Comments on: NZ Government shafts disabled Kiwis

By: John

John — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:56:25 +0000

A contentious comment coming. Discrimination or "shafting" people with disabilities usually only accurs when that disability is obvious. About the same level as discrimination and "shafting" is practiced on people who are outside the "norm" on other appearance or ethnic desires.

By: Cassi

Cassi — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:52:13 +0000

Discrimination is a big thing, I was discriminated against for a course at WINTEC, I had applied for a course in call centre, this I could easily do and knew of many vision impaired people who worked at call centres. WINTEC decided because they were to lazy and we had told them enable could help get equipment, they weren't going to take me on, to try and get away with this they said they denied me on academic record yet my whole interview was on my vision, my academic record only came up once!.

By: Mr BRMBRM

Mr BRMBRM — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:11:50 +0000

Glennis
Yes, thay are. Perhaps you can change your clothes but I can’t change my disability. Thing is, my disability didn’t change the fact I could do the job, it just meant I wasn’t considered. I had the qualifications and I had the appointment. I was turned away for the interview and didn’t get the job because of my walk. As a sideline – I have talked to Rodney Hide, he called me a “winner” or words to that effect so he’s not all that bad in my eyes. Haha.

By: Glennis

Glennis — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:27:10 +0000

BRMBRM – As regards discrimination because of a disability, people are discriminated all the time. Me for not wearing more modern clothes to an interview, and being older than what they wanted, though my cv was ok.

Regarding Rodney Hide – this government is composed of people like him – they know best, and definately all only connect with people they see as "winners". An American term I despise.

By: Mr BRMBRM

Mr BRMBRM — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:33:04 +0000

The whole issue is that in my experience a lot of employers won't hire disabled employees. Six months down the track he could discriminate against someone who had a disability because the facilities weren't able to accommodate a person with a disability. It was after all an extra $10000 to add a disabled accessable bathroom. I work for a living and have very little assistance from any state organisations. I have also been very clearly discriminated against because of my disability even though it wouldn't have affected my ability to do the job I was applying for. Unfortunately these things can't be proven in a court. In my opinion if it is reasonable to expect that a disabled person could do a job within that company then it should go without saying that a disabled accessable toilet should be provided during any alterations. In this case it was a moot point though as the council got it wrong, the shower wasn't required to be accessable. I also don't believe that many disabled people could realistically do a job there as a locksmith (who were presumably the ones needing the showers) but it would reasonably be expected someone could work there in an office role so believe accessable showers weren't required in that case either.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:36:54 +0000

You guys are way off the beam here. Rodney Hide did not cricise the need to provised diability access as such. The case under discussion involved the conversion of a private staff toilet in a business where none of the employees are disabled. So owner could see no point in providing access for the disabled. That should rightly be his call and if at some point in the future he were to hire a disabled person, then he certainly must provide the necessary facilities for that person. Of course if he were not to employ someone simply on the grounds that he did not have those facilities then he should be held to account for discimination.

By: Mr BRMBRM

Mr BRMBRM — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:28:48 +0000

Mr Hide and others who complain about the accessability laws really annoy me. About eight years ago I went for a job interview where over the phone the representative of the employer was keen based on my CV but when I walked in the door (well limped in the door) everything changed and suddenly "I wasn't what they were looking for". Thanks Logan Glidepath! I took time off work and specially drove all the way over there and didn't even get my booked interview. In my opinion the same pratt probably whinges about the "bludgers" on the sickness benefit who won't work". To me it looked like a cut and dry case of discrimination. Thing is he was possibly just an employee but quite possibly it was just his opinion that barred me from working there. I do agree that in some workplaces accessability shouldn't be even considered as it is impractical for a disabled person to work there. I do however think that if there is a job there a person with a disability could do then disabled facilities should be included if exclusion isn't to happen. At worst they could use it for storing cleaners gear! A few years ago I visited a company which had wheelchair accessable toilets at the top of a flight of stairs. I asked them why and they said the council made them put them in. Same council unfortunately didn't insist on a lift though. Go figure!

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 08:17:57 +0000

Mr Hide betrays an arrogance that is obvious to all but him.

I say put him in wheelchair for a week and let's interview him after that.