Continuing the theme...
The Beloved Community/A Beloved Economy
Vs
A Loveless Community/the Extractive Economy
I'm currently reading a book called Beloved Economies: Transforming How We Work, by Jess Rimington and Joanna L. Cea. I'm still early in, but it appears to be a great work talking about positive workable solutions for our Work and a healthy community/communities and world.
It touches on and borrows much (with acknowledgment) from the giants (known and lesser known) who've gone before us. Beloved Community, of course, from Dr King (who found much of that notion in Jesus' Community and the Bible) and "loveless" communities and economies from Kentucky's own deeply missed, bell hooks.
I'm reading it because it was recommended by those in my work world specifically about building economies that work for folks with disabilities who've been so marginalized and left out of nearly ANY economy for, well, ever. But of course, it's much bigger than that.
Because what many of us have talked about for a long time involves systemic policies and rules and traditions that are intertwined and interwoven, I think it can be difficult (at least for me) to think clearly about it. I think this book will help/is helping.
I imagine I'll have more excerpts and thoughts from the book in the weeks to come.
"It raised a question:
If work doesn't have to be locked in
harmful, exhausting patterns for our endeavors to succeed,
why aren't more of us adopting
beloved patterns of working?"
Vs
A Loveless Community/the Extractive Economy
I'm currently reading a book called Beloved Economies: Transforming How We Work, by Jess Rimington and Joanna L. Cea. I'm still early in, but it appears to be a great work talking about positive workable solutions for our Work and a healthy community/communities and world.
It touches on and borrows much (with acknowledgment) from the giants (known and lesser known) who've gone before us. Beloved Community, of course, from Dr King (who found much of that notion in Jesus' Community and the Bible) and "loveless" communities and economies from Kentucky's own deeply missed, bell hooks.
I'm reading it because it was recommended by those in my work world specifically about building economies that work for folks with disabilities who've been so marginalized and left out of nearly ANY economy for, well, ever. But of course, it's much bigger than that.
Because what many of us have talked about for a long time involves systemic policies and rules and traditions that are intertwined and interwoven, I think it can be difficult (at least for me) to think clearly about it. I think this book will help/is helping.
I imagine I'll have more excerpts and thoughts from the book in the weeks to come.
"It raised a question:
If work doesn't have to be locked in
harmful, exhausting patterns for our endeavors to succeed,
why aren't more of us adopting
beloved patterns of working?"
The premise of the book is that the way we, collectively, work isn't working for many/most of us. The "system" has been designed to work very well for the people at the top of the system, the people who make the most money. And it DOES work well for them. But if you're someone from an historically oppressed or marginalized group or just a regular citizen, that system - the "loveless economy" or "business as usual" - is not working well. It doesn't bring true wealth to society and especially, the most marginalized groups of people.
As I read this book, I find it ringing true over and over on point after point and yet, at the same time, find myself trying to wrap my head around its implications. This is the problem with any New Way of Thinking, I think. Being a new way of thinking and doing things, means literally thinking in new ways and that can be hard to do if, you know, you only have known the old ways of thinking.
And by pointing to "new ways of thinking," the authors of the book continually point out that they're not really new. Many/most of these ideas are actually ancient in different cultures. They're just outside of our current way of doing business.
79 comments:
I'm tempted to pick up this book myself, for no other reason than to see how you're misunderstanding it. Our current system works very well for any who choose to learn to understand it...as if it's all that hard.
As to those you regard as most put out by how things work, what more should be done? For the disabled, I've seen all manner of accommodation over the last fifty years or more. I've seen more handicap accessibility. I've seen deaf people on forklifts. I've seen blind, mentally challenged, poorly educated people working.
One of the biggest problems is the lack of understanding of how things work and/or the unwillingness to learn and/or implement that which lifts everyone who adopts the principles. For example, for many decades there have been books which teach simple concepts such as paying one's self first and living on what's left...within one's means. Most of the wealthy, those people like you chastise as being the "only" people for whom the system works, are simply those who implemented time-tested, long understood principles.
Should I get this book, I hope it's not a thick one. There's only so much tripe I'm willing to endure these days.
People with cognitive disabilities (some 8 million people in the US) have an unemployment rate of ~70%. The current system is not working well for them.
Yes, accommodations are a good thing, when someone can get a job. But what about the huge number of folks with disabilities who never get a job because they aren't going to be able to get a job under the current system/norms of getting hired.
As to those you regard as most put out by how things work, what more should be done?
That's a good question. Some of the answers include:
* Recognize that all people, regardless of ability or disability, can offer some service to an employer.
* Recognize that not all people are going to be able to go through a typical application process and/or a typical on-boarding process.
* Recognize that not every item on a job description is needed to offer value to an employer.
* Recognize that not everyone will learn the same way or onboard as quickly but that doesn't mean they won't be a valued employee.
* Recognize that, in general, folks with disabilities tend to be more loyal to their employers and thus, stay longer and work diligently. So, what you may lose in on-boarding expenses, you may gain in lower employee turnover.
* Recognize the data that shows that when employers give folks with disabilities the opportunity to prove themselves on the job, that not only does that mean that the disabled employee will typically have lower turnover, but the end result is that other, non-disabled people tend to stay longer.
In short, we have to think smarter about employment and recognize hidden values to the employer - and society - that comes with giving more opportunities to those who traditionally don't get hired.
If the short term bottom line and historical "common sense" over common ground is the decider in employment (the loveless economy/business as usual), then things won't change. We need to think smarter and at a larger scale.
And the book is 370 pages. This might be something conservative folks and progressive types could agree upon. We're trying to value those with disabilities, say that they CAN work, given the right opportunities. Conservatives ostensibly value people trying to get jobs and work to make their own money, that's what we're trying to do.
We're just recognizing that the system, as it exists now, isn't working for them, not when ~70% can't get jobs.
More data...
"* Only 44% of adults with ID aged 21-64 are in the labor force.
* This is compared to 83% of working-age adults without disabilities who are in the labor force.
* Only 34% of adults with ID aged 21-64 are employed, and an approximately equal number work in a sheltered setting as a competitive setting (where most people do not have disabilities).
* Regardless of the setting in which they work, almost all adults with ID are underemployed (are not full time and earn less than the minimum wage)."
https://www.specialolympics.org/our-work/research/national-snapshot-of-adults-with-intellectual-disabilities-in-the-labor-force
We should also note that "disabled" covers a wide range. There are college educated folks who happen to be blind or have gone blind later in life (or experience deafness), for instance, and those with these disabilities BUT with a college degree have one level of lack of opportunity in the workforce... say, maybe 8-15% under- and unemployment rate, and then there are those with cognitive disabilities who might be in a wheelchair and maybe with limited use of their hands or speech and these people might have a 60-80% under- and unemployment rate.
Then there are those with mental illness or who might be on the autism spectrum who might appear to be "typical" with no disabilities, but their communication deficits might make them just seem "weird" or "off-putting" and they may not get the chances for employment because their disability is invisible. We wouldn't expect the person in a wheelchair to climb a ladder to perform their job, but people will often expect those with these invisible disabilities to perform in a way that they're just not capable of performing.
It takes some education and desire for being open that doesn't exist fully currently.
You make a lot of assertions without supporting them. That's the sort of thing which gets my comments deleted, even though my points have been supported with evidence and facts many times already (you demand I do it all over again every time I remind you of what had already been proven).
But more importantly, who gets to decide what value ANY employee provides to the employer? Seems to me that would be the employer only, as it is his business built with his effort, money and sacrifices for his benefit and not for the benefit of just anybody who wants a job.
And even if you could provide examples for all employers to consider where the disabled paid off, that still doesn't mean every employer has a place or is in any way obliged to make a place for just anybody who wants a job. It seems self-determination isn't a concern of yours when it's that of an employer.
I would posit that among the disabled are many who are simply incapable. And you expect they should be given jobs nonetheless? It's clear you have no experience starting and running a business. You have no idea how many are running on tight margins, where every day effort is expended to maintain what was begun. On top of that, you expect positions to be created for those with disabilities? To find someplace to take a chance on a person with a disability? Not all businesses have such places nor are they obliged to find or create one simply to satisfy the demand of those like you that they should.
It's unfortunate that the disabled struggle. But it's not as if employers don't have other employees and customers with whom to concern themselves. You're clearly demanding another form of charity which might be more difficult to provide than simply giving cash to some institution who might provide care for such people. Indeed, if it was easy, this book would be unnecessary.
Your post did not seem to focus solely on the disabled. It suggested all sorts of people not of the top tiers of economic classes. It is for them which I suggested implementing tried and true tactics for elevating one's self into a higher economic class. Indeed, such has resulted in countless rags-to-riches stories in this country's history. The question with many of those at the bottom revolves around how they live their lives as members of that lower class, and what are they doing to minimize, if not absolutely prevent, more complications. Too many live beyond their means, increase their debt, and then whine about the system failing them, when the reality is that they did not actually use the system properly. This is a fact. We've all seen examples of it. So, you need to be clear about whom you want to include in your posts.
Marshal...
Seems to me that would be the employer only, as it is his business built with his effort, money and sacrifices for his benefit and not for the benefit of just anybody who wants a job.
In the Loveless, Business as Usual Economy, that is precisely correct.
In the Beloved Community and Economy, we recognize more and more that we are our siblings keeper, with an obligation and personal interest in looking out for/allying with the least of these.
In the Loveless Economy, it's all about the bottom line and what I (as the owner) to perceive to be my own personal interests, to hell with everyone else.
That's not the world I want to live in. That's not the vision Jesus (King, etc) envisioned and worked to implement.
I would posit that among the disabled are many who are simply incapable.
And that is precisely the stereotype that is imagined by many in society. The thing is, with very few exceptions, everyone can contribute something and they should be valued for what they can do, not dismissed because of what they can't do.
Here's the thing: All of us are temporarily-abled, more or less. We all will have those things that we can't do, to one degree or another. We may have a stroke or be in an accident and end up in a wheelchair, or have a child with a disability. We ALL are impacted by our different levels of abilities and disabilities. In the Beloved Economy, we recognize that and value those things that we all CAN do and make room for everyone who wants to, to contribute what they can contribute.
But you're right in so far as in the "it's all about me, bottom line, MY interests, loveless economy," such people don't care about the least of these. I don't want to and will not live in that world. I posit that it's for everyone's best interests not to live in that world.
I am familiar with a woman in a wheelchair, who could not speak, couldn't much use her hands. She was someone that many would say "she's just incapable of work" and be glad to dismiss her.
But she loved children. That showed in her eyes and she could communicate that much. And she loved books. She found a job (with assistance) where she worked at a Day Care reading stories to children. This Day Care valued reading to children but the employees there often were overwhelmed with simply taking care of children to always have the time to read to the children. So, they hired this woman and, with assistance and some accommodations, she used her head to tap a button on her wheelchair that was attached to a computer that used technology to read a page in a kids book. When she reached the bottom of the page, she nodded her head, which started the computer reading the next page. That nod was a cue to one of the children to turn the page, which they liked doing and which pulled them into the reading process. And the kids LOVED the "robot voice" that the computer used (that has, of course, changed with technological improvements).
She worked She contributed. She GOT PAID for her work and was valued for the contribution. She normalized for those kids people being in wheelchairs and not being able to talk, but still being able to communicate.
If we start with the assumption that there are some people who can't contribute anything, then that's the world we'll live in. I've seen that this is not a valid starting place.
"I am familiar with a woman in a wheelchair...etc."
That's a beautiful story. But it doesn't validate your demands on others. I say again, more is being done by better people who've put in the time, money and sacrifice to create, than by self-satisfied tools like you who do nothing but disparage those better people. It's real easy to be generous with the time, money and sweat of others.
BTW...I've been looking for info on the authors of this book. I've even found short biographies and I see nothing which suggests either has started a business of their own. What a surprise.
Marshal...
've been looking for info on the authors of this book. I've even found short biographies and I see nothing which suggests either has started a business of their own.
A 30 second search yielded this: Jess Rimington appears to have started her own business, here's her website:
https://www.possiblefutures.us/my-work
Also, obviously she's written a book and authors who are making money ARE running a business, as well.
But I'm guessing you don't think it's a "real business" if it's not making widgets and dumping waste into a stream, is that correct?
Now that I've made clear that your mis-understandings about what I do are just plain factually wrong in the real world, I might clarify a bit about what we DO where I work, insofar as it relates to this book.
We get to know our job candidates really well: their strengths, contributions, interests and conditions for success (as these notions are all things that help make ANY employment match a good fit, for anyone). With "conditions for success" being those things which need to be in place for an employee to have the best chance for doing well in a job. If a job requires climbing a ladder and I'm in a wheelchair, that's not a good match. If a job requires starting at 5 in the morning and I'm not a morning, that's not a good match.
