There are much more employees, employee-wannabes, former employees and unemployed than employers, employer-wannabes, bankrupt employers and stinking rich former employers.
So the point of view of employees about horrible employers is better known than the point of view of employers about bad employees.
Since I became freelancer, who is responsible for marketing his own services, I was most of the time in situation, in which there is slightly more demand for my time and services than my ability to supply the demand. I made the decision to utilize the “excess demand” (or “excess marketing capacity”) to help other people get work. Since I have a disability, it was natural that I’ll prefer people with disabilities, mostly deafness.
It was in this position that I found that in spite of complaints and rants, when actually offered a job, some people turn out not to be in desperate need for a job, or not to be professional in performing their job, or to have other reasons (besides their disability, if they had one) not to perform their job in the best possible way.
I reached the conclusion that even though people with disabilities are said to have a problem getting a job – those who know to work have a job, and those who do not have a job – do not know to work either (in Hebrew it sounds better, as it uses the same word for job and work).
As an employer who got to be an employer just like you did I can tell you that disabilities have nothing to do with it – you're right on the money in the general case.
People who are out of a job for a long time with seemingly the right skills to get a job are usually so because they cannot be bothered to perform the minimum service that an employer would want and I mean basic things like get to work on time when needed (or show up to work at all), keep their word, produce code that compiles or runs (if/where applicable).
I can tell you what you're probably guessing already – if a person is a good employee I will go to great lenghts to keep him or her happy and working for me, because such people are rare. Very rare. Dealing with a disablity is really a small issue compared to the benefit of a really good employee.
Gilad
(http://livejournal.com/users/)
I don't think correcting discrimination works well with women. I don't see why it will work well with people with disabilities.
BTW, does the word “disabled” have a bad connotation? vs. people with disabilities, I mean.
(http://livejournal.com/users/ladypine)
Can you tell us more about your and others' experience with pro-women affirmative action, which led you to this conclusion?
The current PC (Politically Correct) fashion is to use the has-a relationship between a person and a disability, rather than the is-a relationship. The reasoning is that if A has-a B, then B does not fully define what A is. But if A is said to be is-a B, then people might be led to think that A is B and is defined solely in terms of being a B. For example, if I have an hearing impairment, then people are supposed to know that I have also software development skills, have some crazy ideas, have love for Science Fiction, etc. But I am hearing impaired, then people might compare me to other hearing impaired people, neglecting the facts that I am also software developer, creator of some crazy ideas, love Science Fiction, etc.
(http://livejournal.com/users/tddpirate)
Very similar to “Being a Jew” – a term I hate, vs. “Being Jewish”.
Regarding correcting discrimination:
When accepted to an exclusive club/program, it means you passed the tests/criteria. It is an evident that you are good. When you are a woman, and you pass the same tests, and there is even a suspision that there were “reserved seats” for women, into one of which you qualified, this makes you as well as other people look at you differently. You and other people doubt that your passing the test means that you are good – they say you passed because you are a woman. Making it evident and public knowledge that THERE ARE NO RESERVED SEATS for women makes everybody respect the women who passed the criteria at least as much as the men are respected. In addition, it makes prospect woman followers (to join the program, for example, to study exact sciences) feel they can make it: other women did it without any help, so they can do it too. Otherwise, they might think: other women could not get there without a correcting discrimination. Probably, I am not good enough for that either. It is not a thing for women to do.”
When a man looks down and up my body before he agrees with a professional claim I make (gladly, this hardly ever happens), I feel that my professional opinion did not get considered properly. If a person who did not look me down an up agreed with me, I would feel more confident that indeed I checked all the loop holes in the idea.
(http://livejournal.com/users/ladypine)
In other words, affirmative action may be appropriate for jobs, in which one's performance is more function of one's network of connections than function of one's innate ability.
Several managerial and political positions are like this. People get nominated/appointed/elected to such positions thanks to their “Old Boy Network”. For outsiders to break in, sometimes affirmative action is necessary. The assumption is that once they are in the position, they get to develop whatever network of connections they need to actually do their job.
(http://livejournal.com/users/tddpirate)