Blind and Visually Impaired Community
↑
7
↓
For those struggling with employment: Would you disclose your VI to an employer during the interview process if it hypothetically increased your odds of getting hired, but with a trial or reduced pay period of 1 month (for example) to ease the mind of the employer that you can do the job? (self.Blind)
submitted by baseballdude12
Why or why not?
The idea is that after the trial period, your pay jumps back up to what it was intended to be / agreed upon.
The idea is that after the trial period, your pay jumps back up to what it was intended to be / agreed upon.
TeamRedwine 8 points 3y ago
The only way I would take less pay is if I am doing less work, like part time or something. Many jobs have probation periods for all employees. You should expect no different.
baseballdude12 [OP] 1 points 3y ago
Like I said, less pay would be for a small period. Let’s say you would be bonused the difference after your trial.
DrillInstructorJan 6 points 3y ago
Oh boy. I get it, I really do. We've all been told we can't cope. The problem is that you are making it normal for people to doubt you, to consider you a special case, and to treat you worse. I would not accept less money for a job I felt I could legitimately do as well as a sighted person, and I would not take a job I didn't feel I could do as well as a sighted person. Yes, I know that's easy to say, and I usually try not to make political points about this stuff because there are usually more practical problems to deal with, but no way.
As other people have said most jobs have a probation period which is for exactly this reason, but I would say that by the time you're in there they are going to have to work very hard to find a way to fire you for being blind.
As other people have said most jobs have a probation period which is for exactly this reason, but I would say that by the time you're in there they are going to have to work very hard to find a way to fire you for being blind.
baseballdude12 [OP] 1 points 3y ago
What if you were guaranteed the difference you missed out on after the trial period (paid as a bonus of sorts)?
The issue is this: visually impaired people are not getting hired as often as they should be getting hired. Period. It’s a shame honestly.
I’m not trying to make it normal I’m trying to bridge an obvious gap.
The issue is this: visually impaired people are not getting hired as often as they should be getting hired. Period. It’s a shame honestly.
I’m not trying to make it normal I’m trying to bridge an obvious gap.
CloudyBeep 1 points 3y ago
There are many reasons why disabled people (particularly people with vision impairment) are hired less often, and this might solve one of those issues. It's not a simple issue, but as I said previously, some employers just don't want us, and a financial "incentive" won't help them or us.
baseballdude12 [OP] 0 points 3y ago
One solution is better than no solutions right?
It’s insane how many people get shafted out of jobs because of their disability. VI or any other type of disability.
It’s insane how many people get shafted out of jobs because of their disability. VI or any other type of disability.
CloudyBeep 2 points 3y ago
Your proposal doesn't make sense. I will try to use an analogy so that you can understand why it doesn't work.
John is a 50-year-old middle-class office worker who is shopping around for a new car for his family. He's had a lot of success with cars from Company A which he's driven consistently for the last 30 years. But in the interests of perhaps finding a better deal, he decides to visit a dealership for Company B. He tells the salesman at Company B that he's never bought a Company B car before, but he's open to the possibility of trying it. The salesman says, "Would you like a test drive?" John accepts, but is not entirely sold. Then the salesman says, "We're running a deal at the moment where you can rent this brand-new vehicle for $1500 for the next fortnight, and if you like it, you can buy it." This makes alarm bells ring in John's head, and he politely declines the offer and leaves the dealership.
Why did John refuse the offer? The salesman showed a lack of confidence in his vehicle, and his suggestion that John might not like it immediately dissuaded him from purchasing it.
Now I'll relate it to your proposal:
• Company A cars: nondisabled people
• Company B cars: disabled people
• Visiting the showroom: reading a CV
• Test drive: interview (potentially also the probationary period if all successful applicants have one)
• the fortnight trial: your proposal
If we allow ourselves to undergo a "trial run", we're saying that employers shouldn't be confident in our ability to perform well. We should be just as confident as nondisabled employees that if we're hired, we're not going to be fired because of our disability.
