"It just comes down to the fact that I think it’s disrespectful for someone to be asking questions over a microphone or a speakerphone when individuals are actually taking the time out of their day to come and testify in person," Vos said.
> Vos spokeswoman Kit Beyer noted that Anderson voted for a set of Assembly rules in 2017 that eliminated a provision that allowed Assembly members in some cases to participate in committee meetings through web cameras.
I always wonder if that kind of thing is them voting for something obviously good, e.g. "Orphaned kittens of Wisconsin Aid Bill of 2017" that has ostensibly good stuff that of course you'd vote for, but then tucked away in some sub-sub-sub-paragraph in 5pt font there's "oh and legislators can't join committee meetings via the web, ok thx plz sign the bill below"
Or maybe the top-line bill is so important that you just swallow the bitter pill of less important riders, because getting a clean bill seems unlikely / out of your own control.
I understand usually it is a question of trading influence -- you want those kittens saved, but the guy whose vote you need wants to stick it to web cam manufacturers. Thus the abomonation bills are born.
In this case it sounds like Anderson knew what he was voting for, as the next paragraph reads
> Anderson voted on those rules a month after he joined the Legislature, at a time when he said he didn’t have a full sense of what his needs would be.
Regardless of the rules in place, exceptions can and should be made for people with disabilities based on their needs.
> "It just comes down to the fact that I think it’s disrespectful for someone to be asking questions over a microphone or a speakerphone when individuals are actually taking the time out of their day to come and testify in person," Vos said.
I can see going "hey, voice over phone just doesn't work as smoothly" without considering the disability.
But of course, that's the point - they get to consider "normal" as not involving the disability. That's, like, the definition of privilege.
By framing it in terms of "respect" you just make the matter worse. What was a logistical issue ("voice over phone isn't as smooth, can we improve that?") is now a moral issue of "respect" - which is basically impossible to nail down, and puts everyone on every side of the issue on the defensive.
I just don't understand how people so heartless and selfish like this exist and are functional. It speaks poorly to society that one can be this way and not shunned. This person thinks their ego and perceived "respect" matters more than anything and a disabled person using accessibility tools is a slight? There is not a single shred of empathy there. It's just inconceivable to me to think like that.
Just to add some context here from a Wisconsinite, Vos is one of the cheerleaders of our great Foxconn corporate welfare scheme.
Also, the guy champions a work release program for prisoners that he takes advantage of personally. Which, to my mind, wasn't so terrible. Until I found out that every one of the prisoners, um, "working", for him was a young female inmate.
Wisconsin really is kind of the Florida or Louisiana of the North. The corruption and moral breakdown around here runs deep. Not just the conservatives either, liberals get in on the action too. Just not quite as flagrant.
At this point has it not been repeatedly documented that individuals with antisocial personality disorder are well represented in leadership positions?
Vos is talking about members of the public coming to testify in person to their Congress, and saying the people's Congressmen owe it to be present to listen. Didn't sound like it had anything to do with a technical issue.
That's my point. "the people's Congressmen owe it to be present to listen" - Why do they owe it? (more specifically, why is it bad not to?) . Either (1) because if you aren't present the communication is stilted and awkward, meaning the person gets less-quality attention from their rep, or (2) because physical presence is mystically more "respectful".
Focusing on 2 instead of 1 misses the point entirely.
Reminds me of the recent story where Domino's would rather fight a case to the Supreme Court than take rudimentary steps to make their site usable by the blind.
> In its filing with the top court, the Chamber of Commerce wrote that the Justice Department has provided only “inconsistent, nonbinding, and unaccountable” rules
so this is the correct channel to get this done. the court can force the legislature's and the executive branches' hand on providing specific rules - of course alongside permanently invalidate them, or siding with the lower courts
whereas private lawsuits just create a hodge podge of case law and settlements that can be conflicting and irreconcilable to comply with until drumroll resolved by the Supreme Court
so yeah, fuck the optics - pun intended - and use the remaining path to consensus available
I'd like to know how much Domino's actually did here. Did they actually try but this guy's particular screen reader didn't work or did they do absolutely nothing and throw their hands up?
