• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

VA Secretary Doug Collins says

"If Veterans want to attempt to change their sex, they can do so on their own dime."
 
First, I should acknowledge it's a bit of a trick question. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), "reasonable accommodation" has a specific legal meaning. Broadly, a reasonable accommodation enables a disabled employee to perform all of their job functions, without imposing significant additional costs on the employer.
arthwollipot said:
If you're giving someone "reasonable accommodations", is that treating them the same as other candidates who do not require those accommodations?
Click to expand...
No.
arthwollipot said:
What if these "reasonable accommodations" costs your company more? What if it's a lot more?
Click to expand...
Then they're not reasonable under the ADA, and the blind candidate is disqualified.
arthwollipot said:
What if not only is it a lot more, but the disabled candidate is more qualified to the position?
Click to expand...
The ADA doesn't care about how qualified a person is. It only cares about whether they can do their entire job without imposing significant additional costs on the employer.

Of course an employer can always voluntarily make expensive accommodations for someone who has a unique skill set that is valuable to the business.
arthwollipot said:
Is the additional cost of these "reasonable accommodations" adequate reason to hire the non-disabled person over the disabled person?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, yes. But to be clear: Small costs, like ergonomic seating or moving the person to a quieter part of the office (assuming such a thing exists in that workplace) are not disqualifying. Large costs are. "Accommodating" the person by letting them do only a part of their job, or offloading some of their duties to other employees, are also disqualifying.
arthwollipot said:
If not, you have DEI to thank for that.
Click to expand...
No. The ADA and its protections for disabled people predates by decades the modern DEI paradigm and associated programs. The ADA strikes a good balance between business needs, and giving disabled people a fair chance in the job market. It provides legal protection against disabled people being disqualified simply for being disabled.

There's plenty of jobs a blind person can do. The ADA prohibits you from denying employment in such jobs just because you don't like blind people. On the other hand, the ADA allows you to disqualify a blind candidate if their blindness means they can't do the job, or if it would cost the employer substantially to enable them to do the job.

The ADA actually makes sense, and does good in the world.

---

ETA: And while you might be momentarily fooled by the dictionary definiton of "diversity", DEI isn't about disabled people in the workplace. The ADA already exists, and works quite well for that purpose. The diversity in DEI is racial and gender diversity. It's affirmative action and quotas all over again. So taking race and gender out of the equation changes the equation to "not DEI".

Incidentally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 has also been around for a long time. It provides legal protection against discrimination in hiring on the basis of race, gender, and a handful of other characteristics. If a minority person gets hired in spite of the prejudices of the employer, they have the EEOA to thank for that, not DEI.

DEI programs in the workplace presume bigotry, and seek to re-educate bigots whether they exist or not.
 
Last edited:
Armitage72 said:
I suddenly remembered an interview I saw on a news program some time in the late 80s or early 90s.
The guy being interviewed was practically a walking pile of cliches. Long scraggly hair, scruffy beard, trucker cap, white tank top, standing in front of his run-down trailer. He was complaining about how he couldn't get a good job because companies would only hire minorities because they were afraid of getting sued for discrimination.
Same song, new verse. The only difference now is there's a convenient three letter word to focus on in the lyrics.
"It's not my fault I can't get a job. It's "their" fault for taking the jobs."
Click to expand...
For the bottom half of white males looking for work in the 80's or 90's applying to woke companies this was true to be sure in my opinion. I worked for American Express as a temp in the 90's and as I recall, they mainly hired minorities for the position of financial advisor. 80% of them washed out. I don't remember too well. That was for the more woke companies. More conservative ones were finding ways to exclude minorities on the bottom end. The prime example being personality tests. What I see today with DEI companies is that it is slow going due to lack of qualified DEI candidates. I believe my company has a hiring freeze right now as well-possibly to address this problem. That being said, although I am a white male, I would consider myself to have a disability as well as being LBGTQ
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
VA to phase out treatment for gender dysphoria

President Trump’s Defending Women EO states, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” VA is adjusting its policies to fully comply with the EO.

Click to expand...
Stupid. The VA should not stop helping out veterans who suffer from this odd condition where by they feel they were born and live in the wrong body. Im sure lots of therapy and drugs can help deal with this mental disorder. Veterans have earned our help and we should not abandon them.
 
theprestige said:
First, I should acknowledge it's a bit of a trick question. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), "reasonable accommodation" has a specific legal meaning. Broadly, a reasonable accommodation enables a disabled employee to perform all of their job functions, without imposing significant additional costs on the employer.

No.

Then they're not reasonable under the ADA, and the blind candidate is disqualified.

The ADA doesn't care about how qualified a person is. It only cares about whether they can do their entire job without imposing significant additional costs on the employer.

Of course an employer can always voluntarily make expensive accommodations for someone who has a unique skill set that is valuable to the business.

