The Conservative Cave
The Bar => The Lounge => Topic started by: Chris on October 20, 2008, 08:28:53 PM
-
Allentown area woman ordered out of 'bubble' (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/10/allentown_area_woman_ordered_o.html)
ALLENTOWN-- Ten hours a day, every day, Elizabeth Feudale-Bowes confines herself to a galvanized steel and porcelain shed outside her house. Inside are a toilet, a metal cabinet, a box spring with the metal coils exposed, and a pile of organic cotton blankets. Aluminum foil covers the window.
Feudale-Bowes says fabric softener, nail polish, perfume, new sneakers, upholstery and many other items can make her body go haywire. She says she has suffered from a range of chronic ailments, including migraines, joint pain, bladder inflammation, seizures and temporary paralysis. Her insides, she says, have sometimes felt like "fire with ground glass in it."
A couple of years ago, the couple settled in South Whitehall, moving into a Lustron house, a 1940s-era prefabricated home made of porcelain-enameled steel that serves as their main residence. They paid an additional $10,500 for the bubble.
The couple are threatening to sue the township under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
link (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/10/allentown_area_woman_ordered_o.html) :mental:
-
Ok, someone has to ask......
-
Ok, someone has to ask......
Yes, I think his ass is grass....
-
Here is the dirty little secret of the ADA.
I worked for the State of California when the ADA was passed. The edict came down from back channels: you will NOT hire anyone with a disability unless through special self-funded programs. "Regular jobs" will NOT be filled by the disabled.
Why? Because the ADA makes it IMPOSSIBLE to terminate an employee with disabilities. By then we were able to terminate EEO hires WITH CAUSE (and a lot of hassle). But if you hired a disabled person and they NEVER showed up for a single day of work, you could not terminate them without a HUGE hassle, and even then it might be overturned.
It is easier to fend of accusations of bias before a legal relationship is established. Afterwords, not so much. And there is no such thing as "equal job qualifications." There are enough soft variables to choose one candidate over the other as long as they have similar degrees, years of experience, etc.
And the ADA has become such a monster, I must assume those conditions are still in place.
The Laws of Unintended Consequences: There is a reason why it is a Law.
-
Here is the dirty little secret of the ADA.
I worked for the State of California when the ADA was passed. The edict came down from back channels: you will NOT hire anyone with a disability unless through special self-funded programs. "Regular jobs" will NOT be filled by the disabled.
Why? Because the ADA makes it IMPOSSIBLE to terminate an employee with disabilities. By then we were able to terminate EEO hires WITH CAUSE (and a lot of hassle). But if you hired a disabled person and they NEVER showed up for a single day of work, you could not terminate them without a HUGE hassle, and even then it might be overturned.
It is easier to fend of accusations of bias before a legal relationship is established. Afterwords, not so much. And there is no such thing as "equal job qualifications." There are enough soft variables to choose one candidate over the other as long as they have similar degrees, years of experience, etc.
And the ADA has become such a monster, I must assume those conditions are still in place.
The Laws of Unintended Consequences: There is a reason why it is a Law.
That is exactly what has happened since 1991.
Within five years (source: CBS news broadcast I watched), there were fewer Americans with disabilities working in 1996, then there had been in 1991.
-
Here is the dirty little secret of the ADA.
I worked for the State of California when the ADA was passed. The edict came down from back channels: you will NOT hire anyone with a disability unless through special self-funded programs. "Regular jobs" will NOT be filled by the disabled.
Why? Because the ADA makes it IMPOSSIBLE to terminate an employee with disabilities. By then we were able to terminate EEO hires WITH CAUSE (and a lot of hassle). But if you hired a disabled person and they NEVER showed up for a single day of work, you could not terminate them without a HUGE hassle, and even then it might be overturned.
It is easier to fend of accusations of bias before a legal relationship is established. Afterwords, not so much. And there is no such thing as "equal job qualifications." There are enough soft variables to choose one candidate over the other as long as they have similar degrees, years of experience, etc.
And the ADA has become such a monster, I must assume those conditions are still in place.
The Laws of Unintended Consequences: There is a reason why it is a Law.
From my experience of doing about 15 years of labor cases in my legal career, I'd have to agree.
-
Here is the dirty little secret of the ADA.
I worked for the State of California when the ADA was passed. The edict came down from back channels: you will NOT hire anyone with a disability unless through special self-funded programs. "Regular jobs" will NOT be filled by the disabled.
Why? Because the ADA makes it IMPOSSIBLE to terminate an employee with disabilities. By then we were able to terminate EEO hires WITH CAUSE (and a lot of hassle). But if you hired a disabled person and they NEVER showed up for a single day of work, you could not terminate them without a HUGE hassle, and even then it might be overturned.
It is easier to fend of accusations of bias before a legal relationship is established. Afterwords, not so much. And there is no such thing as "equal job qualifications." There are enough soft variables to choose one candidate over the other as long as they have similar degrees, years of experience, etc.
And the ADA has become such a monster, I must assume those conditions are still in place.
The Laws of Unintended Consequences: There is a reason why it is a Law.
So very true. And the thing libs never ever do is think thru their socialist schemes. The perfect example is raising minimum wage. They don't for a second get it that people lose their jobs every time min wage is raised. unintended consequences. They just assume that small business man will keep the same number of employees and pay them more until he goes out of business rather than cutting overhead by firing some people.
They do these 'feel good' things to assuage some screwy white guilt thing going on in their itty bitty pea brains. Well heres some headlines for the left: I don't feel guilty and I refuse to buy into your socialist agenda. And I am sure many millions more agree with me.
-
So very true. And the thing libs never ever do is think thru their socialist schemes. The perfect example is raising minimum wage. They don't for a second get it that people lose their jobs every time min wage is raised. unintended consequences. They just assume that small business man will keep the same number of employees and pay them more until he goes out of business rather than cutting overhead by firing some people.
They do these 'feel good' things to assuage some screwy white guilt thing going on in their itty bitty pea brains. Well heres some headlines for the left: I don't feel guilty and I refuse to buy into your socialist agenda. And I am sure many millions more agree with me.
What really pisses me off -- gets me seething -- is that these assholes go to sleep thinking "I did something good today -- I am a GOOD person" while enacting these damaging and counter-productive laws. They don't HELP anyone, but they THINK they do.
If they could REALLY see the bad they have done through their stupidity, they wouldn't sleep well for the rest of their lives.
-
That is exactly what has happened since 1991.
Within five years (source: CBS news broadcast I watched), there were fewer Americans with disabilities working in 1996, then there had been in 1991.
I figured you would know (and be affected by) this, Coach
A Sad Truth, indeed.