John is a 50-year-old middle-class office worker who is shopping around for a new car for his family. He's had a lot of success with cars from Company A which he's driven consistently for the last 30 years. But in the interests of perhaps finding a better deal, he decides to visit a dealership for Company B. He tells the salesman at Company B that he's never bought a Company B car before, but he's open to the possibility of trying it. The salesman says, "Would you like a test drive?" John accepts, but is not entirely sold. Then the salesman says, "We're running a deal at the moment where you can rent this brand-new vehicle for $1500 for the next fortnight, and if you like it, you can buy it." This makes alarm bells ring in John's head, and he politely declines the offer and leaves the dealership.
Why did John refuse the offer? The salesman showed a lack of confidence in his vehicle, and his suggestion that John might not like it immediately dissuaded him from purchasing it.
Now I'll relate it to your proposal:
• Company A cars: nondisabled people
• Company B cars: disabled people
• Visiting the showroom: reading a CV
• Test drive: interview (potentially also the probationary period if all successful applicants have one)
• the fortnight trial: your proposal
If we allow ourselves to undergo a "trial run", we're saying that employers shouldn't be confident in our ability to perform well. We should be just as confident as nondisabled employees that if we're hired, we're not going to be fired because of our disability.
CloudyBeep 5 points 3y ago
Apart from the argument of cheap labour which I won't repeat because someone's already talked about it, I can't see any reason why this would be advantageous for us. If the job site and tools are accessible and the blind employee is qualified, there's no reason why they should have a probationary period just because they're blind. There's no reason why an employer should be more dissatisfied with a blind candidate whose CV and interview were favorable than a sighted candidate—if an employer is dissatisfied with an employee's work and wishes to fire them, their vision impairment shouldn't be a factor.
baseballdude12 [OP] 1 points 3y ago
Let’s say this isn’t something exclusively for the blind, but rather for any disability. Something to bridge the gap in the employment process.
Obviously there would need to be a way to weed out shitty employers who are abusing this.
Obviously there would need to be a way to weed out shitty employers who are abusing this.
CloudyBeep 2 points 3y ago
My points still stand. If an employee is capable of performing the functions of the job, they should not be put on a probationary period just because the employer is uncomfortable with having a disabled employee.
CanonofGlass 4 points 3y ago
Absolutely not. I refuse to make less money than a sighted person doing the same job over the same period of time. Also, what would be stopping employers from hiring blind people at reduced pay just for their probation period and then fire them?
baseballdude12 [OP] 1 points 3y ago
What if you were guaranteed the difference you missed out on after the trial period (paid as a bonus of sorts)?
Yes obviously there would need to be some kind of third party managing this somehow to prevent workers from abusing this.
Yes obviously there would need to be some kind of third party managing this somehow to prevent workers from abusing this.
CanonofGlass 2 points 3y ago
No. If I have bills to pay then I need the money for them when they're due, not when my employer thinks I deserve to pay them.
baseballdude12 [OP] 1 points 3y ago
Fair enough
CanonofGlass 1 points 3y ago
I also feel like something like that is just ableist as fuck.
CloudyBeep 1 points 3y ago
I can see several ways that employers could abuse this system, and it would seem silly to put in oversight for something like this. But I think the bigger problem is that OP's question doesn't seem to connect to how discriminatory employers think. It's not that many are hesitant about disabled people; many of them are outright critical of us and want nothing to do with us.
CanonofGlass 2 points 3y ago
Oh definitely.
codeplaysleep 3 points 3y ago
Maybe I'm too proud, but I wouldn't want to take a job because someone offered it to me as a result of me telling them I'm blind. It would feel too much like pity to me, even if it did have a "trial period." But I recognize that I'm old, grumpy, and rather hirable, so my opinion may be an unpopular one.
Completely separate from eyesight, I dislike the idea of trial/probation periods in general. I know it's necessary for some types of work, but it's just stressful and draining. It creates an awkward limbo-land of "do I keep searching for another job, or do I wait?" It's just unpleasant. Either it works out, but you wasted a lot of time/energy on continuing to job search while adjusting to a new job, or it doesn't work out and suddenly you've lost out on a month of putting in applications, doing interviews, etc.
I started a new job this week, actually... wasn't going to mention my eyesight at all since I work from home, but it turned out there was one tiny accommodation that I needed, so I ended up telling them about it on my first day.
Completely separate from eyesight, I dislike the idea of trial/probation periods in general. I know it's necessary for some types of work, but it's just stressful and draining. It creates an awkward limbo-land of "do I keep searching for another job, or do I wait?" It's just unpleasant. Either it works out, but you wasted a lot of time/energy on continuing to job search while adjusting to a new job, or it doesn't work out and suddenly you've lost out on a month of putting in applications, doing interviews, etc.
I started a new job this week, actually... wasn't going to mention my eyesight at all since I work from home, but it turned out there was one tiny accommodation that I needed, so I ended up telling them about it on my first day.
baseballdude12 [OP] 1 points 3y ago
Think of it as an insurance policy for everyone involved, as well as something to bridge the gap in an obvious issue with the hiring process for the disabled.
I think we are all a little too proud at times. Let’s also say it’s not just for the visually impaired but any type of disability.
I think we are all a little too proud at times. Let’s also say it’s not just for the visually impaired but any type of disability.
CloudyBeep 1 points 3y ago
So why shouldn't nondisabled people have to have this "insurance policy"? The only reason we've made progress with advocacy is because we've demanded that nondisabled people fulfill our demands, not the other way around.
baseballdude12 [OP] 1 points 3y ago
Think of it as an insurance policy for everyone involved, as well as something to bridge the gap in an obvious issue with the hiring process for the disabled.
I think we are all a little too proud at times. Let’s also say it’s not just for the visually impaired but any type of disability.
I think we are all a little too proud at times. Let’s also say it’s not just for the visually impaired but any type of disability.
SLJ7 3 points 3y ago
I have a lot of thoughts on this. I think that ultimately, if done right, the idea is a win for both employers and employees. Here are some considerations:
First, I think it should be more than a month. It's too easy to still be finding your place in a work environment, especially one that might be initially hostile toward a person with a visible disability or one which is not accessible öut of the box". Let's say three months minimum.
Second, this needs to be managed by a disability-positive organization--preferably government. It's too easy for employers to engage in some kind of funny business if we're the only ones advocating for ourselves. There's already a system in many states to help people with disabilities find jobs, and some of these states even pay the first 3-6 months of a person's employment for exactly this reason. It's not much of a stretch to extend that.
I thought about some kind of insurance policy to make sure employers can't just use the system to get free workers, but I think anything we put in place would discourage employers from hiring us. I'd welcome thoughts on that. Maybe the employer just needs to write reports on the people who are hired through this program.
First, I think it should be more than a month. It's too easy to still be finding your place in a work environment, especially one that might be initially hostile toward a person with a visible disability or one which is not accessible öut of the box". Let's say three months minimum.
Second, this needs to be managed by a disability-positive organization--preferably government. It's too easy for employers to engage in some kind of funny business if we're the only ones advocating for ourselves. There's already a system in many states to help people with disabilities find jobs, and some of these states even pay the first 3-6 months of a person's employment for exactly this reason. It's not much of a stretch to extend that.
I thought about some kind of insurance policy to make sure employers can't just use the system to get free workers, but I think anything we put in place would discourage employers from hiring us. I'd welcome thoughts on that. Maybe the employer just needs to write reports on the people who are hired through this program.
baseballdude12 [OP] 2 points 3y ago
The period is total toss up really, I don’t agree or disagree with you on the timeframe. The second point is the most important and I agree with you there.
bigblindmax 2 points 3y ago
I always disclose my disability at the interview, if not before. That’s honestly just best practice if you have a visible disability. It sucks because you basically have to spent the rest of the interview defusing a bomb, but disclosing on the first day is almost always worse. By disclosing at the interview I can explain the adaptations I will need and how they will essentially be free to the company.
