« Ah yes: 'hire the handicapped" month... | Ragged Edge Home | Edge-centric Home | The right to die and disability rights: an interview with Lennard Davis »
October 28, 2005 | Read comments | Post a comment
'And so it begins'
On the heels of the leaked Wal-Mart internal memo outlining ways the company could "discourage unhealthy job applicants" and make sure current employees are "healthy" comes The New York Times's editorial today praising the behemoth retailer:
In their drive for a healthier and therefore cheaper work force, the drafters recommend adding physical activity, like rounding up shopping carts, for all employees, simply to discourage the weak and the sick from seeking jobs there. But it can also be surprisingly forward-thinking...We cannot blindly throw out the good along with the bad as we sift through the retailer's dirty laundry.
Read the editorial here if you can get onto the NYT website.
"And so it begins," says Ingrid Tischer in an email to Ragged Edge. On Tuesday, Tischer had speculated, in response to the news of the memo, that "Some people, even progressives, may react by citing the memo's 'bold steps' language about providing better coverage and choices for 'healthy' employees. Don't fall for it. Allowing one community to benefit through discrimination against another is unacceptable."
Yep. And so it begins, indeed: The enlightened New York Times, taking the side of Wal-Mart against "the unhealthy." Seems this kind of thing used to be called "blaming the victim." When it comes to disability, the Times is good at that.
I have to say I'm not surprised about the Times. Their editorial board seems singularly disinterested in anything that smacks of disability rights -- they have generally taken the line that people who are "handicapped" (they still like to use the term) are in some way to blame for it and in any case need to suck it up and get on with their lives without bothering society with their whining. Today's editorial fits nicely into that track.
And how do you like their "We cannot blindly throw out the good along with the bad..."?
Using "blind" to mean "bad": someday I'm going to blog about that.
Posted by mjohnson on October 28, 2005 06:36 AM
Comments
"And so it begins," says Ingrid Tischer in an email to Ragged Edge. On Tuesday, Tischer had speculated, in response to the news of the memo, that "Some people, even progressives, may react by citing the memo's 'bold steps' language about providing better coverage and choices for 'healthy' employees. Don't fall for it. Allowing one community to benefit through discrimination against another is unacceptable."
Duh!
There is nothing illegal about discriminations being made among groups that are not similarily situated. They need only be rational discriminations and made for a reason that is not invidious. However, Tischer is missing something even more obvious. The part of the memo she is concerned about really refers to keeping healthy employees healthy. If one followed her so-called reasoning, an employer could be forbidden to offer a discount to local health clubs for employees because some disabled employees would not be able to use that benefit.
The issues involved in the Walmart scenario are complex. However, they are not necessarily in conflict. An employer could employ a proportionate share of disabled people and simultaneously discourage unhealthy habits by encouraging walking at work or discouraging smoking.
Posted by: June Gordon on November 3, 2005 02:56 AM
As you know, Mary, this sentence:
There is nothing illegal about discriminations being made among groups that are not similarily situated. They need only be rational discriminations and made for a reason that is not invidious.
pretty much sums up the entire problem with society seeing disability as an individual problem rather than a civil rights issue. In fact, I think you wrote a whole book about it.
People see discrimination in, for example, race because they can equate black = white except for skin color and skin color = not relevent because it doesn't affect others/me. But with disability, they don't see non-disabled = disabled except for accommodations/access, and accommodations/access = relevent because it might cost money/affect me. I'm not sure how to get over this hump. I can try to educate (for example) my sister until I'm blue in the face about how universal design improves things for everyone and doesn't cost that much money or the disabled people bring added value to the workforce and she still sides with the corporations not having to lift a finger to do anything that might affect their profit margin. I don't think I (or maybe we, the disabled community) know how to get past that. I gave your book to my sister (Make Them Go Away) because I thought you did an excellent job of getting through this issue, and she said she couldn't get through the book. It didn't make any sense to her.?????
Sigh.
Posted by: Lisa on November 17, 2005 07:11 AM