We also strive to understand a WIDE range of employers in our area, what their needs are. We never ever want an employer to hire someone out of a sense of obligation, or because it's a "good/kind" thing to do for a "poor disabled person..." but simply because, "Hey, THIS person can do THESE tasks and that will be beneficial to me, as an employer, and to my bottom line."
It's always about finding good, "win-win" matches, where the employee will bring benefits to the employer and vice versa.
ALL we're asking is for employers to be open to the idea of, "IF this person can do THESE tasks, will it help my company/agency do the work we do?" and if so, if they'll give them a chance to do those tasks.
Period.
What we're doing is simply looking for rational, real-world good matches.
A lot of the time, we're just asking the employer to recognize, "Hey, not everyone interviews well, especially, if they're limited in their speech ability, but that doesn't mean they can't do the job... I should be open to thinking outside the box and that may ultimately help my bottom line. AND society and ME, personally, as a consequence. Win-Win-Win."
Sometimes, we're asking to "carve out" a job. For instance, historically, our office manager and secretary and warehouse manager have taken care of scanning these paper documents, saving them to an appropriate place, them shredding them... along with their other duties. And as a result, those documents often are sitting in a stack, waiting for someone to get to them. BUT, if we just gave THAT part of the job to a person who is entirely capable of doing them, then that will get the job done and free up my office manager, secretary and warehouse manager's time to do other stuff that only they can do." This carving out "unmet needs" tasks is often a win-win scenario. We're just asking for employers to be open to thinking outside of the box.
What's irrational or otherwise wrong with this?
Also, as an aside, given that conservative Christians often think that humanity, apart from God, is utterly evil and/or depraved, it always strikes me as odd that you think employers will naturally do the right thing, apart from an appeal to what's moral and rational. You seem to be suggesting that employers (ie, people who "create" jobs) will just do the right thing, apart from any appeal to morality, but the rest of humanity won't.
Do you see how that seems irrational and logically/morally inconsistent?
It should be mentioned...while it just occurred to me to mention...that in this system you decry, even normal people are without work. Thus, abled or disabled, people need jobs. Is there any point in this book where the authors speak of the economic policy which impedes the ability of the private sector to grow and thrive? Imagine conditions being such where no one able-bodied individual is without a job. Do you not think in such a case employers would look at the pool of disabled for help among their options?
You then take it upon yourself to disparage people you don't know...something about which you give me crap regularly despite the fact I've never actually done that...by accusing employers of being self-centered with a concern only for themselves with a "to hell with everyone else" attitude. Again, this demonstrates no true understanding of what went into the creation and development of most businesses. You speak of having started businesses of your own. How many did you employ? How many are still thriving? How many are growing to where constant expansion of your employee rolls is necessary? There are many businesses which are one-man operations...or close to it...which do not count in the context of my concerns. And until you describe in detail the businesses you insist you've begun, they never will.
So as I suggest that businesses are not necessarily able to carve out jobs for the disabled and should not be disparaged as a result, only then do you respond by saying you never do that when seeking employment for your clients. Well why the f**k didn't you say that early on? Without doing so, it should be easy to see why one might suggest your intention is not so understanding of business owners. Yet, at the same time, it's clear those who can already have, while others wished they could. It was YOUR comments which suggested this, and I would not have been led down that path were it not for how you presented your response to my concerns.
So once again, let's truly deal in reality. It is said that most businesses fail within their first five years (that's under the best of economic conditions). Most owners sacrifice well beyond the tolerance of those who will eventually make employment demands of them. They scrape, deny themselves (and their families) often working for others while developing their business on the side. When they can make the break from the job and work the business alone, they aren't anywhere near out of the woods. They often pay themselves last in order to keep vendors and whatever employees they might have had to take on happy. It is more often than not years before they actually turn a profit enough to enjoy anything akin to the fruits of their labors and still they often work long hours to keep it going. All this while assholes bitch and moan about what they should be doing for THEM before going home after eight hours doing as little as they can get away with doing.
And despite all this, some would dare suggest the system doesn't work for everybody. The only way this makes sense is to insist the system is obliged to employ. It. Is. Not.
I do not regard all employers as angels. I simply acknowledge their rights given the effort expended to create that from which too many falsely think they have a right to expect returns.
I do not, and have not, suggested their motivations beyond that of making their business sustainable, profitable and able to provide the products and/or services it set out to provide. Nor do I compare them to those who aren't business creators. From what smelly orifice are you pulling this crap? When can I expect that YOU will deal from a position of reality?
So where have I gone wrong in anything I've said in this thread, and how can you prove it?
Marshal...
First of all, screw your ultimatums.
Because you regularly make a habit of not answering questions directly, of being rude, vulgar, misogynistic, making racist and homophobic attacks, you are on a tight leash. Be a better person and you have more leeway. My blog, my rules. So, no, you can not dismiss my reasonable and polite requests that you simply abide by some basic common decency and respect.
Marshal...
questioned the notion that the system "isn't working", arguing instead it works just fine for those who abide its principles.
For those who are physically and mentally able to "fit" and "abide by its principles," perhaps, to some degree (not really so well, but to some degree). But the data showing the huge number of fellow citizens who are unemployed and underemployed demonstrate that whatever you may "question," the reality is, the system is NOT working for them. And we're talking about millions of people and fellow citizens, fellow humans worthy of respect and inclusion. So, it just doesn't matter that you question the reality, the reality is what it is.
Marshal...
I also acknowledged how in my entire adult life I've seen countless examples of the disabled employed.
? What does that even mean? If ONE person with a disability or even ONE HUNDRED people with disabilities are able to get jobs (and no one at all in the real world is saying that exceptions don't exist), that does not mean that the system is working. That 60-80+% of people with disabilities that have a larger impact in their lives are unemployed demonstrates that the system is not working for them. This point is meaningless.
Indeed, in those places where "you've personally seen" "countless" examples of people with disabilities being employed, it's probably most often the case of people whose disability does not have as large an impact. The blind worker who has a college degree has a great many advantages that help that person get employed that the person with cerebral palsy who is in a wheelchair and who didn't graduate from college doesn't have. Additionally, even when we're looking at, for instance, the college educated person with a disability group, their unemployment rate is 2-3x greater than those without disabilities, so they're STILL have a greater unemployment rate than those with more advantages/fewer impacts of disabilities.
Additionally, in those cases where a person with a greater impact of disability IS employed, it's going to be, most often, because the employer/family/community did naturally the sorts of things that we advocate as professionals - allowed for accommodations, for a longer training period, etc.
So again, this point of yours is irrelevant to the book and the point.
Marshal...
The true flaw is in the commonly held falsehood that companies exist for the purpose of employing people.
1. I have not said this. I do not believe this. I have not said this to employers.
2. In the "business as usual" model, this is especially true (businesses exist to employ people). In a model that's more like the Beloved Community, it's still true that businesses are not created (usually) for the purpose of employing people. BUT, if we are business owners that care about inclusion and healthy societies, then it behooves us to recognize - as in all areas of life - we ARE in a real way our siblings keepers. We're all in this together. Which is not saying "businesses exist for the purpose of employing people."
3. BUT rather, when businesses DO employ people (as many do), we're just asking them to be rational and open to thinking outside the box about WHO you hire.
4. The data shows, in study after study, that more diversity and inclusion in business is good for their bottom lines, for having a healthier company and for the world. That's ALL we're saying. Don't be trapped by "business as usual" and act in ways as if the people running the business recognize our interconnections and impacts for healthier communities.
That's all.
Why do you fight so hard on this?
And that comment was removed because you refuse to simply answer reasonable questions put to you. I'll deal with some points from your next comment then delete it, as well. You don't get to dictate how you will behave on my blog. Get over yourself.
Marshal...
" Is there any point in this book where the authors speak of the economic policy which impedes the ability of the private sector to grow and thrive?"
Insofar as neither this book nor I or in my field are calling for policies that "impede the private sector's ability to grow and thrive, " no. I'm curious: what specific policy do you think we're advocating?
Marshal...
"So as I suggest that businesses are not necessarily able to carve out jobs for the disabled and should not be disparaged as a result, only then do you respond by saying you never do that when seeking employment for your clients. Well why the f**k didn't you say that early on?"
?
1. Businesses, in the aggregate, ARE able to carve out roles. I'm not speaking of any one employer and never said I was.
2. I have not disparaged any one business. I and the book are speaking of systems and business as usual and how the staus quo is, as a point of fact, not working for the disabled. But we're not speaking about or disparaging any one specific business and their specific situation.
3. Why didn't I point out that I'm not speaking of any one business?? Because I literally was not speaking of any one business.
Why would you think I was saying something I wasn't saying? Why read into my words what's not there?
Marshal...
"And despite all this, some would dare suggest the system doesn't work for everybody. The only way this makes sense is to insist the system is obliged to employ. It. Is. Not."
Any individual business is not obliged to employ. Any given society is not obliged to have employment and work systems are obliged to employ people reasonably and fairly... but societies that DON'T have free, fair, equitable and healthy systems of work is a sick society. Societies that care about human rights and justice and a healthy citizenry is, of course, obliged to have healthy equitable systems of work and employment. Because of course they are.
You sound a bit like you're advocating some kind of laissez-faire hellscape of work and economies. I believe that a society should have healthy work systems with reasonable regulations, not a free for all.
I'm not sure of your point.
Again, for a group of people to have 80% unemployment, that system is literally not working for them.
Do you recognize the point?
Are you saying, "well, it's working for me, to hell with those groups it's not working for??
Dan
"But the data showing the huge number of fellow citizens who are unemployed and underemployed demonstrate that whatever you may "question," the reality is, the system is NOT working for them."
That's nonsense on two counts:
The "system" is something which "works". The system doesn't "work" for anyone. But it allows for the most success anyone can possibly achieve should they choose to do what they must. That some don't, won't or can't isn't a problem with the system. This is a false premise leftists promote as reality in order to deflect personal responsibility and blame others for their failures, regardless of what factored into their failures.
To the extent that anything apart from "the system" is resulting in the inability of some to work and achieve, those like you and the people you support for public office are far more responsible. This has been proven time and time again, but you continue doing the same things expecting better results.
"And we're talking about millions of people and fellow citizens, fellow humans worthy of respect and inclusion. So, it just doesn't matter that you question the reality, the reality is what it is."
I don't question reality. I speak of it truthfully. You make shit up and call it "reality". The reality is that failing to find work is rarely a matter of being unworthy of respect by employers not hiring. That's absurd. And no employer is required to be "inclusive" beyond bullshit leftist laws imposed upon them to hire based on that which has nothing to do with getting the best people or even people who can be assets. THAT is what reality looks like.
"? What does that even mean? If ONE person with a disability or even ONE HUNDRED people with disabilities are able to get jobs (and no one at all in the real world is saying that exceptions don't exist), that does not mean that the system is working."
That's exactly what it means. You think the system isn't working because not everybody who wants to work can find work. But that's just bullshit leftist "everybody gets a trophy" idiocy. A company can have 100 employees, finding room for five disabled people, and because a sixth person is not hired, somehow, to you, the "system" isn't working. What abject nonsense!
It's not a systemic problem. It's called "life".
Marshal, in an inane and sexist/misogynistic comment that is now deleted, said...
Never more than you've been at the blogs of others, Miss Double Standard.
Marshal also said...
And I have NEVER been misogynistic.
Your constant use of references to women or vulgar references to women's body parts as a sign of contempt and attempts to suggest that men are not "good or strong men," IS an attack on women. It's vulgar and demeaning to women, as if being a woman is less than ideal or a weak thing.
Such attacks here, especially the more vulgar ones you routinely trot out, will not stand. That you don't understand how vulgar or hateful towards women these attacks are doesn't mean that they're acceptable. Same for your hateful attacks towards LGBTQ folk.
Marshal...
But it allows for the most success anyone can possibly achieve should they choose to do what they must.
1. Prove this. You can't.
That some don't, won't or can't isn't a problem with the system.
2. Prove this. You can't. But how can it NOT be a problem with the system. IF the system keeps out people who can't operate in the system as it exists, of course it's a problem with the system. Now, YOU PERSONALLY, may be okay that the system, as it exists, systemically keeps millions of people from being able to benefit from it, but you can't say that it's working for those people.
That would just be irrational. And again, if someone doesn't give a damn about the most marginalized in a system, they can, indeed, say that it's okay that it doesn't work for those marginalized, that this is the price we pay for the system that is benefiting them, personally. But you just can't say it's working for the disabled. It's just literally not.
