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

Thu Aug 29 19:57:39 UTC 2013

Mike:

I believe you understood my point correctly, and I thank you for your
thoughtful response.

Although I agree with your point that something is better than nothing, I
still believe the efforts of the government, at all levels, to be a charade.
It is all form and no substance.

Myself, I see my approach as neither pessimistic nor cynical.  I simply
believe it is a spade and I call it a spade.

Again, I appreciate your thoughtful response.

Dan McBride

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Fry
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:18 AM
To: Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and
disabledvets?

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%40sbcglob
> al.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%40roadru
> nner.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%40sbcglob
> al.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%40gmai
> l.com
>
_______________________________________________
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