Pics that make you smile

88277ce17dacf4e13c5c98285caf0c1d.jpg


Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
 
country_hick said:
I agree... However...

Searls v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 158 F. Supp. 3d 427 - Dist. Court, D. Maryland 2016
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+lights+billion&hl=en&as_sdt=3,60&as_ylo=1990

JHH then claims that because a nurse's starting salary is about $60,000, and a full-time ASL interpreter would cost $120,000, "n order to fund the $120,000 annual cost, the nursing unit would have needed to lay-off at least two full-time Registered Nurses."

Additionally, even if it is correct that the salary of a full-time ASL interpreter would be twice the salary of a nurse, that in itself does not establish that an ASL interpreter would be an undue hardship.

Because all three experts lack experience with deaf healthcare professionals or deafness in general, they cannot reliably testify about how Searls would have worked with an interpreter to monitor and respond to alarms, and whether she could safely monitor and respond to alarms on Halsted 8 with an interpreter. Additionally, because the court finds that JHH's direct threat defense relies on post-hoc rationalizations without any individualized assessment, the proposed expert testimony about whether a deaf nurse can safely monitor and respond to alarms with the assistance of an interpreter is not relevant. Therefore, the court will grant the plaintiff's motion to strike.
Click to expand...
I had to read that several times then read the linked article to be sure that was really the judgement.

So the law is that it is "reasonable accommodation" to employ two (or more) people to do a job that one person can do, at many times the cost of a regular employee, provided the disabled person still plays a key part in all the essential job functions.

That isn't my idea of reasonable, even if a business can bear the burden.

It is simply government offloading its responsibilities for social care on businesses, in a way that harms randomly selected businesses. It is in effect a random tax.

IF this provision is intended to create a just society, the extra expense should be paid for by society as a whole i.e. come from government and general taxation. Oh, but wait... then the public would have had a say at voting time.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
 
362667d1502259471-20245333_10156444612444867_6971908988298867304_n.jpg
 
Rajagra said:
...So the law is that it is "reasonable accommodation" to employ two (or more) people to do a job that one person can do, at many times the cost of a regular employee, provided the disabled person still plays a key part in all the essential job functions....
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it's not the law but rather the way a specific court has chosen to interpret the law based on a case before it. It's not at all uncommon for special interest groups to go 'judge shopping' when they file these types of cases. It's no secret that individual judges have their personal biases and some will rule accordingly - in spite of supposedly being neutral - and special interest groups will seek out a case in a specific jurisdiction in order to get a favorable ruling. A example of this is the recent rulings against Trump's 'Muslim Ban' where the case(s) was(were) brought in courts where the judges were known to have politically liberal leanings and were more likely to rule against the ban than a judge who is more conservative.

Once a precedent has been set other courts are reluctant to issue a ruling counter to the original, although it does happen on occasion. When that happens we have the convoluted situation where the same law is applied differently depending on which court has jurisdiction. This generally happens at the federal level more than state.
 
ryanprins said:
Your talkin him down because he offered no proof the first time. He has and you still havent other than you think you now see more disabled people working than you did 30 years ago.... :/

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The so called "proof" on offer is the product of a "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a propaganda factory and policy mouthpiece for entrenched corporate special interests of right wing conservative billionaires. Under the influence and control of Charles and David Koch, Cato has become one of the most blatant examples of what has come to be described as "simulated rationality" whose arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. The Cato Institute is against the ADA on the grounds that requiring business owners to accommodate people with disabilities is an unfair cost burden to place on them. This is standard party line thinking. For example, just this week the Trump administration released the most dramatic new chemical-safety rules in decades overseen by a former industry advocate for the American Chemistry Council who holds a top post at the EPA. These new rules restrict how broadly the EPA will allowed to review thousands of potentially hazardous substances for unreasonable risk to health or the environment. Limiting government review and oversight of toxic chemicals has been a pet project for the Cato Institute for over a decade now under the direct guidance and funding of Koch Industries in concert with the American Chemistry Council lobbying organization.
 
Rajagra said:
I had to read that several times then read the linked Court Case to be sure that was really the judgement.

So the law is that it is "reasonable accommodation" to employ two (or more) people to do a job that one person can do, at many times the cost of a regular employee, provided the disabled person still plays a key part in all the essential job functions.
Click to expand...
The Courts decision was so fantastic that I felt I had to include the link. This case is the perfect answer for WHY those with disabilities have fewer jobs now compared to when the ADA was passed. The one reason not mentioned previously for not hiring the disabled is workers compensation. Many employers see a potential employee with a problem they suspect could be claimed to be a new injury and refuse to hire. I believe removing special rights for disabled workers would result in more disabled people having work. I know the UK has some laws that protect those with disabilities but am not sure how it affects the UK workplace.
 
Dashmellow said:
The so called "proof" on offer is the product of a "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank...The Cato Institute is against the ADA on the grounds that is an unfair cost burden.
Click to expand...
How about other sources?

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork....d-employment-and-earnings-people-disabilities
How the Americans with Disabilities Act Has Affected Employment and Earnings for People with Disabilities
by David Pettinicchio, University of Toronto Why Did the Act Fall Short?

In the scholarly literature and public documents and testimony, there are two hypotheses about why the Americans with Disabilities Act failed to improve employment and earnings. The unintended harms perspective argues that, by requiring workplaces to make changes for employees with disabilities, the law unintentionally discouraged hiring.

http://newsok.com/article/5436202
Americans with Disabilities Act falls short in employment opportunities
Among the 56.7 million Americans with disabilities, unemployment is nearly 13 percent — or more than double the rate for able-bodied individuals, according to a 2014 Labor Department report. Of the 594,400 disabled Oklahomans — or one in six — only 35.8 percent of those 18 to 64 work, compared with 75.2 percent of their able-bodied counterparts, according to a 2014 study by the Durham, N.H.-based Institute on Disability

http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/...-short-employment-opportunities-observers-say
For people with disabilities, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act unequivocally improved their access to buildings, public services and telecommunications. But 25 years later, employment opportunities for the disabled still fall considerably short.
Among the 56.7 million Americans with disabilities, unemployment is nearly 13 percent — or more than double the rate for able-bodied individuals, according to a 2014 Labor Department report. Of the 594,400 disabled Oklahomans — or one in six — only 35.8 percent of those 18 to 64 work, compared with 75.2 percent of their able-bodied counterparts, according to a 2014 study by the Durham, N.H.-based Institute on Disability.
What’s more, the U.S. Census Bureau finds employed disabled workers on average earn considerably less than workers without disabilities — $1,961 monthly versus $2,724.


Dashmallow, did you know that judges did more to violate the ADA's intent after it was passed than they did to make it work as intended? Congress enacted a law directly refuting multiple wrongly decided Court cases.
https://www1.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adaaa.cfm
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
(a) FINDINGS. – Congress finds that –
(1) in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Congress intended that the Act “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities” and provide broad coverage;
(3) while Congress expected that the definition of disability under the ADA would be interpreted consistently with how courts had applied the definition of a handicapped individual under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that expectation has not been fulfilled;
(4) the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases have narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA, thus eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect;
(5) the holding of the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) further narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA; (and so on...)
 
country_hick said:
How about other sources?

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork....d-employment-and-earnings-people-disabilities
How the Americans with Disabilities Act Has Affected Employment and Earnings for People with Disabilities
by David Pettinicchio, University of Toronto Why Did the Act Fall Short?

