Selected Workers?

Steezie · Nov 28, 2007

Do you think its right that certain people should be barred from working certain jobs due to physical or psychological problems?

Im training to be a welder and one of the new students is a deaf/mute student. This has me slightly concerned because in the shop, something may happen where you have to alert other people if something happens, a broken gas line, fire, potential explosion etc etc. Im concerned that he wouldnt be able to notify people in time for them to get clear of a problem and that he himself might be killed or hurt because he would have to take the extra time to try and come up with some way to let everyone know there was danger. He's a great guy and I dont question his competence in the least bit but accidents DO happen and a few seconds can sometimes mean the difference between a week in the hospital and an eternity in the ground.

So Im curious, do you think its alright that certain people be prohibited from certain jobs or workplaces because of physical or psychological abnormalities?

Patashu · Nov 28, 2007

Would you let a blind man drive your taxi?

Topic closed.

Apollo Celestio · Nov 28, 2007

Patashu said:
Would you let a blind man drive your taxi?

Topic closed.

Sums it up quite nicely. If it's dangerous to others, no. They should understand. And if they don't understand, well.. that says something, now doesn't it?

Steezie · Nov 28, 2007

Ishida said:
Sums it up quite nicely. If it's dangerous to others, no. They should understand. And if they don't understand, well.. that says something, now doesn't it?

What about situations where modifications can be made to make a person more effective in thier job?

Say if you gave the deaf/mute man in my shop a horn so if there was a problem he could blow it and let people know.

bornagainhippy · Nov 28, 2007

Patashu said:
Would you let a blind man drive your taxi?

Topic closed.

Ishida said:
Sums it up quite nicely. If it's dangerous to others, no. They should understand. And if they don't understand, well.. that says something, now doesn't it?

Is good question. To suggest closing the topic on the basis of blind taxi drivers is a bit silly. Such obvious examples don't need to be discussed - obviously.

A lady in the UK (I think UK) just got fired from her job with a weight loss company. She got fired because she was overweight.

What does you's reckon 'bout this one?

"" · Nov 28, 2007

If the employer is capable of providing equipment that will allow for the disabled person to perform his/her duties to the same ability as a non-disabled person, then there should be no problem. If the employer is unable to provide the equipment due to cost alone, often times there are government grants or government agencies that will provide what is necessary for the disabled person to work effectively.

I'm the parent of a special needs child, and while my child is not in the work force, I have done some research about these very things. I like to plan ahead.

Yes of course there are jobs that are not suited to some people, whether they have a disability or not, and some that are not suited to particular disabilities. If the job requires use of the very sense that the applicant is incapable of using, due to their disability, then it makes little sense for them to apply to begin with. Being disabled isn't the same as being stupid, so you won't find too many blind people applying to be drivers, and you won't find too many deaf persons applying to be piano teachers. Not that they couldn't do these things, but it would be rare. Beethoven comes to mind. I wonder if he ever taught anybody how to play as well as he.

yasic · Nov 28, 2007

Steezie said:
What about situations where modifications can be made to make a person more effective in thier job?

Say if you gave the deaf/mute man in my shop a horn so if there was a problem he could blow it and let people know.

If the horn would solve all problems and make the enviorment as safe for him as everybody else, then you should not have a problem. I however do not think a horn would cut it. I do not know the working conditions you have, but if he could get stuck, and unable to reach the horn, or he might need to give a quick command such as "cut the power" which the horn might not be able to convey in nearly enough time. If it is not enough to make a safe enviorment and there is no set of tools which can and is easily used, then he should be restricted.

Though again, I do not know the specific workplace enviorment, and if a horn should solve all problems (at least to 95% efficiency), then I see no problem to not have it... though it is ultimately up to you (or whoever is the boss) to make the call on if a horn is good enough or not. If unsure err with caution (better one man switching jobs than 5 dead)

Skaloop · Nov 28, 2007

There a deaf/mute guy who works in the copy centre in my office building. Since he can't hear an alarm, his area is equipped with special lighting that flashes red in an emergency. There are also emergency buttons around that he can press if he needs help.

Of course, a copy centre is not quite as dangerous as welding, but certainly reasonable measures can be taken to ensure his safety.

Apollo Celestio · Nov 28, 2007

bornagainhippy said:
Is good question. To suggest closing the topic on the basis of blind taxi drivers is a bit silly. Such obvious examples don't need to be discussed - obviously.

A lady in the UK (I think UK) just got fired from her job with a weight loss company. She got fired because she was overweight.

What does you's reckon 'bout this one?

Well, that is a little different. What was her job? Was it in the terms that she had a set an example? Did they require a certain fitness for their workers?

