Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mandatory hiring of disabled workers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Obviously typing from my cell phone has created some spelling and auto correct issues. Haha.
    DFW TEXAS- T-10 since March 20th, 1994

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by offroaderswife View Post
      I was shocked, while working for the 4th largest bank in the world, to be called in quarterly as a leadership team and handed out our individual hiring statistics. It read like a chart with how many of each "diverse" candidate that you have interviewed verses how many you hired. To spare you the long story, we were micro managed in our hiring efforts to "improve" our hiring if diverse candidates. No one would come right out and say "your not hiring enough asian males" or what not but we had to start getting approval for our hires and our list of "need to improve candidates" was considered in our approval for the hire. They called in an interview "debrief". I filled in for my boss while she was on maternity leave. During the upper management meeting that attended in regard to hiring a new supervisor it was strongly mentioned 3 times in one hour that we only have one African American supervisor. 4 out of 5 managers ran right out and started prepping African American candidates for an interview. It was an effort to meet a quota rather than an effort to hire the right person for the job regardless of race. Our recruiter who was in charge of the "list" filed a formal complaint and left the company because if the way it was handled. People were put in to sales positions because we didn't have enough female sales consultants, enough African American leaders, enough male customer service reps. We began shuffling people based on quotas rather than who was the best competitive advantage for the job. It was disappointing and created a retention issue that we generated another report for. People started disliking their jobs because it wasn't the right fit or they were not qualified. If we become a quota or target number then we are going to eventually just create another problem for employers. I want to be hired because I am qualified and stood out as a strong candidate, not because I was just an ok candidate but I fit in to a 7% hiring quota. I would rather see companies provide diversiting training that helps them see that we are not a race or a disability, but hard working and capable people.
      What you describe is a failure to recruit and train qualified applicants. Again, the LAW doesn't require anyone to hire an unqualified applicant. Don't confuse corporate goals that may have other motivations (such as corporate image) with a legal obligation.
      Foolish

      "We have met the enemy and he is us."-POGO.

      "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."~Edgar Allan Poe

      "Dream big, you might never wake up!"- Snoop Dogg

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by chick View Post
        Where does it say that potential hires need not be qualified nor be willing to do the job? Any employer with such irresponsible and thoughtless hiring practices is not likely to care about his company and probably won't be around long.
        So you're saying that the employers are just looking for the best person for the job. If so, why do we need this policy? Will requiring X number of people with disabilities suddenly make them much more aware of people's qualifications?
        I think any changes in hiring practices that come out of a policy like this are inevitably the result of the employer making hiring decisions based on WHAT someone is instead of who they are. If not, it wouldn't change anything.


        Originally posted by SCIfor55yrs. View Post
        I would hate to bring back those days of hiring people in order to have names to put on a government report. No one benefits from being a token hire.
        I agree. But perhaps I just don't feel inherently discriminated against (except by people who build stairs and narrow doors).

        When I was applying to professional school, I had the option of listing myself as "disadvantaged". The definition was open to wide interpretation, and I am sure no one would have questioned it if I put "yes" on my application. But I didn't, and don't particularly feel disadvantaged.

        As far as I can see it, the only change that being "disabled" or "disadvantaged" would make are at the margins. So you have someone who you don't want to hire. You don't think they are capable of doing the job, or you think someone else would be better at it, but because they fit a mandated or recommended "category" you do it to make your numbers look better.

        I don't want that job, and the way I look at it, if the school thought I couldn't hack it, and they only wanted me to boost the number of "disadvantaged" students they admitted, then I'm cool with that. They admit people for a living, they've got a much better idea than me if I can hack it or not. I guess they must have made their quota, because I got admitted despite not being "disadvantaged".

        From an economic perspective, you do not want this kind of hiring. The best person for the job should get it period. That is the most efficient way to do things. Otherwise you end up with people who are relatively less capable in jobs which do not suit them, and it ends up costing the economy as a whole.


        The only way a policy like this is effective is if there is significant discrimination against the group we are trying to employ. This was certainly the case in affirmative action in 1961 when around my neck of the woods, blacks couldn't sit in white theaters or drink from white water fountains, etc. In that case you could clearly say that in many cases, the best person for the job was being passed over because of his race. Even then, I think the benefits of that policy were much less than most people expected. I can't really see the same situation for people with disabilities. When was the last time they didn't let you into the movie theater or seat you (okay, let you in) at a restaurant?

        Do we really want to see 7% of construction workers building bridges and highways in wheelchairs?

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Foolish Old View Post
          What you describe is a failure to recruit and train qualified applicants. Again, the LAW doesn't require anyone to hire an unqualified applicant. Don't confuse corporate goals that may have other motivations (such as corporate image) with a legal obligation.
          I don't think confusing legal obligations or corporate goals is really an issue. Regardless, I think most people would like to see the MOST QUALIFIED applicant get the jobs regardless of how they affect statistics.

          To me it doesn't matter if you're making stupid decisions because of a law or a suggestion or a policy or because the voices in your head tell you to do it. Regardless, it's bad for business, bad for the economy and ultimately bad for ALL of us.

          Comment


            #20
            The problems of workplace discrimination and tokenism are complex. IMO hiring is a small part of the problem. There are many parallels with the struggle of female employees. Of those people with disabilities,few get promoted. Back in the old days, we called this the "chrome ceiling" which is analogous to the glass ceiling. Of course, this affects income levels as well. It is sad because as I found, the higher one gets up the career ladder, the physical demands of work diminish. In my administrative role I had a car and driver at my disposal, never touched a typewriter, could have lunch delivered to my office, could have an aide to travel with me, always flew first class, etc. The hours were long and the mental stress was there, but with the physical demands minimized they were manageable. Moreover, the high level salary frees you up from worrying what will be covered by insurance or how you are going to buy that next vehicle. For even most employed people with a disability, that kind of opportunity is close to fantasy. How do you eliminate that kind of discrimination? In the end, even when people are hired because of their entry level skills and do a great job, they remain little more than tokens.
            You will find a guide to preserving shoulder function @
            http://www.rstce.pitt.edu/RSTCE_Reso...imb_Injury.pdf

            See my personal webpage @
            http://cccforum55.freehostia.com/

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by funklab View Post
              I don't think confusing legal obligations or corporate goals is really an issue. Regardless, I think most people would like to see the MOST QUALIFIED applicant get the jobs regardless of how they affect statistics.

              To me it doesn't matter if you're making stupid decisions because of a law or a suggestion or a policy or because the voices in your head tell you to do it. Regardless, it's bad for business, bad for the economy and ultimately bad for ALL of us.
              So, your argument is that stupid decisions are stupid? Sounds right!

              However, the thread is specifically about the hiring requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA doesn't compel anyone to make stupid decisions. It does require employers to provide equal opportunity to all qualified applicants.
              Foolish

              "We have met the enemy and he is us."-POGO.

              "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."~Edgar Allan Poe

              "Dream big, you might never wake up!"- Snoop Dogg

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Foolish Old View Post
                So, your argument is that stupid decisions are stupid? Sounds right!

                However, the thread is specifically about the hiring requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA doesn't compel anyone to make stupid decisions. It does require employers to provide equal opportunity to all qualified applicants.
                I guess I didn't clearly define my argument. Yes stupid decisions are stupid, I think everyone agrees on that one.

                What I meant was "a new rule requiring federal contractors to have a target of 7% of their workers be disabled" is a stupid decision.

                I wasn't talking about the ADA. I think equal opportunity to all qualified applicants is great. Requiring a certain percentage of people to be hired from a particular category is the opposite of equal opportunity.
                Last edited by funklab; 29 Feb 2012, 5:30 PM.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by funklab View Post
                  I guess I didn't clearly define my argument. Yes stupid decisions are stupid, I think everyone agrees on that one.

                  What I meant was "a new rule requiring federal contractors to have a target of 7% of their workers be disabled" is a stupid decision.

                  I wasn't talking about the ADA. I think equal opportunity to all qualified applicants is great. Requiring a certain percentage of people to be hired from a particular category is the opposite of equal opportunity.
                  This IS the ADA. The 7% goal is a measure of progress towards compliance. As I stated earlier, this is the same approach that successfully increased the employment opportunities for other minorities. The full implementation of the ADA is long overdue. Employers have had decades to increase the opportunities for people with disabilities. They just didn't get it done. It's just the same as requirements to build ramps and curb cuts. Most municipalities and businesses didn't even start to get to work removing barriers until noncompliance became more costly than leaving barriers in place. As I said earlier, it's too LITTLE enforcement that is what's wrong with anti-discrimination laws.
                  Foolish

                  "We have met the enemy and he is us."-POGO.

                  "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."~Edgar Allan Poe

                  "Dream big, you might never wake up!"- Snoop Dogg

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Foolish Old View Post
                    This IS the ADA. The 7% goal is a measure of progress towards compliance. As I stated earlier, this is the same approach that successfully increased the employment opportunities for other minorities. The full implementation of the ADA is long overdue. Employers have had decades to increase the opportunities for people with disabilities. They just didn't get it done. It's just the same as requirements to build ramps and curb cuts. Most municipalities and businesses didn't even start to get to work removing barriers until noncompliance became more costly than leaving barriers in place. As I said earlier, it's too LITTLE enforcement that is what's wrong with anti-discrimination laws.
                    Whoops, my bad. I was working on the assumption that
                    Originally posted by TomRL View Post
                    The Obama administration is promoting a new rule requiring federal contractors to have a target of 7% of their workers be disabled. An employer will have to certify annually what % of their workforce is disabled. Oh yes, under the ADA, employers are prohibited from asking about disabilities.
                    was an accurate statement by the original poster. That's what I get for assuming, my bad.

                    Anyways, I stand by my statement that targets like this are bad for everybody involved (regardless of why or whether they are mandated).

                    "Most municipalities and businesses didn't even start to get to work removing barriers until noncompliance became more costly than leaving barriers in place. As I said earlier, it's too LITTLE enforcement that is what's wrong with anti-discrimination laws."

                    So you feel that people are actively being discriminated against because of their disability? I just don't see that in my life. One of my close friends is in her sixties now, she had polio as a small child, and lost the use of her arms (as well as multiple other complications including breathing issues). She worked for years and years pre and post ADA. Myself I don't really see as being disadvantaged in any way for any job that I can do competently.

                    While I admit I can't know the experiences of others who are/were discriminated against for jobs, I have a hard time imagining that there is mass discrimination against people with disabilities.

                    The truth of the matter is "disabled" by definition means you can't do stuff. So there is obviously less careers and job types available to people who can't do those types of things, so their unemployment will necessarily be higher, but I don't think that equals discrimination.

                    Maybe someone can enlighten me and share some experience of discrimination against people with disabilities. I like to think I have an open mind.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Sounds like an interesting concept...7% though? I guess minor disabilities such as mentally unstable or obesity could get enough people in the door to meet that number. I do wonder though...I'd love to tour Iraq to see what that place is like...anyone think I could be a token commando with some security contractor company? Might make for some interesting $$ part-time possibilities should this actually come to law

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Andy View Post
                        Sounds like an interesting concept...7% though? I guess minor disabilities such as mentally unstable or obesity could get enough people in the door to meet that number. I do wonder though...I'd love to tour Iraq to see what that place is like...anyone think I could be a token commando with some security contractor company? Might make for some interesting $$ part-time possibilities should this actually come to law
                        Mental instability is a minor disability? Ha. Talk about tortured lives.
                        2012 SCINetUSA Clinical Trial Support Squad Member
                        Please join me and donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org and copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          I have a problem with all laws that put a % of the population the employed hsving a disability. The problem is that if you simply state that you have to employ a certain percentage with a disability as a legal requirement the person and you don't make the rewuirement that this percentage must apply to all levels of employment with in the company, the complies with the law by employing 7% of its workforce and a person with an engineering doctorate in an engineering company or an accounting doctorate might be given a job to comply with the law in an accounting company but given jobs like lift opperators and but may never have their qualifications recognised but they have a job and the ccompany is obeying the law.

                          the only wayy to stop this from happening is to make it that 7% of workers at all levels within a company have to have a disability, otherwise a company might employ you and you know that any job you can get but your educational and other qualifications wont get you any advancement you are stuck in a job with no prospects of advancement just to fulfill the requrment unless you guarantee thaat the company is advancing workers according to their educational or skills level it will be a joke.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, THERE IS NO LAW REQUIRING ANYONE TO HIRE ANYONE WITH A DISABILITY! The ADA (which is the law which the rule is trying to implement) only requires fair CONSIDERATION of qualified applicants.

                            Now then, let's talk about setting targets. Do we have a target for the number of kids we would like to graduate from high school? Do we have a target for reducing the federal budget? Do we have a target for lowering unemployment? Targets are GOALS. If you have no goal you have no direction. If you have no direction you are lost or going nowhere.

                            Don't be lost. Don't go nowhere. Set a goal. Have a direction. I'm in favor of a direction that increases employment opportunities for all qualified workers.
                            Foolish

                            "We have met the enemy and he is us."-POGO.

                            "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."~Edgar Allan Poe

                            "Dream big, you might never wake up!"- Snoop Dogg

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Foolish Old View Post
                              AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, THERE IS NO LAW REQUIRING ANYONE TO HIRE ANYONE WITH A DISABILITY! The ADA (which is the law which the rule is trying to implement) only requires fair CONSIDERATION of qualified applicants.

                              .
                              You can't have my hammer...I need it today!
                              T12-L2; Burst fracture L1: Incomplete walking with AFO's and cane since 1989

                              My goal in life is to be as good of a person my dog already thinks I am. ~Author Unknown

                              Comment


                                #30
                                I do think the problem of discrimination that the "target" is attempting to remedy is much more prevalent than the incidence of less qualified minority workers gaining by [not even] quota an unfair advantage over more qualified non–minority applicant. Sure, imposing 'quotas' on an equal playing field is problematic. But how universally equal is the playing field?

                                After all, we disabled would make colleagues and customers uncomfortable, are just too entirely high maintenance, and pose a liability/lawsuit risk. Women in the military cause just too much temptation to our Neanderthal male soldiers to commit sexual assault, and would raise the protective instincts in male soldiers that distract them from appropriate presence and prioritiation on the battlefield. And etc.
                                ------------------------------------------------------
                                Yep, I got a little behind, but I've never been good at parting with words, once I've written them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X