"Equal" Treatment

[Cortez]

Okay. Bear with me here.

I work at a department store. I've had my job for a few months now- I'm working my way through college, you see. My boss is pretty nice and fair- a realy easy guy to talk to. I do a lot of merchandising, you know, making the aisles and stock look nice, setting up displays, that sort of thing. I do some cashiering, but I don't really like dealing with customers, so most of the time I am stocking merchandise or working in the back. To cut it short, I like my job.

Now, I work hard- it's probably a reason my boss likes me. I'm a hard worker, I get a lot done, and I work fast. Unlike most employees, I actually care about what I'm doing. My boss cares about that stuff- he's fired people for working too slow. He's a big fan of productivity.

Now, this is where the problem comes into play. there's a member of our team who...for lack of a better word, is retarded. He has some mental problems, and one of his arms is significantly smaller than the other. He can't read. This guy was hired before the current manager came in (and before me).

This guy is a terrible worker. I don't mean this to come out mean, but he's incredibly slow, always messes up and has to do things multiple times, and constantly needs direction.

If this guy didn't have "problems", my manager definitely would have fired him ages ago. However, my manager is in a tough spot. On one hand, the company is supposed to be an "equal oppurtunity" employer- which means that all people, regardless of disabity, are hired. On the other hand, this worker is a waste of hours and payroll, and is costing the store more than he is worth.

So my question is this: where does one draw the line between morality and business.

Is it really "equal oppurtunity" if we are giving this guy an advantage over team members by allowing him to be unproductive and keep his job?

 

[ryanwh]

"Is it really "equal oppurtunity" if we are giving this guy an advantage over team members by allowing him to be unproductive and keep his job?"
Yes, because he's retarded. He COULD probably sit home and collect disability checks but that would be single him out more than pretending he's capable of a normal job. I dont think people like that should be shoved under a rug, I do think they should be held at lower working standards, naturally. The company agreed to that equal opportunity claus, they didnt have to and many companies dont for the very reason that they'd preffer to hire on merit and experience. However its there to begin with because people in many areas consider physical appearance an aspect of "merit". But not your company, so yes he should have an advantage.

 

[Drake Miriel]

When it comes to the mentaly disabled, I think it's good. It's like at my school, they have several students disabled physically and mentally, but it helps them in the long run. Instead of them sitting at home doing nothing, they're out there and interacting with people, which helps them. They ould be invalids, or you could make an effort to help them feel accepted, because obviously some people mistreated him because fo his problems.

 

[Norris]

If such an action was indeed realised tomorrow, what type of message do you think this would send out to all the incapacitated people of the world. That their merit as a human being is measured simply on how fast they are able to process information in their thoughts, or how fast they are able to run. Who cares if they have down syndrome, or suffer from a mild form of paralysis. If they simply can’t do the job, screw ‘em.

In fact, why should we stop at firing the guy? Let’s do away with everyone who would only serve to contaminate the gene pool. Anyone who retains inferior genes shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce. We basically have no room for anyone in our society that requires special treatment.

For your boss to fire the guy as you propose, I would consider it as an echo to these very sentiments.

People need to accept the fact that people of an incapacitated nature will always form part of our society. ‘Shoving them under the rug’ as ryan so eloquently put it, is as he says, not the right way. To COMPLETELY disregard such things, is a spit at the face for all things human.

Equality in this regard, is to recognise that they are people as well, and not simply dead weight. To factor in their limitations is to look past it, and what one sees is a person, nothing more and nothing less. And this is how it should be.

So my question is this: where does one draw the line between morality and business.

Money is easily lost and easily gained. A person’s life however is much more delicate. Even though I am a fourth year business student, I still regard very highly the moralities behind any of my decision-making. Looking at the humanitarian aspects of our decisions and weighing it up against monetary factors, there is just simply a lot more at stake for the former. Hence no decision should be taken lightly. Is a few dollars, really worth throwing away a person's work life? Am I ensuring another year for my business, or am I simply saving up for that new electric pencil sharpener. Is his/her slowness the result of his/her retardation or his/her laziness? It is here where I would draw the line.

 

[ryanwh]

"In fact, why should we stop at firing the guy? Let’s do away with everyone who would only serve to contaminate the gene pool. Anyone who retains inferior genes shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce. We basically have no room for anyone in our society that requires special treatment."
A bit extreme, but unnessecary for the reason that most handicapped people dont reproduce. They want to be normal, and they want their kids to be normal. I know you meant that thing I quoted to sound pseudo-fascist and unreasonable, but the reality is in a hundred years, there really WONT be any children born disabled anymore in first world countries, merely people handicapped from their later actions. Modern medicine already killed the freakshow, future medicine will kill the need for this debate.