There's a big difference between "we tried our best but the law is ambiguous" and "the law is ambiguous so we didn't try".
So the argument for why remote callers should not be allowed is because the meeting is a great burden for its participants to commute to it and the burden must be felt by as many people as possible. Maybe we could make everyone happier by allowing remote meetings?
At first I was worried this was something egregious like, "We require people to stand and raise their right hand to vote..." It's just that he wants to be able to phone in to meetings... and I'm not sure that's a reasonable accommodation request. If the rules are that everyone has to be present for a quorum, it's not so much asking for accommodations, as asking for the rules to be re-written. Not every job is a work-from-home job.
> The Senate and Assembly set their own rules on how they conduct their meetings. The Senate allows members to phone into committee meetings, but the Assembly does not.
Is the Senate somehow a fundamentally different job?
Also, there is more to consider then "Not every job is a work-from-home job." This is a duly elected government officer being denied the ability to represent those who elected him.
- make it a job requirement to be physically present? (like going to the office for regular employees)
- make special amendments for some people?
Are there other options?
Not sure how to look at this. I work from home part of the week because I am not interacting with almost anyone in the closest branch of my company, but I assume that going to the office is an obligation in certain cases and not being able to do it would make me unfit for that job. In this case it is not a job, but close enough for me: it is paid by taxpayers money.
That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious.
The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.
While I am strongly opposed to child labor and military conscription, a six year old can do a LOT of damage. I'd not want to face a squad of them on my best day.
What are you gaining from removing disabled people from "everyone"? You're against protections for these people because it's not fair to you? Ever consider that your way is not fair to them and potentially any other arbitrarily defined group of people?
I gain a backbone. People with disabilities are a noble cause, but not an argument for inequality of rights. Consider that being equal is not discriminatory against any "arbitrary defined group of people", exactly opposite to your arbitrary rights.
Why can't we reverse your argument and say that "equality of rights is a noble cause"? Sure, we would of course prefer that, but barring that, I would absolutely prefer well-reasoned compromises for disabilities than nihilistic idealism.
Being equal can easily discriminate against anyone because your definition of equality does not match everyone else's. So, in your case, being equal means that handicapped people aren't treated equally. What if you set your arbitrary equality definition to only apply to white people? Now you're being equal by your personal standards again but you just regressed to the 1800s.
Your version of equality is worthless, your backbone is just an excuse to make yourself feel better.
You have the same right to accommodation when/if you are ever disabled as anyone else. If you aren't disabled and don't need the accommodation to function normally or without medical complications then you aren't being deprived of anything.
Everyone enjoys the right that if you are unable to fulfill your job due to a disability, and a reasonable accommodation could be provided which would allow you to fulfill your job, you’re entitled to the accommodation.
Wisconsin is in the US so US laws and regulations are what apply. Moreover it seems Europe also has similar legislation/protections for people with disabilities. This is equality. No bending necessary.
This one. You make reasonable accommodations for people who can't follow the normal rules. This is how the ADA is worded - employers have to make reasonable accommodations as long as it doesn't prevent the person from doing their job.
You define reasonable by using reason. You examine the situation and try to see if you can make an accommodation for the person that lets them do their job while not sacrificing performance. If you can, you do it.
You justify making these accommodations because you realize that there are some people who have conditions that make following the same routines that most people do impossible. We also realize that if you let everyone have those accommodations, it will not be sustainable, so you grant special rights to certain people based on this.
The handicap parking is a perfect example. Or pre-boarding flights for people in wheelchairs. Obviously you can't give everyone handicap parking, because that is the same as giving no one handicap parking. Some people can't travel as far, so we let them get the spots up front.
Same with pre-boarding. If everyone pre-boarded, it would just be boarding. But we also know that some groups need more time and space to board, like people in wheelchairs. So we let them board early.
I never understand this attitude that we aren't allowed to accommodate people who have hardships because it is unfair on people without those hardships. Like, what? The unfair part is that they HAVE the handicap in the first place, we are just trying to make it a little more fair.
Life isn't fair, so we make laws that are a little unfair in the opposite direction to try to even it out.
