I agree with you that in the long run most businesses will try to continue to grow, perhaps the problem here is that the magic number (12) is too low, and imposes too high a cost for such a small expansion? Perhaps if the number were 25 (just a number I pulled out of the air) it wouldn’t be as big a deal. (i.e. expanding from 24 to 25 employees indicates a larger company more able to absorb costs?) Just a thought. Clearly the gov’t has an intrest in imposing regulations, and the gov’t also has an intrest in encouraging small businesses. Perhaps the balance is just a little off? (IANCanadian so I can’t really say)
Agreed that the disabled will be taken care of, also agreed that it is better to move them off the dole and into the work force when possible (at reasonable cost) for their sake and the economy.
To me the issue here is really that the ADA has not been very effective at doing so, and has cost the economy a ton of money. As you say it is not open and shut.
Good point. In the US, as far as government contracting goes, a business that gets to make use of the provisions of the Small Business Act has somewhere around 1000 employees or fewer.
Some points: In addition to accomodating employees, making a building accessible also makes it accessible for customers/clients etc.
Governemental buildings should be accessible to all members of the public. Not just under ‘ADA’ issues, but under equal protection - how can a person be treated equally under the law of the land if they’re not able to access the court systems, city hall etc. This isn’t an ADA issue, but a constitutional one (so the data re: costs to governmental entities, IMHO, are misattributed to the ADA).
Once again “reasonable” accomodations are required. My company is housed in an older building that isn’t accessible to those using wheelchairs. In the past, I had an agreement w/another agency to borrow space should I have a client needing accomodations. Currently, I have two locations, one is accessible.
and let’s get some actual data on accomodations and their effect on businesses’
Sears has no problem w/ADA citing the average cost of an accomodation was $121, with most accomodations (97%) requiring zero costs.
According to this article Most suits filed under the ADA are filed by employees disabled on the job, the aveage accomodation cost about $200 (with many costing zero, and about 2/3rds costing in the $500 range), and may indeed allow the employer to take advantage of certain tax incentives as well.
So, I’m not seeing (big surprise) other than the nebulous “we’re afraid of lawsuits, so therefore it’s hurt us tremendously”, where the ADA is any kind of a failure.
If it were really a serious burden, “hideously expensive” as our Cato-Institute-sourcing friend claims, then after a decade of it the American economy ought to be seriously crippled as a result. But the evidence is pretty much the opposite - the decade since its incorporation was one of pretty rapid growth here. Such complaints can be dismissed as grumbling by people who would simply rather not be inconvenienced by such onerous burdens as building a 2x4 and plywood ramp at the doorstep. But never let facts affect a good ideological rant, huh?
As for the company-size limit, it might be interesting to know how often a growing small company in Canada breaks up into as many separately-incorporated subsidiaries as necessary to keep under the radar. It’s fairly easily done in the US, anyway. It might also be illustrative to learn what the law is and is called in Canada, too - I’d be very surprised to find that it’s called ADA, the term Sam uses.
You totally miss the point. Once you decide that the activity should be done, a natural follow-up question is: What is the cheapest and fastest way to achieve it.
I propose that having the businesses do it costs orders of magnitude less than having the government do it. While it might cost a little bit of money for a deli to shop around and find the cheapest and best person to install a ramp, the government would spend much more and the work would be lower quality. In fact, I propose that any involvement by the government will introduce inefficiencies.
If you want to argue that those gimps don’t have a right to have a sandwich at a deli, then go ahead and make that argument. But once you make the decision, that reasonable accommodations are a good thing, I see nothing wrong with spreading the costs out to businesses equally.
wring, links were supplied by Sam Stone, which showed that the ADA has had enormous costs. Your DOL link makes the cost negligible. I wish I know how to reconcile the two sets of statistics. Granted that both parties are partisan, they are also respectable organizations, that do no cook the books.
One guess: The DOL measured “cost of individual accomodations.” Perhaps that is a tiny percentage of the overall economic cost.
I agree with DOL that getting a disabled person into the work force is a huge savoing. However, none of the statistics shown here support the idea that the ADA has caused appreciably more disabled people to enter the workplace. This is quite a contrast with the kind of progress made by women and minoriites, where the gains are obvious (although more progress is still needed).