 

[Andy6000]

Well the thing is, the guy deserves to have a job, even if he sucks at doing it, since he'll probably suck at a lot of things. He's just not able to work at a normal pace for it, and schedulers and co-workers will have to compensate to not put too much load on the guy. The guy COULD just be very lazy as well, accomplishing even less, but hey, that's his call. Just believe in some global karma thing and it all works out anyways.

 

[fallen_angel]

i think that if the company is losing profits that the person should be fired, i mean not to be mean about it, but he is a liability if something were to happen in the store to him [ex. he gets hurt of something] than that could cost the store millions.
but still the fact of the matter is that if he can't work as fast as other people another alternative would be to put him somewhere in the store were he didn't have to work fast but could do it at his own pace.
or something like that.

 

[ryanwh]

If companies could fire people on a whim once they became a liability millions of people would be without job. That's why unions were formed, to secure job holdings for people either deployed on military or on leave due to an injury. That would be good business, but an awful awful thing to do. Basically my point is if plenty of businesses are thinking like fallen angel then special needs people SHOULD ABSOLUTELY form a union to secure themselves.

 

[Cortez]

For your boss to fire the guy as you propose, I would consider it as an echo to these very sentiments.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not propsoing either way. I'm seriously torn on the issue.

I was talking to my boss about this today, and he said that he's going to have me spend some time with this guy- training him on how to work more efficiently.

He thinks that the problem isn't the guy himself, but that people treat him like a little kid and largely ignore him- meaning that people are allowing him to get away with terrible work habits. He's pairing me with this guy for a week or two to train him to work a bit better. I don't mind, I'm getting a fifty cent raise to take on a "supervisor" role for it.

He also said that he is afraid that this guy might have been slacking off- working slow, on purpose. He said that he's seen it before; people with disabilities take advantage of them in order to get extra breaks, work at a easier pace, etc. This guy, while definitely slow, isn't a complete moron, and my boss mentioned that he this training would also help him realize that, if this was the case, he couldn't continue doing it.

What are the thoughts on this? If he really was- is- abusing his disability to gain an unfair treatment, does that change things?

Either way, I'm hoping for the best with this.

 

[AceJP]

I am so sick of what our country is turning into. Everyone wants to be a victim and want the government to intervene on their behalf.
I'm sorry, but if you suck at working, guess what? You shouldnt get a job!
If you were born with a disability, i'm sorry, but sucks for you. Deal with it. This may seem harsh, but come on! This ocuntry was built by people who made it great because when they were given the short end of the stick, they didnt complain, they DEALED with it.
I think the mentally challenged person should be fired. And when his parents complain that th comany is not baby sitting thier responsability, they should throw them out of the store saying "sorry, not our problem."
Again, this sounds harsh, but this counntry is supporting way to many things, and this "equal oppurtunity" crap is rediculous and is draining our economy. Let the fit work. Let the unfit deal with it.
What about the homeless?? What? should we feed and clothe them to? Whenever I am walking the street and I see a homeless, no what I do? I take them into what ever the closest resteranut is, buy them a meal and listen to their life story. What have I learned from all of them? They chose to live homeless. They encountered a time in their life, and instead of dealing with it, and hard work, they said "screw it, i'm done trying." I have no pity, but I will continue my method in hopes I hear a story of some one who tried and did not succeed.
What about the women who dont get paid enough? Sorry, but if a woman does not do a better job then a man, why in the world should they get paid more than they are worth? And if a man does not do a job better than a woman, why should het get paid more than they are worth? I'm so pissed about all these people complaining that life was unfair, and that some one else should make life perfect them.
DEAL WITH YOUR LIFE PEOPLE!
I dont want to hear about your problems, I want you to do your job and shut up!
GAAAAAAAAH!

sorry, again, this is a rant long coming. I have worked with to many people who suck at what they do for me to think any other way...

-side note not neccessarily pertaining to my argument-
Did you know in Sparta, back in the day, it was a milateristic state, Everything was done for the betterent of the city-state. If you were born with any dissability or handicap, they took you into the hills and left you to die. Cruel, huh?
But Sparta did have the most efficient army on land, no one could beat them.
Relevence? I dont know, just thought it was an interesting side note

 

[Faeroe]

I'm sorry, but..
Again; this sound harsh,

Trying to make yourself not sound like an asshole, eh? Those don't cover it up at all. And guess what? Companies just don't go out and storm into people's houses and take the mentally and physically challenged; but the disabled go to them so they don't live a horrible life off of $900 checks every month. That, my friend, is called trying. The disabled are trying to live a life closer to that of a non-disabled person. So why don't you stop your whining and as you said, 'deal with it.'