And this is why, in addition to calling it the "Business as usual" model, it's also appropriate to call it a loveless economy.
Marshal made this ridiculously false and unsupported claim...
To the extent that anything apart from "the system" is resulting in the inability of some to work and achieve, those like you and the people you support for public office are far more responsible. This has been proven time and time again,
And yet, you can't prove that, to be sure. Just another blindly partisan, stupidly false and unsupported claim.
Marshal...
It's not a systemic problem. It's called "life".
Indeed, it is (it's called life). In the loveless economy and business as usual. BUT, just as with the Realm of God and Jesus' Realm as he taught and the Beloved Community, it does not NEED to be that way. And of course, it's a systemic problem. That you don't give a shit about millions of the "least of these," doesn't mean it's a problem.
We don't have to settle for a system where the least of these are oppressed, homeless, marginalized and out of work. YOU may be okay with that, but don't shit in your bowl and tell us you're enjoying your soup. That you're okay with it doesn't make it okay.
"...they can, indeed, say that it's okay that it doesn't work for those marginalized, that this is the price we pay for the system that is benefiting them, personally."
Nobody says that. Only lefties even think in that manner, because they're liars who have no real plan.
"We don't have to settle for a system where the least of these are oppressed, homeless, marginalized and out of work."
You don't have a choice unless you;re presuming you can dictate to those who went through the struggles to create like you claim you've never said you do. And here you are doing it again. If you don't like the fact that people are in need of work, hire more for all your thriving businesses you started. Then you can pretend you're the only employer doing so, despite the fact that thousands already have.
"YOU may be okay with that, but don't shit in your bowl and tell us you're enjoying your soup."
���������� HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's the stupidest attempt at trying to be clever I've heard in some time!! And it again demonstrates you believe others...conservatives like me...are responsible for the fact that some people struggle to find work. This is just yet one more intentional lie from you. Those who shit in the bowl of economic expansion and prosperity, then claim it's soup, are your kind. Look what Biden...a mentally disabled liar of epic proportions...has done to the thriving economy generated by the policies of his predecessor about whom you unjustly spew hatred and vitriol. Trump reduced the impediments on "the system" placed their by YOUR kind and the unemployment rate was the best since the 1960s. Yeah. You really care about the "oppressed, homeless, marginalized and out of work." With "friends" like you...!!
"And this is why, in addition to calling it the "Business as usual" model, it's also appropriate to call it a loveless economy."
Economies can't love or hate. Conservatives and actual Christians do the former. "Progressives" and fake Christians like you do the latter. The economic idiocy of the left has led to an economy which struggles to provide opportunities, and you want to pretend it's "the system".
"And yet, you can't prove that, to be sure. Just another blindly partisan, stupidly false and unsupported claim."
The issue of Democratic/socialistic economic ignorance and destruction has been discussed and proven countless times in past discussions since at least the time I first began reading and posting on blogs. That's AT LEAST 14 years. But as usual, you pretend every claim and assertion reiterating that fact is the first time and demand proof you've already been given countless times. Honest people call it lying. In the meantime, you do nothing to prove the contrary.
"Indeed, it is (it's called life). In the loveless economy and business as usual. BUT, just as with the Realm of God and Jesus' Realm as he taught and the Beloved Community, it does not NEED to be that way."
Cite Scripture which addresses this or stop pretending. Stop voting Democrat and socialist and the result will be more opportunities for more people. YOU'RE most responsible for what you want to pretend is a loveless economy brought about by others. And despite the destructive consequences of the policies of your kind, thousands upon thousands of disabled work for a living nonetheless. If you were truly sincere about wanting to help, you'd do less which makes it hard for those in need. Pretending you're am actual Christian who understands Scripture isn't getting it done.
Marshal said, in a now deleted comment where he continued to demean and attack women...
It so happens that women are weaker than men.
Do you even KNOW any women? You're just a pig, man, with apologies to pigs. You're a emasculated dinosaur who perhaps doesn't even realize how insipid and vulgar your antiquated bigotries are. Give up. You will not make vulgar, demeaning comments or references to anyone on my blog. Try to move up at least into the 20th century. You're a relic from the septic tank of history of failed and irrelevant hatreds and inanities.
Just stop.
Marshal, in a now deleted comment where he SHOWED that he was incapable of supporting his false claims he continues to make, said...
The problem...again...is that you believe the private sector and capitalism is a system which is required to provide for employees...that the intention of starting up and maintaining a business is to employ.
I don't believe this. Do you understand that? You keep saying "you believe this" about things I've never said. Indeed, this is part of the problem of capitalism is that it's a loveless system, with no desire or need to operate in an ethical manner.
I don't believe that "capitalism is required to provide for employees," any more than I believe that "fascism is required to not slaughter people wholesale for no reason."
What I believe is that, IF WE WANT and VALUE a system that has positive results for the "least of these," the marginalized, oppressed, poor, disabled, etc, THEN we can choose to try to create policies and practices that encourage that, that BEGIN with the assumption that what's good for the marginalized is good for the rest of us. As Jesus taught ("what you do for the least of these, you do for me...").
If we want a loveless system, a "business as usual," laissez-faire system, we can just keep doing things without giving thought to the least of these.
I want to live in the former system, and you appear to be defending living in the latter. And you are FREE to do so, no one is stopping you. I'm saying that I think it's clearly irrational and can't believe how strongly you cling to that, but then the "status quo" and traditions can be hard to give up, especially if you're one of the ones benefiting from those traditions.
No need to respond, Marshal. You've made yourself clear.
I'd said...
In the loveless economy and business as usual. BUT, just as with the Realm of God and Jesus' Realm as he taught and the Beloved Community, it does not NEED to be that way."
And Marshal responded...
Cite Scripture which addresses this or stop pretending.
Been there. Done that.
Here are thousands of words and teachings from the Bible and from Jesus on the topic, gathered at various points in my blog posts...
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=red+letter%2FJesus%27+teaching
But to sum it up as it deals with your request to cite Scripture...
WHY did Jesus say he'd come?
To preach good news of the realm of God specifically to the poor and marginalized.
What did Jesus give to John the Baptist as proof that he was the son of God?
Tell John I'm preaching good news of the realm of God to the poor.
What did Jesus' tell his followers?
You feed them.
What you do for the least of these, you do for me.
Who is our "neighbor..."? Anyone in need.
DO NOT store up treasures on earth, but share with one another.
When you have dinners or parties, don't invite the elite. Invite the poor and marginalized.
Beware the trappings of wealth. No one can serve God and money.
etc
What did the early church beloved community do?
Sharing all things in common.
They shared everything they had, living in a communal arrangement.
They sold what they had and gave to those in need.
They welcomed all to the common dinner table.
Appointed deacons to make sure the poor and marginalized were taken care of.
What did Jesus (his mother, his brother, the prophets, etc) have to say to the wealthy and those in power (and all of us, as well):
Woe to you who are wealthy and well-fed now!
For God has lifted up the poor and powerless and tore down the powerful.
What you fail to do for the least of these, you fail to do for me.
[To the rich man who asked] Sell your stuff, give it to the poor and follow me.
Give, without expecting anything in return.
And on and on, as I have cited plenty of times before. Jesus came preaching about a beloved community, the REALM OF GOD, a place where the poor and marginalized are welcomed and emphasized. And while Jesus didn't "fix" all the financial woes and injustices faced by the poor and marginalized, Jesus said that we could and would do even MORE than he had. By keeping our eyes on Jesus - WHICH HE SAID means keeping our eyes on the poor and marginalized, the ones he came to preach good news to - by doing this and focusing on lifting up the least of these, we make the realm increasingly here and now. Thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done ON EARTH, as it is in heaven.
cont'd
And it's just reasonable. IF the world is increasingly welcoming to and uplifting of the poor, the marginalized, the disadvantaged and disabled, then it's increasingly a better place for ALL of us.
I'm out of time but just two quick examples of this: There was a study about curb cut access on sidewalks in cities, where by putting in curb ramps so that wheelchairs were not stranded on sidewalks but could more freely have access to the city, it was discovered that NOT ONLY did wheelchair users benefit (from that socialist work!), but it turns out it had benefits for many others.
https://mosaicofminds.medium.com/the-curb-cut-effect-how-making-public-spaces-accessible-to-people-with-disabilities-helps-everyone-d69f24c58785
Same for hiring the disabled. Several studies have shown that when employers hire those with disabilities, not only does it help the employer because those with disabilities tend to stay longer and be happier to be working (which saved bottom line money because of lower turnover), but a SIDE EFFECT was that OTHER "typical" employees ALSO stayed longer on the job and were happier at work. It had a net benefit that extended beyond the mere "kindness" of giving a person with a disability a chance to work there. It helped cold hard bottom line reality.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulamorgan/2020/12/16/3-reasons-to-hire-more-individuals-with-disabilities-in-2021/?sh=4525b03e3406
Also, I wanted to note that you seem to be taking this as an attack on Capitalism, writ large, when the answers and improvements and policies I'm suggesting are all consistent and can be done within capitalism.
Again, what we're actually talking about:
1. It's human nature to be uncomfortable around those who are different than us.
2. It's human nature to see those with disabilities and be struck by all the things they can't do, rather than seeing those things they CAN do.
3. It's human nature and easy for us to keep doing things the way they've been done, without thinking outside the box.
4. What we're saying, though, is that by thinking about "What TASKS do I, as an employer, need done?" instead of "What positions I need to fill?" that might open up room for carved out, specialized jobs that some people can do a great job at, while at the same time, freeing up other employees to do tasks they're great at.
For instance, if you have an office administrator who has an MBA and you're paying them $30/hour and if you add to their duties, "I want you to file these basic files, scan these documents, name them, store them on the computer then shred those hard copies..." well, those are tasks that someone WITHOUT an MBA - an assistant position - can do and you wouldn't have to pay that assistant $30 to get that work done.
But if we've always just assigned those more basic tasks to the bosses and administrators, then it's easy to just let that momentum keep going, even though it doesn't make great sense.
5. So, in that example, as you can see, it's not an attack on capitalism at all. It's a simple call to have an open mind about other ways of doing things. AND it's just common sense.
6. Then, when we look at the hard data and research into the OTHER bottom line benefits/side effects of having a more diverse, inclusive workforce, we start to see OTHER benefits that maybe we wouldn't have anticipated - that not only does it help to have that assistant position in place, but OTHER employees start reporting greater job satisfaction and the company starts having lower turn-over, additional benefits to the bottom line.
So, truly, it seems that you're getting bent out of shape based on presumptions borne from ignorance and defending capitalism, which wasn't even being attacked.
Noting that, in the real world, there is a HUGE problem for adults with disabilities in getting jobs and that we'd all be better off - again, in the real world and on the bottom line - if that wasn't the case, and asking, how can we do that? ... that isn't an attack or an accusation, it's just noting some data-shown realities and trying to think smarter about these real world problem.
Do you acknowledge that, for those with disabilities who are excluded disproportionately from the workforce, that at least for THEM, it's a real problem?
Do you think it's wrong to try to encourage us to think about ways to be more inclusive?
Looking at what we ACTUALLY do, looking at the research and data on the topic, do you think you may have overreacted in an irrational manner?
https://joshin.com/disability-inclusion-isnt-a-feel-good-initiative-it-grows-your-bottom-line/
https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/pdf-89/accenture-disability-inclusion-research-report.pdf
https://www.channelfutures.com/diversity-inclusion/boosting-the-bottom-line-six-benefits-of-disability-inclusion
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters
I can't tell you how weird it is to be talking about some simple basic ways to help people who have been traditionally oppressed and over-looked or ignored and for someone to strike back AGAINST trying to help and change the problematic conditions... Deeply weird.
Were you abused as a child?
There are multiple ways to be strong, Marshal. Just as there are multiple ways to be a weakling. You wouldn't last three minutes into giving birth, for instance.
Wanting to choose ONE way to measure "being strong," and then saying that women are weaker than men is demeaning to women.
"And Marshal responded...
Cite Scripture which addresses this or stop pretending."
And you go on producing nothing which supports either the notion that "the system" is not conducive to providing more freedom and prosperity than anything you've ever suggested as an alternative, nor than businesses are designed to employ, nor than employers must alter their business model to suit your marxism disguised as concern for the disabled.
I'm not going to re-litigate how you corrupt Scripture to support your marxism. Nothing in the teachings of Christ so much as hint as forcing charity out of the producers. Nothing in the teachings of Christ justify your demonizing of people you don't know simply because they've produced. Nothing in the teachings of Christ justify the pretense of concern while expecting others to do the heavy lifting because you won't.
