> "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.
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.
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.
"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"
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?
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!])
- 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.
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 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.)
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.
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?
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.
[+] [-] ergothus|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hestipod|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SilasX|6 years ago|reply
(And the reporting site isn't any better.)
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/dominos-asks-supreme-court-t...
[+] [-] ip26|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdponx|6 years ago|reply
This is quite an act of mental gymnastics.
[+] [-] tick_tock_tick|6 years ago|reply
whoops
[+] [-] slater|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perl4ever|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzakrajs|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] santoshalper|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] analog31|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fencepost|6 years ago|reply
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!])
[+] [-] AdrianB1|6 years ago|reply
- 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.
[+] [-] cortesoft|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bilbo0s|6 years ago|reply
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.)
[+] [-] santoshalper|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wavepruner|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tedmcory77|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masonic|6 years ago|reply
That's a big difference from the submitter claiming "isn't allowed to participate".
[+] [-] drivingmenuts|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] MBCook|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kaitai|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbg31415|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mreome|6 years ago|reply
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.