Absolutely, yes. But to be clear: Small costs, like ergonomic seating or moving the person to a quieter part of the office (assuming such a thing exists in that workplace) are not disqualifying. Large costs are. "Accommodating" the person by letting them do only a part of their job, or offloading some of their duties to other employees, are also disqualifying.

No. The ADA and its protections for disabled people predates by decades the modern DEI paradigm and associated programs. The ADA strikes a good balance between business needs, and giving disabled people a fair chance in the job market. It provides legal protection against disabled people being disqualified simply for being disabled.

There's plenty of jobs a blind person can do. The ADA prohibits you from denying employment in such jobs just because you don't like blind people. On the other hand, the ADA allows you to disqualify a blind candidate if their blindness means they can't do the job, or if it would cost the employer substantially to enable them to do the job.

The ADA actually makes sense, and does good in the world.
Click to expand...


Here are some examples of reasonable accommodations that get made by businesses regularly:
  • Providing a text-to-speech application and a braille keyboard for blind of low-vision employees
  • Providing speech-to-text subtitles in videos and meetings that deaf or hearing impaired staff access
  • Providing adjustable height desks with extra floor space for wheel-chair users, and sufficient room for canes, crutches, or walkers for those with mobility issues
  • Allowing full time telework for employees with disabilities that make commuting or being in the office a barrier


Here are some examples of accommodations that most modern buildings make as a matter of course:
  • Wheelchair accessible bathrooms, tables, and doorways
  • Braille on signage
  • Ramps to entry doors
  • Elevators

Here are some examples of accommodations that would not be considered reasonable:
  • Retrofitting an older building to widen doorways for wheelchair access or install elevators
  • Hiring a signer to side-by-side a hearing impaired person
  • Altering the processes for developing and producing visual signage or advertising so a sight-impaired person can do a sight-dependent role
  • Revising the job role for a position with lifting or reaching requirements and shifting those responsibilities to someone else

And sometimes, it's on the disabled person to adapt. While I generally don't consider myself disabled, I do actually qualify as such from my employer's standpoint, because I'm epileptic. They don't need to make any changes at all for me. But I talk to my colleagues, and in the event there's a fire alarm, I've got stair-buddies who will keep an eye on me while I plug my ears and squint. And my immediate team has very kindly accommodated me by choosing off-site holiday party venues that don't include a bunch of flashing christmas lights .
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you're not all of those letters simultaneously. Given that you're male, I'm going to speculate that you're at least not L ;)
Click to expand...
I dunno.

58d4e7fa96390a88c5749920a04abd5814ac9bc45d0f4bad89d8a6601debecab_1.jpg
 
Army had me down as gay, socialist, narc in my permanent record. This cause homocidal fury towards me in the ranks but upper ranks sometimes found it funny
 
arthwollipot said:
"Segregation" is another antonym of "Inclusion", by the way.

Click to expand...
Trump rescinded an executive order which has since been entirely covered by actual civil rights law. Law is way better than executive order, just in case you're not clear on that.

There are plenty of things that Trump should be criticized for. "OMG racial segregation!!111" isn't one of those - it's not real. If you (aggregate and impersonal) have to egregiously mischaracterize what's happening in order to disseminate disinformation, you (aggregate and impersonal) really don't have a leg to stand on.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Trump rescinded an executive order which has since been entirely covered by actual civil rights law. Law is way better than executive order, just in case you're not clear on that.

There are plenty of things that Trump should be criticized for. "OMG racial segregation!!111" isn't one of those - it's not real. If you (aggregate and impersonal) have to egregiously mischaracterize what's happening in order to disseminate disinformation, you (aggregate and impersonal) really don't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
So you want us to make believe this happened in a political vacuum?

Its part of a trend, and you know it.
 
So our fearless leader has just cancelled a tree planting initiative, calling it too "woke." The program is aimed at increasing the number of trees in urban neighborhoods where there are not now enough trees. Certain neighborhoods have fewer trees. We can go on and on about the reason for this, but one need not. It's just an observable fact that certain neighborhoods have fewer trees, and in the past record-hot summer, deaths in those neighborhoods were disproportionate. If one wished to one might notice that the preponderance of such neighborhoods is traditionally black, and if one wished one might think (ugh, not that!) about why that is. But let's not. You actually don't need to!

If one simply said "we need to plant more trees where there are not enough trees, so as to reduce the likelihood of death from heat" one would not need to characterize the neighborhoods or their inhabitants. All you'd need to do is travel around a city and count the trees. The fact that the beneficiaries of such a program might turn out to be disproportionately black may be historic, but otherwise the program aims simply at putting trees where trees aren't now. According to the wisdom of some who have posted here, this would seem to be exactly, precisely the kind of program that is definitionally the opposite of "woke." Equality not "equity." And yet, according to Trump, that's exactly what it is.

I can only conclude that Trump is a hypocritical racist, who is cancelling a program meant to save lives, because it happens to save the wrong lives.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom