primitives discuss Americans With Disabilities Act

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=250x4091

Oh my.

franksolich, who never paid attention to Rand Paul before, now's a BIG BIG fan of the Kentucky senator.

This campfire was lit in May 2010, but it's still smouldering.

nmbluesky (1000+ posts)      Wed May-19-10 09:51 PM
Original message
 
Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act

Paul was asked whether he supports the Americans with Disabilities Act, the landmark 1990 legislation that established a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability. Paul said he advocates local governments to decide whether disabled individuals deserve rights. Requiring businesses to provide access to disabled people, Paul argued, isn’t “fair to the business owner.” Later in the interview, when asked if he believes Americans have a right to use the 2nd Amendment to violently overthrow the government, a Paul staffer physically intercepted the recording and shuffled Paul away:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/17/rand-paul-ada /

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l7A8VBrqa8&feature=play...

And now, from the chubby aspylad primitive, who's never held a job in his life and so hasn't ever been affected by ADA:

Odin2005  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-19-10 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
 
6. What an evil bastard!

The bold part below's the only important part, where a primitive actually nailed it; one doesn't have to read any thing else (excepting I would use "interviewed," not "hired"):

libodem  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jun-17-10 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
 
8. Might as well

It is a pain in the ass to make it work for you. For one thing if an employer gets a whiff that your are disabled in any way you will not be hired. Then to get any type of reasonable accommodation you have to dislose your condition. It has a lot to do with your insurabiity. I'm uninsurable. My employer has capped my hours at 19 to make certain I don't qualify for benefits.

The ADA is long and comlicated to read and doesn't say much when you can drag through it. I'm pissed off at being ****ed around in my job and I have no recourse but to go find a lawyer.

I think what pisses off the Libertarian types are the law suits that unethical lawyers and shysters direct at small business whom have difficulty reconstructing enterences to make them accessable to people in wheel chairs. They are sometimes hit with penalties, fines, and settlements that ruin their business.

That being said, there are loopholes that protect the small business, if they employ less than 15 or the accommodation would be too expensive compared to the size of the business. 'Reasonable' being the operative word here

Sorry, about the mistakes but I can't fix them without writing this whole thing over. You know how the computer won't let you add a letter without taking out the next space for some reason that is happening with this particular post. Ahh eff it.

deafskeptic (4 posts)      Fri Oct-21-11 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
 
9. been there done that! @libodem

I take it you speak from personal experience. I've been there and done that. As my username indicates, I'm deaf rl. I know one sign language interpreter who's a fan of Rand Paul.

CountAllVotes  (1000+ posts)      Sat Oct-22-11 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
 
10. I couldn't agree more

The ADA is a mandate, not a law!

Try getting diagnosed with a progressive disease and see how long you will still have a job for!

I know they managed to get rid of me six weeks after my diagnosis in 1995!

They told me that the ADA would protect me and I was sent a huge document with hundreds of pages of text.

I never was fortunate enough to find a lawyer to help me and the man that discriminated against me is now dead (natural causes ...).

As for Ron Paul, well I'm no fan of his as I am a Democrat, YES.

The stark fact is the Americans With Disabilities Act has done zero, zilch, nothing, for the disabled.

In fact, it's done more harm than good.

One year after passage (1993), there were fewer disabled people working in real jobs than there had been before passage, and over the years, it's gotten worst.

<<doesn't like being a "protected person."

[JohnnyReb]

One year after passage (1993), there were fewer disabled people working in real jobs than there had been before passage, and over the years, it's gotten worst.

It was 43 years ago that I first met him, a deaf mute working at McQuirts Auto Electric. He repaired starters, generators and alternators. Best damn repairman they had in my opinion. They had no special accomodations for him. As a matter of fact, hell, even the man that owned the place had to wave his arms, point and scribble notes on a piece of paper to communicate with him just like me. He had a good sense of humor and a pleasant personality. He sort of disappeared in the mid 90's and I never knew what happened to him. Now that you've mentioned it, I wonder if the Americans With Disabilities Act had anything to do with that?

[GOBUCKS]

Because of their "protected" status, anyone who hires a handicapped person, a minority, or even a woman, must be as certain as certain can be that they're the right person for the job, because you cannot afford to make a mistake. Terminating a "protected" person exposes a business to enormous legal expense, even in cases where the termination is 100% justified and legal. White men can be hired and fired with far less risk, so mistakes are not nearly so dangerous.

The net result of these laws is another huge barrier for the people they are supposed to help.

