[nabs-l] Thoughts on the United lawsuit

[Steve Jacobson]

Joe,

In general, we are never going to get more blind people employed if we only concentrate on only those things that are done by the unemployed.  We have 
to be concerned with both.  We also have to adopt an approach, not vote on every single action or wait until the convention before we can take a vote.  
There is just too much that happens too quickly to function that way.  If too many members come to believe that too many poor decisions are made, we'll 
have a resolution to change things.

Just as with cellphones, the manufacturers of equipment are not going to do anything until they know they have a market.  In addition, many of the laws that 
have been used for some of these actions do not cover manufacturers directly.  We can make a case that an airlines falls under laws that help us because 
they are a public accommodation, and we might, if things go right, make that mean that these services have to be accessible.  We don't have the same 
legal lever on manufacturers.  It does no good to take someone to court if you will loose because you don't have a legal position.  Ideally, if we had a legal 
position to use, the manufacturer would be a better place to go with a lawsuit, but from my limited understanding of the law, the case is far less there than 
where we might be able to use public accommodation as a lever.  Anyway, I understand that we may not disagree all that much, but I think there is a 
tendency to think that nothing has been thought through, or as you said in your original note, that actions are taken at random.  

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 21:49:42 -0400, Joe Orozco wrote:

>Steve,

>I always respect your thoughtful responses, even when we disagree.  There's
>not much to debate here since the action has already been carried out, and
>the fact is that the lawsuit will help more than hurt us.

>That being the case, I did not ask anyone in power for the logic behind
>their approach.  My sense is that I would not have gotten an answer, not
>when they didn't bother asking for the membership's opinion as to whether or
>not this specific action should have been taken in the first place.  Yes, I
>know there was a resolution this past summer, but advocacy can cost far less
>than litigation.  When you look at it from a cost benefit angle, the people
>you say are mostly flying for business reasons is even more reason not to
>make this a high priority since we're still looking at a 75% unemployment
>rate among the blind.  Your link between the expansion of computer
>restaurant menus and the future potential of the handheld computer itself,
>to me, is more reason why we should spend our limited funds on the
>manufacturers rather than the distributors, which is to say the producers of
>the kiosks and not the airlines that rely on them.

>Ultimately, there is no disagreement about the action in of itself, just the
>priorities into which these actions fit and the funds used in building the
>agenda.  I am a little perturbed that we have moved away from the
>legislative halls and focused more on courtrooms to get our message across.

>Respectfully,

>Joe

>"Hard work spotlights the character of people: some turn up their sleeves,
>some turn up their noses, and some don't turn up at all."--Sam Ewing 


>_______________________________________________
>nabs-l mailing list
>nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com