Should obesity be treated as a disability?

First topic message reminder :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2656063/Should-obesity-classed-disability-Debate-rages-25st-man-takes-employer-sacked-fat.html

Cant see this on a search so thought I would start it.

I think this is a difficult one - on first thoughts it looks simple but the more you think about it the more confused it gets.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Actually the law is that a company cannot refuse to employ someone because of disability and all companies should have reasonable accessibility and adaptations as a matter of course whether or not they at that time have a disabled employee.

If a person in a wheelchair goes for a temporary contract but is refused it despite being the best qualified simply because of their disability then they can take that employer to court.

There are rules in law about the size of company, type of job, etc etc - your epileptic cannot demand employment as a bus driver for instance but accessibility and non discrimination are legally protected.  To be honest in most cases the problem is not needing a special toilet but simply needing access to the toilet everyone else uses - you would not believe how many places have their toilets up or down a small step.  In such cases the answer is the installation of a ramp - however ironically it may be more expensive to install a ramp than it is to install a disabled toilet - so the toilet is installed instead.

But there are jobs which someone in a wheelchair is clearly not suited to. Shelf stacking for example.

Yes I have covered that above (the bit about epileptics) however if you are employed as a shelf stacker and suffer an accident leaving you requiring a wheelchair then it would be reasonable for your employer to consider training you as a checkout operator or possibly office work behind the scenes. Like I said there are rules about size of company (Tesco would definitely have to offer retraining, a medium size shop may or may not have to depending on various factors, the little corner shop would be able to end your employment but would have to pay you redundancy (which their own employers insurance should cover)) and where the employer does not have to keep you on they do have to pay you redundancy - they cannot fire you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Of course, the other option is to get a better location for the business.

Just to employ a disabled person? There are many old buildings in the UK, and it's just not reasonable to expect them to be altered so much.

Actually its easy - and often cheaper than building a ramp if the toilet is only up one step. So long as the building has a piece of land outside it - say a carpark, a quick microbore fitting can be done in a day or 2 (the same people that can turn your cupboard under the stairs into a loo in a single day) in an extension.

There are practical guidelines and instructions with all legal points covered (for instance the necessity for a disabled toilet over rules listed status if done in a certain way). This is not something that comes up once in a blue moon it is a common occurrence seen up and down the country every week because the law says if you can do a job you cannot be fired because you have become disabled.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It doesn't seem to be set in stone. I guess it depends on the type of building. A lot of shops are in old buildings and there would be no point using sales space to build a toilet or put in a lift just to go one floor.

I don't know much about how it is there; in the U.S. we have the Americans With Disabilities Act but a lot of places have been slow to implement it.

I remember when I was at university they made a big deal about adding a wheelchair access ramp to get into the basement level of the library. Once it was installed, it sloped at about a 15 degree angle and featured a right-angle turn at the very bottom -- it was a joke and an insult to our disabled students. It took them years to fix it properly.

"Americans With Disabilities Act"

My god Benji, what about everybody else?

Disgusting!

Haha, like we don't have any laws protecting able-bodied workers! That's a funny one, BA.

Nems wrote:

Sassy wrote:I've already reply to Sphinx about the OP.   Funnily enough, I know someone with your problems as well, and it doesn't make her a control freak who stabs friends in the back when they won't post the way you want them to post.   Now, as all of that is very old hat, and I'm sure you don't want to bore the forum to death, perhaps you could try and move on, so much better for your health.  

How could anyone ever stab you in the back? You've that many faces we wouldn't find the back

Well, it can't be that hard, after all, you managed it really easily, with no compunction, and the two faced one was you.  Until you did it, when did I ever say a bad word about you, when did I not stand up for you, when did I not try and help?  Your only reason apparently was the way I was posting to Didge, since when you seem to have been posting to him in the same way.     What does that make you?   Don't bother answer, because I don't give a damn.   However, if you carry on with the pathetic, snidey, sneaky little vendetta, I will return it 100 fold.   And I am not going to put you on ignore again so that you can keep on doing it without me knowing.   I suggest you grow up, move on as I have, and stop trying to slide little digs in.   Then the board will be a much nicer place and Ben will not have to put up with you continually dragging up what obviously meant nothing to you in the first place, or you wouldn't have done it.

