A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings
jsonline.com
jsonline.com
I can see going "hey, voice over phone just doesn't work as smoothly" without considering the disability.
But of course, that's the point - they get to consider "normal" as not involving the disability. That's, like, the definition of privilege.
By framing it in terms of "respect" you just make the matter worse. What was a logistical issue ("voice over phone isn't as smooth, can we improve that?") is now a moral issue of "respect" - which is basically impossible to nail down, and puts everyone on every side of the issue on the defensive.
Also, the guy champions a work release program for prisoners that he takes advantage of personally. Which, to my mind, wasn't so terrible. Until I found out that every one of the prisoners, um, "working", for him was a young female inmate.
Wisconsin really is kind of the Florida or Louisiana of the North. The corruption and moral breakdown around here runs deep. Not just the conservatives either, liberals get in on the action too. Just not quite as flagrant.
Lotta work to get to normal around here.
Lotta work.
At this point has it not been repeatedly documented that individuals with antisocial personality disorder are well represented in leadership positions?
Focusing on 2 instead of 1 misses the point entirely.
(And the reporting site isn't any better.)
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/dominos-asks-supreme-court-t...
so this is the correct channel to get this done. the court can force the legislature's and the executive branches' hand on providing specific rules - of course alongside permanently invalidate them, or siding with the lower courts
whereas private lawsuits just create a hodge podge of case law and settlements that can be conflicting and irreconcilable to comply with until drumroll resolved by the Supreme Court
so yeah, fuck the optics - pun intended - and use the remaining path to consensus available
There's a big difference between "we tried our best but the law is ambiguous" and "the law is ambiguous so we didn't try".
I'm totally fine with it being something as simple as wanting to do a trendy React SPA and then getting sued because it wasn't accessible:
It doesn't matter if it was a software limitation, their own designer's and management's lack of awareness, their devs, or the ADA ambiguity
Its pay this lawsuit or settle with this blind man and the next one, or figure out what the law actually is.
This is quite an act of mental gymnastics.
whoops
> Anderson voted on those rules a month after he joined the Legislature, at a time when he said he didn’t have a full sense of what his needs would be.
Regardless of the rules in place, exceptions can and should be made for people with disabilities based on their needs.
Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available. Just like Republicans refuse to even consider Democratic justices and constantly try to disenfranchise voters. To a Republican, power is the only thing that matters at any cost.
There is no other useful version of this story, just layers of bullshit.
My knee-jerk reaction is a less-extreme version of yours, more along the lines of Vos not being willing to do anything that would assist a Democrat but (hopefully) not actively seeking to disenfranchise him. I think that's probably supported by the fairly well-known acrimony between the Republican majority and Democratic minority in Wisconsin's legislature and politics in general (e.g. [Dem elected governor? Strip rights from the governor's office before he's seated!])
- make all the meetings remote for anyone?
- make it a job requirement to be physically present? (like going to the office for regular employees)
- make special amendments for some people?
Are there other options?
Not sure how to look at this. I work from home part of the week because I am not interacting with almost anyone in the closest branch of my company, but I assume that going to the office is an obligation in certain cases and not being able to do it would make me unfit for that job. In this case it is not a job, but close enough for me: it is paid by taxpayers money.
The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.
Everyone is entitled to enter a restroom or no one is. I can get behind that. No more multi-toilet rooms with stall gaps.
Your version of equality is worthless, your backbone is just an excuse to make yourself feel better.
This one. You make reasonable accommodations for people who can't follow the normal rules. This is how the ADA is worded - employers have to make reasonable accommodations as long as it doesn't prevent the person from doing their job.
How do you justify making accommodations just for some people? Why not for all? Rights should be equal, not based on any discriminatory criteria.
You define reasonable by using reason. You examine the situation and try to see if you can make an accommodation for the person that lets them do their job while not sacrificing performance. If you can, you do it.
You justify making these accommodations because you realize that there are some people who have conditions that make following the same routines that most people do impossible. We also realize that if you let everyone have those accommodations, it will not be sustainable, so you grant special rights to certain people based on this.
The handicap parking is a perfect example. Or pre-boarding flights for people in wheelchairs. Obviously you can't give everyone handicap parking, because that is the same as giving no one handicap parking. Some people can't travel as far, so we let them get the spots up front.
Same with pre-boarding. If everyone pre-boarded, it would just be boarding. But we also know that some groups need more time and space to board, like people in wheelchairs. So we let them board early.
I never understand this attitude that we aren't allowed to accommodate people who have hardships because it is unfair on people without those hardships. Like, what? The unfair part is that they HAVE the handicap in the first place, we are just trying to make it a little more fair.
Life isn't fair, so we make laws that are a little unfair in the opposite direction to try to even it out.
If you add the capability to do it then I can give you a thousand reasons why someone should need it. They could be photosensitive and need to avoid sunlight, or agoraphobic, or have children they can't leave home alone, or follow a religion that requires them not to look upon an uncovered woman who is not their wife. They could be poor and unable to afford the travel, or live far away from the meeting place.
By the time I'm done listing reasons, there won't be anybody left without one.
The same is true for parking spaces, but giving everyone the closest parking space is not an option. How is allowing anyone to attend remotely not an option?
It is not an absolute formula. You have to use judgement, and sometimes you are going to get it wrong on the boundaries.
Reasonable in this case means providing a way for them allowing them to do their job in spite of their limitations. The "privilege" they are being granted is being able to work at all, which is a privilege most people have naturally and take for granted.
The courts do it. And they’ve been doing it ever since the ADA was passed. It’s a system that seems to work quite well.
You want to make disabled people unfit? OK, change the Wisconsin Constitution. (Even if you did, I'm pretty sure it'd be illegal under ADA? But I might be mistaken about that?)
In any case, until you do, if the people vote in a disabled person, then that person is the lawmaker representing those people. Full stop.
We don't just get rid of someone else' lawmaker because we don't like something about him or her. The law likes something about that person, and that's the fact they were elected.
You can't tell people who they can and cannot vote for. Or rather, you can, but you have to do it explicitly in the Constitution. (At least in Wisconsin you do.)
Discrimination against disabled people is 100% socially acceptable and I don't see it ending anytime soon. It comes from liberals/conservatives/rich/poor/everyone.
What almost always happens is this: a person/group will perform whatever mental gymnastics they have to and find a way to blame the disabled person and/or wash their hands.
"you lack respect"
"you're exaggerating your disability and using it as an unfair advantage"
"you're not ready to get back into the workforce"
"people will complain that you're accommodated but they aren't"
"i just can't afford to help you, but i'm sure the next person will"
"too many gaps in your resume"
"you need to start at a low-level position and work your way up, but since you are physically incapable of the low-level position you can't work here"
At my last workplace I was repeatedly accused of sexism by a female coworker when I tried to set boundaries with her and communicate that I couldn't do all the things she asked me to do. I ended up just leaving because I couldn't get any work done as I had to spend an extraordinary amount of time crafting arguments to defend myself.
That's a big difference from the submitter claiming "isn't allowed to participate".
It could lead to a violation of trust - Anderson is a politician, regardless of how little experience he actually has, and one never trusts a politician to always do the right thing.
If the people find it so objectionable that he can’t attend meetings in person, they have a remedy. They can simply vote him out. It’s not a lifetime appointment.
Is the Senate somehow a fundamentally different job?
Also, there is more to consider then "Not every job is a work-from-home job." This is a duly elected government officer being denied the ability to represent those who elected him.