Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Staples Co-Founder: Allowing Women To Breastfeed At Work Costs Jobs
Is it a woman? I bet it is.
So far I've only got 3 comments - and all are in agreement with me. I'd like to fight it out though, so hopefully someone will chime in with a ridiculous opposing viewpoint!
I worked in retail for a little while at a bigger chain. All of these places have offices- couldn't an employee use the manager's office? There are 5 or ten people sharing it, so it isn't like they are encroaching on someone else's privacy.
I read the article, but I didn't see anything about fines. There might not be fines - they might be legally compelled to comply with the regulation.
This might depend on the state. For example, in CA, you are not legally compelled to comply with ADA regulations, you are simply given a small fine/settlement for the person who sues you.
40/112
Exactly. This is why we no longer have strict laissez-faire capitalism. Employing children under the age of 10 would be pro-business. Making employees work 12 hour days with no lunch break nd no overtime pay would be pro-business. Letting the market completely set their own wages would be pro-business. None of this is legal, and really, none of it is moral.
40/112
WHERE DO YOU GET THIS FROM?
I don't mean to yell, but really.
Employers over a certain size are required to comply with the ADA. Period. It's a federal law. And in California, there's a state analogue, too.
If someone claims a violation of the ADA, they can bring it to an administrative agency (EEOC or state FEPA) or they can sue in court. In either case, the question will be whether the employer violated the ADA (including the architectural access requirements) and if so, there can be monetary and non-monetary damages. That means money to the person whose rights were violated as well as a court order to get your place into compliance with the law.
No, there's no way to "legally compel" you to comply, but other than putting people into the pokey, or shutting businesses down, the power of $$ is pretty much the only way the government has to compel businesses to comply with ANY law.
...'cept the agency I worked for had made these humungous orange stickers, they were like 2' x 3', and if we had issued an order against them and they were non-compliant, we'd send a sheriff out to put one on their front door. The sticker said that the business "HAS COMMITTED AN ACT OF DISCRIMINATION" etc. Lots of all caps and statutory quotes, including a statement that the sticker couldn't be removed by the business owner, only by order of the sheriff. That got them paying their $$ on the quick, let me tell you.
I am the 99%.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted and used against you. My Blog
First off, under 40 employees = not covered under this law.
But...
Can the sidelight on the interview rooms be covered with a blind? Or paper and tape?
I am the 99%.
My office has no blinds on the glass looking out into the hallway. I put up paper blinds while pumping. I also know someone who put up what looks like curtains with some sort of adhesive that was easily removed. Another person just had a bookcase moved in front of the glass to block the view (this of course was a little more permanent. My point is that it is possible.
I'm lucky (I guess?) that we have a disproportionately large HR dept with nothing to do, so they got all excited about providing a room. I'm in a small conference room in the building across from the one I work in. I have an orchid (not sure if someone is watering it?). They're announcing a contest for people's kids to draw artwork to decorate the room and I have to judge it.
Before I realized they needed a project, I suggested a janitor's closet. It had a plug and a lock. That's all I needed. No orchids.
I work for a small company that's always tight on space and fighting over conference rooms. If everyone just uses a little common sense, it's really not that hard.
That's awesome. At my old site there were 3 quiet rooms. One in buildings on each end of campus and one in the middle. The first room is teeny with a slidable wall next to the break room with a chair and a table. The middle one is under the stairs has a recliner and a table. The third one has a leather sofa and a sectional, two sinks and a coffee table. I never wanted to leave the 3rd one.
That actually doesn't sound impossible at all. Buy $50 worth of blinds from the Home Depot to hang on the window of one of the interview rooms, and call it a day.
I am the 99%.
Is there a storage room?
Whoa! I did not mean that your employer can just decide not to accomodate you. I mean that if a business's parking lot doesn't have the right number of handicapped parking spaces, they don't necessarily need to INSTALL them.
So actually, that might not be an apt comparison at all, because it's not about employment, but about business accessibility.
These are biased, but this touches on where I got it from:
http://www.adaabuse.com/
http://www.bingham.com/Media.aspx?MediaID=76
40/112
A website called ADA Abuse.com. Really? Really???
Sorry, but no.
You can believe that if you want to, but, you know, there are federal and state laws that say that disabilities have to be accommodated. And, you know, if you don't there will be administrative actions and lawsuits.
Now, these aren't the most toothy laws on the books, but to say, blithely, "oh, you don't need to actually do it" is a bit offensive... to me personally (having worked enforcing these laws for 15 years) as well as to, you know, pretty much everybody who cares about the laws being actually enforced.
Sure, if you want to blow it off you can. And you run the risk of a lawsuit, with a court ordering actual damages, plus punitive damages, plus costs, plus attorneys fees, plus interest (at 12% from the date of the incident) plus, here it is, an order that do comply with the law.
...and most states antidiscrimination laws cover businesses that are employers, AND as places of public accommodation. So, not only do businesses need to comply with the law as it relates to how they treat their employees, but they also need to comply with the law as it relates to how they treat their customers. Like, being sure they have sufficient and appropriate HP parking spaces.
I am the 99%.
A $10 roll of contact would make those sidelight windows privacy windows, and a $30 bedroom/bathroom lockset at Lowes would give them a lock. And then you wouldn't have to cover sick days for the child who gets more ear infections because they were weaned earlier.
I'm sorry you were offended. I obviously do not know as much as you do about this. My knowledge was formed by the case of Jared Molski, who is/was a "professional" litigant. He filed over 400 lawsuits against businesses, mostly trying to get money out of them (either through the courts or as a settlement) because California requires a certain monetary damage settlement to those who bring claims against you.
However, it appears that California also has accessibility regulations which occassionally exceeds or conflicts with federal ADA requirements. I may also be confusing out of court settlements with legally mandated monetary damages.
Here's a quote from Time if it helps:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1866666,00.html
Andrew Imparato, president and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities, says his organization's biggest concern is that when the lawsuits are filed, a settlement may be reached, but the access issue is not addressed. "We'd like to see federal judges in a jurisdiction where lots of cases are being filed looking at the phenomenon and trying to work on a solution that results in improvements in accessibility," says Imparato, "and not lining the pockets of plaintiffs or boutique law firms that make a business out of it."
40/112
every system has abusers. are you going to say we should scrap the 911 system because there's some old lady who calls it every time her cat poops on the floor?
calling up some "professional ada litigant" when talking about accommodating breastfeeding moms makes no sense. assuming you know about a subject because you've read a lot of advocacy stuff - primarily based on a single abuser - isn't the best move.
Remember the McDonalds coffee burn lady? How everybody was all incensed that she got all that money... then... the truth.
I am the 99%.
As an FYI, California (and any other state) is free to enact laws that exceed ADAs requirements. Federal laws such as ADA are the minimum floor of what must be done, states are free to impose stricter regulations to increase accessibility and provide more than the federal law does. There is no ceiling.