3 ms·

We don't do it because it's the morally correct thing to do? Or even to promote a society where such things happen, just in case we or our relatives become disa

by mavhc 10y ago

We don't do it because it's the morally correct thing to do? Or even to promote a society where such things happen, just in case we or our relatives become disabled?

maxerickson 10y ago
It seems to overwhelmingly be the case that people make accommodations because it's law. It's not a bad thing and accomplishes much of what you speak of, but the ADA is pretty clearly the mechanism behind it, not people seeking good feels.
Houshalter 10y ago
How is it morally correct? It's not the lawyer's fault you are deaf. Why not make everyone equally pay taxes to subsidize the cost of the disabled? Putting the cost on the people that serve the disabled isn't really fair, and creates bad incentives, as seen by this very post.
sandworm101 10y ago
A business does it because it is the law. A person may do or not do something based on personal choice, but in this situation there is no room. Businesses must meet the minimum standard of behavior. In this case the government has issued a warning that this particular business seems not to have met the bar. If you are trying to pitch something, something that is going to cost a business money, "the right thing" isn't the place to start. "It's the law" is the far easier pitch. An ADA story: New startup has a funky cool HQ setup in some loft space. Their new HR/PR head, herself right out of university, advertises a communications position. Everyone reads resumes and eight candidates are selected for interview. They could have gone with Skype, but the founder wanted to see the candidates in person, to get a feel for whether they have the "cultural fit". Seven show up. They pick someone and move on. All seems well in startup land. A few months later the lawsuit appears. It turns out that #8 uses a wheelchair ... a wheelchair that required an elevator ... which their hip new HQ did not have and their hip new HR head didn't have the experience to anticipate. Now they are meeting with a not-hip lawyer at definitely not-cool law firm, but one with an elevator because every lawyer knows about the ADA.
- josinalvo 10y ago
  And the candidate did not bother to try to solve the issue with the startup directly first ?!
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    At the time, the ADA was harsh. He went to a lawyer when then sent a demand letter. This person was what some would call a 'professional plaintiff'. Laws in recent years have made that sort of thing more difficult, but the ADA still needs to be respected if you want to avoid headaches. Don't interview people in an non-accessible location. But part of me does side with the guy. The startup wasn't wheelchair accessible. And they were small enough that making it accessible would have been very costly. Even if he had made it to the interview there was a good chance they might have passed him over because of his chair. That's the sort of discrimination that the ADA was meant to address. The startup should never have setup at that location. Frankly, they had so many people crammed in that they were probably in violation of the fire code, another law that they don't teach you about at coding bootcamps.

by mavhc 10y ago

We don't do it because it's the morally correct thing to do? Or even to promote a society where such things happen, just in case we or our relatives become disabled?

maxerickson 10y ago

It seems to overwhelmingly be the case that people make accommodations because it's law. It's not a bad thing and accomplishes much of what you speak of, but the ADA is pretty clearly the mechanism behind it, not people seeking good feels.

Houshalter 10y ago

How is it morally correct? It's not the lawyer's fault you are deaf. Why not make everyone equally pay taxes to subsidize the cost of the disabled? Putting the cost on the people that serve the disabled isn't really fair, and creates bad incentives, as seen by this very post.

sandworm101 10y ago

A business does it because it is the law. A person may do or not do something based on personal choice, but in this situation there is no room. Businesses must meet the minimum standard of behavior. In this case the government has issued a warning that this particular business seems not to have met the bar. If you are trying to pitch something, something that is going to cost a business money, "the right thing" isn't the place to start. "It's the law" is the far easier pitch. An ADA story: New startup has a funky cool HQ setup in some loft space. Their new HR/PR head, herself right out of university, advertises a communications position. Everyone reads resumes and eight candidates are selected for interview. They could have gone with Skype, but the founder wanted to see the candidates in person, to get a feel for whether they have the "cultural fit". Seven show up. They pick someone and move on. All seems well in startup land. A few months later the lawsuit appears. It turns out that #8 uses a wheelchair ... a wheelchair that required an elevator ... which their hip new HQ did not have and their hip new HR head didn't have the experience to anticipate. Now they are meeting with a not-hip lawyer at definitely not-cool law firm, but one with an elevator because every lawyer knows about the ADA.

josinalvo 10y ago
And the candidate did not bother to try to solve the issue with the startup directly first ?!
- sandworm101 10y ago
  At the time, the ADA was harsh. He went to a lawyer when then sent a demand letter. This person was what some would call a 'professional plaintiff'. Laws in recent years have made that sort of thing more difficult, but the ADA still needs to be respected if you want to avoid headaches. Don't interview people in an non-accessible location. But part of me does side with the guy. The startup wasn't wheelchair accessible. And they were small enough that making it accessible would have been very costly. Even if he had made it to the interview there was a good chance they might have passed him over because of his chair. That's the sort of discrimination that the ADA was meant to address. The startup should never have setup at that location. Frankly, they had so many people crammed in that they were probably in violation of the fire code, another law that they don't teach you about at coding bootcamps.