Osamu,
That "triple" report on US employment of people with disabilities,
sounds wrong.
Through the WhIte House, there is something called "President's
Commission on Employment for the Disabled" or something like that.
There is also a Liaison person for this constituency, Jonathan ____?
>----> Before the new President & staff come in on Jan. 20th, like
today, you should e-mail them and ask to be sent their reports on this.
www.whitehouse.gov
As of a year or 2 ago, they found that of all social categories tracked
by US Dept. of Labor statistics (gender, race, etc.), the ONLY class
whose rate of employment was still creeping upwards in these "good
times" of '92-3 to now, is PWD's. Creeping upwards slowly, but this is
in contrast to unemployment rates of other classes declining
dramatically. (Also note that most of the 90's job growth is the worst
service jobs, minimum wage or even less, no paid holidays, no benefits,
etc., so "got a job" and "got out of poverty" are often 2 different
things to measure; the first not implying the second.)
If that "triple" statistics came from anywhere but thin air, several
technical details need to be examined. In the "US" some statistics for
the "unemployment rate" count less than all unemployed. They count
those "on unemployment compensation ("actively looking for work" is
another slippery phrase that's used) : which only lasts so long. After
that, the person drops off "unemployment rate" statistics. Or maybe
they were self-employed, and when that stopped they could not get on
unemployment.
Thus "unemployment" statistics are not the ones to look at, it's other
research that shows the full story. The statistics used on that TV show
probably also ignored the distinction of full time or part time, and may
have counted anyone working even an hour a week. (Because you'd have
to stretch every possible point, to get a ridiculous figure like they
cliam.) The recent federal law WIIA / Work Incentives Improvement Act
that lets people on disability to find work and keep the health care
coverage (medicaid / medicare) is so recent, and still being implemented
at State level, so that I don't think the small effect of this shows
yet, in any statistics.
According to Shapiro's book "No Pity" which documents some of what
happened in passing the ADA (and he works for a conservative
newspaper,so be careful when reading it) , the ADA was sold to President
Bush in '89-90 to get his signature, by predictions that this would lead
to greater employment, and reduce the "disability" benefit rolls. They
told him what he wanted to hear. But you have to sue to enforce it, and
you can't win cash damages (as you CAN win, in other kinds of federal
civil rights suits) so even if you win, there's nothing to split with a
"contingency fee" lawyer, (so the lawyer must either be paid cash in
advance, or be a free "public service" lawyer), and therefor the good
outcomes are mostly cases settled pre-trial, (a distinction not always
clear in news reports), and thus do NOT create Case Law. (I think, if
you "settle", pre-trial, then the settlement can include money for the
lawyer.) It's the corporations who have the legal resources to fight
cases to the end, so much of the Case Law created has further weakened a
weak law. Corporations have a tactic to buy off the individual
plaintiff headed for a winning Court ruling, often at the last minute,
to avoid any good case law being made that would apply to others. Or
they give in and stop discriminating, right before you file the suit, if
they're convinced you're serious and may file.
In the recent Supreme Court term, employment provisions were all but
erased, (see the cases of the truck driver and the airline pilot)
creating a weird Catch 22, in which if the employer won't let you do the
job because s/he falsely claims that your disability is a problem, then
the plaintiff is deemed to be "not covered by the ADA" and cannot get
into Court at all. Now, you almost have to prove you can't do the job,
in your initial filing of papers, to be allowed into Court to argue
discrimination. This severely reduces the number of people deemed to be
"covered", and flies in the face of the law's text The law's authors
even inserted a populaton figure (the 54 million figure's earlier number
for 1990, 45 million?), which no other US civil rights law does in
order to make it impossible for judges to misinterpret how wide the
coverage was intended to be. (Not just "severe disabilities" but
"disabilities".) But the Supreme Court deliberately misinterpreted it,
anyway. People who wrote the ADA, like the lawyer (Robert?) Burgdorff
filed Amicus Curae / Friend of the Court briefs, as to the law's letter
& "intent" on this very point, and the 5-4 "conservative" majority of
the Court said, in effect, "no, that was not your intent".
If you track down where that TV station got those "almost triple"
statistics, I'll bet you find one of the pro-corporate most far
right-wing "think-tanks", or policy foundations, which regularly crank
out anti-ADA and anti-disabled rights propaganda to the media.
Jim
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
