[nabs-l] Getting employed/accessing the workplace
Wasif, Zunaira
Zunaira.Wasif at dbs.fldoe.org
Wed Jun 13 15:28:07 UTC 2012
Would you say that Apple has a friendlier philosophy in regards to accessibility?
-----Original Message-----
From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Chris Nusbaum
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:58 AM
To: 'National Association of Blind Students mailing list'
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Getting employed/accessing the workplace
Hi Bill,
I don't have much experience with Macs, but I wouldn't describe VoiceOver on iOS devices, s like the iPhone or iPod Touch as "poor." In fact, I think it's a very good screen reader.
Just my thoughts,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:23 AM
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
Subject: [nabs-l] Getting employed/accessing the workplace
I shutter to think that Apple becomes the standard. The only thing they have going for them is a poor screen reader built right into the system.
Don't forget that VO only works fully with applications produced by Apple.
MS office experience is not great, support for firefox I have heard is not good to not existent. I would imagine the third party business applications, though sometimes not accessible on windows probably would be less so with VO. Until Apple and the software vendors for Mac OS, I think that windows gives us better access to a fully capable screen reader with access to a far wider viriety of everyday and specialty programs.
Bill
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Wasif, Zunaira <Zunaira.Wasif at dbs.fldoe.org> wrote:
> It doesn't directly mention web cites, but it has been applied to web
> cites a long with telecommunications and other such services. There
> is a miscellaneous portion as well, I believe its section 5, that may
> apply. What do you suggest to improve job accessibility? The Apple
> conversion was just a thought.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of David Andrews
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:00 AM
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>
> Please get your information straight. The ADA does not currently
> cover web sites. It is likely too in the future but currently doesn't.
>
> Apple stuff is primarily consumer-oriented, and while they should be
> applauded for their efforts in accessibility, they do not even come
> close in giving us the tools we sometimes need to make
> employment-oriented web sites and software accessible.
>
> Dave
>
> At 02:19 PM 6/12/2012, you wrote:
>>I'm hoping, some what fancifully, that five years from now all
>>employers will be using Apple products and many jobs will become
>>accessible. If we sue employers for not having accessible soft ware,
>>it might push them towards the accessibility conversion. I have two
>>clients right now who may get fired because JAWS isn't working well
>>with the employer's technology. This is a form of discrimination and
>>it violates the ADA in the same way that inaccessible web cites
>>violate
>
>>the ADA. I have a client who was denied a job interview even though
>>he's worked in the field because he wasn't working with the Lighthouse.
>
>>All of these people should have jobs and probably would if the ADA
>>were
> enforced.
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>Behalf Of Sophie Trist
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:40 PM
>>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>
>>You make some very good points. I did not know that most employers ask
>>for Lighthouse certification. This is bad for people like me who are
>>not affiliated with a Lighthouse because they remind oo much of the
>>schools of the blind. As to the inaccessible computer programs, maybe
>>we should institute a program where we payed them to install acessible
> programs?
>>I'm not entirely sure, that's just an idea.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Wasif, Zunaira" <Zunaira.Wasif at dbs.fldoe.org
>>To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
>><nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>Date sent: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:00:57 -0400
>>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>
>>Sometimes extreme measures are required to overcome attitudinal
>>hurdles
>
>>such as this one. I haven't made up my mind about the quota but I
>>know that it helped African Americans enter the work place. Maybe
>>the only way to quickly and effectively remedy this employment issue
>>is through reverse discrimination. The legislation is there in the
>>form of the ADA and rehab acts, but it isn't implemented. I work with
>>clients every day who can't get a job because the employer's computer
>>system is
>
>>running a program that is incompatible with JAWS or Zoom text. The
>>fact that employers are still purchasing this type of software is
> discriminatory!
>>It is the equivalent of not providing an elevator in a multiple level
>>building. Maybe the best antidote for this type of discrimination is
>>reverse discrimination. The NFB is advocating for "more programs,"
>>but
>
>>the potential applicant shouldn't have to go through a lighthouse or
>>through any program. They should be able to apply off of the street
>>like anyone else. A blind applicant shouldn't require a certification
>>from a Lighthouse saying that they can type before an employer will
>>even interview them. I'm working in this field and I see that happen
>>every day. If a visually impaired client calls Hilton for a customer
>>service job the first question the recruiter asks is, "are you working
>>with the Lighthouse?" The reason that companies do this is because
>>they want their corporate tax credit and they want assurance from the
>>Lighthouse that the blind person has the skills for the job. My
>>question is, how do they find out if a nonvisually impaired employee
> has the skills?
>>They want an incentive to hire disabled people. The attitude is "oh,
>>yeh? You want me to hire a blind person? You better give me a tax
>>break." In other words, they are saying, "Oh yeh? You better pay me
>>to hire that blind person." This is the current situation. Our
>>government pays people to hire disabled workers and companies like
>>Goodwill thrive off of this. In job development exercises we are
>>taught to market the corporate tax credit, not the client. How is
>>this
>
>>any better than the quota system? I'm not saying the quota system is
>>perfect, but maybe it's the best option we have right now. Maybe its
>>an
> effective way of
>>proving that "we are worth something." If there is a better option
>>I would love to hear it so I can advocate for it in my agency and make
>>change.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>[mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>Behalf Of Sophie Trist
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:26 AM
>>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>
>>The issue of hiring quotas for minority groups has popped up in the
>>past, and it has caused nothing but controversy. If there is to be
>>ahiring quota for disabled people, non-disabled people who were
>>rejected or whose jobs were taken away and given to the disabled could
>>argue reverse--discrimination. Besides, we want them to hire us
>>because
>
>>we're worth something, not just because they have to fill a certain
> quota.
>>Evem mentally disabled individuals can perform simple factory jobs.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Wasif, Zunaira" <Zunaira.Wasif at dbs.fldoe.org
>>To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
>><nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>Date sent: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:57:06 -0400
>>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>
>>What do people think about a hiring quota for disabled people?
>>This
>>would render Good Will's argument, that disabled people need to settle
>>for subminum wages or no wages, obselete.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>[mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>Behalf Of Kirt Manwaring
>>Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:03 PM
>>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>
>>Ashley,
>> You said there may not be a set corporate policy, and I suppose
>>you're probably right. But there should be, and that's why this
>>boycott makes sense to me. If you have some branches paying any
>>employees below the minimum wage, you really do need a national policy
> to set that straight.
>>Unfortunate, but true. I really think it is that simple...this is one
>>of those few issues where there isn't much of a grey area, in my
>>humble
>
>>opinion.
>> Take it or leave it,
>>Kirt
>>
>>On 6/11/12, Ashley Bramlett <bookwormahb at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Elizabeth,
>> Perhaps, the figure supports my theory that in fact most employees
>>are
>>
>> paid
>>
>> above minimum wage. As Arielle said, most locations vary in what
>> they
>
>>pay. I
>>
>> don't think there is a set corporate policy.
>>
>> Ashley
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Elizabeth
>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 2:24 PM
>> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Please forgive me as I did not read through the entire article you
>>make reference to in your post. However, now that I have read it, I am
>>
>> still wondering how they can come up with an average of $7.47 when
>>someone is only making $1.44. I am not a math genius by any means, but
>>
>> it would seem to me that if someone is only making $1.44, and the
>>average is $7.47, then that would mean someone is making a
>>considerable
>
>>amount more than what most people are making to achieve such an
>>average. Does this make any sense? I am not necessarily questioning
>>the
>
>>information you cited from the article, but rather questioning the
>>information that was cited in the article itself.
>> There is just something about it that does not make sense to me.
>>I am
>> sorry that I cannot find a better way to explain it.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>> Elizabeth
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Greg Aikens" <gpaikens at gmail.com
>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:26 PM
>> To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
>> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>
>> Hi Elizabeth,
>> I should have included my sources. The first was the article
>>recently posted to the list by Anil Lewis:
>>
>>http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/208068/189/Goodwill-Pays-Disabl
>>ed-E
>> mployees-Less-than-Minimum-Wage This article gives the number of
>>employees impacted and their average wage. The reason that an average
>>wage of $7.47 could still be below minimum wage is because many
>>states
>
>>have minimum wage laws that are higher
>>
>> than the federal minimum wage. For a quick list of minimum wage by
>>state, go to:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages
>>
>> Please check my facts in case I misread.
>>
>> -Greg
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Elizabeth wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gregg,
>>
>> I have to say that your numbers to not make much sense to me. If
>>these employees are making $7.47 as mentioned in your post, , then how
>
>>exactly
>>
>> does that constitute as a subminimum wage? Is it possible the
>>calculated
>>
>> average of these employees also includes the outrageously high
>>salaries of those who may hold management positions which in effect
>>would cancel out the extremely low subminimum wages paid to the
>>factory
>
>>worker or the
>>
>> average employee thus creating an average that appears to be above
>>the national minimum wage? I am not sure where you found your numbers,
>>but if
>>
>> what you state is true, then I do not see how this would be an issue
>>
>> of paying people subminimum wage.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>> Elizabeth
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Greg Aikens" <gpaikens at gmail.com
>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 10:46 AM
>> To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
>> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>
>> Sean's post got me thinking about how many employees are actually
>>impacted by this policy and how much it would cost for them to
>>actually
>>
>> make these changes. According to the article Anil Lewis posted,
>> 7300
>
>>employees are hired on their certificate to pay disabled workers less
>>than minimum wage, but the average wage paid them is $7.47, which is
>>actually higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. I can't say
>>what the average minimum wage for these workers
>>
>> would be because each state is different, but I wouldn't imagine it
>>
>> could be higher than $8.50. So they would have to on average pay
>>workers with disabilities
>> $1 more per hour, $40 more per week, $2080 per year. Multiply that
>>
>> by the 7300 employees on the certificate and you get $15,184,000.
>>
>> I was surprised that the number of workers impacted by this policy
>>is so
>>
>> high.
>>
>> Anyway, I thought these numbers were interesting and thought I would
>>post in case others are interested too.
>>
>> -Greg
>> On Jun 10, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Gmail wrote:
>>
>> Good afternoon,
>>
>> One of the primary purposes of the boycott is to garner media
>> attention
>>
>> for
>> the minimum wage issue. The boycott effort and PR/media efforts are
>>complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
>>
>> We "pick on" Good Will because they are one of, if not the, largest
>> and
>>
>> most
>> visible nonprofits who take advantage of the current law to pay
>> workers
>>
>> with
>> disabilities subminimum wages. When you're the biggest fish in the
>>
>> pond you're going to get noticed and your actions will be
>> scrutinized
>
>>by people in and out of your field. That's just the way it goes.
>>
>> Most of these workshops do the vast majority of their business with
>>the federal government, providing goods and services through
>>non-competitive set-aside contracts. These goods and services are
>>frequently provided at costs that exceed their fair market value.
>> Obviously Good Will has their hands in other activities as well, but
>>the point stands. If taxpayers are being asked to subsidize nonprofits
>>to create employment opportunities
>>
>> for
>> blind or otherwise disabled individuals, and we all, in effect,
>>subsidize the very good, and sometimes exorbitant, salaries of the
>>
>> management of
>>
>> these
>> non-profits, why is it a bad idea to subsidize the wages of disabled
>>individuals, even those who may not be able to produce output
>>justifying the minimum wage in the market?
>>
>> I think that the number of disabled folks in these workshops who are
>>incapable of truly earning the minimum wage is much lower than
>>
>> most people assume. And, again, if there is somebody whose level of
>>output truly only justifies $1.50 per hour, I am happy to subsidize
>>the
>
>>wage to give them
>>
>> the
>> dignity of equal treatment under the law.
>>
>> I myself worked for a time in a shop and was paid less than $4 per
>>
>> hour. I'm worth more than that. I saw others in the very same boat.
>>The law is discriminatory, and the system is corrupt and fails to
>>achieve its stated goals. Not only should the minimum wage apply, but
>>organizations wishing to receive preferential treatment in government
>>contracting should have to
>>
>> fill
>> a stated percentage of their managerial positions with folks with
>>disabilities and offer true training and upward mobility. As it stands
>>
>> now,
>> there is no real opportunity in the vast majority of these workshops.
>>
>> While it is true that, generally speaking, the NFB only speaks for
>>
>> the blind, on this issue we have over 40 different disabilities
>>rights organizations standing shoulder to shoulder with us saying that
>
>>it is reprehensible that we, today in the United States of America,
>>have a law on the books that codifies the inferiority and
>>
>> lesser ability of those with disabilities. We, and they, are
>>completely correct. The boycott of Good
>>
>> Will
>> is but one piece of the larger effort. It is incumbent upon each of
>> us
>>
>> to
>> keep pressure on our Members of Congress to change the law. Will it
>>cost Good Will and other non-profits more money to pay all their
>>workers minimum wage? Yes, it will. Is the tiny increase in cost
>>realistically going to
>>
>> lead
>> to the loss of job opportunities as many of the workshops claim?
>>I
>>
>> can't see how it would. In fact, it won't. And the argument is
>>disingenuous and, frankly, pretty disgusting. Say a shop worker
>>currently makes $1.50 an
>>
>> hour.
>> Say the law is changed and minimum wage now applies. Say the
>> employee
>
>>is now paid $7.50 an hour. That's an extra $6 an hour, an
>>
>> extra $240 a week, and $12,480 a year. Say Good Will has 100
>>employees of whom this is the case (in reality there are fewer).
>> This would represent an annual cost increase
>>
>> of
>> $1,248,000 to Good Will. That's a lot of money to you or me, but a
>>
>> pittance to this giant non-profit. The same can be said of smaller
>>
>> shops, just on a smaller scale. The argument that all the poor
>>unemployable disabled folks will be sent home jobless if the law is
>>changed is bogus and cynical.
>> As I
>> said before, the majority of these shops get the majority of their
>>
>> business through non-competitive contracts with the government, so
>>
>> the additional labor cost would be built right into the price the
>>government pays.
>> And, as
>> I also said, I am happy to have my tax dollars go to affirm the
>>dignity, value and legal equality of all individuals rather than to
>>support the
>>
>> 70,
>> 80, 100k salaries of the management types at these shops who somehow
>>sleep at night under the illusion, or maybe delusion, that
>>
>> they are doing something positive for people with disabilities.
>> It's wrong, it's disgusting, and, yes, it hits a raw nerve with me
>>
>> because I've lived it. If there is a minimum wage it should apply to
>
>>everybody in the employment market, full stop.
>>
>> Sean
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/zunaira.wasif%40dbs.
> fldoe.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nabs-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/cassonw%40gmail.co
> m
--
Bill Casson
University of New Mexico
M.S. Computer Science
Lewis & Clark Alumnus '11
B.A. Physics and Math/Comp Sci.
(505) 695-1374
cassonw at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
nabs-l mailing list
nabs-l at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nabs-l:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/dotkid.nusbaum%40gmail.c
om
_______________________________________________
nabs-l mailing list
nabs-l at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/zunaira.wasif%40dbs.fldoe.org
More information about the NABS-L
mailing list