4 ms·

Nice post, but I was kind of shocked by this part: "A question going through your head is probably: Did we underpay him?" Seriously? What kind of human beings

by dudul 10y ago

Nice post, but I was kind of shocked by this part: "A question going through your head is probably: Did we underpay him?" Seriously? What kind of human beings do you think your readers are? Did anyone here really think about that while reading the story?

charlieflowers 10y ago
The readers would not have to be rotten human beings ... merely non-naive. He didn't suggest we readers _wanted_ him underpaid. Just that we might wonder if they did. Many _would_ underpay him, so it's a reasonable thing to wonder.
macspoofing 10y ago
Not just you. That jumped out to me immediately as well. The whole article felt too self-congratulatory as it was.
- Rapzid 10y ago
  I find it interesting that they pay everyone at the same level the same amount. Unless that's an even more ambiguous statement than it reads; "level" being extremely subjective and analogue.. Their answer about pay is very open to interpretation. It has been a sellers market for a while now. I also agree with you about the feel of the article. Something just doesn't sit right with me about it.
- DanBC 10y ago
  I started reading it from a UK perspective. I couldn't get past the "we didn't break the law!" self-congratulatory feel. But then I realised that discrimination is common in the UK, and there are absolutely employers who pay people less because those people have disabilities; so I switched into enjoying reading about a company learning that employing someone with a disability isn't a big thing.
  - stevetrewick 10y ago
    Quite distressingly common. >"9 out of 10 employers rate blind and partially sighted people as either 'difficult' or 'impossible' to employ" (DWP, 2004) [0] Which is stupid beyond belief to anyone who spends much time with folks who have a visual impairment. Just off the top of my head I can think of a barrister, a librarian, a bunch of IT and development types and several qualified and practicing tennis coaches who are VIPs. And that's just out of my personal acquaintances. So while I almost bounced off this for the tone, in the end the tl;dr is 'we overcame our bias and it turned out to be no biggie'. As someone who spends a lot of time working to generate positive PR for VI I'll take this as a net gain. [0] https://actionforblindpeople.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/key-statistics/ https://actionforblindpeople.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/ke...

by dudul 10y ago

charlieflowers 10y ago

The readers would not have to be rotten human beings ... merely non-naive. He didn't suggest we readers _wanted_ him underpaid. Just that we might wonder if they did. Many _would_ underpay him, so it's a reasonable thing to wonder.

macspoofing 10y ago

Not just you. That jumped out to me immediately as well. The whole article felt too self-congratulatory as it was.

Rapzid 10y ago
I find it interesting that they pay everyone at the same level the same amount. Unless that's an even more ambiguous statement than it reads; "level" being extremely subjective and analogue.. Their answer about pay is very open to interpretation. It has been a sellers market for a while now. I also agree with you about the feel of the article. Something just doesn't sit right with me about it.
DanBC 10y ago
I started reading it from a UK perspective. I couldn't get past the "we didn't break the law!" self-congratulatory feel. But then I realised that discrimination is common in the UK, and there are absolutely employers who pay people less because those people have disabilities; so I switched into enjoying reading about a company learning that employing someone with a disability isn't a big thing.
- stevetrewick 10y ago
  Quite distressingly common. >"9 out of 10 employers rate blind and partially sighted people as either 'difficult' or 'impossible' to employ" (DWP, 2004) [0] Which is stupid beyond belief to anyone who spends much time with folks who have a visual impairment. Just off the top of my head I can think of a barrister, a librarian, a bunch of IT and development types and several qualified and practicing tennis coaches who are VIPs. And that's just out of my personal acquaintances. So while I almost bounced off this for the tone, in the end the tl;dr is 'we overcame our bias and it turned out to be no biggie'. As someone who spends a lot of time working to generate positive PR for VI I'll take this as a net gain. [0] https://actionforblindpeople.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/key-statistics/ https://actionforblindpeople.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/ke...