Unless the money is reimbursed after the trial period, I would consider it wage theft. I don’t work for fun, I work so that I have enough money to live on and in my line of work, half pay ain’t that. I might do it if I had to, but I would consider it a pretty serious indignity.
It sounds like a system that would open people with disabilities up to a lot of abuse.
Unless the money is reimbursed after the trial period, I would consider it wage theft. I don’t work for fun, I work so that I have enough money to live on and in my line of work, half pay ain’t that. I might do it if I had to, but I would consider it a pretty serious indignity.
It sounds like a system that would open people with disabilities up to a lot of abuse.
razzretina 2 points 3y ago
I would disclose my VI but would refuse the trial period. I’ve done that once and it was humiliating and unfair. If I’m interviewing and they want to hire me, then I can do the job. Unless every single other employee has also gone through the same experience, I’m not going to be underpaid and humiliated because someone else thinks I can’t do a job I’m qualified to do.
quanin 2 points 3y ago
No, times a thousand. I did similar once, and have since swore never again. The employer wasn't sure if JAWS would work with the software they used, so in an attempt to meet them halfway, I proposed I bring in my own equipment with JAWS installed for 3 months and we see how it works. The deal was after that 3-month trial, the employer would pony up the cash for their own copy of JAWS, stick it on one of their systems, and we'd be set. That was nearly 3 years ago, and I'm still bringing my personal laptop with me to work. I'd be working elsewhere, but that would require elsewhere to make me an offer.
baseballdude12 [OP] 1 points 3y ago
That’s really shitty. Did you get this agreement in writing at all or was it a mans agreement basically.
quanin 1 points 3y ago
Oh no, it's right there in my contract. And people are shocked--shocked, I tell you--that no one's followed up with it. Of course, the fact it's in my contract is precisely why they're being taken for a ride just as soon as I'm no longer in a position where they can retaliate against me for doing so.
baseballdude12 [OP] 1 points 3y ago
💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻
blondrunner19 1 points 3y ago
I feel that if you disclose (which you should because If you don’t disclose it’s not covered by the ADA), but make sure you say “I’m visually impaired and I use X, Y, and Z to do this task”. In terms of lower pay.... I am not sure how that would work. In my experience, if a potential boss has any hesitation with the vision, I usually wouldn’t end up working there. I looked for working environments where people were willing for me to work and they usually didn’t mind accommodating for vision at all.
baseballdude12 [OP] 1 points 3y ago
If you disclose you’re at risk of them just making an excuse to not hire you.
blondrunner19 1 points 3y ago
Yes, but that is also discrimination and illegal. Plus, like I said above, usually I can tell in an interview that they’re not comfortable with it. I wouldn’t want to work at a place like that anyways. From my understanding, and someone correct me if I’m wrong. If you don’t disclose and they fire you because of the disability there is nothing you can do because you’re not protected under the ADA.
Edit: only basing this off my experience in the US.
Edit: only basing this off my experience in the US.
Canes123456 1 points 3y ago
This is not a good idea. During the first month for every employee, they are not worth their salary. I think that suggesting it would make you seem inexperienced and make them assume the training period is worse than it really is. Many people can’t imagine how VI people doing anything. You need to reassure them that it much simpler of a training then they expect it to be.
TrippingWithoutSight 1 points 3y ago
Yes I would. Because why blow away that opportunity?
But I'd want that month's pay back on my next paycheck and the guarantee that I wouldn't get fired if I have demonstrated my skills and am working just as well as my sighted colleagues.
But I'd want that month's pay back on my next paycheck and the guarantee that I wouldn't get fired if I have demonstrated my skills and am working just as well as my sighted colleagues.
[deleted] 1 points 3y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 1 points 3y ago
[deleted]
anthonybynum11 1 points 3y ago
No I thought being honest would help but I haven’t got a job in a year t
baseballdude12 [OP] 2 points 3y ago
Yeah you never really know if you should or can be honest when applying. Since it risks everything.
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.