly. Not all jobs in buildings that lack elevators are like that.
For example; I’m going to school to become an English teacher. Let’s say I get out of school, get certified, & apply for a job at an elevator-less school that houses classrooms generally used by English teachers on the third floor, whereas the math teachers generally have their classrooms on the wheelchair accessible first floor.
Should I be rejected because I can’t teach my students in a classroom that’s on the same floor as other, seperate English classes? I think the answer is “no”, so long as my ability to impart knowledge & information wouldn’t be adversely affected.
I don’t think it would - TVs & VCRs are generally rolled around on carts, so conducting class in a “non-English class” room wouldn’t be a problem for the lack of equipment on which to show them Mel Gibson’s version of “Hamlet” or whatever. Each classroom is seperate, so I wouldn’t be depriving my students of any educational benefits that could be gleaned from hanging out with the other classes meeting during those class periods.
Same thing goes in the event I needed to switch classrooms with a math teacher due to a lack of vacancies on the “math floor”, so long as the teacher’s ability to impart the curriculum to his/her students wasn’t impaired (I don’t think it would be).
I mean, I certainly wouldn’t expect to be allowed to switch classrooms with teachers who need specialized classrooms (such as lab rooms for science classes), but if the change of venue doesn’t affect the quality of my teaching or the quality of the kids’ education, I expect that a school would have the sense to hire a qualified teacher who happened to be a paraplegic. I’m crossing my fingers on it, anyway.
Next…
Ohhhhhhh…That’s a gem. I’m going to assume that you didn’t intend to equate physical disability/impairment with willfull ignorance.
Onto other topics.
Originally posted by El Jeffe:
What about the customers he’s losing by having an inaccessible store or the litigation he might face from a disgruntled would-be customer?
The owner of the bar where my friend bartends poured a halfassed ramp over his steps a few years ago. She commented to him that she was very impressed that he made the effort at all; he looked at her quizzically & said, “Well, it’s the law - bars in NYC have to be handicapped accessible. Besides, I’m glad your friends can come here”.
The ADA has loophole phrases in it that allow some businesses to to avoid retrofitting if it would be too difficult/costly. What “difficult” & “costly” mean is another question. This bar owner might’ve been able to plead economic hardship or alteration of structural integrity in order to get out of installing any accomodations, but he wanted to avoid litigation. In the process, he gained some good customers who wouldn’t have been able to patronize his place if a ramp wasn’t in place. This is, as good ol’ Martha would say, “a good thing”.
If an ADA-based lawsuit against a business isn’t valid & an idiot judge/jury doesn’t throw it out, it’s the fault of said judge &/or jury, not the ADA. I believe that overall, implementation of the ADA has done more good than harm.
All that being said, Subway Girl should have a discussion with her employer as to what the best position for her would be. If she’s given an ample opportunity to learn how to lip-read the menu items or is given some sort of a touch screen (providing it doesn’t put an undue financial burden on Subway) and is still unable to complete the job correctly on a par with other workers, then she ought to be let go.
I was simply using Subway Girl as an example of someone whose disability (as far as we can tell from the OP) is keeping her from doing her current customer service job. As I stated (I thought) rather clearly, I was taking issue with this one, particular statement: