[nfbwatlk] Re job hunting: an "Inconvenient truth?"

Mon Nov 10 22:24:59 UTC 2014

Language does matter; so does point of view.

Flexibility of mind is a huge asset.  The more everyone involved approaches employment as a means to meet needs, the more flexibility of mind is likely to be employed.

Elizabeth, I cheered out loud when you said:
" Women didn't ask for "accommodation" when we  insisted on gender appropriate bathrooms in the workplace, maternity leave, and equal pay for equal work."
Somehow we and the people who consider us for employment must get to the point where we step back from contemplating the obstacles to employment (whether real or imagined), and think instead of whether an applicant brings enough to the table to be worth a little extra thought or "accommodation."

Back in the day when secretaries took shorthand dictation, I worked with two women.  Both were very bright.  One took dictation as fast as I could give it.  The other didn't know shorthand at all and was much slower.  The one who took dictation rapidly considered the job as something to do from 8:00 to 5:00 until something more to her liking came along.  The woman without shorthand skills considered the work we were doing to be exciting, worthwhile, and something she could believe in.  Both women happened to be fully sighted.  The woman who didn't care much about the work was let go; the woman with poorer skills was retained.  

Successful employment happens because a lot of things come together.  Character counts.  It counts far more than many job seekers realize.  

I also believe that blind people sometimes need to work much harder to achieve good results because of inaccessible technology and the fact that the world is designed around the use of sight.  I wish that weren't true.  I also believe that there's a limit.  It sounds as if you may have been very close to that limit, Elizabeth, in your earlier job.  Each of us has to judge for ourselves.  I believe, however, that blind people do need to be prepared to put out much more effort than others are expected to put out.  It's too bad in some ways, but very good in others.  Thinking employers will recognize and value the fact that we're willing to put more thought into our work, work harder than others, and value our jobs because they're hard to come by.  

Get an employer "hooked" on our personal qualities and that employer is much more likely to be creative about finding solutions to technology problems.

That doesn't always work.  An employer hired several blind individuals to work in a customer service telephone room.  The company was bought out by a larger company that used inaccessible software.  The manager worked very hard to retain the blind employees whose work he valued.  The company that bought him out wasn't willing to budge and the blind people are all looking for work. It's that sort of difficulty that's very hard to overcome and is one of the major obstacles we face.  While we figure out the technical solution, let's make sure we continue to celebrate the personal qualities that make us valued employees.  Sometimes blindness puts us in tough spots.  This economy desperately needs people who have experience in dealing with tough spots.  As the economy changes for everyone, blind people can model the character traits and creative skills the new economy needs.  

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbwatlk [mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike Freeman via nfbwatlk
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:50 AM
To: 'Elizabeth Rene'; 'NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Re job hunting: an "Inconvenient truth?"

Elizabeth:

It may surprise you to know that I agree with you in great measure. I don't think the concept of "reasonable accommodations" has caused the shift in attitude you very cogently describe below. But it certainly has contributed to this shift and it has (at least in the minds of some of our younger job-seekers) blurred the distinction between true employment discrimination and what I may term an employer's unwillingness to provide a *particular* accommodation -- something not truly required by the americans with Disabilities Act but something which some job-seekers these days seem to think it does.

As you say, I think very few of us want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, i.e., abolish the concept of reasonable accommodations altogether. It has proven too useful for that and has truly helped some disabled people (including the blind) acquire the tools and skills they need to get and keep good jobs. But, as you say, perhaps we need a bit of a rethink and, as you say, need to examine our language and the way it shapes our thoughts, assumptions and expectations.

I guess I'm a little worried, for example, that our emphasis upon accessible technology in the workplace, necessary as it is, will obscure the need for some "old-fashioned" skills such as using human readers or amanuensises. For example, Ben Prows told me a while back that he needed some documents read and eventually got the reader time to do so. But his bosses wondered if there weren't some electronic gadgetry that would allow him to read the documents (presumably at less cost to the agency he works for). That kind of thing scares me.

Another example has nothing to do with jobs but is very relevant to a subset of the blind: diabetics. Many of us would like access to CGMS systems and insulin pumps -- devices touted by the medical establishment as improving diabetic control. (To my way of thinking, these devices aren't miracles in and of themselves but rather force the diabetic to pay attention to his/her disease and perform the tests and do the calculations he/she should have been doing all along). The bottom line is that these devices won't be accessible for some time due to economics (we're a pretty small minority even within the blind, let alone in society). But we can still keep manual logbooks, test our own blood sugars and give ourselves insulin shots with syringe or pen. In other words, while we don't have the latest fancy devices, that shouldn't stop us from controlling our disease. Yet you can't imagine the amount of whining that goes on because we don't have the latest gewgaws. As you indicate, we used to believe that, with some exceptions, we could figure ways to get things done. But that attitude appears -- and I emphasize appears, not "is" -- to be waning somewhat.