Stop pretending you're a Christian. Exploiting the word to rationalize your leftist bent is sinful.
Marshal...
But you KEEP saying it every time you demean those who don't act in a manner you demand they must in order to be in your fictitious "Beloved Community/Economy".
Who? WHO HAVE I DEMEANED or suggested must act in a manner I demand? What company? What person? NAME THEM.
Cite the quote.
When you can't, admit this is just another stupidly false claim.
Marshal...
The proof of what I say followed immediately after the above quote from you:
"Indeed, this is part of the problem of capitalism is that it's a loveless system, with no desire or need to operate in an ethical manner."
But capitalism IS a system and there is no love in it. It's not human nor capable of love. It has no need to operate in an ethical manner, as long as it makes a profit for the owners.
How am I wrong?
What I'm saying is that we humans can CHOOSE to insert some moral and just policies into our economic systems. Are you opposed to making the HUMAN choice to make our economic systems have more guidelines/encouragements to have morality built in.
Capitalism:
"Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit."
But it does not NEED to be that way. When I've been involved in businesses (my own and a person I help), the motive was NOT merely to make a profit, but to make a profit and do so in ways that make the world a better place. I would think that any Christian or otherwise moral person would say the same thing.
Greed alone is a hellish motivator.
"And it's just reasonable. IF the world is increasingly welcoming to and uplifting of the poor, the marginalized, the disadvantaged and disabled, then it's increasingly a better place for ALL of us."
More reasonable is acknowledging the reality that no system has lifted up more people than our capitalist free market system. It's one thing to be free to think. It's another to think like an idiot. If the world is increasingly intolerant and rejecting of leftists, then it's an increasingly better place for all of us, including the disabled.
Your Mosaid of Mind piece is nonsensical. It assumes that without concern for the disabled that alterations in how we do things...such as curb cuts...wouldn't be implemented to make life easier for the abled. I get why they want to promote the notion, but it is making assumptions that have no basis in reality. In life, people are always looking for ways to make life easier. It's not as if without the disabled that process isn't ongoing. For example, it states the curb cut was introduced for the benefit of those disabled by military service. But do you really think that there would never be anyone else who found a reason to make such an alteration? Light bulbs flash on in the minds of so many all the time. You don't need to play stupid (if indeed you're only playing) in order to promote concern for the needy.
Your Forbes link contains other holes. For example, it links to an Accenture study which doesn't provide any data regarding the disabled-hiring companies before and after the hire. That is, was the hiring of the disabled a reason for their profitability, or were they already very successful and that success allowed them to take a chance on the disabled? It also simply asserts that the hiring of the disabled had a positive effect on the abled. It does nothing to support the claim. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Merely saying so isn't proof that it does. Where I worked before I moved had many deaf people employed. One was an expediter, whose main function is to make sure male deliveries are coming in and going out on time. This one expediter, named Martin, not only was deaf, but was so deaf that he was totally unable to speak intelligently. Every attempt came out a grunt of some kind which by itself conveyed no meaning whatsoever. Fortunately, he could read both lips and the written word and thus if need be, one could make one's thoughts and concerns known to him, but responses were another thing if he had nothing to write on. I got on famously with Martin, and we were able to make ourselves understood by the other for the most part. But even under the best of conditions, it was frustrating as hell for both of us, and I witnessed countless times the same between him and others. He's a good worker, but his disability interferes nonetheless. Fortunately, not so much the job can't get done, but there are many abled people who do far better. I enjoyed his company and when he came up with a good shot, it was funnier than it would have been had an abled person said it. He looked so happy to see me laugh so hard.
At the same time, there was another whose job was to load and unload trucks on a forklift. Far easier to communicate with him, and he could even hear music and speech, but he was a dick. I still got on with him quite well, but that he was a lazy ass wasn't mitigated by his disability...and he was a big, strong dude who could easily do the work. The point with bringing him up is that disability or not, people are people and to hire on the basis of disability guarantees nothing but that one has hired a disabled person. What comes after that remains to be seen.
Another issue with the link is the notion that retention is better where the disabled are hired. Again, the first issue is whether or not the company was able to experience high employee retention before the first disabled person was hired. There's absolutely no data addressing that in the link. Secondly, I have no doubt the average disabled person would not be keen to quit at the first displeasure given his disability likely made it tough to get the job in the first place. Why go through it again if dealing with crap will keep the checks coming? Millions of abled people respond to less than pleasing conditions at work in such a manner.
This link is just another case of leftists using raw numbers to support a premise when the raw numbers alone are just numbers. The numbers might be evidence of the premise being true, but as is usual, in this case they do not.
Marshal...
More reasonable is acknowledging the reality that no system has lifted up more people than our capitalist free market system.
You certainly can't prove this. It's your hunch, not supported by reality. Why this allegiance to a system built upon greed is good?
Stop spouting your unsupported hunches and start answering questions. Now. No more nonsense.
Why dost thou kick against the goads?
Questions to be answered. Now.
Who? WHO HAVE I DEMEANED or suggested must act in a manner I demand? What company? What person? NAME THEM.
Cite the quote.
====
Do you acknowledge that, for those with disabilities who are excluded disproportionately from the workforce, that at least for THEM, it's a real problem?
Do you think it's wrong to try to encourage us to think about ways to be more inclusive?
Looking at what we ACTUALLY do, looking at the research and data on the topic, do you think you may have overreacted in an irrational manner?
We don't have to settle for a system where the least of these are oppressed, homeless, marginalized and out of work. Do you recognize that reality?
Again, for a group of people to have 80% unemployment, that system is literally not working for them.
Do you recognize the point?
Are you saying, "well, it's working for me, to hell with those groups it's not working for??
======
The fact is, I have never done what you falsely claim I have done. Nor have my words suggested this is what we should do (force businesses to hire someone). This is a stupidly false claim that is in direct contradiction to reality and OPPOSITE of what we do.
Do you recognize that this is a false claim and one voiced from a place of ignorance, not reality?
+++++++
Do you see how this is not rational? Why not give those with some expertise in a field at least the respect due when you're NOT educated in a field?
+++++++
I know a bit about what I'm talking about and have real world experience that you just don't have.
That is factually correct in the real world, isn't it?
Also, how many businesses have you started?
++++++
Also, the data and research about how diversity and inclusivity help businesses as well as society is widespread and rather obvious. Do you have ANY data that suggests, from a research point of view, that these studies after studies after research after research after data after data are WRONG? Or is it just your uninformed gut feeling hunch?
=======
https://hbr.org/2020/03/do-your-di-efforts-include-people-with-disabilities
https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-initiatives-are-incomplete/420110
https://careerdesignlab.sps.columbia.edu/blog/2022/04/25/disability-inclusion-in-the-workplace-why-it-matters/
https://hbr.org/2020/11/getting-serious-about-diversity-enough-already-with-the-business-case
https://www.vcfo.com/blog/diversity-bottom-line/
I could go on and on and on with data and research. Do you have even ONE bit of research to support your ignorant claims. And again: Do you acknowledge this is not an area of expertise for you, that you've done NO significant research or study on this topic and you're just operating on your gut feelings as a person who is otherwise ignorant on the topic beyond your mere anecdotal information?
Time to actually directly start answering questions.
"Also, I wanted to note that you seem to be taking this as an attack on Capitalism, writ large, when the answers and improvements and policies I'm suggesting are all consistent and can be done within capitalism."
That's only because you're citing capitalism as problematic, when the reality is that it is the only economic system we have which has been most valuable to all people who wish to achieve and acquire the best possible life. I would even say it's the best economic system for achieving the goals you seek for the disabled. To crap on it is thus self-defeating and should cease immediately, given it's not at all the reason the disabled struggle as they do to find work. EVERYONE is required to prove to potential employers they can be assets to their mission. It's NOT the other way around. Indeed, the greedier the employer...if that's how you want to view those who haven't been open to the disabled...the more likely they'll hire a guy with no head if it means improving the bottom line. I would challenge you to provide evidence of those employers already struggling with tight profit margins who risked profitability to hire those who might cost them more to take on than their productivity would justify. I would give justified props to such people than I ever would to most of those who have hired the disabled because they already were economically secure enough to take the chance and then posture as being sacrificing for the betterment of others.
"1. It's human nature to be uncomfortable around those who are different than us."
Given the reasons for existing, that's enough to warrant and justify only hiring those who aren't. As such, I've always opposed forcing employers to abide leftist inspired hiring regulations. One should be free to run one's business as one sees fit, letting the market decide if it can bear the manner in which a given merchant does business.
"2. It's human nature to see those with disabilities and be struck by all the things they can't do, rather than seeing those things they CAN do."
It's not just those with disabilities who are impacted by this. Again, each of us is obliged to convince an employer we are capable of proving ourselves an asset. An asset means profits and those who can't provoke profits are only liabilities. Just as able bodied people are under scrutiny with regard to whether or not they're actual assets to the company, it must be the same for the disabled. Their disability makes that less likely in general, though not necessarily so in practice. Those employers who can afford to take the chance are generally not unwilling to do so. Of course the disabled are then at a decided advantage if they are border line, as few employers who hire them will want to face negative opinion when terminating the employment of a disabled person who isn't cutting it. That makes hiring them even more risky than not.
"3. It's human nature and easy for us to keep doing things the way they've been done, without thinking outside the box."
In business that's called, "don't try to fix what ain't broken". What you seek might indeed break a successful situation if the company isn't already profitable to take the risk.
"4. What we're saying, though, is that by thinking about "What TASKS do I, as an employer, need done?" instead of "What positions I need to fill?" that might open up room for carved out, specialized jobs that some people can do a great job at, while at the same time, freeing up other employees to do tasks they're great at."
That's what ALL hiring is...determining what tasks need to be done which the employer needs others to do in order for the employer to cover other more important bases necessary to achieve sustainability and profitability. It goes on all the time even without accounting for the disabled. As such, you're not breaking new ground at all. You're pretending. It's a simple thing. If you can show how a disabled candidate can do a job and improve the bottom line, few would not hire such a person. The more likely reasons you might fail in that endeavor are:
1. The employer simply has no room to hire anyone else regardless of how abled or disabled.
2. You've failed to convince the employer that the hiring of a client will be to the benefit of the company's mission which includes improving or at least maintaining the bottom line.
(I ran into an issue in posting my comments. I now have to re-do that which followed the above. There may be some redundancies and possible omissions which might affect the continuity and coherency of what follows. Any questions, please ask.)
(I just realized you responded to comments I made before I broke for dinner, in which you do your "ultimatum" shtick again. Allow my comments to stand and when I'm done with what is below this parathetical, I'll hit your comments from around 6:37 PM)
"...those are tasks that someone WITHOUT an MBA - an assistant position - can do and you wouldn't have to pay that assistant $30 to get that work done."
One must pay $30 PLUS what the assistant must be paid (plus all other costs related to hiring a person), whereas the MBA was doing it all. If the MBA is incapable to complete all work required in the time for which the MBA is paid, then, assuming the MBA is otherwise competent and an asset, another position will be created to get the rest of the work done. This is common practice in any business. Unfortunately, thanks to the rise in costs of everything since Trump-haters rejected Trump in 2020, many businesses are forced to get the same or more work done with fewer employees than they'd otherwise prefer to have.
"5. So, in that example, as you can see, it's not an attack on capitalism at all. It's a simple call to have an open mind about other ways of doing things. AND it's just common sense."
Your attack on capitalism comes when you attribute the struggles of those out of work to "the system". The only systemic problem is that which allows for Dems to be elected to public office in numbers great enough to impose idiotic, economy destroying policies. And an "open mind" which has no understanding of business is also detrimental to the prospects of the unemployed. The best business owners already have open minds. It's why they're the best. But it's also coupled with that understanding of business you lefties lack.
"6. Then, when we look at the hard data and research into the OTHER bottom line benefits/side effects of having a more diverse, inclusive workforce..."
Your "data" wasn't all that hard. It showed no direct correlation between diversity hiring and improved bottom line. There was no info regarding the profitability of any company prior to diversity hires verse after. What's more, they may already have been companies able to retain employees.
"So, truly, it seems that you're getting bent out of shape based on presumptions borne from ignorance and defending capitalism, which wasn't even being attacked."
It's quite clear I've a far better understanding of business than you, and what bends me is your presumption about what others must do to appease your notions of a "blessed community" as if you're even considering the struggles every owner and CEO must endure to maintain the company. That is to say, the ignorance is all on your side and thus, your comments are a clear attack on capitalism by attributing to it the blame for the struggles of those who remain unemployed. What's more, you've made comments about people you don't know having a "to hell with them" attitude. So yeah, buddy. You're attacking "the system" and those who thrive within it.