BTW, if you think I should have been stupid enough to let Drinky get away with abuse about size etc, it's a good job I took your bit of the picture off wasn't it, or you might have had to deal with it, and I'm sure you would have just ignored it and walked away    After all, Speak was last year and you can't get over that.


Now, back to the subject.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Just to employ a disabled person? There are many old buildings in the UK, and it's just not reasonable to expect them to be altered so much.

Actually its easy - and often cheaper than building a ramp if the toilet is only up one step.  So long as the building has a piece of land outside it - say a carpark, a quick microbore fitting can be done in a day or 2 (the same people that can turn your cupboard under the stairs into a loo in a single day) in an extension.

There are practical guidelines and instructions with all legal points covered (for instance the necessity for a disabled toilet over rules listed status if done in a certain way).  This is not something that comes up once in a blue moon it is a common occurrence seen up and down the country every week because the law says if you can do a job you cannot be fired because you have become disabled.

Sphinx, I admire your patience, I really really do.

I fear Rags would rather all disabled were written off so that employers didn't have to bother and she could point the finger and call them scroungers.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Actually its easy - and often cheaper than building a ramp if the toilet is only up one step.  So long as the building has a piece of land outside it - say a carpark, a quick microbore fitting can be done in a day or 2 (the same people that can turn your cupboard under the stairs into a loo in a single day) in an extension.

There are practical guidelines and instructions with all legal points covered (for instance the necessity for a disabled toilet over rules listed status if done in a certain way).  This is not something that comes up once in a blue moon it is a common occurrence seen up and down the country every week because the law says if you can do a job you cannot be fired because you have become disabled.

Sphinx, I admire your patience, I really really do.

I fear Rags would rather all disabled were written off so that employers didn't have to bother and she could point the finger and call them scroungers.

Do not put words into my mouth. No wonder some people on here can't stand you.

Your fear comes from your inability to discuss any issue without getting arrogant and abusive. You really are a waste of space on here - it's Sassy's way or no way really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Actually its easy - and often cheaper than building a ramp if the toilet is only up one step.  So long as the building has a piece of land outside it - say a carpark, a quick microbore fitting can be done in a day or 2 (the same people that can turn your cupboard under the stairs into a loo in a single day) in an extension.

There are practical guidelines and instructions with all legal points covered (for instance the necessity for a disabled toilet over rules listed status if done in a certain way).  This is not something that comes up once in a blue moon it is a common occurrence seen up and down the country every week because the law says if you can do a job you cannot be fired because you have become disabled.

Sphinx, I admire your patience, I really really do.

I fear Rags would rather all disabled were written off so that employers didn't have to bother and she could point the finger and call them scroungers.

Do not put words into my mouth. No wonder some people on here can't stand you.

Your fear comes from your inability to discuss any issue without getting arrogant and abusive. You really are a waste of space on here - it's Sassy's way or no way really.

She's not the only one who read your comments and got the impression you don't give a crap about the disabled ...  :\\:[: 

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Sphinx, I admire your patience, I really really do.

I fear Rags would rather all disabled were written off so that employers didn't have to bother and she could point the finger and call them scroungers.

Do not put words into my mouth. No wonder some people on here can't stand you.

Your fear comes from your inability to discuss any issue without getting arrogant and abusive. You really are a waste of space on here - it's Sassy's way or no way really.

Rags , Sassy was t abusive in the slightest there, and from previous things you have commented on regards to disabled people I happen to agree with her, you have been known to also label people on benefits in general as Spongers or scroungers ,often backing up BA's scrounger posts.


No way was Sassy being abusive there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Sphinx, I admire your patience, I really really do.

I fear Rags would rather all disabled were written off so that employers didn't have to bother and she could point the finger and call them scroungers.

Do not put words into my mouth. No wonder some people on here can't stand you.

Your fear comes from your inability to discuss any issue without getting arrogant and abusive. You really are a waste of space on here - it's Sassy's way or no way really.

Rags , Sassy was t abusive in the slightest there, and from previous things you have commented on regards to disabled people I happen to agree with her, you have been known to also label people on benefits in general as Spongers or scroungers ,often backing up BA's scrounger posts.


No way was Sassy being abusive there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Sphinx, I admire your patience, I really really do.

I fear Rags would rather all disabled were written off so that employers didn't have to bother and she could point the finger and call them scroungers.

Do not put words into my mouth. No wonder some people on here can't stand you.

Your fear comes from your inability to discuss any issue without getting arrogant and abusive. You really are a waste of space on here - it's Sassy's way or no way really.

What fear and what arrogance. Sphinx had explained to you in great detail, over and over again, what employers are legally obliged to do. All you wanted to do was find a way of saying why should they do it just to accommodate disabled people. As you have been someone who has said that disabled people should try and get jobs, that seemed extremely strange to say the least.

As for people not liking me, why on earth would I care. I have many friends on here, why would I bother with people whose views I find abhorrent? Very strange Rags, Very strange.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do not put words into my mouth. No wonder some people on here can't stand you.

Your fear comes from your inability to discuss any issue without getting arrogant and abusive. You really are a waste of space on here - it's Sassy's way or no way really.

What fear and what arrogance.   Sphinx had explained to you in great detail, over and over again, what employers are legally obliged to do.   All you wanted to do was find a way of saying why should they do it just to accommodate disabled people.   As you have been someone who has said that disabled people should try and get jobs, that seemed extremely strange to say the least.

As for people not liking me, why on earth would I care.   I have many friends on here, why would I bother with people whose views I find abhorrent?   Very strange Rags, Very strange.  

They're legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments - but the word "reasonable" can be interpreted in different ways.

Let's just say someone in a wheelchair applies for a job as a PA. The building is two storeys high, but the ground floor has no capacity for that person. In addition, clearly that person needs to be close to the person she is working for, who is on the second floor. There is no lift. What do you suggest? That the company builds a lift shaft and puts in a lift just for that person? They're not going to are they? They're going to employ someone who doesn't need to use a lift.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Actually its easy - and often cheaper than building a ramp if the toilet is only up one step.  So long as the building has a piece of land outside it - say a carpark, a quick microbore fitting can be done in a day or 2 (the same people that can turn your cupboard under the stairs into a loo in a single day) in an extension.

There are practical guidelines and instructions with all legal points covered (for instance the necessity for a disabled toilet over rules listed status if done in a certain way).  This is not something that comes up once in a blue moon it is a common occurrence seen up and down the country every week because the law says if you can do a job you cannot be fired because you have become disabled.

Sphinx, I admire your patience, I really really do.

I fear Rags would rather all disabled were written off so that employers didn't have to bother and she could point the finger and call them scroungers.

I will never forget my gratitude at having good employers when I became ill - they sent me to their own doctors, paid for my travel to get there, never gave me any grief about being off despite the large number of medics confessing they had no idea while tests came back normal - and offered me the choice of relocation and training or a very generous medical redundancy. Others in similar situations especially before a diagnosis of fibromyalgia have a far worse time and some have even been dismissed for too many sick days - which would be illegal once they had a diagnosis but is acceptable before hand when it is just countless visits to doctors and normal test results.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do not put words into my mouth. No wonder some people on here can't stand you.

Your fear comes from your inability to discuss any issue without getting arrogant and abusive. You really are a waste of space on here - it's Sassy's way or no way really.

Rags , Sassy was t abusive in the slightest there, and from previous things you have commented on regards to disabled people I happen to agree with her, you have been known to also label people on benefits in general as Spongers or scroungers ,often  backing up BA's scrounger posts.


No way was Sassy being abusive there.

Link please.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

What fear and what arrogance.   Sphinx had explained to you in great detail, over and over again, what employers are legally obliged to do.   All you wanted to do was find a way of saying why should they do it just to accommodate disabled people.   As you have been someone who has said that disabled people should try and get jobs, that seemed extremely strange to say the least.

As for people not liking me, why on earth would I care.   I have many friends on here, why would I bother with people whose views I find abhorrent?   Very strange Rags, Very strange.  

They're legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments - but the word "reasonable" can be interpreted in different ways.

Let's just say someone in a wheelchair applies for a job as a PA. The building is two storeys high, but the ground floor has no capacity for that person. In addition, clearly that person needs to be close to the person she is working for, who is on the second floor. There is no lift. What do you suggest? That the company builds a lift shaft and puts in a lift just for that person? They're not going to are they? They're going to employ someone who doesn't need to use a lift.

It depends on the number of employees they have - once it is over a certain number they better have a rock solid reason for picking someone able bodied over the wheelchair user or they will be sued. The reasonable adjustment in that situation being the person who needs a PA moving to a downstairs office. That is what is meant by reasonable - maybe a lift is unreasonable but rearranging who works in which office is not.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're legally obliged to make reasonable adjustments - but the word "reasonable" can be interpreted in different ways.

Let's just say someone in a wheelchair applies for a job as a PA. The building is two storeys high, but the ground floor has no capacity for that person. In addition, clearly that person needs to be close to the person she is working for, who is on the second floor. There is no lift. What do you suggest? That the company builds a lift shaft and puts in a lift just for that person? They're not going to are they? They're going to employ someone who doesn't need to use a lift.

It depends on the number of employees they have - once it is over a certain number they better have a rock solid reason for picking someone able bodied over the wheelchair user or they will be sued.  The reasonable adjustment in that situation being the person who needs a PA moving to a downstairs office.  That is what is meant by reasonable - maybe a lift is unreasonable but rearranging who works in which office is not.

There is no office space on the ground floor for the boss.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Sphinx, I admire your patience, I really really do.

I fear Rags would rather all disabled were written off so that employers didn't have to bother and she could point the finger and call them scroungers.

I will never forget my gratitude at having good employers when I became ill - they sent me to their own doctors, paid for my travel to get there, never gave me any grief about being off despite the large number of medics confessing they had no idea while tests came back normal - and offered me the choice of relocation and training or a very generous medical redundancy.  Others in similar situations especially before a diagnosis of fibromyalgia have a far worse time and some have even been dismissed for too many sick days - which would be illegal once they had a diagnosis but is acceptable before hand when it is just countless visits to doctors and normal test results.

I too was lucky, because I got infection after infection for two years before I retired, and it was a year after that before my chronic leukaemia was diagnosed.   I worked for a health insurer, and they made sure I had all the help I needed, because they realised something was wrong and I had all kinds of investigations.   I was not diagnosed because apart from the infections and fatigue, my main symptom was a large lump that came up between the point of my jaw bone and neck under my ear and they thought my blood count was raised because of the infections.   Apparently it was a gland, but not one that is the first to be involved normally, so I had them fooled, but they couldn't have been kinder.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

It depends on the number of employees they have - once it is over a certain number they better have a rock solid reason for picking someone able bodied over the wheelchair user or they will be sued.  The reasonable adjustment in that situation being the person who needs a PA moving to a downstairs office.  That is what is meant by reasonable - maybe a lift is unreasonable but rearranging who works in which office is not.

There is no office space on the ground floor for the boss.

Then they have to move things and make room Rags.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There is no office space on the ground floor for the boss.

Then they have to move things and make room Rags.

Let's say it's a bank or building society where the ground floor is all a customer service area. So they have to build an office, move the customer service area, or reduce it?

I would be embarrassed if people had to totally rearrange a whole building or start building lift shafts just to employ me. I would also feel guilty if others had to do parts of my job because I couldn't do them.

