ADA... Serious Or Not?

VamPyroX

VamPyroX

bloody phreak from hell
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Messages
34,374
Reaction score
21
How serious do you take the American Disabilities Act?

I don't take it seriously. I don't even think that everything should be done my way. I've seen people who are so completely anal about the ADA that they refuse to communicate unless an interpreter is present because they say that according to ADA, they have a right to request an interpreter. Come on, for god's sake! Just use a pen and paper! There are people out there who try their best to communicate with us and yet, some deaf people sit around being too damn stubborn and give those hearies a hard time!
 
Hey.. have you heard about this..

In Washington DC, there will be a protest against a man name Jeffrey S. Sutton as President Bush's nominee for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sutton has stated that the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is not needed and has been a leader in many attempts to weaken, or eliminate the ADA's civil rights protection for millions of Americans with disabilities.


As of now, a group of students at NTID will be attending washington DC along with some gally students to protest against Sutton next Tuesday morning. We'll see what happens..

So is ADA worth it? According to Sutton, no..
 
Originally posted by BostonIceFire
Hey.. have you heard about this..

In Washington DC, there will be a protest against a man name Jeffrey S. Sutton as President Bush's nominee for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sutton has stated that the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is not needed and has been a leader in many attempts to weaken, or eliminate the ADA's civil rights protection for millions of Americans with disabilities.


As of now, a group of students at NTID will be attending washington DC along with some gally students to protest against Sutton next Tuesday morning. We'll see what happens..

So is ADA worth it? According to Sutton, no..
Click to expand...
I think that the ADA is worth it. However, it should not be abused.
 
Originally posted by BostonIceFire
Define how it should not be abused
Click to expand...
For instance, we have a right to have a TTY when working for a company. They provide a TTY. However, since there are several deaf employees working in that office area, they feel that each of them are entitled to their own TTY so they sue. That's what I mean by abuse. There are also times when people sue without even taking the time to ask about their own ADA rights. There was one time where a lady sued one company for not providing her an interpreter. Yet, she never told them that she needed an interpreter. Another time, one company provided an interpreter for a deaf woman. She sued because she was insulted when they assumed she wouldn't understand them. Either way, both were sued... without even given a chance to explain or to fulfill the request of the client.
 
well consider this, poeple abuse it to a fact that they should be ashamed to be part of the deaf community cuz, they just want the money, while we slaved and worked very hard to teach the poeple and tell them to accept us as who we are not what we are, we re not there to be in t he backseat of the hearings we can do anything and if they can't get an interpter then we can write back and forth whlist seeing the deafies just bitch abt not enuff interpeters, its cuz poeple don't request them often and there's not enuff money or funding to support the community who needs the interpters!
 
the ADA im in support of -- but YES it has been abused -- the way i look at it the word "disability" is something in life that is beyond our control like for example -- born Deaf, become Deaf later in life, become blind due to glaucoma or other events, have signs of schizophrenia cuz of a chemical imbalance occurring in the brain and etc etc and there are some listed as a "disability" that i think is total BULLSHIT -- for 1 example -- drug and alcohol abusers are protected against the ADA (amazing huh qq) and that threw me off cuz the abuse of drugs/alcohol is a CHOICE of the person's not a "disability" -- i have talked to a few ppl abt this and they say they do sometimes have to hire the person altho the person may have documented history of drug/alcohol problems :shock: and in the end they get fired anyway cuz they were given the mandatory and random drug/alcohol testing and was found to be positive -- i can never understand this shit and other so called "disabilities" that are protected under the ADA -- i myself was a drug user and have been clean for YEARS (over 10 years and counting) and i dont see that as a "disability" -- i see that as a CHOICE to use or not to use -- there is the word "yes" to be using and if a person CHOOSES to say "yes" it is under "disability" qq i say its BULLSHIT !!!!!!!

i myself support the use of terps in a staff meeting setting, mandatory in-services, etc etc where it involves a large group of people not just a 1 on 1 that can be easily done with paper and pen -- but if have a meeting with 2 or 3 other ppl including urself i would support the use of a terp cuz 1 person may interrupt and say something and the Deaf person would miss that -- and thats not fair and the Deaf person should have the right to have total inclusiveness in those types of setting
 
America, Land of Sue-Happy People.
Need I say more?

I wish we had laws about lawsuits like in Europe. Their laws make it harder for ppl to sue for some reasons. I am tired of hearing ppl sue companies for stupid reasons, like coffee spilling on their legs or whatever. I mean, come on! If they spilled coffee at home, do they sue coffee manufacteur? I wish we had tougher laws about lawsuits.