"Noting that, in the real world, there is a HUGE problem for adults with disabilities in getting jobs..."
There's a huge problem for LOTS of people getting jobs, not all disabled. You really want to help? Stop voting for assholes whose policies make it hard to do business...whose policies lead to rapidly increasing costs of living and doing business. You're attacking "the system" and those who thrive within it when they are victims of your voting choices, too.
"Do you acknowledge that, for those with disabilities who are excluded disproportionately from the workforce, that at least for THEM, it's a real problem?"
WHAT is a "real problem"? Your question is unclear. Please pose it again with more clarity of meaning.
"Do you think it's wrong to try to encourage us to think about ways to be more inclusive?"
Only if, as in your case, there is no intelligent understanding of business. Generally speaking, I applaud efforts to help the disabled find meaningful, bill-paying work. Just not at the expense of others, because just like anyone else...and I'm told they hope to be treated no differently...they must convince a potential employer they'll be an asset. I'd like to believe most of them don't want charity as much as simply a chance...just like many, if not most, able bodied people when seeking work.
"Looking at what we ACTUALLY do, looking at the research and data on the topic, do you think you may have overreacted in an irrational manner?"
No. Not even close. But what follows this question are four links which I believe are intended to "prove" that we benefit by employing the disabled. Based on the links I've already read previously, I have no confidence spending the time to properly peruse these four will provide me with that evidence. So, be a dear and read them yourself and highlight those which provide the evidence of companies improving their bottom lines because they specifically hired the disabled. I'll read the intently and likely find you're wrong, but at least I'll read them.
"I can't tell you how weird it is to be talking about some simple basic ways to help people who have been traditionally oppressed and over-looked or ignored and for someone to strike back AGAINST trying to help and change the problematic conditions... Deeply weird."
All I've done thus far is to "strike back" against your poor understanding of business and your weak attempts to support your premise. I favor helping the disadvantaged find work in order that they may be self-sufficient, and to the extent you many have ever been successful in doing that, I applaud you, too. But given your penchant for lying, you'll have to pardon me for not doing so whole hog. What's more, I say again that if you are truly concerned with "problematic conditions", you'll stop voting Democrats who are most responsible for conditions being such that few are able or willing to take a chance on hiring those with severe disabilities. Without knowing a specific employer, I would never suppose the person is either greedy or possessed of a "to hell with them" attitude about anyone. One might say that's what "embracing grace" might look like.
"Were you abused as a child?"
No. Were you in Special Ed?
OK... Now on to all that appeared since I went to dinner.
"There are multiple ways to be strong, Marshal. Just as there are multiple ways to be a weakling. You wouldn't last three minutes into giving birth, for instance.
Wanting to choose ONE way to measure "being strong," and then saying that women are weaker than men is demeaning to women."
You have no idea how much physical pain I've endured in my life. You've no idea of the level of my dedication to purpose or how I respond in times of trouble. And I have no doubt I'd have easy deliveries.
When speaking of women being weaker than men, it takes a lefty loon to presume I meant anything more than physical ability, matching one sex against the other. Knowing the fact is without question, you move to some bullshit ambiguity about other ways to measure strength. Only a liar would pretend I wasn't speaking of physical strength, and the context in which I made mention of that fact precluded any other measure.
My wife has a pretty high pain tolerance based on examples from our lives. Let's look at two of them:
1. We both had all our wisdom teeth pulled. We're both smart enough we didn't need them. She went about her business almost as if nothing happened. I needed drugs. Is she tougher than me? Neither of us knows the specifics of our individual wisdom teeth situations. Hers may have been an easy process. Mine may have been more impactful of my dental situation.
2. She sprained her ankle once, and then broke a bone in it another time. She went to work each time walking on it and the doctor thought she was nuts. Despite the discomfort. This warrior just assumed it would heal eventually and went about her business. I blew out my knee. In a crowded hotel banquet hall with several rings running and people everywhere, several people told me they heard it pop. I only felt it. I went down and when it hurt while people were trying to hold me down. When I got them off me and straightened my ballooning leg out on the floor, I was fine. I got up and tried to finish the bout. It would support me. But I was able to gimp around on it and show off how big the knee got. Later, I only used the crutches for long distances I had to cover. It pissed off the doctor.
My wife is tough when it comes to painful things, but there's no way to measure just how much pain she's actually enduring. Here's a third thing. When she gave birth to my daughter, she took an epidural. She still almost put her fingers through my forearm.
Women...and girlish "progressive" men...like to insist men couldn't handle pregnancy. That's easy to say when it can't be proven. I say I'd be more like that Indian woman in "A Man Called Horse" who stood up holding onto a tree while her husband watched from his horse, and she uttered barely a sound while dropping the heifer. I can see YOU screaming like a little girl, but I'd take it as a challenge.
Women are physically weaker than men. Fact.
"Who? WHO HAVE I DEMEANED or suggested must act in a manner I demand? What company? What person? NAME THEM.
Cite the quote."
I actually did this on more than one occasion. You can tell by the quotation marks surrounding the words you used. Maybe it's YOU who needs to be specific about those who you insist have a "to hell with them" attitude. Who are these people? What company do they run? NAME THEM. Cite their words indicating they actually believe this. If you can't, just say you went too far with expression this crap.
"But capitalism IS a system and there is no love in it. It's not human nor capable of love. It has no need to operate in an ethical manner, as long as it makes a profit for the owners.
How am I wrong?"
You're simply walking back what you said previously. To agree now it's incapable of love doesn't absolve you from saying something stupid like, it's a "loveless system". If you now acknowledge it can't love, then to call it "loveless" is absurd, redundant, moronic and any other negative label one could conjure.
But you don't go far enough in walking it back when you persist in suppose it "operates". It doesn't. Capitalism doesn't operate. People operate within in its concepts. The whole point is for those who do so to thrive. That some can't is a problem with them, not capitalism. Indeed, there's no excuse for those who can't which has any relation to capitalism itself. THAT'S how you're so very wrong...and so obviously so.
"What I'm saying is that we humans can CHOOSE to insert some moral and just policies into our economic systems. Are you opposed to making the HUMAN choice to make our economic systems have more guidelines/encouragements to have morality built in."
What you're saying is stupid. That's because you don't have the integrity to admit when you're wrong. The system is the system. Even in the worst...communism... people choose to actual morally or immorally. The system has nothing to do with that other than to compel immoral behavior because of the systems inferiority. That's not the case with capitalism. There's no need for immoral behavior which can be connected to this economic system, because it is merely another manifestation of liberty, providing people the liberty to be as successful as they can without government interference. Thus, I'm opposed to immoral people making immoral choices for profit. For those who do, we have the judicial system.
"But it does not NEED to be that way. When I've been involved in businesses (my own and a person I help), the motive was NOT merely to make a profit, but to make a profit and do so in ways that make the world a better place. I would think that any Christian or otherwise moral person would say the same thing."
This suggests that personal advancement is always a matter of ignoring the impact of one's efforts on others. Profit is always the driving motive of any successful business. If one can invent a means to provide a product or service which improves the lives of others, they are thus making the world a better place and making a profit by doing so. If one's product or service does nothing to enhance the lives of others, the business will fail. What legit biz can you name which doesn't seek to improve the lives of others as their means of making a profit? Indeed, that's the basis of all successful businesses. If one's product or service sucks, they don't last. Yours is yet another comment which disparages the typical businessman, by suggesting YOU seek to make the world a better place without regard to profit potential. Real business people create wealth by providing a product or service which makes the world better for those who consume them.
"Greed alone is a hellish motivator."
Here again you suppose most people of business are motivated by greed. And then you'll say you never disparaged them. Unless you have specific examples of specifically and provably greedy people, you'll be well served to discontinue presuming greed in those of business. You confuse greed with the desire to provide the best possibly life for one's self and family. I applaud those who do it so well they've money coming out their ears. You presume they could only do it out of greed and immoral practices, like a grace embracing lying fake will.
"You certainly can't prove this. It's your hunch, not supported by reality. Why this allegiance to a system built upon greed is good?"
More telling is your unwillingness to even attempt to prove it isn't true. Only morons insist capitalism is "a system built upon greed". That's so incredibly absurd only a "progressive" would dare say it. Name a system where greed cannot exist. I'll wait here while you don't.
https://fee.org/articles/capitalism-is-good-for-the-poor/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/5-statistics-showing-how-capitalism-solves-poverty-aaron-bandler
https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-capitalist-manifesto-hate-capitalism-too-bad-it-keeps-lifting-millions-out-of-poverty
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/take-a-bow-capitalism-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-of-extreme-poverty-in-20-years-thanks-to-markets/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/09/capitalisms-triumph-michael-tanner/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2020/07/27/anyone-who-doesnt-know-the-following-facts-about-capitalism-should-learn-them/?sh=1fca2bfb3dc1
https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-case-capitalism
https://www.aei.org/economics/international-economics/700-million-humans-have-moved-out-of-deep-poverty-in-the-21st-century-thank-capitalism/
I could do this all day. The only opposition of capitalism are from socialist sites, who do not provide the quality of evidence found in the links I posted and the many more I didn't. You're not arguing against a system. You're arguing against imagined ne'er-do-wells who an operate within any economic system and pretending they're emblematic of capitalism because it's the system in place in this country.
"Stop spouting your unsupported hunches and start answering questions. Now. No more nonsense."
The only "unsupported hunches" come from you. Clearly so. Indeed, I come here when I'm looking for nonsense.
"Why dost thou kick against the goads?"
When thou dost goad toward stupidity, evil and the detriment of the most needy, I'll kick you in the groin, not the goading.
So, in summation...
I posted a brief review of a book. The purpose of the book is to suggest that we look at ways to help our systems/policies/approaches to work be inclusive of those who have often been the most vulnerable and isolated. That when we do so, we are likely to make the world better for the marginalized AND the rest of us.
Marshal objects to this.
1. These people have done a bunch of research on the topic.
2. Marshal has done none.
3. These people and I have experience in the fields of employment and disability.
4. Marshal has none.
5. I have a degree in special education and have spent several years working with those with physical and emotional disabilities.
6. Marshal has none of that education or experience.
7. I have three certifications from Marc Gold & Associates (which took three years to get and has been compared to a Master's degree) in education and disability field.
8. Marshal has none of that.
9. But MY PERSONAL experience is rather beside the point. However, I have been mentored by folks with decades of experience in working with those with disabilities and working and researching in the field of employment as it impacts the disabled.
10. Marshal has none of that experience, education or knowledge/research in this field.
11. I've cited multiple studies and research and data that address the concerns that those with disabilities have as it relates to employment. In each of these studies, they're from experts in their fields and have found that diversity and inclusion is not only moral, but rational from a bottom line point of view according to these multiple studies.
12. Marshal wants to dismiss these studies, but Marshal has NOT ONE BIT OF RESEARCH that contradicts these studies.
13. Marshal himself has no experience or education in this field and hasn't studied it and can find NO data to support his nay-saying. But he disagrees with them and all these experts, anyway. Based on his gut feelings and his hurt feelings that people might dare be critical of real shortcomings in our current practices.
Marshal says, instead,
"Don't need 'em [experts, data, evidence]. All I need is to know that the links you've provided which I've actually read do not support the premise that business is enhanced by diversity hiring."
Yes, you're caught up and we can see that you have nothing. No real answers to the questions put to you, no data to support your nay-saying, no experience or education in these fields. Just your hurt gut feelings.
IF you have no data, you're done here. Just quit.
Why in the world would someone object to trying to find ways to help those with disabilities find gainful employment?
More words. More evidence that you have no evidence. Speaking from a place of ignorance and non-expertise and dismissing the experts (and a reminder, I'm not speaking of me, I'm speaking of the experts in the field and their research and the data from that which I've learned about due to my education).
Again, until you have ANY evidence that contradicts the research-based ideas I've advocated, just quit. I can be convinced by evidence, but not by the ignorant opinions of ignorant people (and "ignorant," here is not an insult, just the reality... you are literally not educated or informed on this topic).
Marshal, to the degree that you have folks with disabilities in your family/social circles, they need someone who is going to be an advocate for them... one who can envision a beloved community/beloved economy that works for them. I hope you can be a better ally for them than you've been in this post.
Deuteronomy 15:11 - the scripture that Jesus quotes: “Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
God wants Israel to be merciful and kind and giving to the poor and the foreigner in order to demonstrate God’s holy loving kindness to the world.
But armchair insurrectionists like Marshal and Craig and the other thugs turn a cold shoulder to the needy, thereby destroying the credibility and witness of their faith.
Marshal, who is by all measures, NOT an expert in the fields of disability OR employment, continues to question "where's the evidence that it's good for employers to hire those with disabilities...?"
Even though I've shared multiple links that speak to this. Like this one.
https://www.accenture.com/t20181029T185446Z__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/PDF-89/Accenture-Disability-Inclusion-Research-Report.pdf
Which cites studies showing, among other things...
"Moreover, Disability Inclusion Champions [those companies being most inclusive and diverse] were, on average,
two times more likely
to outperform their peers in terms of total shareholder returns compared with the rest
of the sample.
Whether or not a company qualifies as a Champion, strengthening its commitment to
persons with disabilities makes a difference:
Champions were twice as likely as others to have higher total shareholder returns than those of their peer group
Accenture research shows that companies that have improved their DEI score over
time (“Improvers”) were
four times more likely to have total shareholder returns that outperform their peers,
compared to non-improvers. On average, Improvers’ total shareholders returns
outperform industry peers by 53 percent,
while other companies outperform their peers by only 4 percent.
That's just one study. The point being, THOSE WHO KNOW and who are informed and who have studied this - including many employers, keep saying the same thing over and over: That it works for the bottom line.
AND STILL: Marshal has NO research to say otherwise.
And yet, he still continues to denigrate these experts and researchers, NOT because he is informed, but just because he wants to defend a status quo that leaves large numbers of traditionally oppressed and overlooked behind.
The REAL question is: WHY does Marshal - who is by his own testimony, IGNORANT on all aspects of the topic - keep defending the status quo?
Marshal said...
The REALITY is that the system is not flawed simply because not everyone thrives within it.
An empty claim that's EASY for someone to make when they're not one of those in the group with 70-80% unemployment. But just because Marshal makes an empty claim coming from a place of ignorance and non-expertise, doesn't mean a thing.
Do you think that's what Jesus would say? Do you think that's what those with significant impacts of disability would say?
Really?
Marshal...
Only a lefty would look first to the system and not to the individual, where more likely the real problem exists.
Yes, that's right. Let's blame those with significant impacts of disability. THAT is reasonable and just.
Get serious. Do you not recognize how offensive and callous that charge is?
Blame the victims, that's part of the methodology of white supremacists and modern conservatives, but not rational, good people.
"the individual, where the REAL problem exists..."
Marshal says.
The individual, who through no fault of their own, was born with cerebral palsy and are not able to get a high school diploma, not able to walk, maybe not even able to talk clearly or use their own hands. THEY are where the "real problem exists..."
Do you not recognize that this is an evil-level of self-centered-ness and lack of concern for your fellow human beings? Are you blaming those with disabilities for being where "the real problem exists..."?
I mean, it's not like they've heard that throughout their lives, in one way of another. But rarely so clearly, directly or hatefully.
Be a better human, Marshal.
Marshal...
What legit biz can you name which doesn't seek to improve the lives of others as their means of making a profit?
Ha ha ha ha ha hahahahahahahahahaha!! whooo... ey, ha! Ha ha hahahahahhahahhaahahaha ooh ho ho, whoah, ha ha, hahahaha, snicker, guffaw.
Wow.
Okay:
Coca Cola
Pepsi Cola
McDonalds
Fox "News"
Alex Jones
Rush Limbaugh
Amway
Walmart
Trump Inc
Peabody Coal
Massey Energy
etc, etc, etc
Are you seriously saying that cokes are benefiting the lives of its consumers? That Peabody and Massey Coal (and the convicted criminals in their outfits) did what they had done for anything other than profit, people of Appalachia be damned?
You don't really think - in spite of all we've learned about their corruption - that Trump and his business allies were not just trying to get rich off of simpleton suckers?
Come on, you can't possibly be this naive.
If you are, YOU are the reasons that con artists exist.
Marshal, if you don't have any data, experts, research or real world information to add to this conversation. Move on.
I'll address this from you:
"Describe the perfect system for me, Dan."
1. There is no perfect system.
2. But ANY system that leaves large swaths of people out of jobs - whether it's people of color, immigrants, women or people with disabilities - that is an unacceptable level of imperfection.
I can live with the reality that not everyone will easily get a job. I can't live with a system that leaves a MAJORITY of a given group of people out of jobs. If (when) 50+ percent of women were not able to find gainful employment, we'd recognize that such a system was fatally flawed. Right?
For instance, in certain cultures where women were largely kept from work (and of course, this is a reality in our world today and in our own nation's relative recent history), we recognize that this is wrong.
The same is true for those with disabilities. If we were finding that the average unemployment rate for US citizens was 4% and women or those with disabilities were unemployed at a 5% rate, well, that's negligible. Being unemployed at a 50, 60... 80% rate, that's not acceptable.
There's a huge difference and I'm not willing to live with it. You may be, but I'm not, which is why I do the work I do.
WHICH, to prevent you from making stupidly false claims again, is NOT "forcing" companies to hire people who can't do a job but instead about recognizing the skills and contributions people CAN bring to a company (disabled or not) and working to encourage employers to recognize the great value that these contributions bring to their company AND the resulting better world we'd live in.
What is there to complain about in that?
Marshal said, with NO evidence to support him and in a heartless manner that is part of the problem of the loveless economy (so thanks for being a perfect object lesson)...
There's no "system" you could conjure which would significantly narrow the job gap between abled and disabled people, because disabled people bring specific and serious challenges to employers as well as what they suffer themselves. You can't erase that, no matter how you pretend it's possible. It's not a systemic problem. It's a problem with the fact they're disabled. Period.
Of course, in the real world, there is such a system. I've seen it in operation. It's a reality. Employers can of course hire folks for what they can do, pay them for what they can do and BENEFIT from what they do. Period.
It's just being willing to give it a try on the employers' end and perhaps some planning and assistance from a Job Coach on the job candidates' end to make sure that the job is a good match.
So, deny reality if you want from your place of ignorance, having ZERO data to support your mean-spirited biases, I've seen it work. Of course, it can work AND benefit the company's bottom line, as the data demonstrates and benefit society when the disabled are able (or more able) to pay their own bills and be engaged in the economy.
This IS a capitalist solution, by the way.
Now that you've thoroughly embarrassed yourself and shown that you are part of the problem, not the solution, and that you don't have data to support your dismissal of those with disabilities, go away.
Marshal, in a now deleted comment because he's STILL not supporting anything he says with any data or anything other than his opinions, said...
It's called "the system we've always had", where employers who are able, take a chance on hiring the disabled for the same reasons they hire anyone else
The system that we've always had has a 60-80% unemployment rate for folks with greater barriers to employment. I'm looking to operate from WITHIN the system that we have to EDUCATE people/employers about how employing those with disabilities makes sense and simply ASKING folks in positions to make decisions to be open-minded enough to give people a chance at employment WHEN it makes sense to them, and to do so in such a way that BRINGS down the number of folks with disabilities who are unemployed.
WHAT in the hell is wrong with you for objecting to this?
I'm saying to employers:
IF you have tasks that need to be done by someone who can do them BUT you're reluctant to hire them because they're in a wheelchair (even though it doesn't matter for the tasks being considered) or they don't speak well (or at all) (even though that doesn't matter for the tasks being considered), then I'm encouraging those employers to look past the limitations (that don't matter for the tasks being considered) and recognize the capability.
WHAT is there to object to in that?
And as always, disrespectful, vulgar, abusive and unsupported comments won't remain. Just stop wasting your typing.
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment because he is still providing NO data to support his opinions...
This isn't an issue of being charitable and sacrificial on behalf of the disabled, because you're not framing the premise in that manner. It's far more clear such is the case and I have no problem advocating on that basis as advocacy for those in need is always a matter of charity and sacrifice on the part of those who provide for the needy
YOU ARE CORRECT. It ISN'T an issue of being "charitable and sacrificial on the behalf of the disabled..." The disabled don't want your pity or charity. Ask them, they'll tell you. TO HELL with patronizing systems that only prevent the starvation through "the kindness of wealthier folks taking pity on behalf of the poor disabled." TO HELL with that.
We're talking about being reasonable and acting in a rational way because it makes sense societally which, in turn, makes sense individually. We ALL are only temporarily and partially abled. Having a society that works in a just, non-patronizing way for most of us, including and starting with the "least of these," (which itself could be considered patronizing, by the way, so we ought not push that) for those with more barriers to overcome, we'll have a society that works for all of us.
Again, how is that just not kick-you-in-the-face reasonable?
Marshal asked, in a now deleted comment...
"YOUR claims are clear...that company bottom lines are improved somehow by the hiring of specifically disabled people as if able-bodied people are incapable of doing as much or better because they're not disabled. Where's your data which supports this premise you continue to promote here? "
It's referred to in all the links I provided. I haven't checked, but nearly every one of those links refers to "according to the research from..." and cites the source. Now, no, not each of them hand feeds you the hard data, but the multiple sources ARE referred to in those links.
Now, let's assume you know NOTHING about the topic, but you see report after report citing company after company that says, "It works from a bottom-line point of view..." WHAT is your data/source/authority for distrusting those sources... especially about something that is so obvious? Is it the case that you think that the disabled can ONLY be accommodated through charity (as your previous quote suggests) and can't reasonably pull their own weight? WHY would you begin with that?
Isn't it the reality that you have NO data, NO special access to information and NO expertise to question these multiple reports referred to in these multiple links? WHY begin with distrust?
Saying, "cuz it don't make sense to me, a non-expert, so I have a hard time believing it" doesn't really make sense, but at least that would be an honest answer and I could work harder at hand-feeding you the data.
You've made it abundantly clear that you have no research or data to base your distrust of these multiple research efforts mentioned in these links. Here's a hint: This is not an unknown idea. It's been researched for at least two decades and is fairly well excepted amongst those informed on the topic, including business owners who've seen it work.
From the links I provided...
According to a 2018 report
published by Accenture,
companies that prioritized the inclusion of individuals with disabilities were four times more likely to outperform
WHERE is the data from?
From a 2018 report from Accenture.
WHAT did I have to do with the report?
Nothing. I'm just citing the study and the researchers.
More...
The discretionary income for working-
age persons with disabilities is $21 billion—greater than that of the
African-American and Hispanic segments combined.
WHERE is the data from?
From a 2018 report from the American Institutes for Research.
WHAT did I have to do with the data?
Nothing, just citing what the research has said.
Research also shows that companies that employ a more diverse workforce, including individuals with disabilities, are also better positioned to attract and serve a more diverse customer base.
WHERE is the data from?
The Center for Financial Planning.
WHAT did I have to do with the data?
Nothing, just citing the data.
the Department of Labor found that employers who supported those with disabilities saw a 90% increase in employee retention.
WHERE is the data from?
The Department of Labor.
The Accenture study highlights six main areas of “inclusion incentives” – increased innovation, improved shareholder value, improved productivity, access to the supplier ecosystem, improved market share and enhanced reputation.
WHERE is the data from?
The Accenture study.
WHAT did I have to do with it?
Nothing, just citing the data.
All of that, and much more, from the links I cited, which were only a few of the links to research about this.
Do you have any data to doubt these studies and researchers?
WHERE IS IT?
If you have nothing, move on.
"According to a 2018 report
published by Accenture,
companies that prioritized the inclusion of individuals with disabilities were four times more likely to outperform"
That's an assertion. It is NOT "data". An assertion requires data to support it. Where is it? Not in the link itself. That's the one I read. Try again.
"Research also shows that companies that employ a more diverse workforce, including individuals with disabilities, are also better positioned to attract and serve a more diverse customer base."
Again, that's an assertion. It is NOT "data". An assertion requires data to support it. Where is it? Not in the link itself. That's the one I read. Try again.
"the Department of Labor found that employers who supported those with disabilities saw a 90% increase in employee retention."
Again, that's an assertion. It is NOT "data". An assertion requires data to support it. Where is it? Not in the link itself. That's the one I read. Try again.
"The Accenture study highlights six main areas of “inclusion incentives” – increased innovation, improved shareholder value, improved productivity, access to the supplier ecosystem, improved market share and enhanced reputation."
Again, that's an assertion. It is NOT "data". An assertion requires data to support it. Where is it? Not in the link itself. That's the one I read. Try again.
If you don't like the word "assertion", the one can say all the italicized excerpts of your response are "conclusions" drawn from what they're calling "research". Perhaps the data which supports these conclusions/assertions are somewhere in the research, but they chose not to include it in your link. YOU certainly didn't do jack shit to ascertain or affirm that such data actually exists to support the claims/assertions/conclusions your falsely label "data". It's NOT "data" at all.
"Do you have any data to doubt these studies and researchers?"
You keep asking this. I've made no claims and thus need no data. One doesn't need data to request that you supply the data which supports YOUR claims. That fact remains however long we choose to do this dance. I question the veracity of your claims (the claims of your book and links) and you provide no support to satisfy the questions. How leftist of you. How false and cowardly of you. How disparaging of the disabled of you to fail in this regard so intentionally.
And one more time: you could absolutely fail to find any actual data to support the claims of the book, or your link (including those which you now say refer to the same report) and I would still support efforts to place the disabled. Their placement could be confirmed as having no impact of any kind on a company's bottom line, ability to retain employee, or any of the other claims you've all made, and I'd still support efforts to employ the disabled. Read this paragraphs at least ten times, or as many times as is necessary to get it through your pointy head. And then get back to providing the data to support the claims.
Demanding data is for proving claims made, not for questioning claims made. You're making the claims. Not me.
I'm citing these (and could cite others) instances of people referring to specific research. The questions you need to answer is: GIVEN how wide-spread these assertions/references to data are, and given that you have no data to doubt them...
WHY do you doubt them?
Is it the case that you suspect they're making it up? A conspiracy of experts just making empty claims?
Why do you suspect they might be doing this?
I doubt them because there's no data provided to support the claims the research makes.
I suspect that claims might be made in earnest and still not be supported by data. Thus, data is required if one is going to make the claims these people make and you simply parrot because you can't find the data which would support the claims you want to believe. This doesn't suggest any "conspiracy", though in another example of "embracing grace", that's the route you choose to go to disparage me for doing what you would do were the roles reversed. Indeed, you demand support for far less than specific claims such as those made here.
All I suspect is that you have no ability to uncover whatever data might exist to support the claims made, regardless of what compels them to make them. I suspect, based on the fact you've not provided such data that no such data exists, but I'm willing to look at whatever you provide...provided it's actually data and not just more "researchers" making the same claim without data.
Does this clear things up for you at all, or are you simply going to pretend I'm doing something wrong by living by your rules of expecting claims to be supported with data?
While I agree with the premise that helping the disabled to find employment, I have a question.
If someone hires a disabled person for a particular job, is it reasonable to expect the disabled person to be able to perform all of the functions of the job they were hired to do?
Yes, of course. We would not help arrange getting anyone in a position they couldn't do. Indeed, we've heard of employers working from the pity/feel good angle who'd say, "aw, we don't really care if they get the work done... just glad to help them out..." We would absolutely NOT facilitate such a job.
Thanks for asking.
That was me, Dan.
Now, what we DO support is carving out positions from existing jobs. If the Kroger Stocker position read
Must be able to stock products on a shelf, requires stretching and bending all day long
Must be able to use ladder
Must be able to read labels
Must be able to lift 75 pounds...
Like that. And if we had a person in a wheelchair who could not climb a ladder or reach above five feet, but who was quite adept at stocking all the lower shelves, as long as the item was under 40 pounds...
And if the other stockers hated the bending involved in stocking the lower shelves, then we might discuss with the employer to hire them for what they CAN do, which is stocking the lower shelves, which wouldn't be a pity hire because it's actually helping out the standing employees.
We are looking always for win, win, win scenarios. A benefit to the employers, first of all, but then also to the employee with a disability, and also, to the co-workers (one of them who, for instance, has a sibling in a wheelchair, which tells him his sibling could also one day work!) and also to the community which has another tax paying citizen. Etc. Wins all around. It's really quite rational.
Dan
Thanks.
What we might be asking employers that's out of the ordinary (depending on the individual situation)
1. To carve/adapt a job where it makes sense
2. To be open to thinking outside of the box
3. To be open to perhaps a longer on-boarding process (the reason being is that if on-boarding typically takes 2 weeks and with this candidate, it takes 4 weeks... BUT once they're trained, they have it and are more likely to stay employed twice as long, for instance, as a typical employee, so that extra 2 weeks of training is more than paid off by the reduced turnover costs.
4. To be open to that new employee having a job coach who comes in occasionally to make sure things are going well. When needed.
5. To be open to accommodations - like larger print instructions, for instance. Which, in some cases, the employer finds these accommodations to be helpful beyond just the employee with a disability.
Like that.
Dan
Marshal...
Those points describe a guy who can't life as much, can't stock the same amount of shelves and must be monitored by a "coach" to ensure he's even doing what he's allowed to do. Totally added expense.
You're just flatly wrong and reading into my words ideas and false conclusions that aren't there.
* The coach is there on site SOMETIMES to help, as needed, not to "monitor" to "ensure he's even doing what he's allowed to do." That's not what I said.
* The coach, by and large, has been viewed as an extra benefit by employers, not a "monitor/guard."
* There is ZERO added expense to the employer to have job coaches working with (usually not on site) their disabled employees.
Employers regularly note that they have employees (non-disabled) who don't show up or who are struggling for one reason or another. In those cases, most employers just hope that the employee pulls it together. There are often few resources to help such a struggling employee. In the case of our employees, that employer recognizes our services as a whole other resource and they wish that ALL their employees had that sort of support.
Beyond that, your words indicate you're reading what I'm writing and not comprehending correctly, so you're spewing back other comments like the one quoted above, which is just wrong/misleading and harmful to disabled folks striving to get jobs by passing on bad understandings.
If you can't help, at the least, get out of the way.
any "carving out" is a cost by definition which must be recouped in some way, or accepted as a hit on profits.
Again, a false and unsupported claim.
If you can't help, at least get out of the way and stop spreading claims that cause harm. Just get out of the way. If you have questions, you can ask politely.
"* The coach is there on site SOMETIMES to help, as needed, not to "monitor" to "ensure he's even doing what he's allowed to do." That's not what I said."
Tom-AY-toe/to-MAH-toe. The point you dodge is who is paying for the "coach"? The employer, the employee, the government or is the "coach" just doing it for nothing out of the goodness of his heart? My point continues to confront the unsupported claim business profits are improved because the disabled are hired.
For the sake of this point, however, the coach helping requires some degree of monitoring to know that help is needed. He will then insure the the disabled is able to do what he's hired to do. Why else would he even be there???
"* The coach, by and large, has been viewed as an extra benefit by employers, not a "monitor/guard.""
Perhaps if the "coach" is not charging for his efforts. But then, his presence is proof the disabled isn't doing the job as well as an able-bodied person, so it's difficult to see how the company is profiting solely on the basis of having hired the disabled guy in the first place.
"* There is ZERO added expense to the employer to have job coaches working with (usually not on site) their disabled employees."
Who's paying for the guy? If the disabled is doing the job, why is a coach needed? If the disabled needs the coach, how could he possibly be getting the job done in a manner which makes his employment a cost benefit for the employer?
"Employers regularly note that they have employees (non-disabled) who don't show up or who are struggling for one reason or another."
This is comparing apples and oranges. I'm assuming both disable and abled are equally devoted to being good employees. If the able-bodied employees the employer hired are worthless assholes, then any responsible, mature and dedicated candidate will improve the bottom line, and likely more so than any disabled person who must be accommodated at the employer's expense in order to do jobs able bodied people can do just by being hired.
So if you need to bring up less than ideal able-bodied employees in order to support your position, then you're losing. You're certainly not supporting the claim they make the employer more money, which is the claim I'm trying to get you to support instead of dodge.
"Beyond that, your words indicate you're reading what I'm writing and not comprehending correctly, so you're spewing back other comments like the one quoted above, which is just wrong/misleading and harmful to disabled folks striving to get jobs by passing on bad understandings."
Another intentional, bullshit lie. I'm totally comprehending that you made a claim you can't support, and instead of doing so or admitting you have no way to support the claim, you're instead attacking me as if I'm doing ANYTHING at all harmful to the disabled. Stop lying. Do what you demand of me and others who make claims. Support it with hard data and evidence and not simply the words of "experts" which are no more than just making the same claim.
This is typical. Anything which isn't 100% supportive with whatever "cause" you're pushing is seen as harmful to those you pretend to defend. This is nothing like the mature, adult conversations you pretend to want here at this blog you intend to be just an echo chamber.
The point you dodge is who is paying for the "coach"? The employer, the employee, the government or is the "coach" just doing it for nothing out of the goodness of his heart?
Job coaches/Employment specialists get our money from the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation and from grants. OVR was primarily started to help veterans disabled in wartime to help them overcome any barriers that would prevent them from gaining employment.
There is NO cost to employers OR to the job candidates/employees we support.
If you want to know something when you're ignorant about it, respectfully asking questions is the way to educate yourself, not making claims coming from ignorance.
My point continues to confront the unsupported claim business profits are improved because the disabled are hired.
The employers who have hired folks with disabilities - people who are actual experts on the question being asked and know of which they speak - disagree with your hunch coming from a place of ignorance. Again, if you're uninformed and ignorant of a topic, the right thing to do is respectfully ask questions and educate yourself, NOT presume you know an answer (despite having ANY expertise in the field) and making false and unsupported claims.
Look, if you are a business owner and want to be an ass and refuse to hire someone just because they may be more disabled than you (they're not!), then you can make that call. We wouldn't want any of our clients working for you with your irrational bigotries and uninformed decision-making.
Marshal...
But then, his presence is proof the disabled isn't doing the job as well as an able-bodied person, so it's difficult to see how the company is profiting solely on the basis of having hired the disabled guy in the first place.
No, it's not. It's proof he isn't doing the same job as the "able-bodied" person. The person in a wheelchair hired to do data entry is NOT going to climb the ladder to put boxes on a shelf. It's a different job.
Now, maybe in some cases, that employee need extra practice to learn the data entry process for that particular company, and so their job coach works with them after hours or during lunch to coach them along. That doesn't cost the employer anything. AND, the data shows that typically, folks with disabilities stay on the job longer, which reduces employee turnover, which SAVES (not costs) the employer money.
Again, just because you're ignorant of a topic, doesn't mean your irrational and uninformed hunches are right. Indeed, if you're ignorant of a topic or the specifics of a topic, then asking questions respectfully is the more rational and grown up way to go.
Listen to employers talk about the benefits they've experienced:
“[A disabled employee has] been with us for 35 years. He’s never missed a day and he’s never late. Whenever there’s a snowstorm, he prepares to get to work on time and most of the time the manager’s not there. So, we look at that individual and say, ‘Wow! We need more guys like that.’”
"In 2007, the American company Walgreens opened a distribution center in which more than 30% of the 800 employees lived with a disability. The result was surprising, as the center was 20% more efficient than comparable facilities without disabled workers. In addition, employee turnover was half that of other employees, and people with disabilities had a third fewer incidents or accidents than their non-disabled colleagues (Kaletta et al., 2012)."
Listen to the experts:
"The authors of the same study (Hernandez et al., 2008) concluded that although costs associated with employing people with disabilities were minimal, and employing them helped create an overall more positive work environment, managers are still biased against hiring workers with disabilities. "
"Excluding people with disabilities ex ante can therefore harm the economic performance of the firm, and ultimately place a business at risk for losing customers to its competitors."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00707-y
Also from that last source:
"Even severely handicapped people can contribute to the economic success of a company, if they are deployed correctly."
And this is where and why job coaches/employment specialists come into play. We are specifically NOT just trying to get one of our job candidates just any job, anywhere that is willing to hire them. That has been tried in the past and proven to be not helpful. We're trained to learn the strengths, contributions, interests and conditions for success of our job candidates very well so that we can spot roles that they can excel in at a given employer. And we also spend a good deal of time with employers, learning about their needs, what's missing in their company that would benefit from them. And when we find a task/group of tasks that employers vitally need to be done AND we have a job candidate who we're confident can do those tasks, THEN we have a match.
Another benefit to the employer is that, for any given "typical" job applicant, it can be hit or miss as to recognizing if they're a good fit for a job. The job applicant will obviously try to present themselves as best they can, maybe sometimes exaggerating what they can and can't do. In our job candidates' cases, the employer has someone (the employment specialist) who has already vetted the candidate and said, "We're sure they can do this and here's why...")
It's a very common sense, data-driven set of solutions. As the data shows.
"Job coaches/Employment specialists get our money from the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation and from grants. OVR was primarily started to help veterans disabled in wartime to help them overcome any barriers that would prevent them from gaining employment.
There is NO cost to employers OR to the job candidates/employees we support."
Ah...so there's no cost to the employer or employees for the "coach", except that the cost they would be paying is paid by...me and millions of other Americans. Well, this isn't the worst example of welfare, except that like all welfare, the recipients never pay back the welfare they were given. But I accept there in a civilized society, there must be some form of this in some specific cases. This is but one. Of course, it covers only one aspect of the extra effort required to take on a disabled person, and that will then mean the employer pays.