Raggamuffin wrote:I would be embarrassed if people had to totally rearrange a whole building or start building lift shafts just to employ me. I would also feel guilty if others had to do parts of my job because I couldn't do them.

OMG, so not only are they disabled but you think they should be embarrassed that their employer does something so they can work.

What a piece of work you are.

And talk about exaggeration.   Build lift shafts  ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Why don't you tell the truth?   You want the disabled to sit at home and do nothing, never have an employer have to do something to help them, then you can chuck abuse at them and say they are scroungers.   That's you real agenda isn't it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Rags , Sassy was t abusive in the slightest there, and from previous things you have commented on regards to disabled people I happen to agree with her, you have been known to also label people on benefits in general as Spongers or scroungers ,often  backing up BA's scrounger posts.


No way was Sassy being abusive there.

Link please.

Are you joking?! You made it no secret you don't like disabled kids or kids with certain conditions, you even make it clear in some of your posts you don't like kids full stop!

I'm not doing any digging Rags, for I know I'm telling the truth!

Anyway...of course employers should cater for the disabled, if an employer who employed both sexes , but only had a men's toilet, I'm sure you would see that as discrimination.

Apparently, you can be dismissed if you have a long-term illness which prevents you from doing your job. What's the difference between that and a disability?

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Link please.

Are you  joking?! You made it no secret you don't like disabled kids or kids with certain conditions, you  even make it clear in  some of your posts you  don't  like kids full stop!

I'm not doing any digging Rags, for I know I'm telling the truth!

Anyway...of course employers should cater for the disabled, if an employer who employed both sexes , but only had a men's toilet, I'm sure you would see that as discrimination.

No link then?

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I would be embarrassed if people had to totally rearrange a whole building or start building lift shafts just to employ me. I would also feel guilty if others had to do parts of my job because I couldn't do them.

OMG, so not only are they disabled but you think they should be embarrassed that their employer does something so they can work.

What a piece of work you are.

And talk about exaggeration.   Build lift shafts  ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Why don't you tell the truth?   You want the disabled to sit at home and do nothing, never have an employer have to do something to help them, then you can chuck abuse at them and say they are scroungers.   That's you real agenda isn't it?

I said I would be embarrassed. I'd rather apply for a job where they didn't have to make changes.

So anyway, is this why so many employers have temporary contracts now or prefer to use freelancers?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

OMG, so not only are they disabled but you think they should be embarrassed that their employer does something so they can work.

What a piece of work you are.

And talk about exaggeration.   Build lift shafts  ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Why don't you tell the truth?   You want the disabled to sit at home and do nothing, never have an employer have to do something to help them, then you can chuck abuse at them and say they are scroungers.   That's you real agenda isn't it?

I said I would be embarrassed. I'd rather apply for a job where they didn't have to make changes.

Then you would be waiting for a job even longer.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I said I would be embarrassed. I'd rather apply for a job where they didn't have to make changes.

Then you would be waiting for a job even longer.

At least I wouldn't feel embarrassed or guilty.

Give it a rest Rags, it's quite obvious what your real agenda is.   Do you find disabled people disgusting, do you cross the street if you see one? Do you think they should be locked away and forgotten about so 'normal' people don't have the inconvenience and horror of being confronted by them?

Sassy wrote:Give it a rest Rags, it's quite obvious what your real agenda is.   Do you find disabled people disgusting, do you cross the street if you see one?  

No, why would I?

If I became incapacitated to some degree, and if I thought that I couldn't do my job very well because of that, or if others were having to constantly make allowances or do my job for me whilst I sat around, I would feel terrible.

Of course you would Rags, and you'd go out of your way to help one wouldn't you? Like hell you would, you'd run a mile in case they contaminated you in some way.

Sassy wrote:Of course you would Rags, and you'd go out of your way to help one wouldn't you?   Like hell you would, you'd run a mile in case they contaminated you in some way.

Nonsense. I have two dear friends who are disabled, and I visit them quite a lot.

You're getting abusive now - and arrogant.

