Human Resource Management in the 21st Century

Christina Moore Says:

Michael –
I don’t think the original intent of the ADA ever included enabling businesses growth or competitive advantage.

Rather:

The purpose of the ADA is "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities … the Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals." The ADA also is intended to reduce federal payments for social security income and other federal tax-funded disability programs. (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/books/lbb/x862.htm)

It has been left up to business to comply with this societal mandate and figure out how to convert compliance into any sort of competitive advantage. Arguably it is a rightful cost of being allowed to conduct business, and make profits for many various stakeholders.

With that said, I agree with SHRM’s position that HR 3195 is not ready for prime time and deserves further careful consideration before being lobbed into the real world. In addition to supporting better defining the various terms and meanings in the current act, perhaps HR can help businesses identify and address the root causes which led to the introduction of this bill in the first place. It certainly has many high-profile co-sponsors; other than their own in an election year, I wonder what interests and needs they believe they were serving by signing on.

February 10th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Janet Lilly Says:

Dr. Williams,

I have to piggy back on what Christine Moore writes. The purpose of ADA was to recognize an underrepresented group in the workplace, disabled workers, and create an equal employment opportunity environment for them to secure and maintain employment. ADA created a legal mandate upon employers to comply and administer HR policies and procedures to negate adverse employment barriers for those with limits of a major life activity or activities.

One reason I fully support SHRM’s position to oppose HR 3195 because the change of the definition of disability to merely “a physical or mental impairment” could essentially target 99% of the workforce in one way or the other. Employers would be free to claim ADA awards and accolades for accommodating those employees who have the most minimal level of disability and once again leave behind qualified individuals who are more disabled and require more costly accommodations.

HR 3195 could result in leaving behind those employees who are seeking employment with more significant disabilities in exchange for individuals who only need minor intervention because the bottom line focus of most business organizations is to achieve legal compliance at the lowest cost.

February 16th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

isaac dixon Says:

The language in HR 3195 is the result of more than just “wrong headed” thinking by Congress. The number of cases filed with the Social Security Administration for disability benefits have skyrocketed along with the diagnosis of chronic ailments from diabetes to heart disease.

Expansion of ADA protection was inevitable given the incredible financial pressure that people with disabilities face in our society (the percentage of people who are disabled that are unemployed continues to climb). So, what are we to do? Employers could begin by aggressively targeting a market for new employees which is by and large ignored.

More than 40 years of tax credits, job training programs and the like have failed to move the needle on employment of the disabled. ADA only required accomodation for employers that was not financially burdensome. The issue is realitively lax enforcement of laws currently on the books and with the economy slowing, there may not be much stomach for tougher enforcement even with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

February 18th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Patricia A Grant Says:

As an individual protected by the ADA and a PhD candidate, I clearly understand the nature of this discussion, but I must emphasize the importance of keeping the scope of the big picture upon which the establishment of this act was founded. ADA was past to protect the disable worker, but it was not intended to undermine the employer in favor of the employee. No law is intended to allow frivolous claims of disabilities by employees to negate payment by the employer or the Social Security Administration, under the laws of ADA. Leaders have to apply critical analysis, when viewing personnel issues pertaining to individual rights. In so doing you will find that there are no blanket resolutions and the issues must be examined on an individual bases.

The true issue of this discussion is the application is my view of the “letter of the law verses the spirit upon which the law was written”. Because there is no clear-cut answer when one is to apply the law by its letter or its spirit, judgment and/or wisdom must prevail and judicial rulings can only provide a standard, not the absolute answer or the key. Keep in mind judicial rulings does not provide all of the standards upon which the law is applicable; therefore, judgment and wisdom of the leader remains the imperative key when addressing accommodations for the disable worker. This logic expands this discussion from percentages of the number of workers with or without disabilities, what constitutes a minor disability verses a serious disability, the frequency upon which this issue will arise in the organization, etc, to one that requires the leader to adapt the whole picture concept and objectively consider positions form both sides issue.

In reviewing this discussion, I have read mechanical opinions concerning percentages of disable workers, which I hope are not opinions of currently practicing HR leaders. In response to the following statement:

“SHRM opposes the ADA Restoration Act, as currently drafted, because the legislation would expand the disability standard to cover individuals with minor impairments. This could dilute an employer’s ability to provide appropriate accommodations to persons with the most serious disabilities SHRM opposes the ADA Restoration Act, as currently drafted, because the legislation would expand the disability standard to cover individuals with minor impairments. This could dilute an employer’s ability to provide appropriate accommodations to persons with the most serious disabilities.”

Further clarification of SHRM opposition is needed, just as the current ADA Restoration Act draft must include wording that requires the employer to understand that employee’s disability needs require individual examination that coincide to the nature of the organization and the position requirement.

April 8th, 2008 at 11:42 am

Jean Says:

Michael:
I beleive the intent is to relate the disability as impairments to activities of daily living (ADL). This is the general acceptable terminology used in the health care and insurance industries to qualify people for disabilities. This might allow for more exact directives on how organizations are to meet these responsibilities to employees who are labeled as disabeled. On the other hand, we all know about the word “intent”, this is not how it might turn out!
Jean

April 28th, 2008 at 8:00 am