I would add another point. The legally blind man mentioned in the OP – the one who ran the coffee shop with his wife – was subsidized by the State of California, under a program of some state agency. I think that the carrot approach to helping the disabled is a lot better than the stick approach. It’s nicer. People are working together to make disabled person succeed, rather than battlling each other. It’s avoids litigation. The cost is apparent, since it’s money paid out by the agency.
december the **DOJ ** is a biased cite to you? I also listed info from a major retailer, detailing what they experienced as the effects (minor) of the ADA. OF course, their stance was generally to accomodate reasonable requests by employees, anyhow (one that was mentioned was that an employee had an allergic reaction to pantyhose, the acomodation was to not require her to wear them). and one from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (neither of whom would have an apparent bias towards or against the ADA)
As opposed to Sam’s cite from the CATO org founded as
[quote]
Mr. Crane, now 57, thought there should be a think tank dedicated to the American principles of liberty and limited government
[/quote ]
, which suggests that they generally would favor less governmental laws regarding businesses.
So, yea, you have something claiming large costs, brought by a source which would tend to disfavor the ADA on ideological grounds, making claims of large costs of lawsuits. VS. a Department of Labor cite showing actual costs of actual accomodations, a major retailer’s specific data which substantiates it. But of course, to you, it’s a wash.
Yes, the DOL can be expected to be partisan toward the desirability of federal involvement with labor issues, just as the Pentagon is partisan toward weapons and the military. It’s just natural that people who work for an agency will generally tend to see things from that agency’s POV.
I’d be shocked to ever see a Pentagon study showing that military solutions don’t work and recommending that the military budget be cut. Wouldn’t you?
—I propose that having the businesses do it costs orders of magnitude less than having the government do it.—
But it still costs the bussinesses, and the point remains: it shouldn’t be their cost to bear alone. The government (which is to say, the people) should reimburse them for the costs its legislation imposes.
If that is too costly to do, then it is too costly period.
Apos - did you read my cites? (obviously not), since in there were referenced several options - there are programs to assist with the costs (some are furnished by worker’s comp insurers, who see certain accomadtions as lessening claims), as well as tax incentives. In addition, the average cost of accomodations ran under $500 (in many cases it was zero cost).
But it isn’t “their cost to bear alone.” All of their competitors have similar costs, therefore they can safely pass it along to their consumers without fear of being put at a competitive disadvantage.
How is this law economically different than any other? If I can’t dump my toxic waste into the river, then I simply charge my customers more. If I can’t sell my drugs until I get FDA approval, then I charge my customers more. If I need to print nutritional information on my label, then I charge my customers more.
As long as the law applies to everyone, then nobody is at a disadvantage.
Pencil I think I see your point now, my initial reading of your first post was that you felt that the ADA was economically less expensive than a general gov’t program. Since you started your post with a question and then offered several alternatives I was just trying to point out that the imposition of regulations is not without cost to consumers (i.e. taxpayers).
Your point about all businesses being subject to the regulation of the ADA off-setting any potential competitive disadvantages is well taken. However, consider two points, 1) It is a global economy, and US firms do not only compete against other US firms; 2) Simply because the costs of regulations may be passed on to consumers does not mean that the government should not seek the most efficient regulation that will serve its purposes, nor that regulations do not impose inefficiencies in the market. To take your toxic waste example, certain levels of toxic wastes are allowed to be dumped into rivers. The government could impose a 0 dumping policy, but that would be economically devastating even though it would apply to everyone. The question is one of balancing economic vitality with enviornmental responsibility.
I think the point that ADA detractors are trying to make is that the ADA may be well intentioned, but is a poorly drafted law that has had unintended economic consequences. The statistical evidence seems to be unclear at this point.
As for this little quip:
So far as I can see no one in this thread has put forth anything remotely approaching this, nor has anyone called anyone a “gimp.”
december:Yes, the DOL can be expected to be partisan toward the desirability of federal involvement with labor issues
A reasonable point. However, I think wring’s remark is valid that the Cato report quoted by Sam Stone is focusing on a very limited subset of the ADA’s costs and disadvantages, as opposed to the DOL’s broader picture. A couple things in particular I noticed about the Cato report:
It repeatedly makes what is IMHO an artificial distinction between the 3 million or so “blind, deaf, and wheelchair-bound” that “the public usually think of” as disabled, and the many more people who have some other kind of physical, mental, or emotional disability. Focusing only on the blind, deaf, and wheelchair-bound is short-shrifting a lot of people with genuine disabilities, even if it also makes the concept of “disability” somewhat easier to define and apply.
It concentrates on ADA-related lawsuits, and their accompanying costs, while almost completely ignoring the question of benefits (economic and otherwise) generated by ADA compliance. Except for the following:
It purports to find that the ADA has not helped more disabled enter the workforce, based on a comparison by the National Organization of the Disabled of the percentage of employed working-aged disabled people as of 1986 (33%) vs. 1993 (31%). It conveniently fails to mention, however, that ADA provisions came into effect for employers of 25 or more workers only in mid-1992, while coverage extended to workplaces with 15–24 employees only in 1994! More up-to-date data (2001) from the same organization notes that
Certainly, that improvement may not all be due to the ADA, but it sure puts the kibosh on the Cato’s inference from 1993 data alone (at best extremely premature, and at worst deliberately misleading) that the ADA actually prevents growth in employment of the disabled.
Sam: *Then there is the effect on the culture, and I think December is on to something there. There’s nothing like a government law that separates people into groups and gives one group special advantages to help fracture society. Now, if you see a disabled person working in a company, rather than thinking, “Hey, that’s great! That company treats people really well!” You’re more likely to think, “Lucky for the ADA, or these bastards would never have hired him.” Or, “That guy’s only got a job because of the ADA”. So you wind up with resentment and hostility. I’m not sure if that is worth the side benefits. *
Pffffft. If a liberal complained about a particular piece of legislation on the grounds that it might produce negative emotional reactions and contribute to societal fragmentation, you’d be screaming them down with contemptuous cries of “Social engineering!” Since, as you seem to admit, the right thing is to “treat people really well” by not discriminating against the disabled as customers or employees, why shouldn’t we just require it and let the delicate national psyche learn to come to terms with it?
In any case, your fears of a vast negative reaction seem to be pretty unfounded; the NOD also reports that a survey earlier this year found that of the 77% of Americans who are aware of the ADA, 93% “approve of and support” it.
In short, ADA legislation has been in existence for 12 years and has garnered overwhelming popular support. The only evidence offered here that it has actually “done more harm than good”, economically, socially, or in any other way, comes from a single report by an institution avowedly opposed to government intervention in general, and has been contradicted by other sources. We certainly don’t have any reliable completely comprehensive assessment of the total costs and benefits of the ADA, but the OP hasn’t come anywhere close to effectively defending his “resolution” that the costs have outweighed the benefits.
I daresay that before the ADA, one wouldn’t have much opportunity to see a disabled person in the workplace, period.
I suspect (with at least some authority on the subject) that many disabled people have encountered & learned to cope with the many misconceptions, predjudices, & consequences thereof that they’ve encountered. I understand why they’re (we’re) a bit disgruntled.
If the ADA can help me get into a job I’m qualified for by pushing my potential employers to install accomodations that’d make my employment possible, I’m going to use that as much as I reasonably can.
As for co-worker reactions… Were I supporting myself fully (I’m still living home while I complete school), I wouldn’t have the luxury of worrying about potentially bad responses to my employment; I’d need to worry about paying for food & housing. If my co-workers thought that I only got the job 'cause I’m crippled, that’d be on them. I figure the odds are high that they’d have assumed that even if the ADA never existed.
IOW, if I’ve earned a job & it’s financially possible for the company to make the changes that would render my potential place of employment accessible, I feel that the changes should be made.
“Accessible” & “possible” are, BTW, shaky words, words with loopholes attached. Here’s a couple of examples from my life:
In the student union of the college I just transferred out of, there is a women’s bathroom that is designated as “handicapped accessible” (in English & Braille) by the sign with the wheelchair symbol. One day, I needed to use the restroom. Indeed, my wheelchair fit through the door. Excellent! It was a tight squeeze, but I turned the corner & went into the handicapped stall, where I had room on either side of me. Brilliant.