Again, this sounds harsh, but this counntry is supporting way to many things, and this "equal oppurtunity" crap is rediculous and is draining our economy. Let the fit work. Let the unfit deal with it.

So what? All the immigrants, people born poor, people who are disabled who didn't ask for it, orphans, and smart people who are never given an opporutinity deal with life and end up being the people on the streets whom you despise most of the time? Guess what? Yes! You're bigoted! You're giving people whom you gave up upon a shitty life because they were born unfit or became unfit and wasn't their fault.
Life sucks; but life usually sucks more for a disabled person because everyone shuns them and treats them like shit.

Equal opporotunity is what America progressed into. (Progressed; not founded on.) So take your advice again and deal with it. You're giving up on people who never had a chance.


I agree with the man/woman part; though.

Did you know in Sparta, back in the day, it was a milateristic state, Everything was done for the betterent of the city-state. If you were born with any dissability or handicap, they took you into the hills and left you to die. Cruel, huh?
But Sparta did have the most efficient army on land, no one could beat them.
Relevence? I dont know, just thought it was an interesting side note

Sorry to say; but that is 3000-2100 years ago; not now. And that statement just makes you sound more like a bigot; why?

1. Complete irrelevence to the topic; other that the part that includes 'disabled.'

2. You create bias by stating that they are the best since they got rid of disabled people.

 

[ryanwh]

Ace do you even have a job? You talk like an alienated aristocrate. You really think if someone like, say, my dad, gets injured ON THE JOB(he fell off a tank and screwed up his hip) he doesnt deserve any kind of job security or pension from the job which gave him his disability? I mean, he's certainly not as good a worker as he used to be, I guess they should just cut that weak link loose huh? That's just a really detatched way of thinking and I wish there was a desease of some kind to rid people of that mindset.

 

[TofuMatt]

I wrote a sweet essay for my english final in high school about why we should ditch retards and give the money spent on them to smart people. It was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but with logic. haha

It certainly is a fine line to walk. I'm not going to lie: I believe in affirmative action (that and "equal opportunity" are pretty much the same thing, though hiring mentally retarded people probably fits more into "equal opportunity" which gets more broad -- as a result, I don't feel as strongly for it). It has to be taken to the right place though, and it's always going to spark something in the majority who feel they are being robbed, and it's not always going to work...

 

[RavenTDA]

I'm a believer if you can't do the job goodbye you're fired no matter who you are. But since these people are getting paid anyway what's the point of the job babysitting them? Why not offer up programs to help the disabled be the best they can be by teaching them as much as they can instead of letting them sitting at home or just standing around at work doing things wrong.

Giving them a job they can't do doesn't help them. Yeah they don't have to stay at home but then going out there isn't always the greatest either. Some people can be very harsh towards them and I don't think anyone should have to endure that. But what exactly are these people getting out of the job besides a way out of the house and talking to people? Nothing...

So why not try and do a program where they can find out what they are good at and focus on it. Get them to do it as best they can and then have them able to go out in the work place and come back to the training to try and learn other things. I think people easily forget they aren't really getting much from the job either especially like Cortez explained in his situation. They guy was simply ignored.

 

[crazymew]

... ryanwh... i love you...(but not like elton john), you pretty much take the words right out of my mouth on this subject...

 

[Dopples]

I think the type of disability should come into play here. If a man/woman is paralyized from the waist down, there's still no reason they can't contribute hard work. They just need help with stuff like high shelves. Mentally retarded people are different, and think about it. Don't mentally challenged folk are blissful most of the time (Yes, I know there's execptions), and are probably as happy as babies usually are when their exploring the world around them. They don't feel sadness, so you really think a retard will even think of it as insulting to lose a job because they weren't able? (Again, I know, execptions exist)


And when I say retarded, I don't mean just speech impedements or being paralyzed. I mean Down Syndrome. Basically, I think that where you draw the line should depend on the disabilty itself, not the fact that the persons disabled.

 

[FoxDemonSoavi]

You should not hire a blind person to teach art class.

 

[Dopples]

You should not hire a blind person to teach art class.

Which was basically what I said.

 

[ryanwh]

You should not hire a blind person to teach art class.

That's not the same as a retarded person at a grocery store. You dont need to be all that smart to be a functional worker at the bottom teir of jobs. Its more like a blind person teaching music, he's still functional even though he can't view the specific notes on paper. He just has to adjust his teaching around that.

 

[FoxDemonSoavi]

yeah ryanwh I do agree with you there. I have said before that if a person can do the job let them.