Drivel!

The ADA is civil rights legislation, nothing more, nothing less.  I suppose
that African Americans should have backed down also after the predictable
backlash from the passage of the Civil Rights act of 1964?

The fact is, even if an employee files suit under ADA, punitive damages are
not permitted.  It's not the same as an EEOC suit.

Expecting a business to pick up the costs of normal, and in the scheme of
things, comparatively inexpensive office tools is reasonable.  An employer
that balks over that is just being discriminatory, period.  To expect the
government to pick up what should be a normal cost of doing business is not
consistent with civil rights, good business practice, or your particular
and oft expressed views about smaller government.

Jodi is certainly correct, the cost of adaptive tech is unreasonably
expensive for an individual.  It is not an unreasonable cost to an
employer.  That same employer buys each employee a fancy phone system,
powerful desktop computers attached to expensive networks, a copier, lazer
printer  etc. which would also be grossly expensive for the individual but
are reasonable costs for improved productivity and are normal, and
deductible business expenses.  Those same employers, could help apply
downward pressure on pricing if they so chose.  Again normal business practice.

Though it is certainly  true that some ADA compliance issues can be pretty
darn expensive, particularly when it involves architectural changes,
employing a blind person is down right cheep.

The point about ADA should be separated from the basic complaint that
adaptive gear is unfairly priced for individual consumers.

Bill

At 07:16 PM 8/11/05 -0700, you wrote:
>Jody,
>
>Thanks for venting. I think you're right on target about the high
>cost of technology as a barrier to the employment of the blind.
>
>The other day, I had a conversation with a retired C B V I
>counsellor who said that the ADA was the worst thing to happen to
>the blind. According to her, by compelling the employer to foot
>the cost of adaptive tech, the ADA has increased the up-front
>cost of employing a blind person. She said that it used to be
>much easier for her to place a blind person in a job, because
>there was a government program that paid all of the new
>employee's wages for the first two weeks, and then weaned the
>employer off of the subsidy.
>
>That program has been phased out since the ADA was passed. Now,
>the cost of taking a chance of hiring a blind person is higher
>than the norm, rather than lower.
>
>And when you include the risk of being sued under an ADA
>protection against unfair firing or inadequate accommodations,
>the cost is even higher.
>
>
>Back to the technical specifics, you said that it would cost $440
>to upgrade, presumably from JAWS 4.5 Standard to Jaws
>Professional, in order to run Jaws on your Windows XP Pro system.
>That upgrade is half the price of Jaws Standard. As a loyal
>customer, shouldn't Freedom Scientific only be charging you the
>difference between the costs of the Standard and Professional
>versions?
>
>Good Luck,
>Peter Seymour
>
>
>At 08:47 PM 8/2/05 -0400, you wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
>I am just venting about the powers that be in relation to JAWS.
>
>My husband and I have a computer consulting company. We have
>worked out of our house for years and now we are moving to an
>office. I have used JAWS 4.5 Standard with my Windows XP Home for
>three years now. Anyway, we moved into our office and I went to
>install JAWS. First I had a real problem because the new machine
>doesn't have a floppy disk drive and I had a devil of a time
>setting it up so that I could use the darn Authorization Key.
>
>Then I discovered that JAWS Standard will not work on a Windows
>XP Pro system. I called Freedom and found out it will cost us
>$440 to upgrade.
>
>When I groaned at the price the tech support guy asked if my
>employer was willing to buy adaptive equipment for me. I said
>'yes, he is, but it is too expensive.' He said 'well, the company
>can afford it.' I explained that I was the company and no we
>couldn't afford it.
>
>Over the years I have been disgusted by the price of adaptive
>technology. Yes, we are a limited market and the R&D on adaptive
>equipment is high with a small market. Yeah, right. That is why
>you can charge $2000 for a $50 closed circuit TV because it is
>packaged for the disabled. It is the third party pay that is
>killing it. Who questions the cost when it isn't the consumer.
>The medical profession learned that one a long time ago, just
>charge the insurance company, the patient will never know.
>
>Anyway, I just wanted to vent my frustration, but I can't help
>but think of the 70%+ unemployed blind people and wonder what the
>real reason is, maybe it is because the cost of work is too high.
>
>JODY
>"WE MUST BE THE CHANGE WE WISH
>TO SEE IN THE WORLD" ~ Gandhi
>
>
>VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
>To join or leave the list, send a message to
>[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
>"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
>  VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
>http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html