That is in no way abusive, that is in direct result of your posts which go out of their way to make sure you put up every barrier you can think of to defend employers from having to do what they legally are supposed to.

Sassy wrote:That is in no way abusive, that is in direct result of your posts which go out of their way to make sure you put up every barrier you can think of to defend employers from having to do what they legally are supposed to.

I'm just commenting on the practicalities, that's all. I know you think that everyone should live in some kind of Utopia, but I live in the real world.

The point of reasonable adaptations is that disabled people are perfectly capable of doing certain jobs - and the things stopping them are physical or social barriers not their ability. What is the point of being able to do a job better than anyone else if you cannot get into the building because it has a step and no ramp? It is not always the physical body that is disabling all too often it is the man made environment and the people in it that are the barriers experienced by people called disabled.

As for feeling embarrassed - yeah welcome to the real world. When you know what it is like to refuse to use a wheelchair even when you know doing so increases your mobility come back and talk to me. Embarrassment is the least of the feelings being disabled brings with it - add anger, frustration, depression, bitterness, hatred and a few others.

Still try to realize that being disabled is rarely if ever a deliberate careful choice - even if it directly results from that persons choices. Please remember it can happen to anyone - even you.

sphinx wrote:The point of reasonable adaptations is that disabled people are perfectly capable of doing certain jobs - and the things stopping them are physical or social barriers not their ability.  What is the point of being able to do a job better than anyone else if you cannot get into the building because it has a step and no ramp?  It is not always the physical body that is disabling all too often it is the man made environment and the people in it that are the barriers experienced by people called disabled.

As for feeling embarrassed - yeah welcome to the real world.  When you know what it is like to refuse to use a wheelchair even when you know doing so increases your mobility come back and talk to me.  Embarrassment is the least of the feelings being disabled brings with it - add anger, frustration, depression, bitterness, hatred and a few others.

Still try to realize that being disabled is rarely if ever a deliberate careful choice - even if it directly results from that persons choices.  Please remember it can happen to anyone - even you.

Well actually, I'm somewhat incapacitated myself at the moment, and I feel guilty that I can't do my job. It's just a temporary thing hopefully, but still I feel that others are having to do extra work because of it.

Please don't patronise me in that manner.

Oh right, so if your 'temporary incapacity' should become permanent, but you would still be quite able to do your job if your employer installed one piece of equipment, but your employer said, sod off, I'm not installing it, you'd be quite ok with that obviously?

Sassy wrote:Oh right, so if your 'temporary incapacity' should become permanent, but you would still be quite able to do your job if your employer installed one piece of equipment, but your employer said, sod off, I'm not installing it, you'd be quite ok with that obviously?

That's the thing though - there would be nothing my employer could do to allow me to do my job - because of the nature of the work. There would be no way they could give me a different job either.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:That is in no way abusive, that is in direct result of your posts which go out of their way to make sure you put up every barrier you can think of to defend employers from having to do what they legally are supposed to.

I'm just commenting on the practicalities, that's all. I know you think that everyone should live in some kind of Utopia, but I live in the real world.

It is that attitude that causes 3 quarters of the limitations faced by people with physical issues.

The thing is when faced with a person considered disabled an employer has a choice - they can think of practicalities and how they make employing that person negative or they can see the benefits that person can bring them and work out how they can gain them.

You can sit and say the building is too old, I dont want to move my office, its all too much trouble (and end up being sued if you are not careful) or you can say is there something I can do to make this possible.

Reasonable means just that - reasonable. It does not mean a company has to bankrupt itself, it does not mean the company has to do major reconstruction on its buildings - it means the company has to consider whether there are changes that could be made - if it is an old very small building and has no downstairs offices (have you every been behind the scenes in a bank because believe me there are lots of offices there - in fact the managers office is likely to be ground floor) or other space then there are no reasonable adaptions. If it is a larger building, or has downstairs offices then building a lift (incidentally more commercial buildings than not do have lifts however old because of getting freight upstairs) or moving offices is reasonable. Its a case of look this individual can do that job perfectly well if only they can get into the office so how do we make it possible for them to get in.

You seem to want to throw up blocks - fine. Just hope you never find yourself as the one blocks are being thrown up against.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:The point of reasonable adaptations is that disabled people are perfectly capable of doing certain jobs - and the things stopping them are physical or social barriers not their ability.  What is the point of being able to do a job better than anyone else if you cannot get into the building because it has a step and no ramp?  It is not always the physical body that is disabling all too often it is the man made environment and the people in it that are the barriers experienced by people called disabled.

As for feeling embarrassed - yeah welcome to the real world.  When you know what it is like to refuse to use a wheelchair even when you know doing so increases your mobility come back and talk to me.  Embarrassment is the least of the feelings being disabled brings with it - add anger, frustration, depression, bitterness, hatred and a few others.

Still try to realize that being disabled is rarely if ever a deliberate careful choice - even if it directly results from that persons choices.  Please remember it can happen to anyone - even you.

Well actually, I'm somewhat incapacitated myself at the moment, and I feel guilty that I can't do my job. It's just a temporary thing hopefully, but still I feel that others are having to do extra work because of it.

Please don't patronise me in that manner.

It's not often I agree with a sphinx, but where was she patronising you Rags? Disabled people ARE too pissed off to be embarrassed in that society views the, as a burden and assume disabled people wouldn't be up to the job, whereas if more adaptions were put in place to accommodate them and have some faith in them by giving them a chance to prove themselves then maybe we would see a rise in disabled people being employed...

And many Employers who use the ' positive about disabled people' logo at business premises are anything but...that's just a thing SOME Employers do to look good.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:Oh right, so if your 'temporary incapacity' should become permanent, but you would still be quite able to do your job if your employer installed one piece of equipment, but your employer said, sod off, I'm not installing it, you'd be quite ok with that obviously?

That's the thing though - there would be nothing my employer could do to allow me to do my job - because of the nature of the work. There would be no way they could give me a different job either.

On the first point then there is no reasonable - are you quite sure on the second?

It is considered preferable for an employer to offer lower paid work that can be done than kick you to the kerb.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm just commenting on the practicalities, that's all. I know you think that everyone should live in some kind of Utopia, but I live in the real world.

It is that attitude that causes 3 quarters of the limitations faced by people with physical issues.

The thing is when faced with a person considered disabled an employer has a choice - they can think of practicalities and how they make employing that person negative or they can see the benefits that person can bring them and work out how they can gain them.

You can sit and say the building is too old, I dont want to move my office, its all too much trouble (and end up being sued if you are not careful) or you can say is there something I can do to make this possible.

Reasonable means just that - reasonable.  It does not mean a company has to bankrupt itself, it does not mean the company has to do major reconstruction on its buildings - it means the company has to consider whether there are changes that could be made - if it is an old very small building and has no downstairs offices (have you every been behind the scenes in a bank because believe me there are lots of offices there - in fact the managers office is likely to be ground floor) or other space then there are no reasonable adaptions.  If it is a larger building, or has downstairs offices then building a lift (incidentally more commercial buildings than not do have lifts however old because of getting freight upstairs) or moving offices is reasonable.  Its a case of look this individual can do that job perfectly well if only they can get into the office so how do we make it possible for them to get in.

You seem to want to throw up blocks - fine.  Just hope you never find yourself as the one blocks are being thrown up against.

It's not a question of not wanting to move offices, it's a question of there literally being no offices on the ground floor. I've worked in many different place, and these buildings do exist. Stairs exist - do you suggest they rip them out and install a lift instead? The place I was thinking of did not have the manager's office downstairs - there was no room, and besides, there were lots of managers. They would have had to rebuild the entire building!

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's the thing though - there would be nothing my employer could do to allow me to do my job - because of the nature of the work. There would be no way they could give me a different job either.

On the first point then there is no reasonable - are you quite sure on the second?