"If you want to know something when you're ignorant about it, respectfully asking questions is the way to educate yourself, not making claims coming from ignorance."
This is what disrespect looks like, just so you know actual disrespect when it happens:
Look, asshole, I wasn't in the least bit disrespectful in asking for clarification on the subject of who pays for the coaches. In doing so I AGAIN made no fucking claims of any kind. Why must you be such a grace embracing dickhead in trying to find fault where none exists? What kind of asshole does that? Don't answer...it's rhetorical. YOU'RE the kind of asshole who does that for the great crime of not being 100% on board with whatever kumabaya crap has appeal to you, even to the point of disparaging "respectfully asking questions". What a dick!"
See how that looks? THAT'S an example of a disrespectful response, and still it's provoked by YOUR disrespectful behavior.
"The employers who have hired folks with disabilities - people who are actual experts on the question being asked and know of which they speak - disagree with your hunch coming from a place of ignorance."
Yeah, I know. You keep telling me that. What you don't do is provide evidence which supports the claim. How many times must I ask for relevant info in a respectful tone without getting a direct answer before I'm justified in getting pissed off? Clearly it's more than a dozen or two.
"Again, if you're uninformed and ignorant of a topic, the right thing to do is respectfully ask questions and educate yourself, NOT presume you know an answer (despite having ANY expertise in the field) and making false and unsupported claims."
The only thing about which I'm uninformed on this subject is as regards data demonstrating the elevated profits the disabled provide which the able-bodied don't, which is YOUR FREAKIN' CLAIM AND THE CLAIM OF YOUR "EXPERTS". And I've asked for it respectfully many, many times now. The right thing to do is to respectfully provide that information, admit you don't know how to find it or admit that it's not a true claim at all. I've not presumed anything or I wouldn't be continually asking the same question you haven't answered, the only question I HAVE been asking since your post and subsequent comments have made and restated the same unsupported claim. So stop with the bullshit about ME making false and unsupported claims, and support the claim YOU'RE making or admit it's a false claim or you're not competent in finding the answer. Hey! Here's an idea! Hire one of your disabled clients to find the answer for you! By your irrational stance, that's likely the best way to get it done.
"Look, if you are a business owner and want to be an ass and refuse to hire someone just because they may be more disabled than you (they're not!), then you can make that call.".
My reasons for not hiring ANYONE, disabled or not, would be solely because my first duty in selecting employees is to improve the bottom line. That's true of EVERY freakin' employer with whom you've succeeded in placing a client. Some may claim otherwise, but if the bottom line isn't a priority, the business cannot survive. It is the bottom line which dictates whether or not the business is sound, AND whether or not it can support ANY employees, disabled or not. This is such basic stuff.
Thus, my choices would not be a matter of being "an ass". That's YOU. My choices would be based on what I believe is best for the success of the company, as is my prime directive as an employer. Disabled or not, an employee must be a benefit to that directive, not a liability. There's no way for you to prove a candidate will be such a benefit. You can only make an argument for that claim and ultimately, I'll have to decide if I'm will and able to take the chance without harming the mission of the company. This isn't able-ism. This isn't being a ass. But only an ass would suggest such a thing, and that's clearly why you exist on earth.
Such people are clearly more disabled than I or they'd be the one running a business and hiring people. Don't make stupid statements which insultingly patronize the disabled. I've no doubt they'd not appreciate it.
Abled or not, I need to know that hiring someone will be a benefit. Why this seems foreign to you only indicates you haven't had real experience running a real business. The only type of business which can survive otherwise is a government financed business because they never have any true oversight over efficiency and productivity. Real businesses can't exist like that for very long.
So once again, the claim you made and haven't supported is regarding the profitability of hiring the disabled, not the character of those who do or don't. Stop being an ass and get to providing your evidence.
"We wouldn't want any of our clients working for you with your irrational bigotries and uninformed decision-making."
Ah...here we go again. You can't respond to logical, WELL INTENTIONED questions and concerns, so you attack me as an irrational bigot how makes uninformed decisions. We'll set that unsupported claim aside to give you room to provide support for the main one still on the table since this whole thing began. Tick-freaking-tock, Danny boy.
"No, it's not. It's proof he isn't doing the same job as the "able-bodied" person. The person in a wheelchair hired to do data entry is NOT going to climb the ladder to put boxes on a shelf. It's a different job."
I'm not talking about different jobs. I'm referring only to the job the dude was hired to do and needing a coach to help indicates he's not able to do the job. Even if additional training is involved, there's a cost and apparently it's free to the employee and his boss because the American people pay for that coach. That's been covered. Now we have a guy who can't do the job and needs additional training. Regardless when it happens and who pays and for how long it must go on, until the dude gets it, is assisted in being able to do it, he's not producing. That's a cost to the employer, just as it would be for anyone else who wasn't getting it. The difference is that either the boss pays for the able-bodied guy to get additional training, the guy pays himself, or the guy is let go. There would be no stigma attached to doing so, because the guy wasn't producing. It happens and is sad in any case. I've no doubt you'll disparage any employer who decides that's the best move where it involves a disabled guy, regardless of the necessity of doing so for the sake of the company's survival. You don't care about such things and will just assume the boss is a dick. That's how you roll.
"AND, the data shows that typically, folks with disabilities stay on the job longer, which reduces employee turnover, which SAVES (not costs) the employer money."
The same is true with any employee who does what he's paid to do. You're again comparing your dedicated disabled guy with slackers. So you're argument here would have to be that the disabled guy who stays on the job longer, reduces liability costs. That's not the same as improving the bottom line, unless all the other employees are worthless sluggards. So once again, the purpose of hiring any employee is to enhance or improve the bottom line. The employee must pay for himself and then some in order to be worth having. "Sticking around" is not a sufficient supportive argument for the claim the hiring improves profitability.
Clearly you're woefully uninformed on the claim you've made/repeated, so just admit it and retract the claim until you can actually back it up. I won't go believing you're not down with hiring the disabled because you were pushed to honesty. I'm not convinced there's any way of supporting the claim at all and I'm not opposed to hiring the disabled at all. I'd love to know that everyone who can does. But that's me. I don't have to lie about why it should be done in order to believe it should be done.
"If the disabled is doing the job, why is a coach needed?
Because there exist biases and assumptions about folks with disabilities.
Because it's often assumed that they won't be able to do the job and thus, are often not given opportunities.
Because humanity inherently "others" people and feels discomfort with people who are "different."
Because humanity at large may not be familiar or comfortable around some traits that come with some disabilities ("Why does he make sudden loud noises every once in a while? They should make him stop that! I don't want to work next to him!" not realizing that for some folks, those sudden loud noises are not something they can avoid any more than the person in a wheelchair can just choose to stand up and walk around - education is still needed. For instance.)"
Well, none of this answers the question I asked. It all sounds like that which comes before hiring, not after, and what you said suggests working with the client to help him learn how to do the job. So clearly your intent here is to disparage people and not answer the question. But don't worry, you did answer it in the previous comment well enough. I've moved on.
I'm going to respond to at least a few of these points, though, as though the dude is hired.
--biases and assumptions about folks with disabilities are an irrelevant concern for co-workers of the newly hired disabled guy, just as they are regarding any other hire. The boss saw fit to hire a person and existing workers have to allow for traits which might provoke concerns. Don't see where a coach matters after the dude lands the job. However, if I'm a guy who must work directly and daily with any new person, I do need to know the person can do the job and I will wonder about anyone at first, and it is normal and rational to have greater concern about a disabled person.
--This is handled at the interview and is just another case of convincing an employer to give the job to the candidate. Naturally there's more convincing needed for a disabled person and that's normal and rational. There are obviously hurdles to overcome which are not common. But that's not why I asked the question regarding the need for coaches after the fact.
--The next two are further repetitions. Why you need to pad your lists is beyond my ability to understand. It's dishonest and certainly doesn't improve your argument to repeat yourself as if doing so is providing a new argument.
"Our work is customized to each.....worth the investment of time and money."
None of this bit is relevant to the question and why I asked it. I know all this stuff and it is all what I assumed to be the case. You suggested the "coach" comes it to help the client learn how to get the job done. All of this speaks to how the person gets hired in the first place. Certainly none of it supports the claim which led to this discussion, and I'm still awaiting the evidence and data which supports that claim. When can I expect to see it?
"Case after case shows that, given the right support, folks with disabilities can of course work and be of a great benefit to an employer, including to their bottom line and to increased productivity and reduced job turnover and the costs associated with those."
Pretty much the claim which remains unsupported. And you're again simply speaking of what any good employee does. I've been employed by the same company for nine years now. I have missed perhaps three weeks total in that time (I really don't think it's quite that much) due to illness, with the longest being for Covid in December of '21. That was possibly seven or eight work days I missed. I missed a about four days due to a DOT doctor forcing me to see a cardiologist over an insignificant irregular heartbeat which both an ER doctor and then the specialist said was incredibly common and of no concern. Then I missed a day with the flu in my second year after working with it for a few days. That's not a bad attendance record, especially when omitting the needless absence over a DOT doctor's demand and probably a day or two I didn't need to miss due to the Covid issue (protocols being unreasonable). My wife has missed far fewer days over a longer period of time. The point here is that we both are what you're talking about in an employee. The disabled guy in his job is no more or less productive, reliable or profitable than we are. Thus, compared to us, there's no way one could say hiring a disabled guy would be of more value to the company (assuming we could all do the same jobs or whatever job we have). Your claim has been the disabled improve the bottom line. Are you working hard to weasel out of that claim? Seems so.
"...if for instance, this employee takes two weeks longer than a typical new employee to get up to speed, BUT if they then stay twice as long (4 years instead of 2, for instance) than a typical employee, then the employer benefited financially by allowing the extra time for on-boarding. MORE than benefited."
A big if. Why are these allegedly "typical" employees bolting so quickly? Without a definitive answer, it's meaningless. The reasons are no doubt many and can easily be reasons which don't lead to the assertion that a "typical" employer will EVER benefit from hiring a disabled guy over an abled guy. You're making assumption and then pretending employers will back you up. There's a huge difference between recognizing any employee's value and asserting that employee is irreplaceable and beyond reproach.
And how do you back up the "MORE than benefited" claim? All employers want employees to stick around regardless of how they rule over them. Some will, some won't. Disability doesn't make a difference except in one way: The difficulty in finding a gig will compel one to hang on to whatever gig is found, and the person will take more crap than he otherwise would as a result. I would also say that an employer is likely to give a disabled person LESS crap than he would anyone else, because of the disability and everything which goes with dealing with the disabled (and their "champions") so that it becomes a bit exploitative. (Think illegal immigrant. Similar dynamic.)
"Or consider the strengths that some with disabilities bring, not just the obstacles they might have."
Now you're talking about finding the right person for a job. That doesn't plead for the disabled per se. That a disabled person might be that right person doesn't mean the claim stands. The right person for the job will ALWAYS result in improved profits. No employer would let a disability interfere with hiring the right person for the job, though it would still require weighing the cost of doing so against the return. Your claim is still unsupported.
In response to you last comment on February 25, 2023 at 7:27 AM, your anecdotes simply validate my concerns with the claim you've still not supported with data. In the first response by the employer, he found a good employee. What makes him better than the others? We've been through this, and the disabled person's situation makes him less likely to want to jump from job to job given the difficulty in finding jobs willing or able to take him on. They have a degree of fear and desperation the average employee doesn't have, and that's simply a matter of the easier time the normal dude has with moving from job to job. As such, the disabled is less likely to complain and attempt to move on.
Claims of the type you make MUST be put against others in an apples to apples way. In this case, that means a disabled guy against an abled guy with equal degrees of work ethic, dedication, etc. And really, if those like you are doing the heavy lifting of matching candidates to jobs...and I've no doubt you must go beyond what most head-hunters must do...that too makes comparisons unjust and inaccurate. To a very real degree, the disability forces a client to be a better employee because his disability is already a great disadvantage. He can far less afford to suck and hope to get away with it or come out with another gig. So if the result is that the employer is getting what he should be getting from every hire, the claim is not proven to be true, but only that disabled people might not suck as much as abled people.
At this point in the conversation, it's crystal clear the claim is well intended but not at all true. This fact has nothing to do with support for hiring the disabled. But it can't be used as a reason to hire if it's not true, which it's clear it isn't. The best you've done is demonstrate in the cases with which you're familiar, employers found the type of employees they wanted and hopefully few of the are exploiting these people because of their situation.
Post a Comment