In the scholarly literature and public documents and testimony, there are two hypotheses about why the Americans with Disabilities Act failed to improve employment and earnings. The unintended harms perspective argues that, by requiring workplaces to make changes for employees with disabilities, the law unintentionally discouraged hiring.

http://newsok.com/article/5436202
Americans with Disabilities Act falls short in employment opportunities
Among the 56.7 million Americans with disabilities, unemployment is nearly 13 percent — or more than double the rate for able-bodied individuals, according to a 2014 Labor Department report. Of the 594,400 disabled Oklahomans — or one in six — only 35.8 percent of those 18 to 64 work, compared with 75.2 percent of their able-bodied counterparts, according to a 2014 study by the Durham, N.H.-based Institute on Disability

http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/...-short-employment-opportunities-observers-say
For people with disabilities, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act unequivocally improved their access to buildings, public services and telecommunications. But 25 years later, employment opportunities for the disabled still fall considerably short.
Among the 56.7 million Americans with disabilities, unemployment is nearly 13 percent — or more than double the rate for able-bodied individuals, according to a 2014 Labor Department report. Of the 594,400 disabled Oklahomans — or one in six — only 35.8 percent of those 18 to 64 work, compared with 75.2 percent of their able-bodied counterparts, according to a 2014 study by the Durham, N.H.-based Institute on Disability.
What’s more, the U.S. Census Bureau finds employed disabled workers on average earn considerably less than workers without disabilities — $1,961 monthly versus $2,724.


Dashmallow, did you know that judges did more to violate the ADA's intent after it was passed than they did to make it work as intended? Congress enacted a law directly refuting multiple wrongly decided Court cases.
https://www1.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adaaa.cfm
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
(a) FINDINGS. – Congress finds that –
(1) in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Congress intended that the Act “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities” and provide broad coverage;
(3) while Congress expected that the definition of disability under the ADA would be interpreted consistently with how courts had applied the definition of a handicapped individual under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that expectation has not been fulfilled;
(4) the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases have narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA, thus eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect;
(5) the holding of the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) further narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA; (and so on...)
Click to expand...


Not sure what the point is in providing two different sources to the same article but the general consensus in the article and elsewhere seems to be that the ADA has been highly successful in providing access for disabled individuals but that employment has been a mixed bag depending on the industry and location. That is the reason for the kind of amendment you linked to above and is an example of the typical back and forth jockeying between branches of government that lead to the refining of important legislation. As mentioned above, legislation, (and court cases) are often highly influenced by the activities of entrenched special interests and their operatives. It's true though, courts often seem to reach unfathomable decisions. At any rate, you originally stated that you were and are "against" the ADA. Now you seem to be supporting a legislative amendment which was designed, "to restore the intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990".
 
Last edited:
@Gibson99
Thank you very much for the one about the elderly man. It touches home with me regards my 90 year old Mom who had her good and bad days now. Doesn't matter- she's always my Mom and I'll always owe her more love and caring than I can ever repay :D

Phil
 
Dashmellow said:
What kind of marketing genius comes up with a product name like this? :wacky:
View attachment 32518
Click to expand...

getting the exact result they hoped for I expect, had it been called 4 grapes nobody would have ever heard of them, give it a name like this and it gets shared all over social media, this type of marketing is not for everyone but it does get a lot of organic reach without them having to spend a cent
 
Dashmellow said:
At any rate, you originally stated that you were and are "against" the ADA. Now you seem to be supporting a legislative amendment which was designed, "to restore the intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990".
Click to expand...
I am for any legislation that spanks the Courts for not applying legislation as it was written. To me this is perfect legislation to show the legislative branches of all 50 states how to tell the Courts to make the proper decisions.

It does not matter if the ADA AA is perfect or very bad. I simply enjoy seeing judges get put into their place in this manner. This is model legislation because it overturns judicial precedent the right and irreversible way.
 
jokiin said:
getting the exact result they hoped for I expect, had it been called 4 grapes nobody would have ever heard of them, give it a name like this and it gets shared all over social media, this type of marketing is not for everyone but it does get a lot of organic reach without them having to spend a cent
Click to expand...

4Skins.....sends just the right wine flavor mental image direct to the potential customer......Hmmmn, complex tongue on stone flavor with bold cherry undertones and a buttery, yet subtle smegma finish! :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top