You're comparing two different things though. Not everyone can have the closest parking space, but couldn't everyone attend the meeting remotely?
If you add the capability to do it then I can give you a thousand reasons why someone should need it. They could be photosensitive and need to avoid sunlight, or agoraphobic, or have children they can't leave home alone, or follow a religion that requires them not to look upon an uncovered woman who is not their wife. They could be poor and unable to afford the travel, or live far away from the meeting place.
By the time I'm done listing reasons, there won't be anybody left without one.
The same is true for parking spaces, but giving everyone the closest parking space is not an option. How is allowing anyone to attend remotely not an option?
For this particular case, I don't know. Someone who set the policy would have to articulate why they thought it was important. Once they have articulated that, we can decide where the line should be for who gets the exemption and who doesn't.
It is not an absolute formula. You have to use judgement, and sometimes you are going to get it wrong on the boundaries.
That's the "all lives matter" argument. The problem with it is that rights are not distributed equally, they are biased towards the privileged. Making special accommodation for someone with a disability isn't giving them special rights, it's leveling the playing field that is tilted against them.
Reasonable in this case means providing a way for them allowing them to do their job in spite of their limitations. The "privilege" they are being granted is being able to work at all, which is a privilege most people have naturally and take for granted.
It's not discriminatory to meet someone's disability related needs. You don't have those same needs. It gets old seeing people without those needs say "it's not fair". Nobody would choose a disability to get some some perceived "perk" which is nothing of the sort in reality.
You want to make disabled people unfit? OK, change the Wisconsin Constitution. (Even if you did, I'm pretty sure it'd be illegal under ADA? But I might be mistaken about that?)
In any case, until you do, if the people vote in a disabled person, then that person is the lawmaker representing those people. Full stop.
We don't just get rid of someone else' lawmaker because we don't like something about him or her. The law likes something about that person, and that's the fact they were elected.
You can't tell people who they can and cannot vote for. Or rather, you can, but you have to do it explicitly in the Constitution. (At least in Wisconsin you do.)
This is a complete smokescreen. The truth is that Jimmy Anderson is a Democrat, and the speaker, Robin Vos, is a Republican.
Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available. Just like Republicans refuse to even consider Democratic justices and constantly try to disenfranchise voters. To a Republican, power is the only thing that matters at any cost.
There is no other useful version of this story, just layers of bullshit.
I wouldn't go so far as "Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available." unless you're a Wisconsin resident monitoring the activity of the legislature and know things that the rest of us don't.
My knee-jerk reaction is a less-extreme version of yours, more along the lines of Vos not being willing to do anything that would assist a Democrat but (hopefully) not actively seeking to disenfranchise him. I think that's probably supported by the fairly well-known acrimony between the Republican majority and Democratic minority in Wisconsin's legislature and politics in general (e.g. [Dem elected governor? Strip rights from the governor's office before he's seated!])
I'm a Wisconsin resident, monitoring the activity of the legislature. The partisan acrimony in WI is actually fairly recent, and there is not in fact a consistent party preference in elections that are statewide, such as governor, the US senators, and the president. Aggressive gerrymandering and winner-take-all policy tactics are trends that I've seen rise exponentially in my 20 years in WI.
If witnesses and legislators are required to be in public for questioning before a committee, doesn't it seem a bit off-putting that one of the participants would be allowed to join from a private location?
It could lead to a violation of trust - Anderson is a politician, regardless of how little experience he actually has, and one never trusts a politician to always do the right thing.
He was voted in by the people, I see no reason he shouldn’t get reasonable accommodations.
If the people find it so objectionable that he can’t attend meetings in person, they have a remedy. They can simply vote him out. It’s not a lifetime appointment.
Isn't it a bit off-putting that this duly elected representative of the people can't do his job, presumably basically 'cause he can't easily take a piss?
I've been partially-to-fully disabled for 15 years now.
Discrimination against disabled people is 100% socially acceptable and I don't see it ending anytime soon. It comes from liberals/conservatives/rich/poor/everyone.
What almost always happens is this: a person/group will perform whatever mental gymnastics they have to and find a way to blame the disabled person and/or wash their hands.