Steezie said:
What about situations where modifications can be made to make a person more effective in thier job?

Say if you gave the deaf/mute man in my shop a horn so if there was a problem he could blow it and let people know.

If they can do their job, without being a danger to others, then they should be allowed if their special needs can be accommodated. But if not, well, what can you do?

Bombila · Nov 28, 2007

yasic said:
If the horn would solve all problems and make the enviorment as safe for him as everybody else, then you should not have a problem. I however do not think a horn would cut it. I do not know the working conditions you have, but if he could get stuck, and unable to reach the horn, or he might need to give a quick command such as "cut the power" which the horn might not be able to convey in nearly enough time. If it is not enough to make a safe enviorment and there is no set of tools which can and is easily used, then he should be restricted.

Though again, I do not know the specific workplace enviorment, and if a horn should solve all problems (at least to 95% efficiency), then I see no problem to not have it... though it is ultimately up to you (or whoever is the boss) to make the call on if a horn is good enough or not. If unsure err with caution (better one man switching jobs than 5 dead)

In this specific case, deaf-mute welder, a loud noisemaker would be sufficient, in that he would be as capable as the next person of communicating.

I know something about most workplaces where welders are employed, and it is most usual for it to be an environment so noisy that most workers are required by labour health and safety laws to wear ear protection in the form of sound mufflers or industrial earplugs, so his deafness would be shared by all. In fact, hand signals would more likely be employed to communicate immediate danger, along with very loud alarms and flashing lights.

Edit to add: In fact, in some of the environments welders work in, the alarms are so loud you can feel them.

flicka · Nov 28, 2007

I have to start off by saying I'm not that familiar with laws regarding handicapped people and discrimination. But beyond the basics (wheelchair ramps, etc.) I think it's probably a matter of cost effectiveness. It only makes sense to modify or make special arrangements for someone if there is a payoff involved. Employers have been known to bend over backwards for talent. I don't think people just naturally have a right to any job they want regardless of their limitations, and if they really want to do something that nobody will hire them to to there is always the good old fashioned way of going into business for themselves.

wanderingone · Nov 28, 2007

I'm not sure where the OP lives. In the US ADA requires "reasonable accomodation" So (for example) people at my office who are blind can do the same job as everyone else because we have computer technology that allows them to read and send documents, etc.

Accomodations for the deaf or hearing impaired include communication devices such as lights that indicate when alarms have been rung.

Reasonable accomodation does not mean someone who is paralyzed can be a fireman... or someone who is blind can drive the garbage truck ..

Bombila · Nov 28, 2007

Laws are somewhat similar in Canada. For ordinary situations where access to worksites, like wheelchair ramps, are a problem, employers are pretty much required to accomodate.

However, you won't see wheelchair disabled people working out on oil production platforms or rigs, as you cannot work there without taking Basic Marine Survival Training, which entails simulated helicopter sinking, sliding down escape netting, being dropped offshore in survival suits, etc. Not for the faint of heart, let alone a paraplegic. Wouldn't be a problem for a deaf person, though.

bornagainhippy · Dec 1, 2007

Ishida said:
Well, that is a little different. What was her job? Was it in the terms that she had a set an example? Did they require a certain fitness for their workers?

Maybe you see it as different. I thought it was an interesting example of particular people being from excluded from certain jobs.

I'd like to know your (anyone's) views on the points raised by your own questions.

I guess the company in this case thought that she should be setting an example (certain body shape). Should they have the right to exclude people (or fire them) on this basis? With the exceptions of the likes of military, police, fire etc., should organisations be allowed to "require" certain fitness levels of their staff?

How much can they "require" b4 it becomes discrimination?

Jane_the_Bane · Dec 1, 2007

Mutes will never be opera singers (unless some equipment is developed that allows them to use their voice - but then they wouldn't be mute any longer, would they?), blind people will never be piloting aircrafts, and paraplegics won't work as ballet dancers.

I think it somewhat frightening, however, that today's society seems to judge people according to their marketability. The economisation of all areas of life strikes me as a rather bleak phenomenon, and a horrible perspective for the future.
You can already detect its effects in the entertainment industry: it's much more profitable to randomly cast a band of mediocre musicians, have them record a cover version of some 1980s song, and then letting them disappear into the void again after they've sold their first single successfully. Scouting for real talent takes time and money, and they might not even be an immediate success.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Selected Workers?

Steezie

Guest

Veteran

Deal with it.

Steezie

Guest

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Part time poster, Full time lurker

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Deal with it.

Veteran

Contributor

I'm not lost I'm just wandering

Veteran

Regular Member

Gaia's godchild

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency