I am looking at my Easter Seals calendar as I write this. And it says the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed July 26, 1990.
Wtf? I don’t know about the rest of you. But I am in my 40’s. And I consider that recent.
Most landmark legislation involving social justice was passed in the 1960’s and 70’s even. Medicare, Medicaid, the fair housing act.
Why did it take so long to Pass the ADA? What on earth could possibly have been the hold up?
:):)
Its a bit early in the thread for a WAG, but I think its reasonable to conjecture: the same reason the ERA wasn’t passed in the 1970’s. At that point in time, implementing the provisos, across the entire nation, seemed expensive, and they may have simply wanted to give individual states time to drum up the funds for each municipality.
I remember when all the street corners were being busted up to make ramps. It was inconvenient, expensive and we, in our deep ignorance, didn’t understand why it was happening. Seems not only ignorant at this point, but downright stupid and insensitive and, oh yes, illegal to think that way. But we never saw anyone who really needed it. My hometown in Connecticut was hardly poor, but it wasn’t as affluent as it is now, it was a burden. Now, its worked into the budget of every new construction so it appear seamless. But late into the '90’s some older buildings just couldn’t really implement powered doors, bust up their stairs for ramps, etc.
Our many SDMB threads on the Equal Rights Amendment and its failure to pass follow this same theme. Equal rights without regard to gender? Well, of course, why not? What? Develop, appoint, and fund a committee, administrators and workers to implement, enforce, and investigate violations of an abstract amendment? Uh … give us a bit of time on that.
I’m in an industry that was affected very significantly by the ADA and so I was watching the process closely in the late 80s and early 90s.
Prior to the ADA, many states and municipalities, as well as some Federal agencies, were actually working very hard to improve accessibility. The ADA was subject to debate mostly because it did have a significant financial impact on existing businesses, facilities, and general infrastructure. It’s pretty easy to build in accessibility. It’s not so easy to retrofit accessibility.
These financial concerns led to many compromises (including the allowance for existing hotels to provide plug-in 120VAC fire alarm notification appliances as needed when a hearing-impaired guest rented a room). The schedule for implementation was also a hot topic. And, of course, the final version of the ADAAG to be incorporated into the Act was also subject to a lot of review and amendment.
On the other hand, it didn’t really take that long to pass the ADA once the need for it was understood. I mean, it wasn’t a constitutional amendment or anything. You might as well ask why it took so long to form the EPA in light of the civil rights legislation of the 60s. It’s just the way that the country addresses such issues…usually in a haphazard sequence as problems arise.
Also, until recently (i.e the last 40 years or so) handicapped had a certain stigma. You did not see a lot of wheelchairs or such in public, especially on their own - They were typically accompanied. That assistant had the envious job of lifting/tilting a chair over curbs.
Disabilities had the same “liberation” fight as gender or race. There just weren’t as many of them.
One irony of the result of the change was the number of parents pushing strollers who expressed appreciation for curb ramps.
But yes, cost was always an issue. The attitude was “I haven’t seen that many (any) handicapped banging on the door to get in here, so why should I have to make costly repairs to accommodate one or two customers a year?” A lot of older buildings have random floor level changes - sunken dining areas with two or three steps down, a single step up to the elevator lobby, steps down into the bar, that sort of thing. Smaller buildings would have no space for a ramp beside a stairs. Older buildings had nowhere to retrofit elevators. etc. (And of course, the scare tactic was - you try to do any renovations whatsoever, even for safety reasons, you will also have to do accessibility upgrades.)
This is essentially what I was going to post. The ADA primarily impacts real estate and infrastructure. Frankly, it’s easy from the outside to say “why wasn’t it done sooner” or “isn’t it obviously needed”. For new construction, it’s really not a big deal to comply now that it has been in place for awhile. When it first was passed, though, it was a big deal because developers, builders, lenders, inspectors and others weren’t sure how it worked.
And if you own an older property, complying with ADA can add significant costs to renovations, and can make some renovations unfeasible. It’s easy to look at the positive aspects of ADA, but it’s also responsible for many properties continuing to deteriorate and not be renovated. It simply isn’t economically feasible to renovate and comply with ADA in some cases. There are costs and unintended consequences of any legislation, and the ADA is no exception.
There are also absurdities. I know of a butcher shop that had to install an ADA-compliant lavatory when they rebuilt after a fire. They have no sit-down business, and really didn’t want a public lavatory. But they were told (I can’t vouch for whether they were given good information) that they had to install an ADA lavatory. So, they built it around the side of the building. If someone were in a wheelchair and needed to use it, they would have to go out onto a public road to get around the side to the lavatory. And I think we’ve all seen the braille instructions on drive-up ATMs.
Orwell, isn’t the braille instructions more about the ATM panels are mostly interchangeable between drive-ups and walk-ups?
Other than that, the delay was about the real problems of retrofitting older buildings to ADA standards. To this day ADA can make the already difficult process of rehabbing historic houses much harder. So there was a lot of pushback.
That’s probably true, but I always found the braille instructions at a drive-up ATM to be amusing. I suppose they would be useful to a left side back-seat passenger, though.
The ADA isn’t about building accessibility, or curb cutaways. Legislature requiring wheelchair ramps isn’t part of the ADA. Legislation requiring building accessibility actually was passed in the 1970s. So was public law 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped Children (before that law, public schools could choose to exclude handicapped children for any reason, and if the state didn’t have a special school to accommodate them, they might not receive an education).
The ADA is about employment. The heart of it is that a company can’t fire someone for acquiring a disability. A business has to make “reasonable accommodations,” or if that isn’t possible, provide a lateral transfer to keep the person employed. It also makes disabled people a protected class in hiring and firing practices. If you don’t get hired, and you think it’s because you have a disability, you can sue. You have to be able to prove it, and there’s the rub, but the ADA had provisions for it, so employers are more careful.
If you were a passenger in an Uber, would you want to give the Uber driver your card and PIN?
Anyway, the machines are made usually without regard to whether they will be installed as drive-up or walk-up. It’s easier to make one kind of machine, and then install it for whatever need you have than to make two different kinds of machines, one without the Braille displays, and sound jack, for the drive-up.
Personally, I always wonder if the sound jack is hooked up on the drive-up machines.
Also, I have known banks that have converted drive-ups to walk-ups and vice versa by changing that outside structure, but not the machine. If they had different machines, and the only difference was the Braille display, they’d need to install a whole new machine if they converted a drive-up to a walk-up.
That’s only one part of the legislation; there are substantial significant other parts. You can look it up if you’re curious.
The reason the ADA didn’t happen until 1990 is that our social conscience about how to treat the “disabled” hadn’t evolved before then to the point where we considered it socially immoral to deny them an unhandicapped life. And, as with all social legislation, it was not a one-time burst, but a step-by-step process.
Braille doesn’t inconvenience those without visual impairments but not having Braille can make it very difficult or impossible for someone with eyesight problems (or total blindness), so it’s a no-brainer to just include it everywhere. If I owned a bank or business the last thing I want is bad publicity because there’s a perception that I’m discriminating against someone impaired.
You are absolutely correct. The ADAAG are an integral part of the ADA and the ADAAG certainly DO provide for physical accessibility in public and private facilities. What’s the point of mandating non-discrimination against handicapped individuals when they can’t get in the building, use the elevators or bathrooms, or even reach the fire alarm pull stations?
Unlike most civil rights legislation the ADA came with a large price tag. Places had to construct accessible infrastructure and businesses had to provide accommodations to their employees. There were also people who predicted the devastating effect it would have on disable people’s employment.
Right… because pre-ADA such a high percentage of the disabled were employed… :rolleyes:
No one said the predication was valid, just that it said. I remember the complaints. They seemed silly but that is no surprise.
Before the ADA about 33% of disabled people had employment and currently 17.5% of disabled people have jobs. That is a decrease of 47%, given that the stated purpose of the ADA was to increase the number of the disabled with jobs, it does not appear to have been successful.
What definition of “disabled” are you using?
Sensory or motor deficit?
Atypical development?
Completely unable to work? (That’s the one needed to get SS disability)
My late spouse was disabled under some definitions and able-bodied under others, even though the average person would take one look at him walking as say “disabled” and doctors reading his birth defect diagnosis were usually surprised he didn’t need a wheelchair to get around. Yet the Social Security Administration didn’t view him as disabled at all, decreeing that he was capable of performing gainful employment.
Citations for these stats would be helpful.
One thing to consider: prior to the ADA, many disabled might not have tried to become employed, figuring that they would be unable to do so. If the statistic is based upon those actually looking for work, much like the unemployment measure commonly referenced in the news, the rate of unemployment would go up if more disabled started looking for work, thinking they would be successful under the ADA.
So it didn’t take a long to be passed, it took a long time to be proposed. But I don’t see it as that long considering the number of ways that people had traditionally been denied their civil rights, and that some still are. The changes in this area in my lifetime have been monumental, even if too long in coming, and too slowly, and still not completely achieved.
Percentages vs. numbers = apples and oranges!
How MANY disabled PEOPLE were employed before ADA and now? I doubt the decrease (if any) will be 47%.