[franksolich]

Because of their "protected" status, anyone who hires a handicapped person, a minority, or even a woman, must be as certain as certain can be that they're the right person for the job, because you cannot afford to make a mistake. Terminating a "protected" person exposes a business to enormous legal expense, even in cases where the termination is 100% justified and legal. White men can be hired and fired with far less risk, so mistakes are not nearly so dangerous.

The net result of these laws is another huge barrier for the people they are supposed to help.

HEAR, HEAR, HEAR!!!!

 

[franksolich]

It was 43 years ago that I first met him, a deaf mute working at McQuirts Auto Electric. He repaired starters, generators and alternators. Best damn repairman they had in my opinion. They had no special accomodations for him. As a matter of fact, hell, even the man that owned the place had to wave his arms, point and scribble notes on a piece of paper to communicate with him just like me. He had a good sense of humor and a pleasant personality. He sort of disappeared in the mid 90's and I never knew what happened to him. Now that you've mentioned it, I wonder if the Americans With Disabilities Act had anything to do with that?

I started working to support myself when I was 18 years old (the wholesale hardware place mentioned all over elsewhere here), just before imposition of the "affirmative action," "non-discrimination," "civil rights" (not the race-based ones, which were in effect years before, but the employment-based ones), and circa twenty years before the ADA.

The place where I worked had about 80-100 people, warehouse and offices.  It employed all sorts of people; regular people, normal people.....and ex-cons, the aged, the spastics, minorities, hunchbacks, "learning-disabled," cripples, dwarves, giants, the blind.  Even a sexual offender (who liked college-aged boys, and so was kept sequestered working with women in the office; he wasn't allowed in the warehouse).

This was no sweatshop; I was hired at the then-hiring rate of circa 150% minimum wage, and as most people there had been there forever, they of course were making much more.  A kid in college working part-time, making half again as much as the minimum wage.  

(Of course, it rapidly escalated too.)

Most of these people, the normal ones and the oddballs both, made good money and owned their own houses and such; in other words, taxpayers contributing to the common weal.

The place still exists all these years later, but it's staffed wholly by normal people, not an abnormality or monster among them.  

One wonders where the oddballs work.

They don't; they've been shoved onto the reservation, the social security disability gravy-train.  They're not hired--or even interviewed, if there's a clue there's something wrong with them--because they represent a potential liability to the employer.

Myself, there is a sharp difference between the choices and opportunities I had before 1993, and now.

It's Hell, pure Hell, being a "protected" person.

As for those who supported ADA, **** them all.  They ruined a great many lives.

It was never anything but a "feel good" law.

[franksolich]

Sorry about that, but I get really really worked up when I talk about this sort of issue.

<<runs like Hell away from people wanting to do one "good."

**** them.

[Celtic Rose]

Sorry about that, but I get really really worked up when I talk about this sort of issue.

<<runs like Hell away from people wanting to do one "good."

**** them.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" 

[formerlurker]

The stark fact is the Americans With Disabilities Act has done zero, zilch, nothing, for the disabled.

In fact, it's done more harm than good.

I don't agree.  The ADA is far more than employment mandates.    Public access, buildings and education are all affected by the ADA.   

A town has the board of assessors and town clerk office on the 2nd floor of town hall.  No elevator.   No ramp.   All stairs.   You are confined to a wheelchair and need to attend an assessor's meeting to discuss an abatement your applied for after you pull papers for that elected council on aging position you would like to run for from the clerk's office.   Sucks to be you.

Ditto for polling precincts -- you can't walk in?  you don't vote.   Again, "sucks" and "you" being dear friends.

Toddler with disabilities and you need daycare?        Yeah riiiiiight, good one.   Try getting that prior to ADA.   


Here is a link to the success of the program -- http://www.ada.gov/pubs/10thrpt.htm#anchor60819

My personal favorite being:

Supreme Court Declares that Unjustified Isolation Is Discrimination -- In Olmstead v. L.C., the Supreme Court ruled that the ADA's "most integrated setting appropriate" mandate required States to avoid undue institutionalization of people with disabilities. As urged by the Department in its amicus brief, the Court upheld the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that Georgia may have violated the ADA by confining two individuals with mental disabilities in an institution rather than providing services through a community-based program as recommended by the State's treating professionals. In finding that unjustified isolation is a form of discrimination under the ADA, the Court pointed to the stigma of unworthiness, and the unequal access to family and social interaction, employment, education, and cultural enrichment that result from unnecessary institutionalization. According to the Court, an institutional placement is unjustified when the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer is not opposed by the individual, and the placement can be accomplished without fundamentally altering the State's program. In applying the fundamental alteration defense, courts are to consider not only the expense of providing community-based care to the plaintiffs in a particular case, but also the "need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with diverse disabilities" and "the States' obligation to administer services with an even hand."