"you lack respect"
"you're exaggerating your disability and using it as an unfair advantage"
"you're not ready to get back into the workforce"
"people will complain that you're accommodated but they aren't"
"i just can't afford to help you, but i'm sure the next person will"
"too many gaps in your resume"
"you need to start at a low-level position and work your way up, but since you are physically incapable of the low-level position you can't work here"
At my last workplace I was repeatedly accused of sexism by a female coworker when I tried to set boundaries with her and communicate that I couldn't do all the things she asked me to do. I ended up just leaving because I couldn't get any work done as I had to spend an extraordinary amount of time crafting arguments to defend myself.
64 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 135 ms ] threadThis is quite an act of mental gymnastics.
whoops
> Anderson voted on those rules a month after he joined the Legislature, at a time when he said he didn’t have a full sense of what his needs would be.
Regardless of the rules in place, exceptions can and should be made for people with disabilities based on their needs.
I can see going "hey, voice over phone just doesn't work as smoothly" without considering the disability.
But of course, that's the point - they get to consider "normal" as not involving the disability. That's, like, the definition of privilege.
By framing it in terms of "respect" you just make the matter worse. What was a logistical issue ("voice over phone isn't as smooth, can we improve that?") is now a moral issue of "respect" - which is basically impossible to nail down, and puts everyone on every side of the issue on the defensive.
Also, the guy champions a work release program for prisoners that he takes advantage of personally. Which, to my mind, wasn't so terrible. Until I found out that every one of the prisoners, um, "working", for him was a young female inmate.
Wisconsin really is kind of the Florida or Louisiana of the North. The corruption and moral breakdown around here runs deep. Not just the conservatives either, liberals get in on the action too. Just not quite as flagrant.
Lotta work to get to normal around here.
Lotta work.
At this point has it not been repeatedly documented that individuals with antisocial personality disorder are well represented in leadership positions?
Focusing on 2 instead of 1 misses the point entirely.
(And the reporting site isn't any better.)
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/dominos-asks-supreme-court-t...
so this is the correct channel to get this done. the court can force the legislature's and the executive branches' hand on providing specific rules - of course alongside permanently invalidate them, or siding with the lower courts
whereas private lawsuits just create a hodge podge of case law and settlements that can be conflicting and irreconcilable to comply with until drumroll resolved by the Supreme Court
so yeah, fuck the optics - pun intended - and use the remaining path to consensus available
There's a big difference between "we tried our best but the law is ambiguous" and "the law is ambiguous so we didn't try".
I'm totally fine with it being something as simple as wanting to do a trendy React SPA and then getting sued because it wasn't accessible:
It doesn't matter if it was a software limitation, their own designer's and management's lack of awareness, their devs, or the ADA ambiguity
Its pay this lawsuit or settle with this blind man and the next one, or figure out what the law actually is.
Is the Senate somehow a fundamentally different job?
Also, there is more to consider then "Not every job is a work-from-home job." This is a duly elected government officer being denied the ability to represent those who elected him.
- make all the meetings remote for anyone?
- make it a job requirement to be physically present? (like going to the office for regular employees)
- make special amendments for some people?
Are there other options?
Not sure how to look at this. I work from home part of the week because I am not interacting with almost anyone in the closest branch of my company, but I assume that going to the office is an obligation in certain cases and not being able to do it would make me unfit for that job. In this case it is not a job, but close enough for me: it is paid by taxpayers money.
The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.
Everyone is entitled to enter a restroom or no one is. I can get behind that. No more multi-toilet rooms with stall gaps.
Your version of equality is worthless, your backbone is just an excuse to make yourself feel better.
This one. You make reasonable accommodations for people who can't follow the normal rules. This is how the ADA is worded - employers have to make reasonable accommodations as long as it doesn't prevent the person from doing their job.
How do you justify making accommodations just for some people? Why not for all? Rights should be equal, not based on any discriminatory criteria.
You define reasonable by using reason. You examine the situation and try to see if you can make an accommodation for the person that lets them do their job while not sacrificing performance. If you can, you do it.
