Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

jsonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#21

Post by [deleted] »

sundvor wrote: post #18
hestipod wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They go all the way to the top in a lot of places, sadly.

[deleted]

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#22

Post by cortesoft »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #17

What is the right solution: - 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 th…

> make special amendments for some people?

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.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#23

Post by santoshalper »

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.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#24

Post by bilbo0s »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #17

What is the right solution: - 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 th…

No no no.

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.)

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#25

Post by drivingmenuts »

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.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#26

Post by AdrianB1 »

cortesoft wrote: post #22
AdrianB1 wrote: post #17

What is the right solution: - 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 th…

> make special amendments for some people? 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.

How do you define reasonable?

How do you justify making accommodations just for some people? Why not for all? Rights should be equal, not based on any discriminatory criteria.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#27

Post by AdrianB1 »

santoshalper wrote: post #20
AdrianB1 wrote: post #17

What is the right solution: - 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 th…

The right and obvious solution is to make special accommodations for people with special needs.

That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious.

The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#28

Post by mreome »

dbg31415 wrote: post #16

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-…

> 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.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#29

Post by rolltiide »

SilasX wrote: post #12
ergothus wrote: post #4

> "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 i…

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. (And the reporting site isn't any better.) https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/dominos-asks-supreme-court-t...

> In its filing with the top court, the Chamber of Commerce wrote that the Justice Department has provided only “inconsistent, nonbinding, and unaccountable” rules

so this is the correct channel to get this done. the court can force the legislature's and the executive branches' hand on providing specific rules - of course alongside permanently invalidate them, or siding with the lower courts

whereas private lawsuits just create a hodge podge of case law and settlements that can be conflicting and irreconcilable to comply with until drumroll resolved by the Supreme Court

so yeah, fuck the optics - pun intended - and use the remaining path to consensus available

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#30

Post by cortesoft »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #26
cortesoft wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> make special amendments for some people? 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.

How do you define reasonable? How do you justify making accommodations just for some people? Why not for all? Rights should be equal, not based on any discriminatory criteria.

So are you against handicap parking?

You define reasonable by using reason. You examine the situation and try to see if you can make an accommodation for the person that lets them do their job while not sacrificing performance. If you can, you do it.

You justify making these accommodations because you realize that there are some people who have conditions that make following the same routines that most people do impossible. We also realize that if you let everyone have those accommodations, it will not be sustainable, so you grant special rights to certain people based on this.

The handicap parking is a perfect example. Or pre-boarding flights for people in wheelchairs. Obviously you can't give everyone handicap parking, because that is the same as giving no one handicap parking. Some people can't travel as far, so we let them get the spots up front.

Same with pre-boarding. If everyone pre-boarded, it would just be boarding. But we also know that some groups need more time and space to board, like people in wheelchairs. So we let them board early.

I never understand this attitude that we aren't allowed to accommodate people who have hardships because it is unfair on people without those hardships. Like, what? The unfair part is that they HAVE the handicap in the first place, we are just trying to make it a little more fair.

Life isn't fair, so we make laws that are a little unfair in the opposite direction to try to even it out.

Post reply on HN