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/10thrpt.htm#anchor60819

The ADA protects adults with severe disabilities.  Period.  Without it, they would be locked up in institutions like the good old days...



As for Dr. Ron's offspring:

Paul said he advocates local governments to decide whether disabled individuals deserve rights.

WTF does that even mean?   

[formerlurker]

Excuse me sir, but Rand Paul doesn't think you should be granted access with your dog under the protection of the ADA.   You are going to have to leave now. 

[franksolich]

Oh, but you're talking the "accommodations" part of it.

I'm talking the "employment" part of it.

Two different things.

[formerlurker]

Oh, but you're talking the "accommodations" part of it.

I'm talking the "employment" part of it.

Two different things.

The ADA is the ADA.  Employment being a small part of it.

[franksolich]

The ADA is the ADA.  Employment being a small part of it.

A small part that has driven many employable people out of the job market and onto the dole.

[formerlurker]

A small part that has driven many employable people out of the job market and onto the dole.

I really haven't seen that.  Do you have a link to any data on that?

[formerlurker]

Individuals with disabilities who were not employed in the years following the ADA's passage were more likely than their pre-ADA counterparts to give educational participation as the reason for their employment status in states in which the ADA was the greatest innovation. Jolls concludes by emphasizing the value of further study, with better education data, of the relationship between the ADA's enactment and disabled educational participation.

http://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html

The education plus of ADA.

Note:  This finding not considered in CATO's paper.

[NHSparky]

The ADA is the ADA.  Employment being a small part of it.

Tell that to the person who can't get a job because prospective employers are scared to death of litigation.

Oh, and try telling homeowners in Santa Monica, CA that PRIVATE HOMES needed handicapped ramps in order to be ADA compliant.  Read "Disabling America" by Greg Perry.

And a few more choice examples for you:

http://www.akdart.com/abu9.html

[Skul]

Well, if there's anybody qualified to speak about ADA, it would be Franksolich.
I might be half-blind, half-deaf and half-assed, but, he knows far more than I.
For the most, I see basic conservatives say "it would be nice if", and socialist liberals say "I demand you".
I can no more demand that movie places only charge me half price, than coach can walk into a music store and demand CD's for free.
ADA serves a purpose. It's not perfect.  It's abused to no end.

[formerlurker]

Tell that to the person who can't get a job because prospective employers are scared to death of litigation.

Oh, and try telling homeowners in Santa Monica, CA that PRIVATE HOMES needed handicapped ramps in order to be ADA compliant.  Read "Disabling America" by Greg Perry.

And a few more choice examples for you:

http://www.akdart.com/abu9.html

For every law and human service program intended for those significantly and/or severely impacted by cognitive and physical disabilities, there are those who take extreme advantage.

The criteria as to who meets the definition of disabled needs to be changed.   

[formerlurker]

Well, if there's anybody qualified to speak about ADA, it would be Franksolich.
I might be half-blind, half-deaf and half-assed, but, he knows far more than I.
For the most, I see basic conservatives say "it would be nice if", and socialist liberals say "I demand you".
I can no more demand that movie places only charge me half price, than coach can walk into a music store and demand CD's for free.
ADA serves a purpose. It's not perfect.  It's abused to no end.

This is my playground.   I advocate for those who are the most fragile of our population.  The ones for which these laws and services were originally intended.  The ones whose services get immediately cut first when states take out the red pen -- their very lifeline of support reduced or eliminated because of the POS misfits such as those who leach off humanity at the DU fancy themselves in the same category, and suck the system dry. 

How the hell they sleep at night I will never know. 

[franksolich]

This is my playground.   I advocate for those who are the most fragile of our population.  The ones for which these laws and services were originally intended.  The ones whose services get immediately cut first when states take out the red pen -- their very lifeline of support reduced or eliminated because of the POS misfits such as those who leach off humanity at the DU fancy themselves in the same category, and suck the system dry. 

How the hell they sleep at night I will never know.

I'm not in the mood to argue tonight, but at least on this, we agree.

There's plenty of lesser-disabled who milk the system for all they can get, at the "cost" of depriving the greater-disabled.

Court cases involving employment, for example, have usually been the nature of "I'm allergic to my boss's perfume" or "I break out in hives when customers yell at me," or a touch of arthritis or diabetes or occasional urinary problems, those sorts of things.

I myself am not familiar with any court case involving employment of the blind, the deaf, the mute, and perhaps only a couple involving employment of the wheelchaired.

[Skul]

>snip<ADA serves a purpose. It's not perfect.  It's abused to no end.

Thus, that statement.

[seahorse513]

I agree with Former Lurker and Franksolitch, the meaning of disability needs to be redefined.
AdHD, Add, Diabetes, depression,, those in my mind are not"disabilities". They can be fixed with medicine and counseling.

People have come up to me and said, "i am surprised you work, because of your lack of height, you could claim disability..."

Like hell I would...too proud for 1
and 2 I would rather have people who have real disabilities get the help and they need to get by day to day....

[Skul]

I agree with Former Lurker and Franksolitch, the meaning of disability needs to be redefined.
AdHD, Add, Diabetes, depression,, those in my mind are not"disabilities". They can be fixed with medicine and counseling.

People have come up to me and said, "i am surprised you work, because of your lack of height, you could claim disability..."

Like hell I would...too proud for 1
and 2 I would rather have people who have real disabilities get the help and they need to get by day to day....

Walks like a conservative, talks like a conservative.
Kinda thinks like one, too.
H5

[MoshMasterD]

ADA NEEDS to be reformed.  There is more pork than useful requirements.  Best example is Penn And Teller's Bullshit episode on the subject.  Hell, even the disabled hate the ADA.  There were a lot of well profited facilities that had to close its doors because they have no money to spend on accommodations to meet ADA standards.  Best example is Memphis' Mid South Coliseum.

[franksolich]

ADA NEEDS to be reformed.  There is more pork than useful requirements.  Best example is Penn And Teller's Bullshit episode on the subject.  Hell, even the disabled hate the ADA.  There were a lot of well profited facilities that had to close its doors because they have no money to spend on accommodations to meet ADA standards.  Best example is Memphis' Mid South Coliseum.

I don't have any problems with the "special accommodations" part when it comes to public access and use, although such really needs to be economically rational.  It'd be stupid, for example, for a restaurant to have chairs for those weighing 500+ pounds, when the gigantic primitive's likely to go there maybe once.

The likelihood of use has to be considered along with the expense, and in many cases, it's not economically rational to demand such things.  Even fully-abled people who are too short or too tall are "denied" the use of things commonly available to average-altituded people.

But there was a case here in Nebraska--I don't recall how it was settled--where a deaf woman sued McDonald's because she couldn't use their drive-thru to order, because she couldn't hear the loudspeaker.

Which is utter nonsense.  I am deaf; I use drive-thrus all the time.  I pull up to the loudspeaker, I mention that I'm deaf and can't hear, and give my order.  Then I repeat it one more time; that I can't hear, and give my order.  When I see the little electronic numbers indicate "$5.29, thank you," I know the message's been received, and coast on up to get what I ordered.

I however have considerable problems with that because I might demand "special accommodations" to compensate for being deaf, I am considered a potential, even likely, liability by prospective employers, and so automatically cut out from even being interviewed.

conservativecave once had a member here, freedumb2003, who worked in high-level management for some company out in California.  He was privy to all inter-managerial policies and communications; the confidential stuff.  He actually quoted to me from memos that explicitly said that anyone who might be protected by ADA was not to be interviewed if possible, and if hired, hired only on a part-time or temporary or contract basis.

I myself have never demanded "special accommodations" excepting in one sort of situation--and I was "demanding" (and getting) that long before ADA came into being.  When being interviewed for a job, I asked that the interview be held in a sparsely-furnished or unoccupied office, or some other empty space.

Now, I've had managerial and supervisory positions before (alas all but one of them pre-ADA), and one might wonder about certain things--like, what about use of a telephone?  After all, one needs a telephone in these sorts of jobs.

Well, I managed.  I guess I'm just super-creative in problem-solving.

[AprilRazz]

Have a friend that is being sued by a person that makes a living (well apart from is SS) on filing lawsuits against businesses that are not compliant. He runs an auto repair shop that works exclusively on BMW's (or the like, no domestics). He is being sued because his shop is not 100% compliant in the employee only areas. But this guy claims that he was not allowed to access all areas of the shop in his wheelchair. Areas that he was not allowed in. The funny part is he drove a beat to hell chevy.