Comments on: Uh-oh: New bill lets more employees sue

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:26:02 +0000

A point that I haven’t seen others bring forward: we are at war.
There is a continually increasing number of disabled Americans entering the work force… or trying to. As a vet who was injured, I have seen first hand how hard it can be to obtain employment if somebody knows you are disabled; even when the disability applies only to your legs, and you are seeking a desk job.

I litterally went to dozens of interviews. Most employers tried to hide their glances at my cane, but even those did not do a great job of it. It wasn’t until the interview started that “guy on a cane” became “wartime veteran” in their minds – and the change in attitude was immediate, often resulting in them thanking me for my service. However, despite the fact that so many people portray themselves as pro-military, I did not receive a single call back from interviews that I used my cane.

Almost 2 months into my job search, I stopped using my cane during interview – increasing the dosage on my pain killers and muscle relaxers instead. The effect was immediate; most of the interviewers called for a second meeting. I cannot say that my current employer would (or would not) have hired me if I had used my cane, but it isn’t something I would bet on.

While the list of activities that the revision encompasses is considerable, not everybody comes back from war with visible scars. Walk around a veteran’s hospital, Walter Reed, or Fort Sam Houston and you will see soldiers, sailors, and airmen suffering from many (if not most) of the conditions covered by the examples.

Yes, it will get abused (everything else does). No, there is no way to prevent it. However, knowing what I went through, and what my fellow vets who are worse off than me are going to deal with, I am all for this law. The hard part is going to be getting a veteran to use it.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:36:56 +0000

Maybe this is why so many businesses are outsourcing their labor and IT needs. It appears that too many american workers have the “I’m entiteled” attitude and the Government is enabling them. I find that no matter how flexible we try to be, someone always wants more and then everyone else does. How can you run a business if everyone is allowed to do what they want.?

By: Diane

Diane — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:43:47 +0000

At a previous employer, we had an employee with extreme obsessive-compulsive disorder. We could always tell when he was off his meds, as he would spend his day picking up virtually invisible pieces of lint and trash from the floor. Our recourse was to tell him to start taking his meds, or he wouldn’t have a job. What now? And where do alcoholics and drug addicts fall? Under the old regs, they were only protected if they were in recovery. Shouldn’t that fall in that “on or off your meds” category too? The problem with Congressmen is that they have never had to deal with issues like these in real life. Maybe that would help…….. we should have the right to require our congressman to personally assist us when issues arise…………

By: EB

EB — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:57:36 +0000

Donna,
They were not necessarily being discriminated against but it was harder to prove. A disability would be any “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” This was the definition. I could be mentally impaired but I could still walk, talk, eat (these were some of the major life activities) and not be considered disabled. I may be a little slower but you may not notice it.

By: Donna

Donna — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:37:34 +0000

I am left wondering what issues arose under the original ADA laws that prompted these changes. Were people with mental illnesses being discriminated against?

By: Melony Leach

Melony Leach — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:15:18 +0000

Here, Here! for Diane!

By: Diana Schindler

Diana Schindler — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:34:01 +0000

The extension of the ADA is depressing. Once again Congress is pandering and does not realize that the country is in a tailspin and needs all the productivity it can muster to bolster the shaky dollar. Congress is fiddling while the US is burning.

The only reasonable response is to throw the bums out!

By: EB

EB — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:20:57 +0000

I think responses like Lady Ophelia shows that there is something wrong with our thinking, when a professional writer looks at only the context and not the contents of the messages trying to be delivered regarding HR issues.

This is exactly what we have with the politicians making laws that they know nothing about and do not have to regulate.

But Ophelia you were correct when you stated it is off the topic. Hopefully, our politicians will hire a good professional writer to get them out of the mess they are creating.

By: Stewart Pitcock

Stewart Pitcock — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:17:11 +0000

I have to question how reproductive functions, though certainly life functions, should be encompassed in the ADA’s definition of disabled. If the statistics are true on the twenty-five E.D. commercials (ie. Viagra, etc.) aired an hour, America’s about to lose a substantial portion of its workforce.

Lady Ophelia I believe the proper phrasing would have been: “The word importantly is an adverb but it is not modifying any verbs in your sentences”

-Stu

By: LD

LD — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:47:57 +0000

I have to agree with EB. There are times in this job as an HR manager I can’t sleep, concentrate or function otherwise ( year-end payroll comes to mind). So, am I considered disabled at that time and does my employer have to accomadate me somehow?? A bed in my office might be nice.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere?