This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Discrimination against the able-bodied
Yesss like most of you i've always felt sorry for disabled people (mentals to the rest of us - when they're not around at least! 
), but does anyone agree that they get too much special treatment? This is especially the case with employment where employers feel they have to give a handicapped person the job over a 'normal' person. The government obviously has some quota to fill and this acts at the very least as a tiebreaker between two such applicants.
It's not just the fact in virtue of being handicapped they get preferential treatment in interviews, also they can prove to be an something of an inconvenience in the workplace. I've got a job over summer and a wheelchair-user (who i suspect is as such due to her obscene size) works in my office. Recently, there was a fire-drill and i was allocated the task of helping her down the stairs. This involved me having to lift the front of her wheelchair down 3 flights of stairs and although i don't hold her responsible, i did my back in and had to spend the next 3 days off work, missing out on nearly 50 pounds (before tax anyway). Also it took me ages to get down and if that was a real fire i would have definitely perished with her half-way down - why should i have to risk my life for someone who, lets face it - doesn't really have anything to lose?
Sometimes disabled people can do the job as good as the next person and sometimes they can't (daniel blunkett the home secretary - do you think a sighted man would have got away with all the mistakes he made??) but the point is that a disabled person has the advantage in getting a job over an able-bodied person - it's just unfair!!
I've got loads of disabled friends and i think they can play an otherwise active role in society - i just think they shouldn't work. If i was in their position i'd take advantage of my opportunity to sponge!! lol
), but does anyone agree that they get too much special treatment? This is especially the case with employment where employers feel they have to give a handicapped person the job over a 'normal' person. The government obviously has some quota to fill and this acts at the very least as a tiebreaker between two such applicants. It's not just the fact in virtue of being handicapped they get preferential treatment in interviews, also they can prove to be an something of an inconvenience in the workplace. I've got a job over summer and a wheelchair-user (who i suspect is as such due to her obscene size) works in my office. Recently, there was a fire-drill and i was allocated the task of helping her down the stairs. This involved me having to lift the front of her wheelchair down 3 flights of stairs and although i don't hold her responsible, i did my back in and had to spend the next 3 days off work, missing out on nearly 50 pounds (before tax anyway). Also it took me ages to get down and if that was a real fire i would have definitely perished with her half-way down - why should i have to risk my life for someone who, lets face it - doesn't really have anything to lose?
Sometimes disabled people can do the job as good as the next person and sometimes they can't (daniel blunkett the home secretary - do you think a sighted man would have got away with all the mistakes he made??) but the point is that a disabled person has the advantage in getting a job over an able-bodied person - it's just unfair!!
I've got loads of disabled friends and i think they can play an otherwise active role in society - i just think they shouldn't work. If i was in their position i'd take advantage of my opportunity to sponge!! lol
Correct procedure would have been to take her to a refuge point and (in the case of a real fire) the fire brigade would rescue her. What you were asked to do would, where I work, contravene health and safety regulations.
daniel blunkett?
Howie
Yesss like most of you i've always felt sorry for disabled people (mentals to the rest of us - when they're not around at least! ), but does anyone agree that they get too much special treatment? This is especially the case with employment where employers feel they have to give a handicapped person the job over a 'normal' person. The government obviously has some quota to fill and this acts at the very least as a tiebreaker between two such applicants.
It's not just the fact in virtue of being handicapped they get preferential treatment in interviews, also they can prove to be an something of an inconvenience in the workplace. I've got a job over summer and a wheelchair-user (who i suspect is as such due to her obscene size) works in my office. Recently, there was a fire-drill and i was allocated the task of helping her down the stairs. This involved me having to lift the front of her wheelchair down 3 flights of stairs and although i don't hold her responsible, i did my back in and had to spend the next 3 days off work, missing out on nearly 50 pounds (before tax anyway). Also it took me ages to get down and if that was a real fire i would have definitely perished with her half-way down - why should i have to risk my life for someone who, lets face it - doesn't really have anything to lose?
Sometimes disabled people can do the job as good as the next person and sometimes they can't (daniel blunkett the home secretary - do you think a sighted man would have got away with all the mistakes he made??) but the point is that a disabled person has the advantage in getting a job over an able-bodied person - it's just unfair!!
I've got loads of disabled friends and i think they can play an otherwise active role in society - i just think they shouldn't work. If i was in their position i'd take advantage of my opportunity to sponge!! lol
), but does anyone agree that they get too much special treatment? This is especially the case with employment where employers feel they have to give a handicapped person the job over a 'normal' person. The government obviously has some quota to fill and this acts at the very least as a tiebreaker between two such applicants. It's not just the fact in virtue of being handicapped they get preferential treatment in interviews, also they can prove to be an something of an inconvenience in the workplace. I've got a job over summer and a wheelchair-user (who i suspect is as such due to her obscene size) works in my office. Recently, there was a fire-drill and i was allocated the task of helping her down the stairs. This involved me having to lift the front of her wheelchair down 3 flights of stairs and although i don't hold her responsible, i did my back in and had to spend the next 3 days off work, missing out on nearly 50 pounds (before tax anyway). Also it took me ages to get down and if that was a real fire i would have definitely perished with her half-way down - why should i have to risk my life for someone who, lets face it - doesn't really have anything to lose?
Sometimes disabled people can do the job as good as the next person and sometimes they can't (daniel blunkett the home secretary - do you think a sighted man would have got away with all the mistakes he made??) but the point is that a disabled person has the advantage in getting a job over an able-bodied person - it's just unfair!!
I've got loads of disabled friends and i think they can play an otherwise active role in society - i just think they shouldn't work. If i was in their position i'd take advantage of my opportunity to sponge!! lol
If a person is able to do a job, they should be allowed. Working gives people a purpose, and a sense of self-worth- you want people already dealt a bad hand in life to further lose dignity( because disabled people are subjected to indignity every day) by being forced to rely on the state, even if they can work themselves, albeit with a little help from people who are much better off healtrh-wise than they are? Ask yourself how the woman felt being such a burden on you.
Don't blame the woman for your mishap. Obviously there are serious health and safety concerns at your workplace if you believe you would have died in a real fire with the current methods of escape. Are there no lifts? And if not, having wheelchair-bound people on upper floors isn't even legal. People laugh at health and safety, and bang on about a nanny state, but here, you are telling us you would have been in big trouble in the event on a fire. I hope people garner from this that in a lot of cases, health and safety rules are important.
The "nothing to lose" part informs me you are just messing about, or trolling, as this little "community" likes to call it. So a waste of time really, but don't judge the worth of a persons life for them- you are not a God, and you don't have the same powers Hitler did.
Your David Blunkett argument is confused. Your point is that he got away with more because he was blind. That has little to do with whether his blindness affected how well he did his job. I'm of the assumption that he would have been as awful a man, maybe moreso, if he was sighted. And with the succession of awful Labour Home Secretaries, perhaps there is more wrong with the political system than there is with whomever fills whatever post.
By the way, i reckon most disabled people would be surprised to hear that they get preferential treatment in interviews. So that must be why there are so many disabled workers around!
cottonmouth
Don't blame the woman for your mishap. Obviously there are serious health and safety concerns at your workplace if you believe you would have died in a real fire with the current methods of escape. Are there no lifts? And if not, having wheelchair-bound people on upper floors isn't even legal. People laugh at health and safety, and bang on about a nanny state, but here, you are telling us you would have been in big trouble in the event on a fire. I hope people garner from this that in a lot of cases, health and safety rules are important.
Don't blame the woman for your mishap. Obviously there are serious health and safety concerns at your workplace if you believe you would have died in a real fire with the current methods of escape. Are there no lifts? And if not, having wheelchair-bound people on upper floors isn't even legal. People laugh at health and safety, and bang on about a nanny state, but here, you are telling us you would have been in big trouble in the event on a fire. I hope people garner from this that in a lot of cases, health and safety rules are important.
You can't use lift in fire drills or in the case of a real fire.
The OP shouldn't have been lifting the chair anyway - whoever gave/authorised that instruction is liable for his injury.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
