4 ms·

> I don't think they are making it illegal to go the bathroom they are just making it economically awful. If you miss X minutes in an hour, the whole hour doesn

> I don't think they are making it illegal to go the bathroom they are just making it economically awful. If you miss X minutes in an hour, the whole hour doesn't count. You have to deliver X packages per hour everyday and one miss gets you written up, which can lead to firing. It's called disability discrimination. Getting paid less on the sole basis of your disability is generally considered to be disability discrimination in the US. Having to use the toilet every hour or so for 1-3 minutes to take care of business in this case is a reasonable accommodation legally mandated in US law. Considering that it is /immediately life-threatening/ and /immediately quantifiable/ (via blood pressure readings-continuous, spontaneous, or otherwise), it is very clear that Amazon would have an extremely difficult time weaseling their way out of trouble with their strict enforcement of a zero-tolerance, all-or-nothing, policy. > You seem to forget that a lot of these workers are unskilled and have few choices. Congratulations for pointing out the obvious. There are a ton of people who have ended up with UTIs and other health consequences from having to not only hold it at Amazon warehouse, but also being forced to purposefully dehydrate themselves, in the short term and long term. The toilet issue is so ridiculous that somebody who can should take them for a ride and fight for the people who are less fortunate. I would look to it as an adventure and a "summer job". I have legal authorization to work in both the US and the European Union on a long-term, permanent basis, so why not test the waters? As I said, the condition I have is immediately life-threatening, so it's pretty clear cut that they would be putting my life in danger (strokes, seizures, retinal detachment, etc.) by "punishing" me for using the toilet.

Loughla 6y ago
>Getting paid less on the basis of your disability is generally considered to be disability discrimination in the US. I mean, I get what you're saying. I work in Disabilities quite a bit in my profession - and your view is generally correct. But there are literal, specific carve-outs for employers to pay people with disabilities less. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/39-14c-subminimum-wage https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/39-14c-subminim... >Section 14(c) of the FLSA authorizes employers, [. . .] to pay subminimum wages - wages less than the Federal minimum wage - to workers who have disabilities for the work being performed.
- disabled 6y ago
  Going to the toilet once per hour for 1-3 minutes is not going to allow a company to pay subminimum wages when the starting rate is $15/hour. It is a simple, basic, /reasonable accommodation/ necessary for me to be able to work, at any workplace, that Amazon is legally obligated to provide. In fact, it is the only accommodation that I would need to work at an Amazon warehouse! The law you mention above is exploited by companies utilizing sheltered work environments (i.e. Salvation Army) for people who typically have severe disabilities that are often both developmental and intellectual, with respect to classification. Obviously companies that exploit human labor in this particular context are morally bereft. The key concept here is reasonable accommodation. It is not some abstract concept or use-case, like the one you pointed out above.
  - Loughla 6y ago
    Again, I agree with you. I do want to point out, though that those are not abstract concept or limited use cases. Any business, including competitive employment positions, can apply for that license, as long as they meet the parameters laid our in the law and regulation. I'm assuming that because of its size, Amazon would be excluded. Honestly, though, I am not familiar with the application process as we refuse to use it. That being said, I was genuinely just trying to point out that it is, in fact, legal to pay individuals with disabilities less than an individual without a disability. Language is important. Claiming that trying to pay individual b (who has a disability) any less than what you would pay individual a (who does not) for any work is automatically disability discrimination is just wrong. I've been sued several times by people who believe that fact, and have been proven right in my statements by the courts. I don't like it, but I don't control the law. Please note, I am not saying your needs wouldn't be an appropriate accommodation from Amazon. Please note that I am not saying it is morally okay to pay individuals with disabilities less. Maybe I'm being too pedantic. But honestly, the number of people who genuinely believe that they are entitled to get literally whatever they want however they want it, regardless of any other factor, simply because of their disability is just astounding. Reasonable is the important part of accommodation.
    - 6y ago

Loughla 6y ago

>Getting paid less on the basis of your disability is generally considered to be disability discrimination in the US. I mean, I get what you're saying. I work in Disabilities quite a bit in my profession - and your view is generally correct. But there are literal, specific carve-outs for employers to pay people with disabilities less. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/39-14c-subminimum-wage https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/39-14c-subminim... >Section 14(c) of the FLSA authorizes employers, [. . .] to pay subminimum wages - wages less than the Federal minimum wage - to workers who have disabilities for the work being performed.

disabled 6y ago
Going to the toilet once per hour for 1-3 minutes is not going to allow a company to pay subminimum wages when the starting rate is $15/hour. It is a simple, basic, /reasonable accommodation/ necessary for me to be able to work, at any workplace, that Amazon is legally obligated to provide. In fact, it is the only accommodation that I would need to work at an Amazon warehouse! The law you mention above is exploited by companies utilizing sheltered work environments (i.e. Salvation Army) for people who typically have severe disabilities that are often both developmental and intellectual, with respect to classification. Obviously companies that exploit human labor in this particular context are morally bereft. The key concept here is reasonable accommodation. It is not some abstract concept or use-case, like the one you pointed out above.
- Loughla 6y ago
  Again, I agree with you. I do want to point out, though that those are not abstract concept or limited use cases. Any business, including competitive employment positions, can apply for that license, as long as they meet the parameters laid our in the law and regulation. I'm assuming that because of its size, Amazon would be excluded. Honestly, though, I am not familiar with the application process as we refuse to use it. That being said, I was genuinely just trying to point out that it is, in fact, legal to pay individuals with disabilities less than an individual without a disability. Language is important. Claiming that trying to pay individual b (who has a disability) any less than what you would pay individual a (who does not) for any work is automatically disability discrimination is just wrong. I've been sued several times by people who believe that fact, and have been proven right in my statements by the courts. I don't like it, but I don't control the law. Please note, I am not saying your needs wouldn't be an appropriate accommodation from Amazon. Please note that I am not saying it is morally okay to pay individuals with disabilities less. Maybe I'm being too pedantic. But honestly, the number of people who genuinely believe that they are entitled to get literally whatever they want however they want it, regardless of any other factor, simply because of their disability is just astounding. Reasonable is the important part of accommodation.
  - 6y ago