You justify making these accommodations because you realize that there are some people who have conditions that make following the same routines that most people do impossible. We also realize that if you let everyone have those accommodations, it will not be sustainable, so you grant special rights to certain people based on this.
The handicap parking is a perfect example. Or pre-boarding flights for people in wheelchairs. Obviously you can't give everyone handicap parking, because that is the same as giving no one handicap parking. Some people can't travel as far, so we let them get the spots up front.
Same with pre-boarding. If everyone pre-boarded, it would just be boarding. But we also know that some groups need more time and space to board, like people in wheelchairs. So we let them board early.
I never understand this attitude that we aren't allowed to accommodate people who have hardships because it is unfair on people without those hardships. Like, what? The unfair part is that they HAVE the handicap in the first place, we are just trying to make it a little more fair.
Life isn't fair, so we make laws that are a little unfair in the opposite direction to try to even it out.
If you add the capability to do it then I can give you a thousand reasons why someone should need it. They could be photosensitive and need to avoid sunlight, or agoraphobic, or have children they can't leave home alone, or follow a religion that requires them not to look upon an uncovered woman who is not their wife. They could be poor and unable to afford the travel, or live far away from the meeting place.
By the time I'm done listing reasons, there won't be anybody left without one.
The same is true for parking spaces, but giving everyone the closest parking space is not an option. How is allowing anyone to attend remotely not an option?
It is not an absolute formula. You have to use judgement, and sometimes you are going to get it wrong on the boundaries.
Reasonable in this case means providing a way for them allowing them to do their job in spite of their limitations. The "privilege" they are being granted is being able to work at all, which is a privilege most people have naturally and take for granted.
The courts do it. And they’ve been doing it ever since the ADA was passed. It’s a system that seems to work quite well.
You want to make disabled people unfit? OK, change the Wisconsin Constitution. (Even if you did, I'm pretty sure it'd be illegal under ADA? But I might be mistaken about that?)
In any case, until you do, if the people vote in a disabled person, then that person is the lawmaker representing those people. Full stop.
We don't just get rid of someone else' lawmaker because we don't like something about him or her. The law likes something about that person, and that's the fact they were elected.
You can't tell people who they can and cannot vote for. Or rather, you can, but you have to do it explicitly in the Constitution. (At least in Wisconsin you do.)
Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available. Just like Republicans refuse to even consider Democratic justices and constantly try to disenfranchise voters. To a Republican, power is the only thing that matters at any cost.
There is no other useful version of this story, just layers of bullshit.
My knee-jerk reaction is a less-extreme version of yours, more along the lines of Vos not being willing to do anything that would assist a Democrat but (hopefully) not actively seeking to disenfranchise him. I think that's probably supported by the fairly well-known acrimony between the Republican majority and Democratic minority in Wisconsin's legislature and politics in general (e.g. [Dem elected governor? Strip rights from the governor's office before he's seated!])
It could lead to a violation of trust - Anderson is a politician, regardless of how little experience he actually has, and one never trusts a politician to always do the right thing.
If the people find it so objectionable that he can’t attend meetings in person, they have a remedy. They can simply vote him out. It’s not a lifetime appointment.
That's a big difference from the submitter claiming "isn't allowed to participate".
Discrimination against disabled people is 100% socially acceptable and I don't see it ending anytime soon. It comes from liberals/conservatives/rich/poor/everyone.
What almost always happens is this: a person/group will perform whatever mental gymnastics they have to and find a way to blame the disabled person and/or wash their hands.
"you lack respect"
"you're exaggerating your disability and using it as an unfair advantage"
"you're not ready to get back into the workforce"
"people will complain that you're accommodated but they aren't"
"i just can't afford to help you, but i'm sure the next person will"
"too many gaps in your resume"
"you need to start at a low-level position and work your way up, but since you are physically incapable of the low-level position you can't work here"
At my last workplace I was repeatedly accused of sexism by a female coworker when I tried to set boundaries with her and communicate that I couldn't do all the things she asked me to do. I ended up just leaving because I couldn't get any work done as I had to spend an extraordinary amount of time crafting arguments to defend myself.