Anyway, I think you are absolutely correct to bring up the subject and I hope all of us are sufficiently mature and open-minded to examine it objectively and think out of the box, keeping the good and perhaps discarding what will ultimately redownd to our detriment.

Mike Freeman

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbwatlk [mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Rene via nfbwatlk
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:25 AM
To: nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
Subject: [nfbwatlk] Re job hunting: an "Inconvenient truth?"

Mike, I note with interest your assertion that blind people are losing the attitude that they have the first responsibility to figure out how to get things done in the workplace.
At the risk of raising a red herring, or sounding like Rush Limbaugh, do you think the concept of "reasonable and necessary accommodation" has contributed to this malaise?
In the early days of the ADA, I began to wonder if my own attitudes weren't shifting.
Putting aside for a minute Washington's own law against discrimination, RCW 49:60, that arguably had provisions stronger than those of the first (unamended) ADA, in the pre-ADA days, I bought my own accommodations, when I could afford them, deferring and definitely the idea of buying a house or taking nice vacations. Very often my employers didn't like the technology I brought in because it didn't necessarily mesh with their's. So I would do each project twice, writing my brief, for instance, then editing it using their system so it could be used as cut and paste material for other lawyers in the office (we all shared each other's work). That meant deep deadline anxiety, late night hours, and obliterated weekends. And sometimes out right writers block, because my draft had to be perfect the first time if I didn't want to write, rewrite, and rewrite with my nose 2 1/2 inches above my desk.
Although the concept of reasonable accommodation was "in the air," it came to the fore with the passage of the ADA. And this was a good thing, because the technology developing was far too expensive for most individuals to buy. For example, my last workstation at the Department of revenue in Olympia in the early 90s cost $57,000 – training included – and it didn't work very well at all. They could almost have given me the money and told me to go away for a year. But I digress.
With the passage of the ADA, responsibilities seem to shift from the blind employee to the employer, to "accommodate" the blind employees disability.
This seemed to set up an adversarial dynamic between employer and employee, with the employer asking self, "can I afford to hire this person?"and what if the technology didn't work, as it sometimes didn't in the early days, and maybe still doesn't sometimes. Poor performance became the employer's responsibility, for failing to provide the right accommodation. Conversely, blind employees, job applicants, and students have had a responsibility to disclose their disabilities and request accommodations, rather than emphasizing their ability to do the job.
We have come to expect "accommodation" as a civil right.
With this I don't decry the ADA. I have benefited from it as has everyone else.
But I think the word "accommodation" has had unintended negative fallout.
Women didn't ask for "accommodation" when we  insisted on gender appropriate bathrooms in the workplace, maternity leave, and equal pay for equal work.
I'm glad that accessibility technology and equal access have begun to seep into American culture as an accepted norm.
But the concept of reasonable  "accommodation" has always made me feel like Tiny Tim.

I think there needs to be a new paradigm – a language shift that truly describes what were striving for without the paternalistic overtones. And, given the evolving technology and advancing neuroscience, I wonder if there isn't some way to tackle barriers that we have long taken for granted: e.g. why does it take us often twice as long or more to do a writing task or take an exam than sighted people?
I don't know the answers here. I'm just raising the question. And I'm all for collaboration, teamwork, and anything else that draws people together rather than isolating individual people with an ethic that forces them to be or appear completely perfect and self-sufficient at risk of seeming "dependent." That "I can do it myself!" stance has had its own negative fallout for blind people, making us seem emotionally brittle and unfriendly to sighted people, and cruelly judgmental of one another.
What I'm trying to suggest here is what every advertiser knows – that language shapes thought and feeling. It communicates self perception and teaches others how to regard the speaker.
As our movement evolves in fellowship with people having other disabilities, I wonder if it isn't time to shake out our language, dust it off, and throw out any outdated words that pinch, have worn thin, or make us feel frumpy?
Does this resonate with anyone?
Thanks.
Elizabeth

Elizabeth M René 
Attorney at Law 
WSBA #10710
KCBA #21824 
rene0373 at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
nfbwatlk mailing list
nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbwatlk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com

_______________________________________________
nfbwatlk mailing list
nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbwatlk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/gabias%40telus.net