[blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets?

Thu Aug 29 16:18:28 UTC 2013

Dan, I like the way you think.  In this thread you pointed to a 100%
disabled vet now working as a cop and a hypothetical person missing their
pinky toe being consider disabled (which was an LOL moment for
me).  Classifying more people as disabled dilutes the meaning of the word
disability.  A person with dyslexia or mild autism is not disabled in the
same way as a legally blind person.  Even many amputees aren't disabled
because when they use their modern prosthetics they can do nearly
anything.  I don't know whether it is good for the blind community to have
so many people self-identifying as disabled.  On one hand, if society sets
aside resources for disabled people, more claimants means that truly
disabled people get less, which isn't fair.  On the other hand, perhaps
more people identifying as disabled makes society's set aside bigger and
brings more attention to issues unique to truly disabled people.

As was said, the 7% target is just a goal.  The federal government
is making a sort of weak effort to hire disabled people.  Worse though, is
that truly disabled people are competing against people with only nominal
disabilities for these limited set aside job opportunities.  Education and
attitude being held constant, there is no way that a quadriplegic or a
blind person could out compete someone without a toe, dyslexic, or who has
ADD for a job opening.   That concept, goes to the heart of what I think it
means to be truly disabled.

I think the point of pointing to the working cop who somehow is 100%
disabled or the person without a toe is that these people allow
the employer to say "look were hiring disabled people" when really
the employer hasn't hired a truly disabled person.  If that wasn't your
point, sorry for putting words in your mouth.  Nevertheless, it's a good
point albeit somewhat cynical and pessimistic.

On that point, I want to make a note to myself.  It's important to remember
that how a person perceives a situation is actually reality for that
person.  So, if I choose to perceive this situation pessimistically,
it really only hurts me.  So, I choose to look on the bright side.  And
there is a bright side.  A 7% goal is better than nothing or complete
indifference.  And, good things happen after all.  Keep faith, hope, and
love, and if possible temperance, fortitude, justice, and prudence, but
most importantly the first three.  It'll be okay.

Mike

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Daniel McBride <dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> Can you imagine that?  It is all form and no substance.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:08 AM
> To: 'Blind Law Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and
> disabledvets?
>
> There was an attempt to get a sub-goal for people with more serious
> disabilities into the regulation, but the effort was unsuccessful.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Doerr [mailto:rumpole at roadrunner.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:36 PM
> To: 'Blind Law Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and
> disabledvets?
>
> Thanks Dan. I couldn't imagine  any mandate of job s for the disab led But
> wanted to post the link and ask for feedback just in case someone on the
> list was heavily involved with the rule and how the disabled nonveteran
> could benefit from it.
> Ross
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel
> McBride
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:56 AM
> To: 'Blind Law Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and
> disabledvets?
>
> Ross:
>
> My reading of the link you posted is not that there will be a 7%
> requirement.  The information refers to a "utilization goal", as opposed to
> a utilization mandate.  These regs are promulgated under a near 50 year old
> executive order.
>
> In that 50 years little has been done.  I would not bet the farm that their
> "goals" will be met now.  They will, however, be required to file reports
> explaining why their goals were not met.
>
> Further, this current reg appears to apply specifically to construction
> contracts and sub contracts.  As a 58 year old attorney who practiced
> criminal defense law for 30 years, and with absolutely no experience in
> building roads and bridges, I do not see how this will benefit me.  I am
> not
> sure how it would benefit any others.
>
> I am certain that it could very well help a veteran who has one toe missing
> and experience operating a jackhammer.  Just my two cents worth.
>
> Daniel McBride
> Fort Worth, Texas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross
> Doerr
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:13 AM
> To: 'Blind Law Mailing List'
> Subject: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabled
> vets?
>
> IF I read this correctly then there will soon be a 7% requirement for
> contractors etc to hire documented workers with a disability.
> http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20131578.htm
> Is anyone on this list involved with this initiative who can clarify the
> new
> rules?
> I'm ready to start work in the morning, how about you?
> Ross
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunner.c
> om
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com
>