[blindlaw] blindlaw Digest, Vol 111, Issue 25
Zachariah M
zmayfarth23 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 30 12:22:36 UTC 2013
As a former Department of the Army Contractor, I can tell you all that
there are some federal contracts that require a percentage of workers to be
workers with disabilities. If you would like more information please free
to contact me off list.
Sent from a mobile phone, please excuse brevity, spelling and grammar.
On Aug 30, 2013 7:02 AM, <blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Send blindlaw mailing list submissions to
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of blindlaw digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and
> disabledvets?
> (Tim Elder)
> 2. Re: A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand
> disabledvets?
> (Ross Doerr)
> 3. Re: A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and
> disabledvets?
> (Daniel McBride)
> 4. Re: A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand
> disabledvets?
> (Daniel McBride)
> 5. Re: A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and disabledvets?
> (Michael Fry)
> 6. accessibility of USAJobs (Deepa Goraya)
> 7. Re: A 7% solution for disabledjob seekersand
> disabledvets?
> (Ross Doerr)
> 8. Re: A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and
> disabledvets?
> (Daniel McBride)
> 9. Re: accessibility of USAJobs (Ronza Othman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:08:03 -0400
> From: "Tim Elder" <tim at timeldermusic.com>
> To: "'Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and
> disabledvets?
> Message-ID: <01b401cea4b8$cc8be120$65a3a360$@timeldermusic.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:12:18 -0400
> From: "Ross Doerr" <rumpole at roadrunner.com>
> To: <tim at timeldermusic.com>, "'Blind Law Mailing List'"
> <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand
> disabledvets?
> Message-ID: <1D6D5EC96A924DBEA31AE95EA8836668 at mycomputer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Where could I find a legislative record of that attempt? Do you happen to
> know?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:08 AM
> To: 'Blind Law Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand
> 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/rumpole%40roadrunner.c
> om
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:31:02 -0500
> From: "Daniel McBride" <dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net>
> To: <tim at timeldermusic.com>, "'Blind Law Mailing List'"
> <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and
> disabledvets?
> Message-ID: <009b01cea4c4$63f6ff80$2be4fe80$@sbcglobal.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:41:19 -0500
> From: "Daniel McBride" <dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net>
> To: "'Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand
> disabledvets?
> Message-ID: <00a001cea4c5$d35245a0$79f6d0e0$@sbcglobal.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Ross:
>
> As this is a regulation promulgated by the Department of Labor, I do not
> believe there would be a "legislative" history. In the information
> available from the link you posted, the last legislative action mentioned
> was the amendment to the American With Disabilities Act of 2008.
>
> Dan McBride
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross
> Doerr
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:12 AM
> To: tim at timeldermusic.com; 'Blind Law Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand
> disabledvets?
>
> Where could I find a legislative record of that attempt? Do you happen to
> know?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:08 AM
> To: 'Blind Law Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand
> 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/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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:18:28 -0400
> From: Michael Fry <mikefry79 at gmail.com>
> To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and
> disabledvets?
> Message-ID:
> <CAKtsbar3n=
> ipLXLxb3iOZS-fYupRdJimWYdvAEFFqXG4uvGN6A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 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
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:02:54 -0400
> From: Deepa Goraya <deepa.goraya at gmail.com>
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [blindlaw] accessibility of USAJobs
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAKs_uDSRsy2fC6eyaXTrTj2e_GrxoObTE0+XpqY4g2_PefWxKg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hello colleagues,
>
> I am a visiting attorney at the Washington Lawyers' Committee and we
> are interested in looking at the accessibility of USAJobs with screen
> readers. Have any of you recently encountered accessibility issues on
> the site, www.usajobs.gov? Specifically, anything to do with saved job
> searches, uploading documents, building a resume, searching for
> specific job announcements, or anything to do with applying to jobs.
> Please let me know. If you'd like to email me individually, please
> email me at deepa.goraya at gmail.com.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Deepa Goraya
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:11:15 -0400
> From: "Ross Doerr" <rumpole at roadrunner.com>
> To: "'Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabledjob seekersand
> disabledvets?
> Message-ID: <0F29282A303C437987D26C28CCE9809B at mycomputer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> So no office similar to Legislative Services where one would normally go to
> find legislative history or rulemaking history would have any record of who
> proposed it and who opposed it.
> Ah, I see, said the blind man.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Daniel
> McBride
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:41 AM
> To: 'Blind Law Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabledjob seekersand
> disabledvets?
>
> Ross:
>
> As this is a regulation promulgated by the Department of Labor, I do not
> believe there would be a "legislative" history. In the information
> available from the link you posted, the last legislative action mentioned
> was the amendment to the American With Disabilities Act of 2008.
>
> Dan McBride
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ross
> Doerr
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:12 AM
> To: tim at timeldermusic.com; 'Blind Law Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand
> disabledvets?
>
> Where could I find a legislative record of that attempt? Do you happen to
> know?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tim Elder
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:08 AM
> To: 'Blind Law Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekersand
> 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/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/rumpole%40roadrunner.c
> om
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:57:39 -0500
> From: "Daniel McBride" <dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net>
> To: "'Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A 7% solution for disabled job seekers and
> disabledvets?
> Message-ID: <01bc01cea4f2$04d4d120$0e7e7360$@sbcglobal.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:15:02 -0400
> From: "Ronza Othman" <rothmanjd at gmail.com>
> To: "'Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] accessibility of USAJobs
> Message-ID: <001e01cea572$2c8a29b0$859e7d10$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Deepa,
>
> The only challenge I have with the site is the dynamic dropdown boxes.
> Jaws
> doesn't seem to like them, and it takes a long time to navigate them.
> Specifically, when you have to select a set of job search criteria, such as
> the agency. Jaws tends to freeze there, and then I can't select a
> sub-agency. I ended up upgrading my RAM and that resolved the problem
> somewhat. I wonder if the site would be more accessible if they changed
> this from a series of dependent dropdown boxes to another method.
>
> The other challenge involves searching for positions and the list of job
> series. There are no headings on the page, and you can't easily skip over
> all of those checkboxes.
>
> Overall, I think USAJobs is a lot better than it used to be.
>
> Thanks,
> Ronza
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Deepa
> Goraya
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:03 PM
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [blindlaw] accessibility of USAJobs
>
> Hello colleagues,
>
> I am a visiting attorney at the Washington Lawyers' Committee and we are
> interested in looking at the accessibility of USAJobs with screen readers.
> Have any of you recently encountered accessibility issues on the site,
> www.usajobs.gov? Specifically, anything to do with saved job searches,
> uploading documents, building a resume, searching for specific job
> announcements, or anything to do with applying to jobs.
> Please let me know. If you'd like to email me individually, please email me
> at deepa.goraya at gmail.com.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Deepa Goraya
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/rothmanjd%40gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of blindlaw Digest, Vol 111, Issue 25
> *****************************************
>
More information about the BlindLaw
mailing list