It is considered preferable for an employer to offer lower paid work that can be done than kick you to the kerb.

Very sure.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well actually, I'm somewhat incapacitated myself at the moment, and I feel guilty that I can't do my job. It's just a temporary thing hopefully, but still I feel that others are having to do extra work because of it.

Please don't patronise me in that manner.

It's not often I agree with a sphinx, but where was she patronising you Rags?  Disabled people ARE too pissed off to be embarrassed  in that society views the, as a burden and assume disabled people wouldn't be up to the job, whereas if more adaptions were put in place to accommodate them and have some faith in them by giving them a chance to prove themselves  then maybe we would see a rise in disabled people being employed...

And many Employers who use the ' positive  about disabled people' logo at business premises are anything but...that's just a thing  SOME Employers do to look good.

Actually JD I was meaning quite often disabled people do feel embarrassed - I am not the only one who has refused to use aids that would "improve" my life because I am embarrassed to be needing them. I have also got myself into sticky situations through being unwilling to say "I cant"

It is not all the time - but from what I have seen every disabled person has at least flashes of it.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well actually, I'm somewhat incapacitated myself at the moment, and I feel guilty that I can't do my job. It's just a temporary thing hopefully, but still I feel that others are having to do extra work because of it.

Please don't patronise me in that manner.

It's not often I agree with a sphinx, but where was she patronising you Rags?  Disabled people ARE too pissed off to be embarrassed  in that society views the, as a burden and assume disabled people wouldn't be up to the job, whereas if more adaptions were put in place to accommodate them and have some faith in them by giving them a chance to prove themselves  then maybe we would see a rise in disabled people being employed...

And many Employers who use the ' positive  about disabled people' logo at business premises are anything but...that's just a thing  SOME Employers do to look good.

She is patronising me because she assumes that I don't have any health issues myself, and that I don't know about that kind of thing.

I always thought that there would be more jobs people could do at home, what with advances in technology. Employers don't seem to have gone for that though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

On the first point then there is no reasonable - are you quite sure on the second?

It is considered preferable for an employer to offer lower paid work that can be done than kick you to the kerb.

Very sure.

Then I can only presume that your employer is very small with probably under 10 employees. If they have more you might want to read up on the disability discrimination act.

You know Rags, it's easy for you to speak in such a care free tone of the disabled trying to find work,for you are employed and have not been in a life long term of being disabled with some restrictions and continually getting knock backs from employers which gradually make people lose heart and run wear them down.

Most employers just don't want to know disabled people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


It's not often I agree with a sphinx, but where was she patronising you Rags?  Disabled people ARE too pissed off to be embarrassed  in that society views the, as a burden and assume disabled people wouldn't be up to the job, whereas if more adaptions were put in place to accommodate them and have some faith in them by giving them a chance to prove themselves  then maybe we would see a rise in disabled people being employed...

And many Employers who use the ' positive  about disabled people' logo at business premises are anything but...that's just a thing  SOME Employers do to look good.

She is patronising me because she assumes that I don't have any health issues myself, and that I don't know about that kind of thing.

I always thought that there would be more jobs people could do at home, what with advances in technology. Employers don't seem to have gone for that though.

Working from home is the probably the biggest reasonable adjustment going.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Very sure.

Then I can only presume that your employer is very small with probably under 10 employees.  If they have more you might want to read up on the disability discrimination act.

No, they are not small. I know the nature of the job, and there would be no practical alternative.

I think people have to stop lumping employers together and understand that there are many different types of jobs and many different types of companies housed in different types of premises.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She is patronising me because she assumes that I don't have any health issues myself, and that I don't know about that kind of thing.

I always thought that there would be more jobs people could do at home, what with advances in technology. Employers don't seem to have gone for that though.

Working from home is the probably the biggest reasonable adjustment going.  

Don't you agree though that most employers don't seem to like that idea? Perhaps they're so used to employees being in a certain place for a certain number of hours that they wouldn't trust anyone to work at home.