Here’s the catch; the stall was not deep enough. I didn’t have enough room to stand up & turn around to use the toilet unless I left the stall door open. If I closed the door, I had no room at all to maneuver - I could only stare at the toilet. How’s that “accessible”? I couldn’t use the toilet in the same manner as non-disabled folks (i.e. with the door shut).
Here’s another example; the student union has no elevator, hence, I was unable to fully participate in certain campus organizations. However, I was lucky; the people on my committee in the organization I joined chose to accommodate me by conducting meetings in a wheelchair-accessible building.
These situations could have been avoided with proper retrofitting, but it wasn’t financially feasible (i.e. “reasonable”) - this was explained to me in various meetings with various higher-ups at the college, including the president.
I didn’t sue when I found out that they couldn’t afford the retrofitting now. I didn’t scream & yell & demonstrate. I realized, based on the discussion we had, that the cost of installing an elevator in the union at this time would place too high of a financial burden on the college & its’ students. If I thought, however, that they were poo-poohing the concerns of wheelchair-bound & other disabled students, I’d make a fuss within the college community.
(Incidentally, if Justin Dart could see a couple comments made in this thread, he’d probably rolling in his recently-dug grave. )
Which pretty clearly means that he believes stores should be as meanspirited as they want. Although, he gave no indication that he would use or even think such an epithet, he apparently has no problems with store owners acting on such prejudices. I think it is appropriate of me to point out that tolerance of such behavior is complicity in such behavior.
Here’s another instance in which the ADA was pretty clearly abused. (Sorry, but I have no cite for this at this time):
A consortium of companies decided to build some free-standing single-stall public restrooms at regular intervals on an outdoor mall. There was no government regulation requiring them to do this; they merely wanted to have extra bathrooms for the convenience of the mall’s patrons, who could use them freely. The consortium was going to pay for the contruction out of its own pockets. Since making each and every stall handicapped-accessible would have made them both more expensive and much larger (thereby reducing the amount of walking space available in the mall), only about 1-in-4 or 1-in-5 of the stalls were going to be handicapped accessible.
When some disabled persons group found out about this, they raised a great outcry. The ADA, apparently, requires each building to be handicapped-accessible. Each free-standing outdoor stall consituted a “building”. Therefore, so the disabled persons group claimed, if the consortium went ahead with their current construction plans, they would sue them for violating the ADA.
The consortium took one look at the costs of making every stall handicapped-accessible and said “screw this.” Thus in the end, no stalls were built.
And what did the disabled persons group get out of this? Nothing. Instead of having 1-in-5 free-standing stalls that they could use, there continued to be no free-standing stalls they could use.
tracer:Here’s another instance in which the ADA was pretty clearly abused. (Sorry, but I have no cite for this at this time)
Pending a cite, I’ll remain skeptical about this and lots of other undocumented claims of ADA abuses. I don’t question your veracity, and I’m sure that there are indeed lots of unscrupulous and/or wrongheaded people trying to take unfair advantage of the legislation, but I’ve also seen lots and lots and lots of horror stories about ADA “abuses” that somehow nobody ever manages to find a reliable cite for. In my experience at least, reactions like Cosmopolitan’s—“I’m morally and legally entitled to equal access, but I understand that financial resources aren’t unlimited, so I’m not trying to make trouble for organizations that are doing the best they can”—are far more common.
Personally, my opinion is that most of the anti-ADA reaction is just the typical backlash that follows any antidiscrimination mandate. People yelled and screamed a lot in the 60’s and 70’s about how expensive race and gender antidiscrimination laws were going to be, too. Sure, antidiscrimination lawsuits cost money, but so does letting lots of potentially productive employees remain unemployed or underemployed (not to mention denying lots of potential customers access to businesses) just because businesses don’t feel like dealing with them.
Since, as you seem to admit, the right thing is to “treat people really well” by not discriminating against the disabled as customers or employees, why shouldn’t we just require it and let the delicate national psyche learn to come to terms with it?