ADA, I think is a very good thing. You're right, it is just the stupid deaf ppl who are sue-happy for money.
 
They need to amend ADA so that it is a win-win situation for both parties involved. That way, more hearing people wouldn't be so defensive when they provide customer service to a Deaf customer or hire a Deaf employee.
 
VamPyroX said:
How serious do you take the American Disabilities Act?

I don't take it seriously. I don't even think that everything should be done my way. I've seen people who are so completely anal about the ADA that they refuse to communicate unless an interpreter is present because they say that according to ADA, they have a right to request an interpreter. Come on, for god's sake! Just use a pen and paper! There are people out there who try their best to communicate with us and yet, some deaf people sit around being too damn stubborn and give those hearies a hard time!
Click to expand...
I heartily agree with you there. However, that is where a major draw back occur. Not many deaf people have good grammar when it comes to writing. Secondly, their writing style correspond to another deaf individual with deaf culture mind, however, when it is read by hearing world norms, it is often misunderstood. When I used to work for Kodak, I often was deaf employee's "advocate" where they used me to write their true intention when they were misunderstood by the hearing norms. That is where an interpreter comes in place, a person with multicultural perspectives (Ability to understand deaf's culture and hearing's culture) to be able to not only to interpret, but to interpret their true intention. Without interpreters, they are often misunderstood as to if their intention was otherwise, which could result into unnecessary disciplinary actions. As for (I dont mean to offend here) intellucal individuals (which is very rare in general deaf population) paper and pen should be the way to go instead of interpreter. That is where ADA fall in place, to provide the deaf culture with inability to write in a sense where the norms would understand, a way to succeed with their raw talents.
 
VamPyroX said:
I think that the ADA is worth it. However, it should not be abused.
Click to expand...
Yeah, ADA shouldn't be abused. If an individual do not have the qualifications to do it, then they couldn't use ADA as "cop-out" to get a job of their liking. They have to earn it by means of education, promotions and such. I've seen certain deaf people who cried that ADA didn't do what they wanted to do. I had to protect ADA's intergrity by telling them to earn their talents by means of education, and such. It is sad to see them boasting on their empty talents on which they do not possess.
 
kuifje75 said:
America, Land of Sue-Happy People.
Need I say more?

I wish we had laws about lawsuits like in Europe. Their laws make it harder for ppl to sue for some reasons. I am tired of hearing ppl sue companies for stupid reasons, like coffee spilling on their legs or whatever. I mean, come on! If they spilled coffee at home, do they sue coffee manufacteur? I wish we had tougher laws about lawsuits.

ADA, I think is a very good thing. You're right, it is just the stupid deaf ppl who are sue-happy for money.
Click to expand...
Or using ADA as their mother who they suppose having soft heart, in fact where they aren't.
 
Deaf258 said:
They need to amend ADA so that it is a win-win situation for both parties involved. That way, more hearing people wouldn't be so defensive when they provide customer service to a Deaf customer or hire a Deaf employee.
Click to expand...
There are a deaf employee who works in customer services that deal directly with hearing customers (tax payers.) IRS in Atlanta enforce the compliance of ADA there!
 
ADA was originally written for the majority of the disabled citizens of USA: Blind people. There was a large group of blind people lobbying for ADA to be passed. Where were the Deaf people? Not many Deafies showed up there to claim their place in ADA laws and requirements. I think it is our own damn fault.
 
The ADA is serving a useful purpose in providing access and protection against people who just don't give a damn about disabled people. (Wheelchair? You're FIRED!)

Yes, there are people that abuse the system, BUT most people who sue for alledged ADA violations LOSES!!! Check your facts! I think the law is just fine as is.
 
258 sez: "majority of the disabled citizens of USA: Blind people."

Me: this is not true.

258 sez: "Not many Deafies showed up there to claim their place in ADA laws and requirements."

Me: again, this is not true. The NAD was there. In fact, Prof. Frank Bowe, a deaf author and advocate, had a BIG HAND in the writing of the ADA.

Check your facts.
 
I'm not too serious nor obsessed about ADA, of course I still support ADA because I need it. The only times I've warned people by ADA law that they must provide me an interpreter. I attended to several schools, most of them were avoiding to provide me an interpreter for class. So, I explained to them about ADA law, they understood then gave me what I needed for classroom. No biggie unless if you got rejected from school or fired.
 
good point E i agree mention the ADA and they will step in and do the job not mention it u will be screwed, as for me i dont have to worry abt the ada cuz i usually give them the look and they know get the job done or i get my attorney to take it into action.
 
Back
Top