[nabs-l] Employment Accessibility
David Andrews
dandrews at visi.com
Fri Jun 15 10:34:34 UTC 2012
Why can't you forward it -- if you want it done -- and what kind of
response are you looking for?
Dave
At 12:02 AM 6/15/2012, you wrote:
>Hello,
>Can someone forward this below email to the president of the NFB
>please? I'm extremely curious what will be the response.
>Thanks,
>
>Brandon Keith Biggs
>-----Original Message----- From: Brice Smith
>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:54 PM
>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Employment Accessibility
>
>This particular position is with a small but national communications
>and public relations agency in the private sector. The company uses
>project management software called "Basecamp" and a CMS called
>"Sitemason." Based on some more research I've done, it is possible
>these platforms are accessible. More likely, these programs are
>"partially" accessible which means I might have success with something
>yet have tremendous difficulty with something else.
>
>I just found a review test of Basecamp accessibility with screen
>readers; the result? You guessed it. "This Ajax application is usable
>by screen-reader users some of the time. They aren't totally shut out,
>but it isn't totally easy for them, either." ... Surprise!
>
>The same conclusion can be drawn about Raiser's Edge, a program I was
>asked to use last summer for an internship that I ultimately declined
>for another opportunity. As Ashley mentioned, Raiser's Edge is just
>one of many extremely popular and important database systems that many
>nonprofits use. These programs are essential as well: half assed
>accessibility just won't fly when you're dealing with sensitive donor
>and gift records.
>
>The problem with disclosing that you may need to do some work and
>testing to use their software efficiently is that you risk watering
>the seed of doubt about your ability to do the job. If you've managed
>to land an interview with a killer resume and mind blowing cover
>letter, researched the company and came with a relevant list of
>insightful and thought provoking questions, convinced them that you
>can actually do the work, shown incredible initiative and demonstrated
>that your blindness will not factor into the job responsibilities, you
>are well on your way to decreasing that pesky 70% unemployment rate
>among the blind. Then, you find out the company relies on proprietary
>software that may or may not work with your accessibility software,
>software your employer most likely knows nothing about. Let me try and
>test the usability of that software for a couple hours while you
>mentally begin to focus on the candidate that doesn't have usability
>questions about your company's software before even starting the job.
>Admittedly, all of this might be easier with the federal government
>and with blindness-related jobs. I have reached out to other blind
>professionals in the field with extremely limited success. While I
>risk coming off as indifferent and self-centered, surely I cannot be
>the only person who notices the irony of the passionate and heated
>fight for subminimum wages for Good Will employees on this list while
>many of us struggle with basic, fundamental access to higher-paying
>jobs.
>
>I realize there might not be any easy answers. I just really, really
>wish there were.
>
>Brice
>
>On 6/14/12, Ashley Bramlett <bookwormahb at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Steve,
>>well said. Advanced look at the software was what I was suggesting.
>>Also, I would guess that online software would work if its text based. If
>>you cannot test the software with jaws, maybe if they describe it to you you
>>
>>will make an educated guess. If the software is using flash or is an adobe
>>product, its probably not accessible.
>>If it looks like a standard web form with combo boxes, it probably is
>>accessible.
>>
>>Ashley
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Steve Jacobson
>>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:34 PM
>>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Employment Accessibility
>>
>>Brice,
>>
>>There is so much software out there that it isn't at all surprising that you
>>
>>won't get a definitive answer. What kind of job is it? It could be that
>>one of our
>>other lists may have people who have had experience with it. Is your job
>>with a government entity of any kind, or is it a private company? The
>>federal
>>government and some state governments are governed by laws or regulations
>>that require that their software be accessible. If it turns out that it
>>isn't, they
>>would have a good deal of insentive to work with you.\
>>
>>Given the scarcity of jobs these days, I would hesitate to reject a possible
>>
>>job because you don't know if their software is accessible. I think I would
>>
>>let
>>them know at some point that you may need to do a little work to use their
>>software efficiently, and perhaps see if you could get an advanced look at
>>it.
>>Also, software that you use every day can be a different sort of challenge.
>>
>>Problems that slow you way down are more serious than with software you
>>occasionally use, but learning to use the Window-Eyes Mouse Pointer or the
>>JAWS Cursor is less of a problem when you do it all the time. It can
>>become
>>second nature when you are using that approach to do the same tasks.
>>
>>It just isn't simple, I'm afraid, and I agree completely that this is
>>becoming a bigger and bigger problem.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Steve Jacobson
>>
>>On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:20:43 -0400, Brice Smith wrote:
>>
>>>So, what are your options for making employment software and websites
>>>accessible if they are not currently accessible?
>>
>>>I'm in the third round of interviews for an incredible position with a
>>>company that uses online software, websites and content management
>>>systems for everything and I am not sure if they are accessible with
>>>screen readers. After a couple of well disguised questions during the
>>>interview, I managed to obtain the names of programs employees rely on
>>>to share, post, create and manage information -- and I've never heard
>>>of them. Stressing over "will JAWS work with this?" or "how can I
>>>possibly access this?" should ABSOLUTELY NOT be something blind
>>>applicants have to deal with in addition to everything else that comes
>>>with finding a job after college. And yet, it's one of the most
>>>pressing and concerning questions many of us face.
>>
>>>I'm genuinely curious: what's the best way to handle this? If you've
>>>never heard of the programs and Googling the software name plus
>>>"accessibility" or "JAWS" yields nothing, what can you do? What should
>>>you do?
>>
>>>Brice
>>
>>>On 6/13/12, David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com> wrote:
>>>>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
More information about the NABS-L
mailing list